The Ten Deceptions Part I

The Ten Deceptions Part I

As I was checking out for books on nuclear power I found one that looked interesting and seemed to have good reviews from intelligent sounding people except for one anti nuclear fanatic. I was amused by his words which read:

“INFINITE NEGATIVE STARS! THIS GUY IS HITLER INCARNATE!, June 24, 2001 Reviewer: A reader from SEATTLE WA USA Nuclear power sucks. Have you seen the movie “The China Syndrome”? That movie tells the truth. We humans are truly the cancer of the earth and our disregard for this fragile planet shows that we need to go. The development of nuclear power shows our egotism is out of control. This guy hates not just children, but, more importantly, all legitimate life on this planet as well.”

As you might guess, I bought the book and found it very well documented and informative.

Unfortunately many activists do not seem to show much more reasoned thinking than this guy. His main source of enlightenment on the subject is Hollywood. This explains a great mystery:

How is it that a source of power which has proven itself to be safe, reliable, free of greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants is opposed by the same people who claim to want safety, reliability and the elimination of greenhouse gasses?

This dichotomy has never made sense to me, and now, after I have spent time re-examining both sides of the issue, it is still difficult to understand how one can examine the data and be so opposed to nuclear power, yet at the same time claim any connection with the power to reason, especially if you want to reduce greenhouse gasses.

So what are some of the deceptions perpetrated by the anti nuclear activists? Here are a few.

(1) The greatest most persistent deception is that nuclear waste is a great danger to us all and the storage problem is far from being solved. Because of this supposed unsolvable danger the only course for mankind is to cease building nuclear power plants and seek alternative means.

The author of the above mentioned book I bought from Amazon makes some good statements on this issue that is difficult to improve upon.

“Although most people think that nuclear wastes are the most deadly wastes ever produced, this simply isn’t true. The wastes from a coal-burning power plant are potentially ten times more deadly than the untreated wastes from a nuclear power plant. According to waste disposal experts and the U.S. Department of Energy, if all of the air pollutants produced during a single day by a coal-burning power plant reached the lungs of people, these poisons would kill ten times as many people as would die were they to inhale or ingest all of the wastes produced during one day by a nuclear power plant .

“Contrary to what you may have heard, nuclear wastes are far from being the “most toxic substances known to man.” If you have the least doubt about this statement, consider the fact that over the last 20 years, one million Americans have died from breathing the air pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels. During this same time period, the untreated nuclear wastes held at temporary storage sites haven’t killed a single person. These are the facts, and they are hard for a reasonable person to ignore.

“Once nuclear wastes are treated, they are only about as toxic as selenium compounds, some of which occur in nature. And, after the treated wastes from a nuclear power plant have been in storage for 100 years, their toxicity diminishes, and is then equal to that of arsenic trioxide, which we often spread around the food crops in our gardens to kill various pests. It is worth noting that while the toxicity of nuclear wastes diminishes with time, the toxicity of arsenic trioxide will never diminish. Whatever arsenic trioxide was added to our gardens this year simply lies on the soil along with all the arsenic trioxide which has been added over the past years. And, each year, we produce enough arsenic trioxide to kill 10 billion people. It would be more sensible if we’d worry more about arsenic trioxide and less about nuclear wastes.” From: The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power by Robert C. Morris Pg 32

(2) Deception Number Two Nuclear Waste will continue to be a deadly toxin for 250,000 to a million years and any storage facility or containers the waste is stored in must be proven to contain the waste for this period of time.

Because of this claim and the fear tactics of selling it to the public and many of our representatives in Congress, the safety of storing it in 1000 feet of solid rock is not enough for them. Who knows what may happen in 250,000 years? Maybe a giant earthquake will rip the mountain open and a few moments later a giant meteor will strike and scatter the waste to smithereens. And maybe pigs will fly by my window tomorrow morning.

Give me a break. We can’t let dangers that have a one in a trillion chance of happening ruin our lives. If we did no one would even venture to the grocery store for fear that a solar flare will melt their car.

The sad part of this illusion is that this myth has prevented us from obtaining an extremely safe site at Yucca Mountain. The needless alarm created by activists has caused the government to spend 4.5 billion dollars and 14 years of time in studies of Yucca mountain and storage possibilities, and we seem to be further from going ahead with safe waste disposal today than ever before.

Therefore instead of being buried in a thousand feet of rock the waste is… where is the waste?

The waste is generally stored in the back yard of the nuclear reactor plants around the country, buried, not in a thousand feet of rock, but no more than 30 feet below the surface in over 100 locations thought the United States.

Even though the chances of exposure to the public is about a million times as great as if the waste were stored in one location in a thousand feet of rock at Yucca Mountain, there has not been even one death attributed to the waste.

That’s a pretty good record considering that coal fired power plants are accused of causing up to 50,000 deaths a year.

The actual record proves that storing nuclear waste on site is relatively safe, even though it would not be as secure as storing it in one safe site as Yucca Mountain.

Perhaps the greatest danger we would have from the current method of waste storage is if a terrorist were to hijack another plane loaded with fuel and crash into a nuclear power plant. A danger greater than reaching the nuclear core is that such a crash may scatter some of the waste material to the winds.

This brings up a point of great hypocrisy. Why have the activists, over a fourteen year period, protested a safe storage a Yucca mountain when the current storage system causes a risk over a million times as great? You would think that in the interest of safety we would pick any reasonable site and go for it.

What makes more sense? All the nuclear waste gathered in one location buried in a thousand feet of rock in a sparsely populated area that even an atomic blast could not disturb, or to have it scattered in over a hundred separate locations that are an easy prey to terrorists near large population centers?

Are the activists really interested in public safety, or perhaps some other agenda?

“But,” they complain, “we must protect future civilizations for the next 250,000 years from our waste and we do not even have a container that will last that long.”

First let me point out that the plan is to encase the nuclear waste in ceramic glass which is more difficult to break than most rocks and tests in Canada have proven that it is likely to hold the waste for over 100 million years, far exceeding the 250,000 years goal. In addition to this the glass will be encased in stainless steel to further insure security.

But is the 250,000 year goal even necessary?

No it is not. The fact is that if we can contain the waste for only 1000 years then the most hazardous of the waste will be reduced in power by less than a billionth of its original radioactivity.

As most of you know a half life is the time it takes for half of the dangerous radioactivity to disintegrate. The shorter the half life, the more radiation is given off. The most hazardous waste has a fairly short half life. Cesium-131 poses a health risk because it produces penetrating gamma rays. Strontium-90 produces less penetrating beta rays but can be absorbed into bones because it is chemically similar to calcium. Yet both these isotopes have half-lives of only about 30 years!

This means that one half of the radioactive waste composed of these two elements is rendered completely harmless in 30 years. In 60 years only 25% of the waste remains and in 120 years there is only 12.5%. If we continue here we can easily see that we do not need any 250,000 years, for the worst of this waste to become harmless.

150 years = 6.25% remains 180 years = 3.125% 210 years = 1.56% 240 years = .78% 270 years = .39% 300 years = .2% 330 years = .1% 360 years = .05%

Then when we get to 1000 years less than a billionth of the initial radioactivity remains, making it less dangerous than the radioactivity in many homes.

So where does this 250,000 year danger period that the activists cite come from?

This comes from a long-lived waste product called Plutonium 239 which has a longer half life of 24,400 years.

They also worry about lesser amounts of americium 243 with a half life of 73,370 years and americium 241 with a half life of 458 years, but these substances cannot be that bad or they would not be used in smoke detectors found in many of our homes.

What they do not tell you is that the long half life actually makes Plutonium much less dangerous than the by-products with a short half life. Because it takes plutonium-239 over 800 times as long to shoot off half of its radioactivity than strontium-90 or Cesium-131 this means simply that the amount of dangerous radioactivity it presents is very low in comparison to the high level wastes. So low in fact that radiation expert Prof. Bernard Cohen volunteered to eat some to expose the truth of some of Ralph Nader’s claims.

