weather warning

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Origin And Nature Of Radioactivity

Once upon a time, the moon had an atmosphere like that of earth. It constantly created water vapor, just as that of the earth does. In bodies of water on the ground and in clouds of water in the air, living matter was constantly being formed and regularly, some of it became fully organized into living organisms, just as on earth.

Most of the countless organisms formed every day were single-celled and you would need a microscope to see them, but some were large, complex, multi-celled organisms, just as those on earth, which were created by the same processes.

That new large multi-celled organisms are not being formed very often today is due only to the sharp decline on the strength of the energetic envelope of the earth. In former times, when the charge of the earth was higher, large organisms were created every day. The first ancestors of most, if not all species now found on earth were originally created de novo from non-living material or directly from atmospheric energy without any previously existing material.

When the moon swept around the earth on its' orbit, it excited the field of the earth, keeping it in a state of charge higher than it would have had if there were not another highly charged body in orbit around it. As a result of this constant excitation, the earth had a far different biota than it otherwise would have.

Larger and more complex organisms were formed in the more highly charged environment than usually form now. The climate of the earth and the physiological functioning of organisms were also different than at the present time. A band of light, the Arrora Equatorius, circled the earth at the equator, following the path of the moon. Gravity was less, allowing animals to reach larger sizes than now possible.

In the high charge, humans and other animals interacted energeticly wirth each other and with the atmosphere more intensely than today, and their genetic structure was more flexible and less rigid than that of organisms of today. Form and behavior shifted considerably in response to environmental influences. Which species to belong to was largely a matter of choice.

When the moon intercepted the barrage of meteors, it was hit much harder than earth was. It lost its' field and atmosphere entirely, it lost its' water into space, and all life on the moon was killed. It also ceased to be able to excite the field of earth so much as it swept around it each month.

As a result, the same changes, though not as pronounced, happened on earth. The earth lost a great part of its' charge, ceased to create new living things very often except at the microscopic level, and in general, readjusted to existing with a lower charge than before.

The plant and animal life declined and the formation of new life slowed to a mere trickle, mostly during tropical thunderstorms, except for micro-organisms. It became possible to handle metal objects without getting a shock, so humans began to use metal.

This led directly to farming, hence to overpopulation, and the ecological crisis of today.

It also resulted in some changes in the laws of physics as they apply on earth. One of these changes was that radioactivity was induced in rocks at the points where the cosmic lightning discharges had hit the earth. These rocks became irritants to the surrounding energetic continuum, and because the continuum was no longer strong enough to restore them to their normal state, they remain radioactive to this day unless subjected to the high level of charge inside a living body.

The scientific establishment is totally ignorant of what radioactivity is, how it functions, how it affects the living body, and the equally serious effects it can have on the weather.

Since most scientific theories are a defense mechanism designed to enable the scientist to avoid recognition of the true facts of the natural world, there is effectively zero chance of the scientific establishment ever recognizing what is really going on. The environmental organizations are a very big part of the problem also. In concern over their credibility, they usually refuse to take up the nearly impossible task of challenging the establishment scientists claim to a monopoly of knowledge of how the universe works.

Radioactivity is not a normal phenomena on this planet. It did not exist at all until a little over 5,000 years ago, when super-powerful lightning discharges triggered by a meteor swarm created it. It could not even have existed prior to that event because the field of the earth was too strong to permit it for more than a very short time before it was transformed into a relatively harmless, non-ionizing state, until a portion of the global charge was discharged by the event.

Since then, such materials can exist in nature for a relatively long time, several thousand years, at most, before being converted, but are still relatively harmless unless concentrated by humans into the highly irritating forms used in human nuclear technology.

Radioactive materials do not radiate. They irritate the surrounding field into a state that is detectable on the instruments used to detect radiation. The source of the energy detected is not internal to the material, but outside it, in the atmosphere.

It is this irritation that is harmfull to living tissue. It also has profound effects on weather, though these are less obvious and therefore not aknowledged.

