It's obvious that research into supposed nuclear energy needs a careful look at predicted electricity consumption vs consumption as it later turned out to be. Roger Desjardin says predicted consumption was hugely overestimated; and this made both the need for dumploads (partly to hide their incompetence), and the vast boost in profit by huge overcharging, policies which they successfully adopted, and not just in the 'developed' world.
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:59:51 -0700
To: Rae West
Subject: RE: Recent news concerning nuclears weapons
From: "Roger Desjardins"
I started a thread a while back at David Icke's forum. This thread listed all the hoaxes I believed were initiated by jews. There were 76 major hoaxes if memory serves. An epidemic of hoaxes.
Your claim about power stations growing and growing certainly rang true at one time. Back when big dams were being designed and built to meet the demands of the future those planners relied on the available technology to estimate the size required to build these plants/dams. This was a time when computers had 18000 vacuumm tubes and consumed hundreds of kilowatts of energy. Estimating a growing future based on those numbers you end up designing a behemoth plant for a future where the electronics were about to go solid state. You think I am overemphasizing the recvolution of the transistor and I say you are playing it down. Electronics were everywhere, the switch to transistors was radical in terms of decline in power demand. The evidence lies in the more efficient transistors that run on minimum power. Then you have the miniaturization of electronics and so on.
Then you have the birth rate decline in the devoloped regions of the world where most electricity is produced/consumed. Less people equals less demand.
The transistor was born in December 1947, the first commercial nuclear reactor went online at Calder Hall in Sellafield England in 1956. The nuclear reactor hoaxsters had plenty of time to conjure up a fable of commercially-viable nuclear energy production to coverup the massive excess they hide to justify outrageous domestic rates. Any reasonably well informed person could easily foresee the radical change in electricity demand the arrival of transistors would induce. The jews desperatly needed to dispose of incredible surplus electrical energy in massive dump loads. They hid the excess by calling it production instead and charging the human cattle 5-9 billion dollars a pop for these over-rated kettles.
Now, I have put up a few reasons why I believe demand, on the whole, has gone down over the years. The transistors, the microwave ovens, decline in birth rate in developed nations, things like that. You have claimed the opposite. To adopt your perspective here I would need to think that vacuum tubes are as efficient as semi-conductors, that microwave ovens are more expensive to run that conventional convection ovens and I would have to believe that denatality equals more people.
Stirling cycle engines explain the fake nuclear navy thing. No need to dwell there unless you have evidence that Stirlings cannot be scaled up to these formats. That would be a first for me.
I note also that you attemept to trivialize the fact that so-called nuclear reactors blink out at the same time their convention counterparts go out. 9 billion bucks and not a single one can light a 10 watt lightbulb, lol. People accept that as "reasonable." Of course dump loads dont produce electricity.
The one I like is the compelling argument that France gets 70% of its domestic electricity from nuclear reactors. People seem oblivious to the sheer numbers of points along the power distribution grids that those of France intersect with those power distribution grids of the neighboring nations. For all we know France could be dumping the surplus of her neighbors in her billion-dollar kettles.
The real smoking gun in the fake reactor story is the arrogance of claiming energy production where none exists. Commercially-viable nuclear energy production as a concept is mortally flawed at the root. If I placed a marble-sized box on the floor to your basement and told you I could heat and power your house entirely with this device you would laugh justifiably because you know that mass is proportional to energy. When I hear claims of commercially viable nuclear energy production you are hearing jews telling your your house is powered with a marble-sized reactor. For all the territory they are said to power these reactors could easily be like the marble-in-the-basement analogy. Silly to the bone.
