russell and radioactivity

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » russell and radioactivity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 06:58 am
since im yet to receive atomic suicide, i was doing some trawling and found this.

anyone care to add to this from atomic suicide?
one source:
" LOSS OF OXYGEN GLOBALLY
Walter Russell, a visionary artist and scientist, predicted in his book Atomic Suicide? published in 1957 that due to man-made radioactivity we would experience a loss of oxygen in the air that we breathe. In a similar way to the predictions of Andrei Sakharov in the 1950's, Walter Russell's foresight is now coming true. Our current oxygen resources are low. The percentage of oxygen in the air is down to about 19 percent. (BioTech News 1997) The expected amount is 21 percent oxygen. Some experts say that we may have originally evolved in an atmosphere of 38 percent oxygen. But now, due to the loss of forests and ocean plankton, our two sources of oxygen production, measurements of oxygen as low as 12 percent and 15 percent have been made in heavily industrialized areas. This oxygen-depleted condition is a contributing cause of the generalized lack of well-being that many are experiencing. And it does not look good for the future. We need oxygen to live!
Trees and green plants provide about half, and plankton provide the other half of our oxygen. Phytoplankton, which are the base of the marine food chain, is declining. Various studies confirm this: plankton in parts of the Antarctic Ocean is declining up to 12 percent. (S. Weiler. Testimony to Senate Commerce Committee, November 15, 1991)
Trees absorb radioactive carbon-14 in place of stable forms of carbon and in this way they are gradually killed. The book, The Petkau Effect, by Ralph Graeub tells how radioactivity has harmed trees and forests: "It is assumed that the decisive physiological damage resulting in current forest death must have begun during the 1950's. This is depicted in a reduction in density and width of tree rings, and in reduced growth, which is true in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Himalayas....
Neither aging, location, nor climate can be considered as the possible sole cause of damage.... The growth ring of a tree shows exactly what effects the tree has experienced, both in terms of time and seriousness.... During the 1950's and 1960's, there must have been a global wave of air pollution which caused the initial damage."
The author speculates that it could not be just the usual chemicals which are so damaging the trees. And he explains that these trees are mainly within the 30th to 60th parallels of northern latitude. "This zone contains the most nuclear power plants -- over 300 -- and almost all nuclear reprocessing centers. Also, the vast majority of nuclear weapons tests occurred in this area."

another source:
Dr. Walter Russell explains:
"Radiation is the normal death principle. Every thing in Nature dies normally by slowly radiating its heat. Radioactivity is the explosively quick death principle. Radioactivity is man's discovery of how the human race can die quickly, and not be able to propagate its kind for many long centuries.
"The Curies procured a few grams of radium from many tons of earth. Those few grams of dead metals would spread their quick death to every cell of your body if you put them in your pocket, but they would not harm you in the slightest if you slept upon the ground above them. The radioactive metals are giving out their quick death to the rocks in which they are embedded for the purpose of expanding the rocks into soil and water which mothers life. It should not be dug up from the ground to expand human beings into quick death. If you would have a good example of their purpose in life, which is beneficial to humanity, witness the great bare rock mountains of the west which are only a few million years old. Compare them with the soil covered, tree covered, very much older eastern mountains, such as the Blue Ridge, white Mountains and Catskills where the soil is deep above them and waterfalls and brooks are abundant.
". . .the greatest danger from the use of radioactivity is defective births and leukemia. That danger will creep upon civilization without any way of detecting it. One cannot go about with instruments to measure genetic damage, as one can do to measure the amount of strontium and other radioactivity, which is still falling on the soil from year to year. We believe that sterility will be an accompanying effect, while abnormalities of living bodies will be secondary. It could not be otherwise, for genes are not basic in potency. There is something behind and underneath genes, and that is the seed. No human has ever attempted to explain the seed, therefore it is permissible for us to say that the principle of rebirth in bodies is not yet known on earth. We know it, however, and because of that we know the danger which has no meaning to those who do not know. The mystery has to do with knowledge of the purpose of inert gases in relation to the seed of things. . .
"Another dangerous misconception is evidenced in the commonly used term ' . . . releases an extraordinary amount of energy.' Energy is not released. What actually happens is that potential is released, not energy-and that means expansion. Atomic fission helps matter to explode instantly instead of decaying over long periods . . . the great simple basic fact is that all death is caused by expansion, and all life is caused by compression."
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:28 pm
@esaruoho,
Yes, Dr.Russell is talking just about that (among other things) in Atomic Suicide. First sign of radiactivity out of place is trouble with ozon and the ozon holes. But the more drastical changes that still await us (seems are already here), will be in oxygen depletion globaly.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 09:52 pm
@esaruoho,
I would bet it easier to account for the loss of oxigen as co2, and co, than from nuclear radiation. Nuclear radiation like internal combustion engines and open sparks, and even lightning, create ozone out of free oxygen, but the ability of nuclear radiation to do this long term and in quanity has not been shown. Co2 can bind it up for centuries, and when we are digging up long burried hydrocarbons ad burning them as fast as we get them you can bet we are tying up a lot of oxygen.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 03:58 am
@Fido,
Hi Fido, thanks for posting. We have so polluted our planet that it's impossible, and probably stupid to blame only one parameter for any of the changes. I agree with you, co2, co, soX and so much more are all eating up our ozon and oxygen among other things. We are being told that almost every day, especially now when the global warming is a hot issue. But we don't hear, about the radioactivity. Nobody even mentiones all the radioactivity in the ionosphere leftover from atmospheric nuclear tests and from gases being released from nuclear reactors daily etc. etc. Nobody is ever teling us about the consequences we are facing because of medling with the radiaton. Maybe because they are ignorant, but somehow I doubt that. It's more like "When money talks, bulls**t walks". It's a real mess... But the one thing (that comes to my mind right now) that is all about radiactivity is leukemia (and bone cancer). Dr.Russell mentiones that in the Atomic Suicide. If you maybe know of a region, or country that has increase in these kind of illnesses, you know why.