In the normal course of events, radioactive material ingested into a living organism will be subjected to an energetic environment that will eventually transform them into a harmless state. Usually the organism will die in the process, but in that case, the same process will continue in the body of the next organism to ingest the substance, and the next, until the job is done. Since in nature, all dead organisms are sooner or later eaten by something else, sooner or later, all radioactive material is eliminated from the ecosystem.

The biological and meteorlogical effects of radioactive materials cannot be shielded by any thickness of any substance. And these effects also cannot be detected by conventional instruments.

In recent years evidence has mounted up that climate is undergoing drastic changes all over the earth. The proliferation of nuclear technology is the cause of around 90% of this climate change. Radioactive gases released from parts of the nuclear fuel cycle are also causing a reaction in the upper atmosphere that is being detected at ground level in the polar regions and mistakenly thought to be ultraviolet coming from the sun through a hole in an ozone layer.

At the same time, major biological problems are being noticed. Mysterious die-offs of many species, from honey bees to amphibians, dying of forests from "acid rain", immune system failure in people exposed to atomic bomb test fallout, often in conjuction with disorders of sexual orientation, and a sharp decline in the birth rate in the most industrialized countries, especially in the most industrialized and urbanized areas within those countries.

An increase in severity and frequency of major tropical storms reaching the temperate zones, along with an increase in tornados, is an indication of the atmosphere reacting to an irritant, trying to remobilize stuck, stagnant energy.

A decrease in lightning is caused by small charges bleeding off constantly through a more conductive atmosphere, so they do not build up to the point of a sudden sharp discharge as a lightning bolt. Lightning is both a major source of bio-available nitrogen needed by plant life, and the way the earth discharges excess charge. Without it, there will be more earthquakes and volcanic activity.

While radioactive materials are by far the most important source of disruption of the global climate and biosphere, they are not the only cause. The use of high voltage alternating current on a large scale is also a contributing factor. Like radioactivity, elecrical technologies are anti-life, and must be eliminated from the earth if the biosphere is to survive.

Orgone Fields And National Character

This article first appeared in the Reichian journal, Creative Process, published from 1961 to 1964 by Charles Kelley.

Orgone Fields And National Character

by Adam Margoshes

I have observed several phenomena in my travels through Europe that seemed to me understandable in terms of Orgonotic density and quality. I would attribute the early rise of civilization in the Mediterranean area to an especially strong Orgone field there, and its slow movement northward to a recoil from the great dor field of the Sahara Desert. The combination of a strong Orgone field and a passionate fight against dor helps make for the Latin intensity.

Further north the general spread of Orgone seems to thin out, irregularly but consistently, but this to some extent is compensated by the increasing remoteness from the Sahara, so the available energy doesn't have to be used up in the struggles against the encroachments of dor. The result, clearly visible in Scandinavia, is a great deal of freedom, health and decency, but a certain flatness or shallowness, a lack of intensity in the quality of life. It seems to me that the flatness, the dullness, the shallowness is most in evidence in the far north of Sweden and Norway, where one gets a feeling of being at the edge of things that is energetic, as well as geographic and demographic.

In Iceland the whole country is swallowed up in a feeling of thinness, of emptiness, of human absence. Almost as large as Britain, the island barely supports a population of 170,000, living exclusively on the coasts; the interior is barren, uninhabited volcanic rock. It is the only country in the world where you feel the population statistics in the air. At the same time, while the atmosphere is lightly charged, it is perhaps less contaminated with dor than anywhere else. The water is the most delicious I have ever drunk, and when you fill a tub full of it, it takes on an unmistakably bluish hue. (I have heard that Lourdes water also turns bluish when gathered in sufficient volume. In both cases I would suspect the colour indicates high Orgonicity.) The air is bracing, cleansing; the men and women are handsome but unfulfilled looking: a race of airline stewardesses and pilots. The predominant expression is one of slightly puzzled sadness.

