• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Technology Suppression Is Now Life-Threatening

sKiTzo said:
It's bollocks or they would have gotten a nobel prize? Why didn't Stanley Myers get one? He invented a car that ran on any kind of water and took 22 gallons to go from New York to LA. He was murdered. Paul Pantone, invented the GEET engine that also ran on water, and promised that for $1500, you would never use oil or gasoline again. He was imprisoned for 3 years in a Utah mental hospital until public outcry got him released, after which he was promptly murdered. So, we can assume nobody is getting a nobel prize for the elimination of radioactive materials.
Click to expand...

Here was an interesting point nobody replied to. For one thing, it's been proven these things occurred. With minimal research, you will see that. It's a valid point that applies here (for those who think technological advancements are not being actively suppressed).
 
sKiTzo said:
But have you tried any one of these methods yourself in the lab and find it did not work?
Click to expand...
My understanding of nuclear physics makes it not a requirement to perform thus to know its not possible.
That said , why would you even assume I have access to 60Co? Perhaps I could obtain some but I do not need the RCMP knocking on my dorr, or for that matter, cancer.
 
sKiTzo said:
Here was an interesting point nobody replied to. For one thing, it's been proven these things occurred. With minimal research, you will see that. It's a valid point that applies here (for those who think technological advancements are not being actively suppressed).
Click to expand...
Not even relevant to the thread. Nor was your foray into 9/11 conspiracy.
 
sKiTzo said:
The danger is if they are suppressing being able to remediate radioactive materials and waste.
Click to expand...
You've shown no evidence of any such suppression. The fact that it's on the web suggests otherwise.
 
Muhammed said:
You've shown no evidence of any such suppression. The fact that it's on the web suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...
His point seems to be that it was submitted, supposedly, to the US Fed govt but not adooted. Supposedly presented to Condeleeza Rice, iirc, who not being a physicist, turned it over to the nuke people, who are physicists.
 
jaydeehess said:
His point seems to be that it was submitted, supposedly, to the US Fed govt but not adooted. Supposedly presented to Condeleeza Rice, iirc, who not being a physicist, turned it over to the nuke people, who are physicists.
Click to expand...
So what?

How is that a threat?
 
Muhammed said:
So what?

How is that a threat?
Click to expand...
How does that make Yucca a threat... Well its a bit convoluted but let's see if I can do it justice.

Since this process was not adopted by nuke reg. agency it means they and govt, are suppressing it. Since they are suppressing it, Yucca will continue to have a large amount of radioactive materials. Since radioactive material is bad it represents a threat to human life.

Therefore the non-adoption of this process is life threatening.

Skitzo can correct my description if I got something incorrect.
 
jaydeehess said:
How does that make Yucca a threat... Well its a bit convoluted but let's see if I can do it justice.

Since this process was not adopted by nuke reg. agency it means they and govt, are suppressing it.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true.

Your logic is not just convoluted, it is illogical.
 
jaydeehess said:
Street smarts will assist you in absolutely no way in nuclear physics. For that you need math and formal education.
Most telling in the "process" of "decontamination" is that there is no explanation at all as to how this occurs, no description of the output material, nothing. It comes off as nothing more than magic, 60 Cobalt goes in and something non-radioactive comes out. What is it that comes out? You don't know and nothing tells us what it is. What IS definitive is that it is no it 60 Cobalt because that element IS radioactive.
Click to expand...
You said yourself it would be primarily nickel that comes out.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Witch doctors and scam artists depend on......


....Here we have a claim that defies the current understanding of physics and radioactivity..
Click to expand...

And history has shown time and time again that pioneers of claims that defy the current understanding of scientific knowledge which later turned out to be true, had been accused of being witch doctors, sorcerers, etc.
 
jaydeehess said:
It is certainly not a surprise that the physics ignorant skitzo is also a 9/11 conspiracy adherent.
Click to expand...

Can't call it any other way. When 3 separate groups of Israelis get arrested in lower Manhattan that day. One for detonating a truck bomb, another for driving around with a van loaded with explosives, and another for suspiciously filming the first plane from the top of a parking garage and high fiving in celebration, and later the stories are retracted and the Israelis quietly deported - you have a conspiracy.
 
jaydeehess said:
My understanding of nuclear physics makes it not a requirement to perform thus to know its not possible.
That said , why would you even assume I have access to 60Co? Perhaps I could obtain some but I do not need the RCMP knocking on my dorr, or for that matter, cancer.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of nuclear physics is based on information put out by the establishment that may be suppressing these solutions, so it's not saying much.
 
jaydeehess said:
Not even relevant to the thread. Nor was your foray into 9/11 conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It's relevant because it shows active suppression in other areas by the establishment. How could you think it's not relevant?
 
jaydeehess said:
Street smarts will assist you in absolutely no way in nuclear physics. For that you need math and formal education.
Most telling in the "process" of "decontamination" is that there is no explanation at all as to how this occurs, no description of the output material, nothing. It comes off as nothing more than magic, 60 Cobalt goes in and something non-radioactive comes out. What is it that comes out? You don't know and nothing tells us what it is. What IS definitive is that it is no it 60 Cobalt because that element IS radioactive.
Click to expand...

