The Nuclear Solution

The Nuclear Solution

Let me repeat a quote from Djwhal Khul.

Concerning atomic energy he said the following 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.

“On the physical plane, the great scientific discovery, called colloquially the “splitting of the atom,” will be turned eventually to the production of those conditions which will enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true. This men will then be able to do, freed from the dread presence of purely materialistic thinking. This is no idle vision or vague dream. Many scientists today (and particularly those who love their fellowmen) are not only visioning the non-destructive aspect of atomic energy but are already engaged in harnessing-for the good of humanity-some of its products and its radioactive properties.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 547-548

From these writings it is obvious that the Hierarchy was hopeful that humankind would perfect atomic technology, yet despite this it is interesting that many who see themselves as enlightened are totally against this, the safest and most environmentally friendly source of energy in the free world.

Have we turned a friendly source of energy, which is capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 50% into an illusionary boogieman?

Why is it that in France, a nation of 60 million people, who derive a whopping 75% of their electricity from nuclear power have no fear of nuclear power? In fact the average Frenchman is happy to see a power plant built in his area. Nuclear power has given France a strong independence from the Middle East on energy and they even export billions of dollars worth of power to surrounding nations.

Is the difference between public opinion on this matter in France and the United States merely the propaganda that is circulated here?

Are we being scared to death by illusion? Are there a lot of half truths and outright lies in circulation that the French have seen beyond?

For instance, we are told by activists that the nuclear waste must be carefully secured for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is that most of the radiation from nuclear waste is gone after 60 years and after 1000 years it reaches the level of radiation similar to uranium ore which exists all over the world naturally.

Are alarmists trying to scare us by falsifying the chances of any problem created by an earthquake. For instance, they say that Yucca mountain is near 34 fault lines, yet the truth is there is a very small chance of any major earthquake there and even if there was one the chances of nuclear pollution problem would be insignificant.

Consider this: 1.8 billion years ago (that’s 1,800 times one million) a natural nuclear reactor was created in what is now the republic of Gabon in Africa. Water pockets in a uranium deposit acted as neutron traps and at least four reactor zones went critical at that time producing 20 kW of thermal power over a period of 500,000 years. There was 12,000 pounds of fission products and 4,000 pounds of plutonium that was exposed to the environment.

Now the interesting thing is that even though this massive radioactive material was not buried thousands of feet in rock as we seek to do today – that all these thousand of pounds of waste just sat there undisturbed by the hundreds of passing earthquakes over the entire 1,800,000,000 years.

If natural radioactive waste can lie undisturbed in a random location near the surface for almost 2 billion years then why do we worry so much about storing some waste in Yucca mountain for 1000 years?

Have we been tricked into believing in a phantom boogieman here?

Yes it is true there have been some problems in the early stages of atomic energy, but there is no reason to let fear force us into thinking that these problems cannot be solved.   In fact, a good deal of the nuclear problems have been solved. All we have to do is allow the nations of the earth the freedom to use the technology already available while pursuing the new.

The United States which is generally a leader in technology is falling behind on nuclear energy because of inertia. We have to follow the highest we know before more will come. If we continue development it will not be long before we will have the technology to completely recycle nuclear waste so this problem of disposal will become non existent.

Eventually other solutions will be available such as hot and perhaps cold fusion, but until that time comes nuclear fission energy is the best solution available to our pollution problems.

Currently the death toll for man and animal related to nuclear energy over a 50 year period in the western world is close to zero.   That even beats wind power which has killed thousand of birds, some of them endangered species. In addition wind power creates a much more massive eyesore than the cabin in the woods which is accused of altering the natural scene.

Why are we so afraid of the potentially safest form of energy available to the human race?

Is it possible that this fear has been instilled in us by the Dark Brothers in an attempt to prevent us from entering the desired new age of abundance?

Comment: I cannot accept DK’s words that “ …The atomic bomb … was and is purely beneficent.”

Those three dots represent missing words totally distorts the quote. He did not say the atomic bomb was and is purely beneficial. Instead he said “the intent” behind the Hierarchy in inspiring the development of atomic energy was meant to create beneficial results in the process of time.

Question: Why are we afraid to consider – and implement – alternatives?

I do not see any fear within anyone I know or have met concerning alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal etc. But there is tremendous fear (most of it created by illusion) concerning nuclear power. Because of this fear activists have made every possible move to dismantle current plants and prevent the production of new safer ones.

What if we had deluded activists creating the same roadblocks with wind power, for instance? What if every time a new windmill blade was shipped we had protesters blocking the road or railroad tracks because these blades kill endangered species?

