On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Den Svage Ånd
<pc@peterchristensen.eu> wrote:
>I JP idag er der en interessant artikel om Tjernobyl-uheldet:
>
>Det officielle dødstal er stadig ikke større en 57 mennesker. -Hvad
>andre nu påstår af uhyrligt høje tal som "op til 50.000" er
>fuldstændigt umuligt for dem at dokumentere i praksis.
>
>57 mennesker, ja men det var da meget ubehageligt, men tænk lige lidt
>over det. -En ulykke med bare EN stor turistbus kunne have været meget
>værre.
>
>Så endnu engang: Prøv at se tingene i et større perspektiv:
Ja - og overvej noget som meget få tilsyneladende har tænkt over -
nemlig om nedbrydningen i ozonlaget måske skyldes radioaktiv stråling?
At radioaktiv stråling faktisk nedbryder ilt (og dermed ozon, der
består af iltatomer)) fandt man faktisk ud af da man udførte de mange
atomprøvesprængninger i 60erne, men dengang tillagde man det ikke
nogen særlig betydning. Citat:
"Last year, to explore mainstream views on the possible
radiation-ozone connection, Binder visited the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, where he spoke
with NOAA researcher George Mount. He was told, "Oh, yes, we know that
radiation destroys ozone, but we don't consider it significant."
Pressing further, Binder learned of an earlier "insignificant"
government finding: "during the bomb tests in the 60s [before the ban
on atmospheric testing drove the detonations underground] they found a
2 percent reduction in ozone." Given the current alarm over a global
reduction of 1.7 to 3 percent, 2 percent would certainly seem to us to
be "significant."
Tænk over at måske 98% af den radioaktive stråling der frigives på
jorden (og Tjernobyl står stadig og "oser") bevæger sig opad i
atmosfæren og skader dermed ikke mennesker og andre levende væsener i
nævneværdig grad. Men hvilke skader kan strålingen evt. udrette i den
øvre atmosfære? Foskeren Walter Russell advarede allerede om dette i
1954:
*An Early Warning*
August, 1954. "It will not take many years to utterly destroy the...
encircling protective walls which surround this planet and protect the
earth from burning up by the sun's hot rays," Walter and Lao Russell,
Newsletter of the University of Science and Philosophy.
April 6, 1989. "Scientists reported yesterday that for the first time
they have detected an increase in "biologically relevant" levels of
ultraviolet radiation reaching the ground as a result of the ozone
hole over the Antarctica. This is the first indication that the
depletion of ozone... is beginning to cause the potentially harmful
effect that has long been predicted."
(Washington Post)
[.....]
*Cloud Over the Ozone*
Our story begins some ten miles above the Earth's surface in the
stratosphere, home of the planet's ailing ozone skin and birthplace of
the emerging global awareness of the limits of man's technology. In
1974, two scientists at the University of California made an
announcement that shocked the world. When Drs. Sherwood Rowland and
Mario Molina warned of possible global ozone depletion, they touched
off a controversy that was to involve scientists, industry,
policy-makers, the press and the public.
The "Ozone War," as it came to be called, was principally responsible
for ushering in a new era of planetary policy. Fifteen years later,
the ponderous gears of human response are finally grinding into
action. Aimed at coping with the infamous "ozone hole", a spate of
local and global policy-making is pushing its way forward in an
unprecedented atmosphere of international cooperation. Rep. Al Gore
(D-TN), the seasoned environmental advocate who helped uncover Love
Canal and has stalked the Greenhouse effect for years, recently
introduced legislation to ban production of CFCs (the chemical
generally thought responsible for the ozone crisis) within 5 years. As
Gore observed this February: "The political sentiment is changing very
rapidly... I think people are mad about this and ready for dramatic
action."
But are they the right actions? Not according to Walter Russell, who
predicted the ozone dilemma [in 1957] -- a full 20 years before the
Rowland/Molina research made headlines -- and ascribed it to an
entirely different cause.