You missed this part explaining what you were asking:

.....a low velocity torus [a self-organizing standing wave in the shape of a donut] comprised of 6.022 x 1023 electrons [also known as Avogadro’s Number, this is 6.022 times 10 with 23 zeroes after it] could be generated by a controlled device, magnetically driven through a cloud of free protons and directed at a specific target with control and consistency. The velocity of the charge clusters was relatively low [less than 10% of the speed of light] when compared to the kinds of velocities demonstrated by nuclear particle accelerators, but the amount of kinetic energy produced by the interaction was enormous. For each 108 electrons, a single proton was captured in the negatively charged center of the torus. Because protons are 1,883 times more dense than electrons, this meant that instead of bombarding the nucleus of a radioactive material with one high speed particle at a time, which is the basis of the catastrophic annihilation on which atomic bombs are based, each charge cluster was carrying 1015 protons in its center.

While the velocity may have been relatively low, the amount of mass contained in each charge cluster was huge by atomic standards. When the mass of protons impacted the surface of the radioactive target material, the protons penetrated deeply into the sub-surface layers. Unlike neutrons, which travel in a very orderly, linear way, protons bob and weave around the perimeter and in between other atoms because of the strong positive charge they carry. This attribute of protons in such high numbers, traveling at very high actual velocities, meant that many of the protons struck the nuclei of atoms making up the radioactive targets. The product of the impact was not catastrophic because the kinetic energy carried by the protons was insufficient to destroy the atoms. Instead, in the same way a bowling ball knocks the pins down on a bowling alley, the proton’s impact with a nucleus knocked the nuclear materials apart without annihilating the structure.

The temporary separation of the nuclear materials released significant amounts of light and heat, which represented the product of the dissipation of the binding energies imposed by the strong and weak nuclear forces. But instead of creating a chain reaction, the impact simply knocked the atomic particles apart long enough to release as much as 50% of the nuclear binding energies. Very shortly after being knocked apart by the proton impact, the nuclear particles realigned themselves and rejoined to form nuclei with lower energy states and smaller atomic nuclear numbers. What we also discovered was that the recombining process actually created new material with atomic numbers that were different from any of the materials originally contained in the target samples. This was an important discovery because it meant that the mathematical model which predicted that the target material would literally be transmuted into new materials could be verified.
 
Muhammed said:
So what?

How is that a threat?
Click to expand...

Fifty-two thousand metric tons of spent fuel rods and three hundred eighty thousand cubic meters of solid nuclear waste, and three hundred forty-five million liters of liquefied high level radioactive waste materials are certainly no threat. Therefore, you're going to let them bury it somewhere on the outskirts of your hometown, right?
 
sKiTzo said:
It's bollocks or they would have gotten a nobel prize? Why didn't Stanley Myers get one? He invented a car that ran on any kind of water and took 22 gallons to go from New York to LA. He was murdered. Paul Pantone, invented the GEET engine that also ran on water, and promised that for $1500, you would never use oil or gasoline again. He was imprisoned for 3 years in a Utah mental hospital until public outcry got him released, after which he was promptly murdered. So, we can assume nobody is getting a nobel prize for the elimination of radioactive materials.
Click to expand...

Extracting energy from water
According to the currently accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone. Water itself is highly stable—it was one of the classical elements and contains very strong chemical bonds. Its enthalpy of formation is negative (-68.3 kcal/mol or -285.8 kJ/mol), meaning that energy is required to break those stable bonds, to separate water into its elements, and there are no other compounds of hydrogen and oxygen with more negative enthalpies of formation, meaning that no energy can be released in this manner either.

Most proposed water-fuelled cars rely on some form of electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recombine them to release energy; however, because the energy required to separate the elements will always be at least as great as the useful energy released, this cannot be used to produce net energy.[6][7]

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

...Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell[11]At least as far back as 1980, Stanley Meyer claimed that he had built a dune buggy which ran on water instead of petrol,[12] although he gave inconsistent explanations as to its mode of operation. In some cases, he claimed that he had replaced the spark plugs with a "water splitter",[13] while in other cases it was claimed to rely on a "fuel cell" that split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.[14] The "fuel cell", which he claimed was subjected to an electrical resonance, would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapour in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy. Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and in an Ohio court in 1996 he was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud".[1] He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories persist in which it is claimed that he was poisoned.[7]
Wikipedia
 
Hard Truth said:
Extracting energy from water
According to the currently accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone.
Click to expand...

Wow, really?

How will I possibly make my tea for tomorrow?

How did all those trains get across the great ol' USA back in the 19th Century if Water cannot produce energy chemically??

SPS700_steam_engine_2005.jpg


Let me guess... that is pot smoke in the Colorado Rockies?
 
Last edited:
PilotsForTruth said:
Wow, really?

How will I possibly make my tea for tomorrow?

How did all those trains get across the great ol' USA back in the 19th Century if Water cannot produce energy chemically??

SPS700_steam_engine_2005.jpg


Let me guess... that is pot smoke in the Colorado Rockies?
Click to expand...


Turning liquid water into steam is not a chemical reaction.
 
sKiTzo said:
Fifty-two thousand metric tons of spent fuel rods and three hundred eighty thousand cubic meters of solid nuclear waste, and three hundred forty-five million liters of liquefied high level radioactive waste materials are certainly no threat. Therefore, you're going to let them bury it somewhere on the outskirts of your hometown, right?
Click to expand...
As long as it is contained properly I don't think there is any reason to panic because it is not a danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom