SH Archive Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2019-06-18 14:33:24
Reaction Score: 2

Chernobyl and Fukashima mutations. "Radioactive cesium from Chernobyl can still be detected in some food products today. And in parts of central, eastern and northern Europe many animals, plants and mushrooms still contain so much radioactivity that they are unsafe for human consumption." Sure there are some people moving in and eating what they grow there but it doesn't mean they're going to live for very long afterwards.

" And over 200 small and large accidents have occurred at nuclear facilities" which sounds like a poor safety record to me with dire and long-term consequences. Radiation exposure has caused genetic damage and increased mutation rates in many organisms in the Chernobyl region. So far, we have found little convincing evidence that many organisms there are evolving to become more resistant to radiation." (same article-really, the whole article is worth reading). The radiation hasn't killed everything and some species are thriving (probably due to lack of competition for food sources) but, overall, the flora and fauna have suffered mutagenic damage.

And what are the effects of the Pacific being poisoned? Has there been a single case of someone finding radiation in fish or something? As far as I can tell the practical effects of this poisoning have been nothing.

The accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which occurred on March 11, 2011, caused mutations in animals, plants and insects. One of the first mutants was a rabbit without ears, born on a farm near nuclear power plant. Fukushima mutated animals, reached their highest rates in the first 5 years after disaster. It was during this period that animals were born with two heads, muzzles, paws. The pictures on this site are too big to load here but, yes, there have been many cases of radiation mutations after Fukashima.
pics of mutant fish. Fukashima fish carrying 258 times the safe level of radiation.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Effie
Date: 2019-06-18 14:47:50
Reaction Score: 1

The accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which occurred on March 11, 2011, caused mutations in animals, plants and insects. One of the first mutants was a rabbit without ears, born on a farm near nuclear power plant. Fukushima mutated animals, reached their highest rates in the first 5 years after disaster. It was during this period that animals were born with two heads, muzzles, paws. The pictures on this site are too big to load here but, yes, there have been many cases of radiation mutations after Fukashima.
pics of mutant fish. Fukashima fish carrying 258 times the safe level of radiation.

And yet similar mutations have been observed without exposure to nuclear power plant failures. 25-surprisingly-real-life-animal-mutations

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: eddie
Date: 2019-06-18 15:12:24
Reaction Score: 3

The accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which occurred on March 11, 2011, caused mutations in animals, plants and insects. One of the first mutants was a rabbit without ears, born on a farm near nuclear power plant. Fukushima mutated animals, reached their highest rates in the first 5 years after disaster. It was during this period that animals were born with two heads, muzzles, paws. The pictures on this site are too big to load here but, yes, there have been many cases of radiation mutations after Fukashima.
pics of mutant fish. Fukashima fish carrying 258 times the safe level of radiation.

Thanks for the info! Seems like solid evidence; I only recently changed my mind on this topic so I'm still learning. So it seems like ionizing radiation does probably exist.

This doesn't mean that nuclear weapons are real though. Or that the power plant accidents are real. The sequence of events for all the meltdown disasters is always some ridiculously unlikely chain of events combined with apparent incompetence of all the smartest engineers involved. They built Fukashima on a fault line but completely failed to take earthquakes into account in the design... despite every other building in Japan being virtually earthquake-proof.

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-06-18 15:17:10
Reaction Score: 3

This one always gets me, if the animals are mutating because of radiation screwing with the cells in their bodies then we have to assume that the same would happen to the plants, the closer the plant the more hideous the mutation or the only real alternative to keep the narrative alive is to say that these trees have a natural immunity!

I will say this again because it has not seem to have sunken in.

The radiation will kill everything within 30 kilometers, so here is a pice of fuku today and one from 2003

Here is a shot of the plant in 2012 nine months after the blast, i would of thought with all that ionizing radiation the these poor trees around the plant would have lost all there leaves, you like when a human gets near to radiation and the hair falls out

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2019-06-18 21:19:53
Reaction Score: 3

Before and after earthquake/tsunami pics.