What if every time someone wanted to put up a windmill that one had to go through mountains of red tape, much of it unnecessary? What if, after the windmill served it purpose, that people were so frightened by it that burying it 2000 feet in rock where it would not be disturbed for billions of years was not enough to allay those fears?

Let me assure you that if these great fears were associated with wind power then the cost of such power would be so great that we could not even consider it as a source.

The miracle is that even with all the paranoia associated with nuclear power, it still provides an economical source of power for many of the nations of the earth.

France leads the list by receiving 77% of its power from nuclear reactors. Lithuania, 73.1%; Belgium, 57,7%; Bulgaria, 47.1%; Slovak Republic, 47%; Sweden, 46.8%; Ukraine, 43.8%; Republic of Korea, 42.8%; Hungary, 38.3% and Armenia, 36.4%. In total, 17 countries and Taiwan, China relied upon nuclear power plants to supply at least a quarter of their total electricity needs. (As of Sept 2001) All this has transpired (with the exception of Chernoble) without the direct loss of one human life.

My point is that we need to take a logical non fearful approach to all forms of energy and let the all sources have equal freedom in vying for dominance. Whatever proves to be relatively safe and economical will then be embraced by the public.

I want to clarify a point as I begin. Whenever one mentions that he is supportive of nuclear power the typical environmentalist will stand back in judgment and assume that he is anti environment. One thing that irritates me about many who call themselves environmentalists is that they have a checklist of about a dozen items and if you do not agree on all such items you are considered anti environment. Talking to such a zealot is very similar to talking to a Christian Fundamentalist.   They also have a checklist of about a dozen items that they put me through and if I answer one incorrectly, then I am not “a Christian.”

Well I have news for both of these extremists. I am an environmentalist and I am a believer in Christ and I’m willing to defend my position against the best of either party.

I find it amusing that the guru of (orthodox) environmentalism, Al Gore, is supportive of nuclear energy. He stated:

“Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, and cared for meticulously, has a place in the world’s energy supply.” [The lesson of Chernobyl] “is not that we should retreat from new technology. Technology used for humane reasons, in humane hands, holds the promise of improving the quality of our lives.” (Source: Nuclear Energy Insight, August 1998)

I do not always agree with Al Gore, but in this case he makes sense.

If we had the same mentality about going to the moon as we currently have toward nuclear energy and other technology we would have never gotten there. A couple years before the moon landing there was a terrible accident where the Apollo capsule caught fire and three astronauts lost their lives. Many thought this would put and end to the silly notion of going to the moon, and if it happened today the anti moon people would have taken to the streets in protest and the press would have given them prime time coverage. It would have only taken a few weeks for public opinion to shift, lawsuits to materialize and paralyze the quest to the moon. Miraculously, back then the program proceeded without delay.

I never thought I would live to reflect on the good old days. In this case, the good old days were a time when a project could suffer a calamity and yet continue to progress toward the goal. Instead of being paralyzed with fear, doubt and lawsuits, this was a time when we learned from experience, believed in ourselves and moved ahead.

Our first nuclear reactors were far from perfect and Chernobyl was an older design operated by an inefficient central totalitarian regime, but today we have made great progress and the reactors are much safer. With the progress the world has made on reactor safety, even today new reactors could be built to be as safe as solar power.

In this time people worry about nuclear waste, but I read a fairly impressive statistic on this.

The waste created by supplying (with nuclear energy) all the electrical needs of a family of four over a period of twenty years would be equal in size to a cigarette lighter.

Yet there are many who are scared to death that we cannot effectively dispose of a couple ounces of material per family of four over a twenty year period.

Our family just disposed of hundreds of times that amount of garbage material just today.

Compare this to a 1000 MW coal fired generating plant which must find a storage location for about 1500 tons of coal ash (enough to fill 33 train cars) every single day.

Also consider this benefit:

Since 1973, nuclear power replacing coal has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion tons. More than any other electricity source.

So far the good from nuclear energy has far outweighed the bad.

Circumstances change, but principles do not. If the Masters up to the Planetary Logos Himself, who promote and endorse it, could not foresee the principle behind atomic energy then we are in big trouble. We need to disband all hierarchies and have each individual fend for himself.

Before I even read Alice A. Bailey I concluded through my soul that the principle behind nuclear energy is good and that nuclear power can indeed benefit mankind, indeed it already has, but it will take over a hundred more years to manifest the full vision the Great Ones have in mind.

Sept 6, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

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

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.