Here are his own words:

“I offered to eat as much plutonium as he (Nader) would eat of caffeine, which my paper shows is comparably dangerous, or given reasonable TV coverage, to personally inhale 1000 times as much plutonium as he says would be fatal, or in response to former Senator Ribicoff’s statement to inhale 1000 particles of plutonium of any size that can be suspended in air. My offer was made to all major TV networks but there has never been a reply beyond a request for a copy of my paper. Yet the false statements continue in the news media and surely 95% of the public accept them as fact although virtually no one in the radiation health scientific community gives them credence. We have here a complete breakdown in communication between the scientific community and the news media, and an unprecedented display of irresponsibility by the latter. One must also question the ethics of Nader and Ribicoff; I have sent them my papers and written them personal letters, but I have never received a reply.” From: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity by Bernard L. Cohen

It is interesting that this dreaded plutonium which, according to this nuclear expert, is no more dangerous than caffeine. To top it off he was willing to publicly eat or breathe some to prove it. The total volume of the waste of this element for the whole of the United States, which has caused so much protest, would fit in the average sized living room. Now if we cannot safely dispose of a living room full of substance – no more dangerous than caffeine – we are not as smart as we think we are.

We have about ten billion dollars set aside from taxing nuclear facilities to accomplish this. Surely this should be enough money on top of the 4.5 billion already spent!

But wait… Maybe the $10 billion is part of the problem and not the solution. Could it be that this money has been earmarked for other projects such as the mating habits of the Borneo beetle and it would be awkward for politicians to cough up the money if we decided to use Yucca Mountain? Is it possible that the money issue is the real reason that many politicians seem to side with the activists, who themselves are well heeled with money? I read one estimate that they have access to over a billion dollars of promotional money a year for their various causes.

Oct 27, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


The Underdog Power Source

The Underdog Power Source

Concerning the possibility of a battery that takes in more energy than it discharges I agree that such claims are most likely to be flawed. If such a battery does exist then it would have to receive its energy from somewhere. There are some exotic possibilities such as the zero point so I make it a habit to “never say never.”

Here’s our current situation. We are very close to developing electrical motors and batteries which can be a clean economical alternative to the combustion engine running on petroleum (and highly dependent on foreign oil). This dream can indeed be realized if we were to have a clean source of additional electrical power. The generation of additional electrical power is indeed essential, for if the day comes that 50% of our vehicles are run on electricity this would require a sinificant increase in the generation of electrical power.

The question is – where do we get that power?

Let us briefly review available sources.

(1) Alternative power – wind, solar, geothermal etc. All these combined only supply 2.4% of our electricity in 2001 and show little prospect of supplying the great increase in need that we shall require.

(2) Hydro Power. This is a very clean source, but dams can be sabotaged or naturally fail at the expense of many lives and billions of dollars. Unfortunately, even with this risk we are maxed out with this source in the United States. Hydro power currently supplies 8.3% of our power and this figure is not likely to go higher.

(3) Natural Gas. This is a fairly clean source of power, though it does release CO2, a greenhouse gas. This source supplies 15.3% of our electrical power and like the hydro-electric it is limited in supply and it is not practical to look at this as a permanent source of the vast need we have for future electrical power.

(4) Oil. This is the substance we are trying to get away from. Most of the oil used in this country is in our vehicles. We only derive 3.2% of our electricity from this source and this figure is not likely to go up.

(5) Coal. This is our largest source of power, supplying a whopping 51.1% of the nation’s electrical energy.

Coal could be used to increase our electrical supply, but the cost would be great.