Best regards.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 07:42 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
Hi Fido, thanks for posting. We have so polluted our planet that it's impossible, and probably stupid to blame only one parameter for any of the changes. I agree with you, co2, co, soX and so much more are all eating up our ozon and oxygen among other things. We are being told that almost every day, especially now when the global warming is a hot issue. But we don't hear, about the radioactivity. Nobody even mentiones all the radioactivity in the ionosphere leftover from atmospheric nuclear tests and from gases being released from nuclear reactors daily etc. etc. Nobody is ever teling us about the consequences we are facing because of medling with the radiaton. Maybe because they are ignorant, but somehow I doubt that. It's more like "When money talks, bulls**t walks". It's a real mess... But the one thing (that comes to my mind right now) that is all about radiactivity is leukemia (and bone cancer). Dr.Russell mentiones that in the Atomic Suicide. If you maybe know of a region, or country that has increase in these kind of illnesses, you know why.

Best regards.

Everybody dies of something, but what kills most people is some version of anger or fustration. Is government not working for you? Join the crowd growing larger as we speak. But what are you going to do about it. What ever you intend to do include me out. I care little for all those who have to have a commitee tell them it is ok to take a crap. If you want to strike the machine, consider how I do it. I just prefer not. The bartlebee method works because if half are pushing, and one percent are riding, and the rest are dragging their feet the ones pushing will sooner or later try to find out why no progress as they see it is happening. People want results without consequences. They don't think of getting put in jail as a result, but a consequence, when in fact, it may be necessary to go to jail to see results. The best thing to do when society is breaking down as ours is is to hang out. Heroes all die. Revolutionaries suffer decapitation. Organizers sometimes make it through, for the reason stated above, that people need the commitee. Now, what you see happening others are not blind to. Just because pollution does not bother all does not mean any are happy. So, expect a change. Work for change. And primarily, change yourself. That is what the Muslims say: If you would change the world first change yourself. Why? If you first try to change your own behavior and your own method of thinking of things you will see how difficult that actually is, and it will give you respect rather than frustration for your goal. Then learn all you can about everything, but learn in the process all you can about people. Bob Dylan, I suppose in paraphrasing Mark said: before you can heal the sick you must first forgive them. Since the goal is not so much victory as reconciliation, the end is where everyone should start.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 08:07 am
@Fido,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. And I guess you don't understand mine.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 08:17 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. And I guess you don't understand mine.


I grew up in that age of above ground nuclear testing, and the sun burns I used to get were like being scalded all over. What if it kills me? What does it matter? What matters is how to change society. And in that regard, how does one change society without getting flushed with the turds?
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 08:50 am
@Fido,
It's not just about killing you or your entire town or city, state, country or the whole continent for that matter. It's about the planet! Imagine this planet a barren wasteland stripped of life of any kind for 200 years (let's not get in the numbers, please). And then starting evolution all over again, by the time humans reapeared Earth would be far out from the Sun.

And yes, I agree with you. It's important to change the society. I have no idea how to do that. I'm affraid it's only possible through global dissaster, I hope not.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 09:27 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
It's not just about killing you or your entire town or city, state, country or the whole continent for that matter. It's about the planet! Imagine this planet a barren wasteland stripped of life of any kind for 200 years (let's not get in the numbers, please). And then starting evolution all over again, by the time humans reapeared Earth would be far out from the Sun.

And yes, I agree with you. It's important to change the society. I have no idea how to do that. I'm affraid it's only possible through global dissaster, I hope not.

Every day has enough problems. I can't worry about a barren wasteland because I can't give the idea meaning. The problem I see, and theproblem I deal with is that the government designed to achieve justice does not do so. It cannot govern because it has no foresight. When people think about those without jobs, or homes, or education; and explain it by luck, or fate, or the will of God it is because the government, which should work for all to keep fate from ever becoming an issue, has put their individual fates before our own. Pollution of any sort is all a part of a larger package of issues where government has failed us. It is time to disassociate it.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 09:48 am
@Fido,
I see you are more involved in social issues of our time, I'm more in the technical aspects. I haven't given much thought about the goverment and different types of ruling systems. Goverment has never been designed for justice, it's designed for the ruling class (and I don't like to get into the conspiracy theories). What is justice? What you see as justice, could be the injustice to me, so this is very subjective and I don't have the knowledge or wisdom to preach on this. We all have to realize that only by taking we won't get any richer. Every one should work/help/do for every one else in mind. This is the only way to go. If you think about the time man lived in the jungle and the time when he came out of the jungle and founded first villages or communities. They knew they were stronger together and that every one has to his part, for every one else - the community. It was much easier for them to live that way. We as a community have to learn that again, we are living as if we are in the jungle, and worse.

But we are way off-topic here.

All the best.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » russell and radioactivity
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2017 at 01:54:24