Roger
From: Rae West
Subject: RE: Recent news concerning nuclears weapons
To: "Roger Desjardins"
Received: Friday, October 29, 2010, 5:21 PM
I don't see fraud 'all around', but only where there's evidence. For example, with cell biology, I have no doubt there is fraud over things like the endoplasmic reticulum and other artefacts of electron microscopy; with AIDS there's evidence related to testing for viruses and epidemiology; for nuclear weapons there's visual evidence from films; with the moon landing and Mars etc there's visual and other evidence. On the other hand, power stations have been with us since about 1880 or 1890 and have increased in size and scope. And along with their rise, there have been huge increases in power consumption domestically and in factories. Any book on social history statistics will give figures for things like dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, kettles, electric heating and lighting and showers, microwaves, TVs - things which didn't exist at all before electricity. And there are now, and have been for years, houses with no gas, which in the days of coal was a staple for cooking and heating. It's possible that nuclear power generates heat, but doesn't explode, so this is consistent with with both aspects we're looking at, and might explain alleged nuclear powered subs etc. As to free electricity for companies, of course it's hard to be sure, but I remember working for a chain store here [Marks and Spencer - rerev] and they had lighting bills for millions; this was years ago.
I'm puzzled by your emphasis on transistors; radios didn't even have fans to cool them, so the electricity consumption coudn't have been that great. And after WW2, TVs came in in a huge way - in addition to radio - the CRTs alone must have used more electricty than valve radios.
And you're right - I haven't thought it through very seriously in the sense of doing detailed investigations or calculations which I take it are necessary, or looking at deductions from the hypothesis of these things not generating anything (such as your comments on large scale power cuts, when nuclear power stations apparentty didn't take up the load). I had hoped to talk with a friend of mine who worked on this all his life, but he's one of these non-proactive types unfortunately. And in fact although he worked on the engineering, it's entirely possible he mightn't have worked out what was going on, any more than NASA contractors did. The problem as I see it is that frauds are incredibly durable, mainly because all their money goes on propaganda, unlike normal organisations where some of the work has to be useful. The 'Holocaust' fraud is a perfect example - it couldn't last a week if there was serious media attention. Just saying it couldn't have happened like that doesn't cut the ice!
I hope this doesn't seem too negative.
Rae
Subject: RE: Recent news concerning nuclears weapons
To: "Roger Desjardins"
Received: Friday, October 29, 2010, 5:21 PM
I don't see fraud 'all around', but only where there's evidence. For example, with cell biology, I have no doubt there is fraud over things like the endoplasmic reticulum and other artefacts of electron microscopy; with AIDS there's evidence related to testing for viruses and epidemiology; for nuclear weapons there's visual evidence from films; with the moon landing and Mars etc there's visual and other evidence. On the other hand, power stations have been with us since about 1880 or 1890 and have increased in size and scope. And along with their rise, there have been huge increases in power consumption domestically and in factories. Any book on social history statistics will give figures for things like dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, kettles, electric heating and lighting and showers, microwaves, TVs - things which didn't exist at all before electricity. And there are now, and have been for years, houses with no gas, which in the days of coal was a staple for cooking and heating. It's possible that nuclear power generates heat, but doesn't explode, so this is consistent with with both aspects we're looking at, and might explain alleged nuclear powered subs etc. As to free electricity for companies, of course it's hard to be sure, but I remember working for a chain store here [Marks and Spencer - rerev] and they had lighting bills for millions; this was years ago.
I'm puzzled by your emphasis on transistors; radios didn't even have fans to cool them, so the electricity consumption coudn't have been that great. And after WW2, TVs came in in a huge way - in addition to radio - the CRTs alone must have used more electricty than valve radios.
And you're right - I haven't thought it through very seriously in the sense of doing detailed investigations or calculations which I take it are necessary, or looking at deductions from the hypothesis of these things not generating anything (such as your comments on large scale power cuts, when nuclear power stations apparentty didn't take up the load). I had hoped to talk with a friend of mine who worked on this all his life, but he's one of these non-proactive types unfortunately. And in fact although he worked on the engineering, it's entirely possible he mightn't have worked out what was going on, any more than NASA contractors did. The problem as I see it is that frauds are incredibly durable, mainly because all their money goes on propaganda, unlike normal organisations where some of the work has to be useful. The 'Holocaust' fraud is a perfect example - it couldn't last a week if there was serious media attention. Just saying it couldn't have happened like that doesn't cut the ice!
I hope this doesn't seem too negative.
Rae