Britain presents an even more complicated energetic picture. My main impression is that the eternal dampness settles an extraordinarily high charge of Orgone on the plant and animal life of the island, including the human life, but that it chokes up the Orgone circulation in the atmosphere. This gives British life a high degree of liveliness, but tends to cut it off from its environment. Evidence of the high Orgonicity of British and the British are everywhere: in their poetry, in their history, which is one of unparalleled expansion and adventurousness, and in the greenness of their fields. England, which Shakespeare called "this emerald isle," is much more intensely green than Ireland, as I once saw when I flew over both on a summer day.

One January I went to visit Summerhill, A. S. Neill's school in Suffolk. On the way I was astonished to see many of the fields quite green, even in winter, and the walls of the local town, Leiston, were covered with a moss of an unbelievably bright chartreuse colour. Neill himself told me he no longer used Orgone accumulators at Summerhill because he had tried one and got no effect, though he had previously got an effect when he tried one in Maine on the American North East coast. I think this difficulty in accumulator functioning demonstrates my point about the atmosphere being clogged in its energy flow. The effects of this on the life of the people are most visible in their being cut off from each other and from foreigners, the famous British reserve. You can hear the melancholy sound of this isolation in the clipped, drowned sounds of the British accent, at least in its Oxford, BBC and Cockney versions, though not in the local dialects which remain rich and earthy. (This is why Mellors speaks the Derbyshire dialect in the tender moments of Lady Chatterley's Lover.)

The energy in Germany is obviously tremendous, so much so that from an energetic, as well as an economic point of view, I believe it must be described as the heart of Europe. Culturally speaking too German music, philosophy, literature and science all rank among the profoundest expressions of the West. Equally obviously its energy is easily swerved into pathological channels as in Nazism. I believe the centre of its Orgone field is the Black Forest, an almost jungle-like growth that has inspired strangers with dread as well as awe, since the time of the Romans, if not earlier. D. H. Lawrence writing from the Black Forest in the 1920's and taking his cue from the spirit of the place, predicted the advent of the Nazis with striking accuracy. Reich started the Orgonomic study of the desert, but in the future the jungle, the forest, the prairie, the swamp and mountain country will have to be studied with equal care. Till then the oscillations of German energy between extreme healthy creativity and extreme sick destructiveness, will continue to remain one of the most mysterious and most important problems of European history and sociology.

Next I would like to consider France or more accurately Paris. Everyone who has ever been to Paris has felt its magnetic spell. Of course the city which has grown up there is beautiful and the scene of a fantastically rich cultural life in which the life of the streets and the cafes participates wholeheartedly. But why is all this in one particular spot? I have no doubt that the answer is that Paris lies in the centre of a superlatively strong and vibrant Orgone field. One has only to look at the city to see it. Wherever one turns one's eyes - in the sky, the Seine, the buildings the atmosphere - one sees a world of shimmering, opalescent blues and blue-greys, one shade changing into another every second. This magical mother-of-pearl shimmer is impossible to describe with any fullness in words, but Utrillo has caught it in his paintings, especially the chromatically toned-down, but all the more impressive splendor of Paris in winter.

At dawn, the city turns a deep milky blue, a more intense, living blue than I have ever seen anywhere. The city is alive, as no other city is, as though it were almost a kind of organism in itself. In New York, the stone petrifies the people; in Paris, the people humanize the stone.

Paris lies at the centre of an Orgone field exceptional not only for its strength and clarity, but also its location. Lying approximately halfway between the Black Forest and the Mediterranean, this field is a kind of bridge between northern and southern Europe, between the clear-eyed rationalism of the northerner and the romantic longing of the southerner. France is a Latin nation, but in the late Middle Ages Flemish was still spoken in the streets of Paris. It is this bridge quality that has made France, and most especially Paris the intellectual and spiritual centre of European culture, even though Germany has always possessed greater material and energetic resources.

America, so much larger than any of the West European countries, is proportionately more complicated in its energetic dynamics. It seems to me that a possible clue to much of American history lies in the opposing tendencies of a strong Orgone field in the New England and North Atlantic states and in an equally strong, but heavily contaminated field in the southeast. The centre of this dor contamination is in the swamplands of the Okefenokees and the Everglades, that cover hundreds of square miles in Georgia and Florida and the belt of swampland that stretches west along the Gulf of Mexico to the Mississippi delta in Louisiana. Reich devoted almost all his study of dor fields to deserts, but it seems clear that swamps, which are essentially bodies of stagnant water, are ideal dor creators, dor accumulators and dor spreaders. If this thesis is correct, it would help explain the social structure of the south, from the days of slavery to the present ad-hoc segregation and the fatal reliance on a one-crop economy of cotton or tobacco, both of which tend to devastate the soil that produces them.

Certainly there is a wild percolating life in the south, monstrous but effusive, like the swamp itself, which makes it, for many, one of the most attractive regions in the country. Perhaps this is partially explained by the difference between the `arid' desert personality and the 'soggy' swamp personality. Often open-handedness, generosity, hospitality and unabashed warmth go hand in hand with the lynch-mentality. And the general cultural sterility is relieved by a surprisingly rich literature, though this literature, as seen in the works of its acknowledged masters from Edgar Allen Poe to William Faulkner, is mostly a description, even a celebration, of decay.

The other areas of the United States, including the fertile but treeless Mid-western prairies, the great western desert and the moist, energetic liberal-minded northwest all present fascinating problems along these lines which would surely reward any future investigators. The same, of course, is true of the rest of the world. How such an Orgonomic ecology can be developed in a scientific manner, as opposed to the above impressionistic purely subjective hints, I don't know, but I believe it can be done and will prove well worth doing.

Adam Margoshes

The Global Warming Debate

The global warming debate is one of those situations where both sides are equally wrong. Certainly, there is no serious effect from excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 simply cannot build up very much because plants remove it from the air and use it to build biomass. All that would happen from more CO2 would be a rise in the amount of plant growth. No such increase has been reported. Therefore no increase in CO2 has been happening.

Also, no amount of CO2 would have much effect on climate anyway. Water vapor is a far more effective greenhous gas, and there is far more of it. The normal variation in the amount of water vapor from one year to another is enough to swamp any possible effect from any conceivable rise in CO2. The concept that CO2 can trap heat and bring about a rise in temperature is wrong.

But to denounce the world scientific community as liars and frauds is unfair. They are doing the best job they can with the information available to them, and that information leaves increases of CO2 as the only understandable way--understandable to them, that is-- to explain the climate effects that quite obviously are really happening.

The greenhouse gases theory is the only acceptable one--acceptable to them, that is-- known to the world scientific community that can account for the observational data they have seen. So it is the theory they must accept until a better one comes along. And it predicts at least some of what they are seeing. So they have no professional alternative but to stake out a position that, based on the best science available, this is what we can expect. When this cautious scientific statement is translated into terms a layman can understand, it comes out as a solid claim that global warming is real and is caused by CO2.

And the consensus of nearly all the worlds climate scientists is that global warming is real and CO2 from human activities is the cause of it. Only a very few maverick scientists dispute that, most of them older scientists who are objecting on grounds of their experience of the atmosphere over a long lifetime, not on any scientific theoretical grounds. That they are right is beside the point; the point is that they have no acceptable theory--acceptable to them, that is-- that can explain the data, and therefore no scientific grounds to dispute the only acceptable theory that can.

The small minority of climate scientists who think there is no threat from global warming, other than the elderly group mentioned, are the ones who have a right-wing political bias and fear the ecconomic consequences of a campaign to limit CO2 emissions. But under the rules of the scientific game, they are simply wrong. There is data that something is happening to the climate. There is a correlation between the climate changes and human population growth and industrailization. And there is a theory, and only ONE acceptable theory--acceptable to them, that is-- that they know of, to explain the data, and until some better acceptable theory--acceptable to them, that is-- comes along, that is the theory they must accept. That, however, does not mean it is right.

The mainstream view of the current climate crisis is that it is mainly caused by greenhouse effect from gases released by burning of fuels such as coal and oil. But there is another theory of man-made climate disaster that is hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream media. That is the theory that much of the anthropogenic change in climate in the last 60 years or so is due to the introduction of nuclear power.

Between 1949, when the atomic bomb testing program began, and 1963, when the atmospheric test ban treaty went into effect, over 1,000 atomic bombs were set off above ground. Since 1963, many more have been set off underground, and ever single one of them has resulted in leakage of radioactive gases into the atmosphere. That's right! They have never yet managed to set off an underground test that did not leak.

Nuclear explosions are one source, but only one, of a radioactive gas called Krypton 85, which is not found naturally in the atmosphere except in insignificant trace amounts. There is now several million times as much in the atmosphere as in 1945 at the start of the Atomic Age.

Kr85 has a half-life of only around 12 years, so much of it would be gone now if bomb tests were the only source for it. But it is also produced by the recycling of nuclear reactor fuel rods. During the recycling process 100% of the Kr85 is released into the atmosphere with no attempt at containment because since it goes up into the upper atmosphere where it cannot contact any living thing, it is considered biologically harmless.

Kr85 is a radioactive gas. Radioactive gases consist of charged particles. When charged particles enter the field of a magnet, they migrate toward the poles of the magnet. The earth is a giant bar magnet. The charged particles of the radioactive gas, Kr85, end up at the North and South Poles.

Tropical storms like hurricanes form along the equator. Such storms are highly-charged systems. How far they travel from their birthplace along the equator toward the pole is determined by how strongly charged they are and how strongly charged the pole of the earth is that attracts them.

As charge from Kr85 builds up at the poles, more and more tropical storms are attracted farther and farther toward the poles, bringing tropical heat with them, causing warming of the temperate and polar regions. At the same time, the temperate zones experience more frequent and more severe tropical-type storms. The storm surges from these storms send high water marks higher, eroding coastlines and giving the impression of rising sea levels.

The build-up of radioactive gas at high altitude in the polar regions interacts with the influx from space that enters the earth at the poles and is known as the Wilson Current. This energetic stream then flows through the crust of the earth in huge surges, and is discharged back into space in the form of upward-striking lightning bolts as a part of the nearly constant belt of thunderstorm activity that circles the earth at the equator. The whole process is known as the Wilson Circuit, and it is the balance of inflow from space at the poles and discharge into space as lightning that maintains the electrostatic balance of the earth.

The ionization of the upper atmosphere at the polar regions, making the atmosphere more conductive, bleeds off a portion of the inflowing Wilson Current and the result is less lightning on a global basis. According to carefully-maintained insurance company statistics, the number of claims for lightning-related damage was steady from the 1830s until about 1950 and has since declined by about 35%, indicating a drastic decrease in lightning all over the earth.

Since lightning is the most important mechanism in nature by which atmospheric nitrogen is "fixed" into nitrogen compounds plants can utilize, and some species of plants are more dependent on lightning for their nitrogen needs than others, this would have a transformative effect on the composition of ecosystems, leading to a decrease in biodiversity as the most lightning-dependent species decline and other species, less dependent on lightning-produced nitrogen, succeed them in the ecosystem.

This subtle effect, changing the ratio of one plant species to another, is not likely to be noticed, and if noticed, is not likely to be ascribed to a cause so remote as a build-up of radioactive gas at the North or South Poles from nuclear plants scattered all over the industrialized regions of the world. But that is a perfect example of how closely connected and interdependent the natural world really is. And this effect is one of the most important consequences of the development of nuclear technology.

These are only some of the effects of nuclear power that are seldom if ever addressed by the mainstream anti-nuclear movement, and which MUST be addressed if the full costs of the nuclear age are to be understood.

Decrease In Lightning

I was talking to my mother once, on a hot summer day, and a thunderstorm came up. I mentioned that when I was growing up there in New England, there were thunderstorms all summer long, every few days, but now they seem rare. We still get plenty of rain, but we now get only one or two thunderstorms in the course of a summer, and even those have very little thunder and lightning in them compared to those I remembered.

My mother confirmed my childhood memory, and went on to say that when she was a child, there were even more of them, and that led me to start asking other people. I found that the older a person was, the more they were certain there is less thunder and lightning now than many years ago. So I asked a leading atmospheric physicist about it. He told me he knew of only one project counting lightning strikes, and that was only a few years old, so there was no baseline of data from years ago to compare it with.

He then made a mistake: He went on to say, "It is impossible to find out if there is less lightning now than there used to be". Now, when a highly respected scientist tells me something is "impossible" , my usual reaction is to go out and do it anyway. So I did.

I went home and made a phone call to an insurance company. I asked to speak to the head of their actuarial department. Insurance compainies keep very carefull records because they set their rates accordingly. The actuary found my question interesting and said he would get back to me.

He phoned me back that same afternoon. He told me he had checked their records back to the 1830s when the company was founded. From the 1830s until about 1950, the number of claims for lightning-related damage remained about the same, and since 1950 it has decreased by about 35%.

I asked two questions: Has there been an improvement in lightning rod technology since the 1940s? He said, No, they are still the same as when Ben Franklin invented them. And I asked, do more building have lightning rods now? and the answer was that they have always been required for insurance coverage.

Bingo! There is less lightning now than there used to be, no matter if the scientists know it or not. My next step was to try to find out why. I could find very little in the scientific literature on the subject, but quite by accident, I came across an abstract of an article published in a Soviet scientific journal in 1988, just before the implosion of the Soviet Union. The abstract was all I could find in English, but it was enough to cause me to pay a visit to the author when I happened to be in Vilnius, Lithuania, where he was located.

He did not speak English, and the conversation in a mixture of my bad German and worse French was far from fluent, but I did manage to discover that he had not been able to obtain funding for any more work on the subject since the end of the Soviet Union. Lithuania does not have a very big budget for scientific research. I also asked if he knew of anyone else doing anything along the same lines, and he said no. I take that as definitive since I would expect him to know if anything was being done anywhere in the world in a field in which he is the only published author.

What he had written about that got me so interested was the changes in the electrostatic balance of the earth as a result of the release of a radioactive gas, Krypton 85, into the atmosphere since the start of the Atomic Age. Kr85 is not found naturally in the atmosphere except in insignificant trace amounts, and there is now several million times as much as before humans started splitting the atom in 1945.

Kr85 is an ionizing gas. Ionizing gases make the atmosphere more conductive of electricity, so small charges bleed off continuously, instead of building up to the point of a sudden sharp discharge as a lightning bolt. The decrease in lightning reflected in the insurance company statistics is consistant with the amount of Kr85 known to have been released over the past 60-odd years.

A decline in lightning is a very serious environmental threat. According to research done by Pud Franzblou, at the New Mexico School of Mines, lightning is the most important source of bio-avalable nitrogen compounds needed by plant life, providing up to 99% of the nitrate compounds required by plant life to make the protein animals that live on them need. Plants cannot use nitrogen in the free form in which it is found in the atmosphere. They need it in the form of compounds known as "fixed" nitrogen. Some types of plants have a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria on their roots,but other plants do not and are dependent on lightning. It is estimated that only about 1% of the biosphere requirement of nitrogen is provided by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil. The rest comes from lightning.

Experiments done in sealed greenhouses with extra CO2 pumped in show the plants thrive and grow larger and faster from the extra carbon. But without added nitrogen to balance the added carbon, they are less norishing for animal life feeding on them. This is known as "nitrogen dilution", and at some point animals will no longer be able to obtain enough nourishment from the plants to survive, even thought the plants will be larger and will look perfectly healthy.

And that is one of the most important hazards of the Nuclear Age.

Nuclear Weather

NUCLEAR WEATHER

In a junior high school science class, I once saw a demonstration that consisted of a bucket of water placed on the edge of a desk, and another bucket placed on the floor under it. A pinhole was made in the side of the bucket on the desk about an inch from the bottom. A thin stream of water made an arc from the hole into the lower bucket.

The teacher then took a glass rod and rubbed it on a bit of wool to put a charge on it, and brought it near the stream of water, but not quite touching it. The stream of water was diverted by the charge on the glass rod.

An atomic bomb is made up of two or more chunks of either plutonium or enriched uranium, placed a certain distance apart, a layer of conventional explosive around them, and a steel jacket around that. When the conventional explosive is electrically detonated, the steel jacket confines the force and directs it inward, smashing the chunks of uranium or plutonium together fast enough to trigger a runaway chain reaction and cause a nuclear explosion.

To reduce the amount of uranium or plutonium needed, an initiator or trigger assembly is inserted in the center of the bomb, consisting of polonium, which is 4,000 times as intensely radioactive as the uranium or plutonium in the rest of the bomb. This enables the chain reaction to be accomplished with much less material.

Since installing the trigger assembly takes a long time, if the bomb is to be placed on combat-ready status, ready to be sent on its way at very short notice, the trigger assembly is installed when the bomb is placed on that status. When the trigger assembly is installed, there is an area of electrically conductive atmosphere that develops around it. This field can be detected at a considerable distance. In fact, it can be used to detect the preparations for a nuclear test hours, or even days in advance of the actual detonation at distances of up to several hundred miles.

There is a British-owned island in the Indian Ocean called Diego Garcia. It is leased to the U.S. as an American Navy base. It is best known as a secret prison where the Americans torture prisoners from Afganistan. At the start of the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq, a large stockpile of nuclear-tipped misiles was moved into Diego Garcia and placed on combat-ready alert status.

Very soon after that, a drought started in Australia. Australia has always had a drought problem, but this was the worst in their history. It was not only the driest, but also both the longest-lasting and the widest-spread they had ever known. The weather maps showed Indian Ocean storms heading toward the West Coast of Australia being diverted north or south at Diego Garcia and missing Australia.

This was not a new phenomena. In the 1950s, there were reports that every time a nuclear plant went on-line, there was a drought to the east of it.

In the 1980s, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation at Hanford, Washington, dumped a lot of high-level nuclear waste in steel barrels down deep mine shafts and poured cement on top of them. Almost immediately after that, a country-wide drought started. The weather maps at the time showed storms out in the Pacific moving from west to east, and splitting like a stream with a rock in it to divert around Hanford and pass too far north or south to be of much use to most of the U.S.

That was the year of the big Yellowstone fires, the worst forest fire season in history, the worst drought in American history, and the year Dr. James Hansen, in well-publicized testimony to Congress, made his famous statement that "Global Warming has already begun." The mass public concern over global warming can be said to date from that speach.

And now that concern is being used to justify building more nuclear reactors.

The Anti-Nuclear Movement

The anti-nuke movement is starting to grow now, as the relentless push to build more reactors builds up steam, but it is working under a severe handicap. The movement has to go along with the official orthodox scientific theories of what radioactivity is, what causes it, how it functions, and how it is harmful to living systems. They do not have any rival theory to propose in its place.

But the problem is, if you believe the official theory, nukes are safe, or at least, can be made safe. The official theory is wrong, but it is the only theory the anti-nuke people know of, so they cannot dispute it. The real reason most anti nukers are anti nuke is not based on any scientific appraisal, but on a gut feeling that this stuff is Evil, with a capital E. They are right. Radioactivity is something qualatatively different from any mere chemical poison. It strikes at the very roots of Life, with a capital L.

But to speak of such things in public would be to lose the argument. It would sound like mere emotionalism and superstition to anyone with a scientific education, which is what they call being indoctrinated into the prevailing belief system.

Any attempt to place the gut feeling on an orthodox scientific basis is doomed to fail. As long as the term scientific is considered to mean only the official orthodox science, there is no scientific argument possible against nuclear energy. The official theories are specificly designed to weed out any gut feelings.

The anti nuke movement would be better off to forget about trying to make the public think there are scientific reasons for avoiding nuclear power, and instead work on exploiting their strong point, that most people share the gut feeling about nukes being Evil, but are not able to articulate it or do not dare to voice it aloud for fear of sounding uneducated or unscientific. The populist anti abortion movement has worked this kind of a campaign strategy very successfully. They have no scientific basis for what they say, but they are very successful at tapping into peoples emotional revulsion for abortion.