If Russell's views were correct, then the chlorine chemistry of CFCs
is not the prime culprit, and no one is looking in the one direction
that matters most. In fact, according to Russell, there is one
overarching solution to the atmospheric emergency: stop making nuclear
stockpiles -- immediately.
*A Different Scenario*
The year is 1954. Sherwood Rowland's ozone prognosis is two decades in
the future; Three Mile Island is a quarter century still to come. To
most of us, the "Greenhouse effect" connotes little more than a better
way to grow tomatoes. The word "ecology" scarcely exists in the
mainstream lexicon.
This is the year atmospheric bomb testing has begun, both by the
Soviet Union in Siberia and by the United States on the Bikini atoll.
John Wayne and a company of actors and movie personnel are filming a
Western in Nevada, and emerge from long days' of shooting covered with
radioactive fallout. Years later, it will be discovered that nearly
all of them have just received a death sentence. But all of that is
many years away; for now, most of us are caught up in the promise of
Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace."
This year, Walter and Lao Russell write their warning in a privately
circulated newsletter to their students: Oxygen and radioactive
stockpiles cannot coexist. Digging up the Earth's heavier elements,
concentrating their reactions and releasing their products into the
atmosphere is a recipe for disaster.
Three years later the Russells publish a book, Atomic Suicide?, whose
principle message is that the development of the nuclear weaponry and
industry, if allowed to continue, will eventually destroy the planet's
oxygen.
"The element of surprise which could delay the discovery of the great
danger, and thus allow more plutonium piles to come into existence, is
the fact that scientists are looking near the ground for fallout
dangers and other radioactive menaces. The greatest radioactive
dangers are accumulating from eight to twelve miles up [in the
stratosphere]. The upper atmosphere is already charged with
death-dealing radioactivity, for which it not yet sent us its bill. It
is slowly coming, however, and we will have to pay for it for another
century, even if atomic energy plants ceased today." (Atomic Suicide?,
page 18.)
Later in the book, they predict that the oxygen-destroying effects of
radiation would not be noticed "until the late seventies."
*Atomic Prophesies*
It was an uncannily accurate forecast: ozone depletion was first
noticed over the Antarctic in 1982 -- and scientists have since
concluded that it first appeared in 1979. But then, as now, the
Russells' voice received little notice.
*In Pursuit of Evidence*
As the centerpiece of this effort, Dr. Timothy Binder is coordinating
a thorough scientific effort to test, verify and document
radioactivity's role in ozone depletion. Combining an exhaustive
review of existing literature with new laboratory experimentation, the
project owes its impetus in part to Binder's
frustrated efforts to obtain accurate data from past observations.
Last year, to explore mainstream views on the possible radiation-ozone
connection, Binder visited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, where he spoke with NOAA
researcher George Mount. He was told, "Oh, yes, we know that radiation
destroys ozone, but we don't consider it significant." Pressing
further, Binder learned of an earlier "insignificant" government
finding: "during the bomb tests in the 60s [before the ban on
atmospheric testing drove the detonations underground] they found a 2
percent reduction in ozone [emphasis ours]." Given the current alarm
over a global reduction of 1.7 to 3 percent, 2 percent would certainly
seem to us to be "significant."
Binder was told that a review of this data was in process; when he
later tried to obtain this information in print, he received reports
with figures that contradicted Mount's statements. [Subsequently, we
contacted Sherwood Rowland's office at the University of California;
Sherwood himself was out of the country, but we spoke with one of his
associates about the possible radiation-ozone connection. Offhand, he
didn't see how radiation would be likely to have this effect, though
the hypothesis apparently had never been suggested to him before.]
Commenting on his investigations, Binder offered this conclusion: "As
the government is now reviewing the old data on the 60s' testing, it
sounds like they are reconsidering the nuclear connection to ozone
destruction, but don't want to tell [us] about it yet."
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/walter-russell/683-article-macrobiotic-genius-walter-russell.html
eller
http://tinyurl.com/37byje
--
Rado
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance
but the illusion of knowledge.