 

[SuperTrouper]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: SuperTrouper
Date: 2019-06-19 03:35:26
Reaction Score: 7

They need to have these disasters every now and then to make sure people stay afraid of both nuclear bombs and the cheap energy that is nuclear power.

Absolutely spot on. Nuclear power development in Europe, the US and Japan was significantly slowed down following the 1986 Chernobyl "disaster". I find it astounding that in the US, only one new reactor entered into operation since the mid 1990s (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Wikipedia), the construction of which commenced in 1973, well before Three Mile Island. Having lived there at the time, I can attest to Europe developing a 'nuclear allergy' after Chernobyl. Fast forward a couple of decades, and just as we were in the midst of a 'nuclear renaissance' in Asia, primarily driven by China, Fukushima "strikes", leading to a near shut-down of all reactors in the hitherto third largest nuclear power producer in the world (Japan), along with announced phase-outs in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Hungary. Add to that that the new South Korean president campaigned on the premise that no new reactors would be built. Finally, in November 2018, Macron announced the 50% nuclear power reduction target by 2035.

Effectively, people have been scared to death by "accidents", leading to "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) phenomenon in the entire Western world and developed Asia. Just to illustrate, Australia has the world's largest reserves of high grade uranium, yet for decades we have had the so-called "three-mine policy", a government policy to limit the number of uranium mines in the country to three. In addition to that, not only do we not have any nuclear reactors (the opposition is overwhelming), but we do not even process any uranium in Australia, but simply export it to Canada, Japan and elsewhere for processing. In addition, we have some of the most stable geological formations in the world, particularly in outback South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, where even lizards don't live. Mention to a random member of the public that we should store other countries' radioactive nuclear waste in facilities in central Australia and they go mental.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: PrincepAugus
Date: 2019-06-19 06:42:41
Reaction Score: 5

I see this as a two way front for suppressing true free energy in the world:

1. Nuclear power exists, but it is hyped up in propaganda as super dangerous with the entire Cold War (mind you that many of the military prowess that both the West and the Soviets were mostly exaggerated and they really don't have that big of a military, but all the military spending is used for proxy wars and covert operations), nuclear disasters, and radiation lie. This prevents anyone who has thoughts of a clean and efficient world of nuclear power to go moot. Especially in the small scale like atomic cars which were actually concept.

2. All nuclear science is false and they don't exist. But we are led to believing in the all-knowing scientists about nuclear power, weapons, and radiation to prevent us from researching any Tesla or other aether technology and force us to materialistic energy and not spiritual and/or ethereal energy. Also to hide what true capabilities the ones in the know actually possess.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Raviolli
Date: 2019-08-02 16:31:41
Reaction Score: 2

 

[Deleted member 65]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: PrincepAugus
Date: 2019-09-30 05:11:14
Reaction Score: 1

I am wondering how one would fake a nuclear reactor to those that say nuclear power is fake. Idk, but from what I stand they do exist, only underutilized because governments fake nuclear weapons and purposely fail nuclear reactors as a way to strike fear into the public against nuclear power.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Incitatus
Date: 2019-09-30 07:56:49
Reaction Score: 1

And then there's this:- Artur Korneyev I saw an interview with this guy recently, but I can't find it now.
He took a photo of the reactor not long after it happened and is apparently still alive.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2019-09-30 16:05:53
Reaction Score: 1

Ask David Lynch.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Raviolli
Date: 2019-09-30 17:44:14
Reaction Score: 0

Ask David Lynch.

?

What we be asking? I don't understand. Sorry.

Or do you refer to striking fear into public? Then yes that film is quite eerie.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-09-30 17:48:39
Reaction Score: 2

Did the United States really drop a uranium based bomb on Japan without testing it first?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Raviolli
Date: 2019-09-30 17:55:05
Reaction Score: 1

Did the United States really drop a uranium based bomb on Japan without testing it first?

It didn't drop anything with uranium. Only carpet-bombings.

We are told the bombs were dropped to prevent more loss of life on our side, but that is just more misdirection. The Japanese weren't attacking us at that point. Why would they? Put yourself in their shoes. If your homeland is being bombed to pieces, you are going to pull back and put everything you have left on preventing more attacks at home. You aren't going to send your forces out on offensive missions, you are going to keep them at home in a defensive posture. The only way we were going to lose men at that point was by fying them over Japan or sailing them near her. If we didn't want to lose men, all we had to do was stay away. Whether or not the Emperor “unconditionally surrendered” is beside the point. The point is he wasn't capable of doing us any harm, surrender or no surrender. He was beaten, and whether or not he said “Uncle” was meaningless. It was certainly no justifcation for continuing to bomb him. In short, you can rest easier on this matter, because there is no chance we dropped any nuclear bombs on Japan. It simply didn't happen. Japan knows that, Russia knows that, and the only ones who don't know that are the citizens of the US, who have been propagandized into a state of mass idiocy. The whole nuclear scare wasn't used mainly to keep the Russians at bay (since the Russians also never had any nukes). It was used mainly to keep US citizens in a state just short of panic for 70 years, and to keep military and Intelligence expenditures absurdly high.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-09-30 18:31:32
Reaction Score: 6

Strange that splitting such a small thing (that none of us have seen) causes such a big explosion (that none of us have seen).

Just imagine what would happen if we split something even smaller.. An electron or, heaven forbid, a quark!!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2019-09-30 18:54:24
Reaction Score: 2

?

What we be asking? I don't understand. Sorry.

Or do you refer to striking fear into public? Then yes that film is quite eerie.

He focuses on the dimensional rift aspect. Letting loose things from beyond.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: PrincepAugus
Date: 2019-09-30 22:57:15
Reaction Score: 1

Strange that splitting such a small thing (that none of us have seen) causes such a big explosion (that none of us have seen).

Just imagine what would happen if we split something even smaller.. An electron or, heaven forbid, a quark!!

This is becoming a bigger and bigger revelation to me, that atoms don't exist. However I still need a very big push of evidence to firmly see this as truth.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-10-01 05:13:39
Reaction Score: 2

This is becoming a bigger and bigger revelation to me, that atoms don't exist. However I still need a very big push of evidence to firmly see this as truth.

What evidence were you given to support the claim that they do exist? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Is repeating the claim enough?

Post automatically merged: 9/30/19

I don't dispute that atoms could be a useful model for how really small things work. By default, I tend to stick with what I can see. I personally have little familiarity with very small things (eg I don't regularly use a microscope), so can't say how useful the model is.

I suspect that even those people who do use microscopes regularly e.g. lab technicians, scientists in biology - even they don't need the atom model to explain anything in their everyday work.

I also wonder about the 'truth' of the image presented by those super high powered microscopes (eg electron microscopes) that infer the image they present, rather than simply scaling up a genuine visual image. Those microscopes present an extraordinary claim in themselves to me!

 

[codis]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-10-01 10:25:04
Reaction Score: 7

I view statements like "atoms don't exist" as meaningful as "blue doesn't exist".
The atom is a model to represent observable states and processes with quantifiable properties.
Like melting and boiling point of elements and compounds, or chemical valency and reactions. And for many scientific aspects like chemistry, the atom model with protons and electrons with spin on "shells" works really fine.
However, the map is not the landscape. I haven't ever personally seen an atom either.

I first came across the "nuclear weapons don't exist" meme with Miles Mathis.
While he has his points that the White Sands test photo and other similar photos are faked (or manipulated), this proves NOTHING in regard to the possibility of fission/fusion reactions.
Even worse, I view such a kind of argumentation as deliberate deception.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-10-01 11:18:39
Reaction Score: 3

I've seen blue things though. I could point blue things out to you. I daresay you would agree that they are blue.

I haven't seen an atom, but there is this consensus understanding that they exist. I've never seen one and nor has the proof of its existence been made clear to me. It is possible I missed the class where the proof was provided. In the meantime though it seems to be an assumption, and I question it. How was it proven to you that they exist?

On atoms as a model, I agree that this may be the best way to consider it. Still, I don't understand for whom the model is useful.