There IS a scientific theory that could put an anti nuke movement on a firm scientific basis, but it is not well known to the anti nuke movement as it now exists and is not, of course, accepted by official scientists. To take it up, the movement would have to challenge the scientists claim to expertise. The movement would have to say to the public, the scientists are wrong. This is the way things really are, and the scientists do not know what they are talking about.

Then it would become a debate between the movement and the official scientific community, which currently claims a monopoly of knowledge of how the psysical world works. I think that trying to discredit science and convince the public science is simply wrong would be a better strategy than trying to make a case against nukes within the official science theory, which was designed for the purpose of making nuclear energy seem safe and controlable.

I once met a Japanese Buddist monk who had been a nuclear physicist. He quit that career and became a monk because he saw an experiment that his knowledge of science could not explain. A Japanese anti-nuclear group had planted concentric rings of spiderworts all around a nuclear reactor. The particular species of spiderwort chosen is very sensitive to low level radiation damage, and when examined under a microscope, showed the color changes caused by broken chromosomes in direct proportion to proximity to the reactor, in every direction. That means the effect was able to travel against the prevailing wind.

There was no detectable radiation even right up against the wall of the reactor containment vessel. So SOMETHING capable of a biological effect but undetectable by any manmade instrument, was able to escape from the unbroken containment shielding and could move upwind. I have asked many physicists about that experiment. They all have the same reaction: they say it could not have happened. So far, none has ever even tried to think of how it COULD have happened. The reaction is always to refuse to believe the data, not to try to understand it.

And that is how modern science always reacts to new data. Science is a system designed to avoid knowing how the world works. A person who is going to become a scientist is someone who is afraid of knowing what is really happening in the world around him and is attracted to science as a career because it offers an escape route by allowing him to become convinced of false information instead of having to confront reality.

Of course I am a cynic. I am also convinced a lot of people have identical fingerprints, that apes are descended from humans, and that American presidential elections are rigged. In short, I do not agree with the mainstream on much. Do you? And if so, why?

Atmosphere And Orgonism

There are changes going on in the behavior of the atmosphere, and those changes are manmade, not part of any natural cycle. But they have little or nothing to do with any "greenhouse effect" from any "greenhouse gases".

The atmosphere is not a "heat engine" and is not driven by differences in temperature. The atmosphere is driven by orgone energy movement and the disruptions are caused by the DOR and oranur that are being produced by the nuclear and electrical technologies in wide use all over the planet. DOR and oranur can account for all the observed phenomena far more parsimoniously than can the "greenhouse gases" theory.

While all the public furor is focused on the irrelevant emissions of CO2 from burning fosil fuels, no attention at all is being paid to the climate impacts of either the nuclear industry or the older and even more widespread electrical industry, which together are the direct cause of more than 90% of the atmospheric misbehavior.

Coupled with this impact on meteorology, is the direct biological effect of the atmospheric energy stanation and overexcitation caused by those industries as well. A long list of health problems can be traced to the biological weakening of all living things in an atmosphere agitated and stagnated by electromagnetic and nuclear assault.

Unexplained die-offs of wildlife, mysterious epidemics, and lessening of fertility can all be traced to the same root cause as the climate instability.

In humans, many of these effects are hidden by complex social customs. Lessening of fertility can be dismissed as due to people choosing to use contraception. Non-reproductive sexual behavior can be defended as a "choice" instead of being regarded as a biological condition with a physiological cause. Illnesses can be blamed on diet, lack of exercise, and other personal factors instead of on a global meteorlogical condition.

One of the most popular scapegoats at present for nearly all illnesses is "faulty genes", the socially reactionary ideology that claims people get sick because they were born defective. Most of the current medical research is directed into this channel because it serves the dual purpose of concealing the true cause of illnesses and placing the blame on the gods instead of on human social conditions.

The close coupling of biological and meteorlogical issues and the tracing of the malfunctions of both organisms and weather to a single underlying cause is unique to orgonomy. And while the world burns, there are some people who are very familiar with the scientific details of the whole problem, but who persist in diverting attention from it to inconsequential trivia like the minor differences between similiar religions.