Here are some facts about our coal plants. (A) The U.S. burns about 1,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. (B) In 1996 coal released 88% of the 19 million tons of sulfur dioxide emitted and over six million tons of oxides of nitrogen, both dreaded pollutants. (C) The use of coal results in yearly emissions of at up to 2,000 tons of mercury, lead, arsenic and other metals. Much of the mercury winds up in our oceans. (D) Coal ashes are about 180 times more radioactive than the level of radioactivity permissible for nuclear power plants and are not required to be buried as is waste from nuclear reactors and uranium mining. (E) Coal mining causes about 20,000 tons of radioactive uranium to be brought to the surface of the earth each year. (F) Coal burning plants add billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, this is the main gas accused of causing global warming. (G) Pollution from coal burning is estimated to cause up to 50,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone.

It looks then like our prime source of electrical power – coal – is not a good bet for long term expansion of our power needs.

Let us see. What is left?

(6) Nuclear Power. This supplies about 20% of the nation’s needs and is perhaps the most controversial source of power of all.

But, is this controversy warranted?

Questions: Are nuclear power plants dangerous? Why or why not?

Is there a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Name three illusions circulating around nuclear power.

Djwhal Khul said that the release of nuclear energy is an initiation for matter itself. What do you suppose this means? Should we assist matter with its initiation?

The Unholy Trinity

Djwhal Khul said this concerning atomic energy around 1945: “As the forerunner of that release of energy which will change the mode of human living and inaugurate the new age wherein we shall not have civilizations and their emerging cultures but a world culture and an emerging civilization, thus demonstrating the true synthesis which underlies humanity. The atomic bomb emerged from a first ray Ashram, working in conjunction with a fifth ray group; from the long range point of view, its intent was and is purely beneficent.

“Thus was the new era ushered in; thus was the stage set for a better future. This was the intent and the purpose of Those Who compose the Council Chamber of the Lord. It rests with humanity itself to take advantage of the proffered opportunity which this destructive manifestation made possible.” Rays and Initiations, Page 647

Yes, it indeed “rests with humanity itself to take advantage of the proffered opportunity.” He stated that this was an opportunity to supply humanity with such an abundance of economical power that it would “enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true” and usher in the age of peace.

What happened to this wonderful vision? The world was on its way to perfecting safe and economical nuclear power plants and suddenly those who saw themselves as the “enlightened” turned on this innovation and demonized it to the extent that much of pubic opinion has turned and now views this as the great Satan rather than a savior of mankind.

Why did this retrogression happen and why is it that the vision of the Masters has not yet materialized as hoped?

There are a couple reasons for this.

First: Mankind is unpredictable because of free will and what is even more unpredictable is how we handle First Ray energy.

In past ages DK tells us that the energy of Shamballa (First Ray) was released to the Hierarchy and then stepped down through them in modified form to humanity.

Some time before World War II This powerful energy was released for the first time directly to humanity.

Not even the Hierarchy knew for sure what the initial results would be even though the projected end result was sure. The pure energy of the rays, like any power can be used for either good or evil. Money is a prime example of a power that can be used either direction.

To pick up the energy of this released First Ray many disciples incarnated into Germany where an opportunity existed to pick up Shamballa energy and direct it to the German for the good of the world.

The Dark Brotherhood was also aware of this release of energy and the basic plan of the Brotherhood of Light to pick it up and direct it for the good of humanity. They acted before the disciples of light realized their mission and picked up this great power first through their own disciple – Hitler.

As we know Hitler used this power in its destructive aspect and soon had Germany so under his grips that the work of the disciples came to a standstill and many wound up dying there without ever realizing why they incarnated in that country the first place. Some, like Rommel, were even deceived for a time into believing they should support the Third Reich – thinking that maybe this was what their mission was.

Fortunately for the world the Allies rose up and challenged the Axis powers and defeated them. They in turn gathered together Fifth Ray disciples from all over the world and harnessed the First Ray energy themselves as manifested in the creation of the atomic bomb and later transmuted the energy for potential good as nuclear reactors for peaceful uses of energy.

There is an interesting correspondence which has developed here. Just as the Brotherhood of Light was about to use the Shamballa energy in a positive direction in Germany, the Dark Brothers jumped in and corrupted its use, turned the tables and choked all light and evolution out of the nation with the world as the next target.

