“The invisible peril"

Questions and Answers about nuclear energy – “The invisible peril”

Q. (1) What’s the best way to convince medical science that, whether or not nuclear plants have accidents, suffer disasters, leaks, and so on, the very fact that they exist at all is dangerous and highly toxic? (2) Would further developments in Kirlian photography technology provide effective proof? (3) If not, which scientific approach would lead most rapidly to finding proof of how polluting nuclear energy is?

A. (1) If it were possible I would have done so long ago. I have been speaking about the dangers of nuclear radiation for 30 years or more. These ‘scientists’ will listen only to their own kind, who unfortunately share the same set of blinkers. (2) No. (3) The experience of disasters like the ones at Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc.

Q. Hierarchical advice is that all nuclear plants should be closed as soon as possible. (1) Scientists say that nuclear energy is cleaner than carbon-based energy;(2) There are no really efficient alternatives. (3) So much money is invested in the nuclear industry it is virtually impossible to extricate our economies from it.
Could you please comment on the issues raised above?

A. (1) In terms of carbon yes, but not in terms of destructiveness. (2) The alternative is the fusion process of nuclear energy. It does not depend on fission. It is clean, cold, does not provide waste and according to the Master Djwhal Khul (who gave the Alice A.Bailey teachings) requires only a simple isotope of water, available worldwide, in order to satisfy our need for power. There are various formulae for the fusion process, some of which have already been bought up by branches of the oil industry to protect their domain. (3) This is true of the more sophisticated industrial nations but not for the whole world. We do not need power stations based on nuclear fission. They are out of date and extremely dangerous.

Q. Could your Master please say how the world’s energy needs can be met in the short to medium term, supposing that the world follows Hierarchy’s advice to stop using nuclear energy.

A. The cold fusion process (see above question).

Q. In the book The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, you have predicted that cold fusion using deuterium, the isotope of hydrogen, will be used soon, implying that it is safe owing to almost no by-products concerning radioactivity; and deuterium is superabundant in the waters of the oceans and rivers of the world.
Presently, there are many scientists in the world working in the field of cold fusion/condensed matter nuclear science, confirming that cold fusion is actually taking place. On the other hand, it seems to be very difficult to obtain quantitative (not qualitative) reproducibility in the obtained experimental results. It is indispensable to establish the accurate reproducibility of obtained results of cold fusion experiments before being applied to industrial applications. To solve this difficulty we would like to have the comment of you (or your Master).

A. When the necessary amount of energy, time and money is made available this will come about. This will be soon.

Q. Is the complete cessation of all activities involving nuclear energy produced by fission likely to take place within the next 25 years?

A. Yes.

Q. A certain amount of nuclear energy is needed for medical applications – does the world also need to phase that out? What would replace it in the short term?

A. This will be superseded by the coming advanced form of genetic engineering.

Q. Since Fukushima a so-called “nuclear stress test” has been developed. (1) Do you think it is rigorous enough? (2) Is the stress test an honest, un-manipulated attempt to prove safety and highlight dangers?

A. (1) No. (2) It may be an honest attempt but it is certainly not an effective one. The whole point is that the technology of nuclear science today is inadequate to measure the whole range of the energy of matter.

Q. Is a significant drop in the current standard of living and comfort an inevitable outcome of getting rid of atomic energy?

A. No, by no means.

Q. Where are the most dangerous nuclear plants at present around the globe?

A. All plants which are more than 20 years old are particularly suspect whether they have had an accident or not.

Q. Is genetic disruption and mutation an unavoidable consequence of exposure to nuclear pollution?

A. Yes.

Q. Germany has announced it will abandon nuclear energy in the coming years. Do you think other countries will follow suit?

A. Yes, in time.

Q. Should all people living in and near Fukushima (e.g. 30 km radius) be permanently evacuated?

A. Not permanently. Once the plant is shut down people could start to return in a year or two.

Q. Does removing the top soil in the area make it safe for children to attend school there?

A. Probably, yes.

Q. What is the best way to deal with food products which may have been contaminated?

A. They should be destroyed

Q. How large should the evacuated zone be?

A. It depends on the progress on the shutting down of the plants.

Q. Highly contaminated water was accidentally discharged into the sea after the accident in Fukushima and could not be stopped for some days, causing worldwide concern; fish in the area were badly affected. Though it may depend on the kind of fish, how long and how wide does this contamination affect the area?

A. It’s impossible to say because of tides and winds.




Source: Share International Magazine