Even so, the next major reception of the First Ray was received by the good guys, scientists who worked on the Fifth Ray using theories created by disciples such as Einstein, Bohr and others until the power of nuclear energy materialized.

This time the situation was reversed. The Lights manifested the power of the First Ray and the Dark Brothers had to develop a response in an attempt to hinder mankind’s progress toward the new age as envisioned by the Hierarchy.

They thus developed a plan to launch a counter offensive. Since the genie could not be put back in the bottle the plan was to put the destructive aspect (the atomic bomb) into the hands of as many nations as possible who have the potential of being controlled by negative forces. At the same time they would seek to plant the seeds of delusion and fear around the building potential of this energy (nuclear reactors generating energy) by equating it on an emotional basis with the destructive power of the bomb.

If the people’s opinion on nuclear energy could be controlled by deceit and fear then the dark forces could seize control of this energy and use it or negate it toward their own ends.

Just as there is a Holy Trinity even so there is an unholy use of the Trinity of energies

The Trinity of the forces of retrogression work out as The Dragon (Father – Deception) The Beast (Son – unjust authority to secure the deception) and the image of the beast (Unholy Spirit) false prophet – carries out the deception by speaking the words of the dragon). This third group is often people of good intentions who have just picked up the wrong catch phrases and pass them on as gospel since they seem to sound like words of light, but instead are darkness.

We’ve spent many hours together talking about the beast of unjust authority and how it deceives the whole world one way or another. Well, here is an example that is currently staring us in the face and many of our brothers and sisters who we dearly love have been deceived into following the unjust authority of the beast in connection with nuclear energy.

One of the things that makes it seem like the beast wants nuclear energy is because it takes large corporations and sometimes governments to build and operate nuclear power plants, but we must remember this.

All that is big is not the beast. All that is government is not the beast. All that makes money is not the beast.

The beast is none of these.

The beast is unjust authority that supports the words of the dragon (deceit) and is followed without thinking as beastly animals follow their herd authority without thinking anything through.

The beast does not have to manifest through a large organization, but can manifest through a single individual who is believed through his power of pure emotional energy picked up and mindlessly followed by another individual. Thus does the power of deception and unjust authority reach down through millions of tentacles to tempt every single person on the earth away from the use of his mind and soul and away from the power of the Aquarian age which is ruled by mind (air sign).

We thus have the three unholy aspects of the Trinity seeking to suppress the knowledge of nuclear energy as revealed by great lights who have come to the earth.

(1) Deceit – “the dragon.” (2) The Beast – the misuse of authority to get you to believe a philosophy without examining it with the mind. (3) The False Prophets – the misguided believers who promote and pass on the deceit and unjust authority.

We shall discuss how this Trinity of energies is currently playing out in present time.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Oct 23, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Facts on Fukushima

May 21, 2017

Facts on Fukushima

A reader posted an article sounding alarm that traces of cesium 134 have been found on the west coast of the United States linked to the Fukushima disaster. To this I responded:

This article is trying to create alarm where absolutely no alarm is called for. It says it has found radiation from cesium 134 in samples from the Oregon coast measured around 0.3 becquerels per cubic meter. Researchers in both the US and Canada said the recently detected radiation levels were extremely low and pose “no risk to humans or the environment.”

Extremely low is right. It would make over three cubic meters of water to produce one radioactive atom which would be much less radiation than you would get from holding a brick in your hand or looking at your watch with luminous dials.

The article says there are no safe levels of radiation which is nonsense. We are subjected to radiation every day through normal living and in small doses that some argue they are beneficial.

Here is what Snopes says about the salmon in the story.

“To be sure, the Fukushima disaster was a worldwide environmental catastrophe with global effects. The presence of a single North American salmon with trace levels of cesium-134, undoubtedly the result of the Fukushima event, will nevertheless have a barely negligible — let alone catastrophic — effect on public health.


To this the reader responded insisting there is a problem – that Fukushima is spilling its 500,000 year half-life lethal-level radiation into the Pacific.

We have to deal with the facts here my friend, not our feelings or alarm from others that has no foundation.

First, there is nothing released from any nuclear reactor that has a half-life of 500,000 years. Plutonium has a half-life of about 24,000 years and radiation from that poses no problem. Radiation from elements with a long half-life is not that dangerous. A while back, Bernard Cohen, a nuclear physicist volunteered to ingest some to demonstrate it was no more harmful than caffeine.

The second fact is that there were no deaths related to radioactivity from the Fukushima disaster. In addition Wikipedia says this concerning other effects:

“There have been no observed or expected deterministic effects. In pregnancies, there has been no expected increase in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, birth defects, or cognitive impairment. Finally, there was no expected discernible increase in heritable disease or discernible radiation-related increases in any cancers, with the possible exception of thyroid cancer.”

A threat to the thyroid from iodine no longer exists, as its half-life was only eight days.

The Japanese have been carefully monitoring any possible radioactivity in fish and food in the area and radioactivity poses no present danger.

There are three major radioactive elements released that are of concern. The first and most serious is Iodine-131 which has a half-life of only eight days. That has spent itself out long ago so the danger there is long passed. The second cesium-134 which has a half-life of about two years. This means that around 87% of its danger has now passed and will too become negligible soon. The third is cesium-137 which has a half-life of 30 years.

There are traces of cesium-137 in all our oceans caused by the testing of atomic bombs by the United States and the Soviet Union decades ago. This is of little concern as the amount is thousands of times lower than that required for any health risk. Any additional amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 linked to the Fukushima disaster is so small as to have about zero effect.

The main negative health effect from Fukushima was the displacement of citizens who lived near the reactor. This was an extreme inconvenience.

Although there were no deaths directly related to radiation from the reactor there were 15,894 deaths, and 2,562 people missing caused by the tsunami itself. It was also the most expensive disaster in history costing around $235 billion. This comparison is often overlooked.

The Fukushima disaster was created by a perfect storm of condition that taught us to not make reactors in areas where a possible tsunami could occur. Even so, the new generation of reactors and those in development are much safer and would not duplicate this problem.

The situation is a little like the history of the railroad. At first the bridges that made were not that safe and a number collapsed. The public was alarmed and, for a time, everyone thought that we should cease expanding our rails because we could not make safe bridges. But we corrected our mistakes in construction and soon the time came that all bridges were sound and safe.

We are at that point with atomic refactors. The newest ones are very safe and those under development will be even more secure. This should be good news for those concerned with CO2 emissions, for nuclear energy is responsible or more carbon free energy than any other source and it is not intrusive and does not clutter up the environment as is wind and solar. In addition it poses no threat to birds.

Excessive regulations and lawsuits by environmentalists is making nuclear expansion difficult in the United States, but fortunately this has not prevented other nations from forging ahead. In 2016 China increased its nuclear generating capacity by a whopping 25%, giving it power to reduce coal consumption and CO2 emissions. In addition it has 20 nuclear reactors under construction.

In the western Hemisphere atomic energy has the record of being the safest form of producing electricity. I have only been able to find one death linked to radiation exposure at a power plant in this hemisphere in the last 60 years.

Instead of worrying about harmless amounts of radiation in our oceans we ought to be concentrating on real problems. A major one is the polluting of our seas with garbage, most insidiously plastic bottles which are very harmful to sea life. It is outrageous that citizens of the world have allowed this to happen.

A second major problem is the dumping of nitrogen and phosphorous into the Mississippi River that drains into the Gulf of Mexico creating a dead zone that is destroying life in the waters. We need to focus more attention on natural methods of food production where no harm is done to the land or the waters.

A third problem is overfishing. This needs more international attention.

Finally a fourth major problem is the pollution of our seas and life therein with mercury, mainly from the burning of coal. This is why I support nuclear, wind and solar as replacements as soon as possible and any coal we do burn should be clean coal which reduces mercury and other emissions.

In conclusion there plenty of things to be concerned about with our oceans and waters, but radiation from Fukushima is not one of them.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE