rumpnissen rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Rolf Martens) voffade ur sig i
news:66hev2F2kf21pU2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> down completely'.
>
> 'Here the parapsychologists have something in which to sink their
> teeth', wrote the correspondent [in New York City, the USA] of
> Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Malmö, the only paper - as far as I know - that
> brought the information about this in Europe. In fact all who read it
> must have understood what it clearly pointed to. But nobody else but
> we Marx adherents ever referred again to the 'strange coincidence' of
> this story told one week in advance."
>
> The background of that story in fact could only have been one of two
> things: Either it was a "warning shot" in advance against a
> manipulation of that TMI reactor which some people in the USA had
> gotten to know was being planned and wanted to prevent. Or else it was
> a scare story planted in advance by people who intended to manipulate
> precisely that reactor precisely a week later and wanted to make
> people in its vicinity believe that its core indeed was to be made to
> melt down completely - with then perhaps "a serious release of
> radioactive substances" - and thus "hopefully" create a public panic
> in that area (which in the actual event did not occur anyway).
>
> On the results of the US "Harrisburg" manipulation here in Sweden,
> where it did "succeed" even more dramatically than in any other
> country, I wrote in the same Info part:
>
> "In several European countries, the 'Harrisburg accident' had
> considerable repercussions, and in particular here in Sweden. On 4
> April, a day later called "Mad Wednesday", several politicians made a
> complete turnabout - it's known that in the days before, a person
> employed by the US government had made statements here about how they
> 'obviously didn't know what significance this event had in the USA and
> were unable to draw the correct conclusions from it' - and decided on
> a so-called 'referendum on nuclear power' in Sweden. This took place a
> year later, on 23.03.1980, and was not just any 'referendum' either.
> All three 'proposals' in favour of which you were allowed to 'vote'
> said squarely 'no' to nuclear energy, which according to these
> 'proposals' was to be curtailed and eventually banned completely in
> this country - which was then and which in fact is still the one with
> the largest amount of all of electricity from nuclear power plants per
> inhabitant (10 GW of installed effect for somewhat less than 9 million
> people). And to this day, all politicians in Sweden do 'stand by' the
> 'result' of this 'referendum', the 'democracy' of which you must admit
> beats even the one of the so-called 'elections' in, for instance,
> Brezhnev's Soviet Union."
>
> In fact, in late 1978, a congress of the most im****tant bourgeois
> political party here in Sweden the Social-Democratic party, had
> decided, in view of a certain campaign by others for a "referendum" on
> nuclear energy then, that that party would oppose any such proposal,
> as not liable to result in any genuinely democratic referendum,
> holding instead that the nuclear-energy question should be decided on
> in the usual parliamentary way. That party, thus, was not yet prepared
> to kowtow completely to the US imperialists and other extreme
> perpetrators of the anti-nuclear-energy campaign, on that question.
> But when I, for instance, after the "Mad Wednesday" asked for a copy
> of the particular pamphlet that congress's decision on this, I was
> told by a functionary at the Social Democratic local office that those
> pamphlets "had all been thrown into the waste basket", not because of
> any new official party decision on this but simply "because there had
> now been the Harrisburg accident in the USA".
>
> This small thing in itself speaks volumes about who it really was that
> was calling the shots in the "Social-Democratic Workers' Party" here
> in Sweden, when certain things would come to a crunch - none other
> than the US imperialists. And the same thing it, basically, was with
> the other bourgeois parties here too, which remains the case very much
> still today.
>
> On "Mad Wednesday" here in Sweden, 04.04.1979, not only Palme was
> bowled over completely by the US imperialists and their mass medias'
> "Harrisburg" howling to high heaven - according to later re****ts, his
> wife Lisbet, who was later to help protect his (Soviet military
> intelligence) assassins (in 1986) from getting exposed too, had a
> certain hand in this - but also, for instance, the leader of the
> Liberal party (Folkpartiet), Ola Ullsten, who at the time was also the
> prime minister of this country.
>
> Jointly, the "leading" politicians here on that day decided on such a
> "referendum" in 1980 about which several of them already earlier had
> said, quite correctly, that it would be nothing but a fraud, and
> further they decided, in part quite illegally as they themselves
> admitted publicly, to keep suspending the start of operation for two
> nuclear power reactors which had already been completed one year
> respectively two years earlier, and to suspend that start for two
> more, the application for which had been put on the government's desk
> on 27.03.1979, immediately before the "Harrisburg" manipulation in the
> USA began. No less than four recently-built nuclear power reactors
> here were to stand paralyzed, as so much scrap, up until that
> "referendum". This meant that values corresponding to many millions of
> dollars were just "thrown into the lake", and had as its purpose to
> put pressure on the "voters" in the coming "referendum" to "accept" at
> least one of the two somewhat less extreme "No" propositions which
> they were to be given as "choices" in that criminal (also according to
> the existing bourgeois laws at the time) "referendum", because these
> propositions called for the utilization in Sweden of "no more than 12
> nuclear power reactors" (the politicians here also hoping that people
> would not notice, or would forget, the "no more than" part here),
> while the third and very most extreme proposition among other things
> said that "no more than 6" such were ever to be allowed to operate,
> and thus that the other 4, recently built, were to be scrapped at
> once.
>
> As I've noted in an Info in Swedish, #276se (of 23.03.2007) on the
> fantastic and historic "referendum on nuclear power" in this country
> in 1980, reproducing a 10-page leaflet which I published before it in
> 1980 and which exposed in detail that record-setting, seemingly mad,
> fraud attempt and explained the background to it, it was not only one
> direct representative of the US imperialists but several such persons,
> all employed by the US government, that were invited to Sweden at that
> time, in order to "provide sup****t for" the "People's Campaign against
> Nuclear Power" and for Fälldin in that "referendum", as one newspaper
> here openly wrote.
>
> Fälldin, by the way, "very strangely", despite his utter defeat in the
> 1979 parliamentary elections and despite the large victory, in those
> elections, of that (seemingly) pro-nuclear-energy party the Moderates
> then led by Gösta Bohman, had been chosen as prime minister once more,
> instead of his "coalition partner" Bohman, who by all "rules of
> parliamentarism" was then the quite obvious choice for this post. Who
> it was that managed to interfere so blatantly in the "parliamentary
> process" here in Sweden too, with some backstage manipulations of
> course not possible for most people here to observe quite directly,
> it's quite easy, nevertheless, to calculate: This too was the US
> imperialists.
>
> The fantastic and very instructive texts, in Swedish, on all the
> "voting slips" used in the 1980 "referendum" - which no bourgeois
> newspaper, nor any of the later official "Statistical Yearbook of
> Sweden" or Wikipedia in Swedish, for instance have managed to
> reproduce correctly - I'm showing as one section of my homepage, after
> an earlier page with this, by a pur****tedly pro-nuclear-energy
> organization (the MFK), has recently been taken down. English
> translations of them together with some explanatory comments,can be
> found in my Info #225, part 1/2 and part 2/2. These texts you have to
> see for yourself if you really are to believe that the parliament in
> this country, all its parties agreeing on this, in all seriousness
> presented them to the people here, in 1980, on "voting slips" each of
> them printed in some 100 million copies too.
>
> [texts:
> http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/070323_fuskomroestning_kaernkraft_
19
> 80.html
>
> MFK: http://www.mfk.nu/]
>
>
> The very nastiest of those plans which were connected with this
> "referendum" in Sweden were forestalled - to a considerable extent, I
> think, by those rather few of us who exposed that serious attack
> against the people here and in other countries in beforehand. I
> disseminated that abovementioned unusually long, 10-page leaflet in
> some 900 copies in Sweden's three biggest cities, Stockholm, Göteborg
> and Malmö, and a 2-page short version of it was disseminated by me and
> a workmate at the Kockums ****pyard in some 8,000 copies here in the
> Malmö region, and it and some earlier ones by me against the
> anti-nuclear-energy campaign appeared to have astoni****ngly large
> effects, to judge by the local 1979 election results and the local
> 1980 "referendum" "results", compared to those in other parts of the
> country. In Germany, the abovementioned small Marxist-Leninist party
> exposed, likewise in beforehand, that "referendum" in Sweden too, with
> a couple of leaflets whose texts included translations of the
> fantastic "voting slip" texts here, provided by me. On this, see the
> German-language Info #231de.
>
> The ruling bourgeoisie here, as it turned out, did not dare sabotage
> any nuclear power plants all at once, in 1980. They and their US
> imperialist masters found themselves forced to allow all the four
> rather recently completed but during 2-3 years paralyzed reactors to
> get into operation and to allow the construction of those further two
> on which work had already begun, to be completed; the last of them -
> and most likely, unfortunately, the last such ever in this country
> under continued bourgeois rule - went online in 1985.
>
> But in 1980, after the "referendum", the parliament here did make two
> - seemingly mad - decision which meant the completion of a 180-degrees
> turnabout concerning nuclear energy in Sweden. Firstly, the
> construction of any new new nuclear power reactor in Sweden was banned
> by law, for all future. Secondly, the utilization of precisely this
> energy source was to be "phased out", after only some transitional
> period or other, that is, to cease completely, for all future too.
>
> These were decisions so extremely retrogressive that they at the time
> were practically unparalleled in the world, with only one exception,
> that of the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, quite directly under
> the rule of the US imperialists, which likewise actually had a law
> against the construction of nuclear power reactors there. Only 20
> years later, in the year 2000, did the politicians of the united
> Germany, for instance, likewise since long extremely subservient to
> those of the USA, decide on such a truly historically and criminally
> retrogressive thing, such an unbridled attack against the vast
> majority of people and against an im****tant part of the very basis of
> modern civilization, as the "phasing out" of nuclear energy.
> ("Ausstieg", meaning the act of "stepping out", from an elevator
> perhaps or something, is the "prettifying" term for it in German.)
>
> "Of course" all the big international mass media in 1980 said, and
> have continued to maintain ever after too, that the people in Sweden
> had now "voted no" to nuclear power and that this was the reason for
> the sharp turnaround on this question in this country. None of them
> has ever mentioned the simple fact that people here in that
> "referendum" were only allowed to "vote No", "vote No" or "vote No" to
> nuclear energy or else abstain from venturing an opinion on the
> matter. The constructing of such a "referendum" in the language of
> ordinary, normal, non-bourgeois people however is called, simply,
> "flagrant cheating", and no person in that group of people can be made
> to believe that such a "referendum" could ever produce any valid
> result.
>
> Precisely a contrary conclusion however can indeed be drawn from that
> "referendum" in Sweden, because of the way in which it was
> constructed. If you force everybody to either "vote No" or else
> abstain ion a question, this firstly shows that you're desperate for
> getting a "No" "result", and secondly, that you're seeing no other way
> to produce it, in as "safe" was as you "need", than to cheat it forth,
> in that really quite idiotic and self-revealing manner. Thus this
> referendum really showed that its perpetrators, the politicians in
> this country, knew quite well that they had no chance whatsoever of
> getting a "No" to nuclear energy from the people here in any even
> approximately honest way - that is, they themselves were quite certain
> that there at the time, despite all media propaganda howling, was a
> solid majority in this country in favour of nuclear energy.
>
> This "referendum" in fact very much turned out to be a boomerang, for
> those who had organized it. It clearly demonstrated to everybody who
> it in fact was that had a massive interest in the
> anti-nuclear-campaign, namely, the ruling bourgeoisie itself, whom the
> "People's Campaign against Nuclear Power" had put such large efforts
> into convincing people that it was "opposing". And it showed what
> relation the anti-nuclear campaign had to even the most elementary
> principles of democracy: Since its organizers decided, respectively
> quite readily accepted the decision, not to give people even a choice
> between "yes" and "no", they very clearly were among the most
> Rightwing of all forces in society; this very clearly was a
> Rightwing-extremist campaign.
>
> [END OF QUOTE]
>
>
> On the *Chernobyl* event in 1986, I shall copy in here some likewise
> rather long earlier stuff. It's from my Infos #293en respectively
> #295en. And an im****tant part of this is some information on the
> actual - *positive* - effects of *low-dose ionizing radiation*,
> something which otherwise, you practically never will get; this is an
> enormous swindle theme on the part of those still ruling miserable
> small cliques of imperialist (yesterday also social-imperialist)
> bourgeois s***. First, from my #293en,
>
> [QUOTE:]
>
> Part 1: My "News with brief comments" item 311, of 12.09.2007
>
> Wednesday, 12 September 2007 (NWBC 311) "The Chernobyl disaster very
> probably a sabotage"
>
> 2007-09-12, 11:02 GMT:
>
> This the blogger Alain wrote yesterday 11.09.2007 in his im****tant
> blog in French, mainly dedicated to the origin of oil, at
> http://petrole-abiotique.blogspot.com/,
which also contains articles
> pointing out that those same powerful reactionaries in the world who
> are making the oil price be so high are also the propelling forces
> behind the massive campaign, since many decades back, against nuclear
> energy. He motivates what he is saying about Chernobyl above all with
> a close look at the technical details of this disaster in 1986, which
> cost some 42 people their lives.
>
> Yes, very clearly indeed this was a sabotage. Others have noted strong
> suspicions in this direction several years ago. And in an article
> published as a leaflet in Swedish on 01.05.2006, reproduced by me in
> English translation as "UNITE! Info #258en: The reigning system's
> weakness", Stig Ek and I wrote about this, including also a hypothesis
> of ours concerning an im****tant part of the motives behind this
> sabotage, among which, as Alain correctly notes, there certainly was
> not least that of combating, together with the mass medias'
> 10,000-folding of the effects of the disaster, peaceful nuclear energy
> in the whole world.
>
> We wrote in that article, noting among other things what it had been
> possible to ascertain concerning a certain event here in Sweden two
> months before that so-called "accident" in the then social-imperialist
> Soviet Union, in 1986 already well under way towards its eventual
> disintegration five years later,
>
> [QUOTE, in my NWBC 311:]
>
> And when Gorbachov became president in the Soviet Union in 1985 and
> wanted to pursue another, though likewise extremely reactionary,
> policy, one of "green" strangulation of industry together with the
> ruling persons in the USA, the then still powerful military leaders in
> the Soviet Union tried to force the Gorbachov group into accepting
> their own line of massive threats and perhaps even aggression against
> West Europe, by having their intelligence service the GRU assassinate
> Sweden's prime minister Palme on 28 February 1986. A scapegoat first
> got convicted of that murder but was later acquitted, after some
> people within the establishment here on 24 August 1989 had re****ted
> publicly on a certain result of a bugging of a GRU agent in February
> 1986.
>
> It's likely, in our judgment, that the largescale sabotage later, on
> 26 April 1986, of a nuclear power reactor at Chernobyl which was part
> of a certain military complex, among other things was intended as a
> counterattack by the Gorbachov group and/or its US friends, against
> those Soviet military who among other things had then recently
> assassinated Palme. That it was a sabotage and not an "accident" that
> killed 42 people then and caused large material damage is obvious. No
> less than 6 different safety systems were shut off deliberately in
> that reactor, where, incidentally, it was possible to cause an
> explosion only because its moderator consisted of graphite, not of
> water as in all nuclear power plants in for instance Sweden. The
> largest damage in this connection has been caused by a massive lie
> propaganda, which has maintained that those very small extra amounts
> of radiation which arose in other countries because of the Chernobyl
> sabotage were "harmful", and not, as are such small amounts, actually
> good for people's health.
>
> [END OF QUOTE, in my NWBC 311]
>
> Since the fact mentioned here concerning such small doses of ionizing
> radiation as those mentioned above no doubt still is unknown to many,
> and the international mass media since many decades back very much are
> trying to scare people of all radiation, even such at levels with
> which people in many regions on earth have always lived, their health
> in general being better and by no means worse than those with lower
> levels of natural so-called background radiation, it may be suitable
> to include here references to two actually scientific websites on this
> question:
>
> On low-dose ionizing radiation, a site managed by S. M. Javad
> Mortazavi, Ph. D., Iran, and containing articles by scientists in many
> countries: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/
>
> T. D. Luckey (USA) on beneficial effects of low-dose ionizing
> radiation: http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm
>
> [END OF QUOTE]
>
>
> And from my #295en, more on *Chernobyl*,
>
> [QUOTE:]
>
> A MAIN PRETEXT FOR ABANDONING NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE BIG CHERNOBYL
> PROPAGANDA HOAX
>
> Convincing a majority of people, in Europe or the USA for instance,
> that it's "justified" to abandon this most modern energy source, with
> its also uniquely vast development potential, this the ruling
> reactionary cliques have failed to do, despite decades of massive
> propaganda of theirs for this. On the contrary, there is increasing
> public pressure in these and other countries for continued use and
> further development of nuclear energy. As a main "argument" against
> this, the ruling reactionaries still today are advancing a series of
> lies concerning one event over 20 years ago and concerning its
> pur****ted consequences: The so-called "accident" at a nuclear power
> plant at Chernobyl in the then Soviet Union on 26 April 1986.
>
> The big Chernobyl propaganda hoax from the beginning on was, and still
> today is, made up of mainly three parts:
>
> Firstly, the proposition that the considerable disaster that did occur
> at that power plant, when one of its reactors suffered an explosion
> (of a chemical, not a nuclear, type), which killed some 50 people due
> to radiation released and other effects and which destroyed that
> reactor totally, actually *was* an accident, supposedly having taken
> place in the course of more or less normal operation of it.
>
> Very obviously, this was not the case however. Even the various
> "official" accounts of this event admit that several vital safety
> systems were shut down on purpose and then a so-called "experiment"
> was carried out, under cir***stances which, as was well-known, could
> not but make this have disastrous consequences. This clearly was *a
> sabotage*. As pointed to in Info #258en, quite likely a certain
> rivalry at that time between some different reactionary cliques inside
> and outside of the then Soviet Union was a contributing cause of its
> being perpetrated.
>
> And very clearly, the main motive behind this manipulation of a
> nuclear reactor in one of the two superpowers in the world at that
> time, 1986, certainly was the same as that behind an earlier and
> likewise infamous event in the other one, the so-called "accident" at
> the TMI nuclear power plant close to Harrisburg in the USA on 28 March
> 1979, an "accident" which demonstrably was no natural one either, as
> was publicly exposed at the time. (I made a certain contribution to
> this.) These "accidents" were organized forth by the main ruling
> reactionary cliques in the world as attacks against the peaceful
> utilization of nuclear energy. They both show how very much those
> cliques already then hated that energy source.
>
> Secondly, about the considerable disaster at Chernobyl it was said -
> and still today is being said - by the media propaganda that it "must
> have consequences" concerning "all nuclear power plants in the world".
> But this propaganda completely disregards the well-known fact that the
> chemical explosion which occurred at the Chernobyl reactor was a
> consequence of that reactor's moderator, which consisted of graphite,
> having caught fire when overheated, and that such an event, whether by
> accident or caused by sabotage, was and is physically impossible in
> most other nuclear power reactors in the world since they use water,
> not graphite, for moderating the nuclear reactions. The fact that
> this *technically quite illogical* "conclusion" concerning "all
> nuclear power plants" has been drawn publicly in this way is another
> thing showing that the aim of this propaganda has certainly not been
> to "avoid accidents" but to attack the use of nuclear energy.
>
>
> THE BIGGEST AND ALSO THE MOST ABSURD LIE CONCERNING CHERNOBYL: "LARGE
> AREAS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE EARLIER SOVIET UNION WERE CONTAMINATED
> WITH HARMFUL RADIATION", AND EVEN "ONE OF THEM REMAINS CONTAMINATED
> TODAY"
>
> This, the third of the main big lies concerning that event, was and
> still today is the politically most im****tant one. All the
> international mass media in the over 20 years since then have kept
> repeating it, again and again.
>
> However, once you get to know about the basic facts - most carefully
> hidden away by those media - concerning how much radiation actually
> did reach locations at various distances from the
> disastrously-manipulated Chernobyl reactor and get to know about what
> amounts of radiation are quite normal in different regions on earth
> where people have always lived in perfect health - on this too, the
> ruling reactionaries systematically are withholding the most
> elementary information - you can ascertain for yourself how absolutely
> absurd is this lie.
>
> Some main points concerning this are:
>
> Only in the immediate vicinity of the exploded reactor, closer than
> some 2 km from it, was there ever dangerous radiation.
>
> The intensity of that radiation within the reactor itself in hours
> immediately after the explosion was very high, then causing the deaths
> of several dozens of people. But soon it decreased considerably, so
> that rescue and production work could be undertaken at that power
> plant itself (consisting of four reactors).
>
> The hundreds of thousands of people forcibly evacuated from an area
> some distance away from Chernobyl, up until 30 km from it, would have
> suffered no harm whatsoever if they had stayed.
>
> People are living in perfect health in many regions on earth where the
> radiation, due to natural causes, is many times higher than the
> highest level of such in that pur****tedly "contaminated" area was in
> April-May 1986. This means: Even in that area relatively close to
> Chernobyl (including the city of Pripyat, 3 km from it) there never
> was any "radioactive contamination", in that sense which this term
> propagandistically is intended to imply, "dangerously increased
> radiation level".
>
> But not only this.
>
> Still today, the "zone of evacuation" in the former Soviet Union is
> being kept evacuated by the authorities, though the level of radiation
> there is now even quite low, compared internationally.
>
> Still today too, all the reactionary mass media are referring to that
> zone as a "contaminated" one. This is absurdly misleading. By the same
> "reckoning" as to radiation level, for instance the entire Sweden,
> several provinces in France and at least two well-known buildings in
> the USA, namely, the Capitol in Wa****ngton, D.C., and Grand Central
> Station in New York City, would qualify as equally "contaminated", not
> to speak of those regions in the world where the natural (background)
> radiation is hundreds of times that of those locations.
>
> The enforced evacuation of those hundreds of thousands of people from
> the beginning on in reality was an action of anti-nuclear-energy
> propaganda and of terror against the m***** of people, and its
> continuing today remains a such too, becoming even more and more
> obviously unjustified with each year that p*****.
>
> A few websites at the Internet today are pointing out some facts which
> clearly show this.
>
> A Canada-based website for science education under the headline
> "Terrestrial Sources of Radiation" brings some figures on this which
> are very striking concerning the level of radiation in the
> still-evacuated area in the present Ukraine. It compares the radiation
> in four different locations on earth:
>
> [website for science education:
> http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/educators/resources/evarm/grade11/natur
a
> l-partic le-earth.asp]
>
>
> Location
> Radiation, in mSv per year
> Notes
>
> Guarapari Beach, Brazil
> 800
> Radioactive beach sands eroded from surrounding mountains. Guarapari
> since long is called "Health City" in Brazil.
>
> Ramsar, Iran (hot springs)
> 700
> Thermally hot springs, also radioactively "hot". An area likewise
> known for its better-than-average health.
>
> Kerala Beach, India
> 035
> Radioactive beach sands eroded from surrounding mountains.
>
> City of Pripyat, (near Chernobyl) Ukraine Permanently Evacuated
> (according to the website)
> 005
>
>
> The website notes: "This is not a result of naturally occurring
> radiation from the surrounding soil, but is inserted here for purposes
> of comparison."
>
>
> And very tell-tale indeed, concerning the still continuing big
> anti-nuclear-energy propaganda hoax in connection with Chernobyl, is
> this comparison between that pur****tedly "contaminated" area,
> including the city of Pripyat, and those three others.
>
> This website on terrestrial sources of radiation notes too, concerning
> how much radiation people will be subjected to in the different
> places:
>
> "A one week vacation at Guarapari Beach, Brazil, is equivalent to
> living three years in the City of Pripyat, near Chernobyl. Six months
> at Guarapari Beach is equivalent to living eighty years (almost a
> lifetime) in Pripyat."
>
> For a broader picture of background radiation levels internationally,
> the natural radiation in some more locations can be mentioned -
> according to other sources. Differences are on account of varying
> amounts of radioactive substances in the ground, respectively in
> building materials:
>
> The global mean background radiation is 2.4 mSv/year. Sweden and some
> abovementioned regions in France average 5 mSv/year, which is also the
> level in the Capitol building in Wa****ngton, D.C. and Grand Central
> Station, New York City. Much of South America has 10, and a little
> more than that, 12 mSv/year, was the global mean when life began on
> earth - life is adapted to a higher background radiation than the most
> common today. Further levels: A region in Norway: 10; one in Sweden:
> 35; the city of Guarapari, Brazil: 260 (higher at its thorium-rich
> beach, see above); some parts of Kerala province, India: 400; parts of
> Ramsar, Iran and the region of Araxa, Brazil, (with 74,000
> inhabitants) are exceptional with 17,500 respectively 28,000 mSv per
> year. No adverse health effects have been noted in regions with higher
> background radiation. On the contrary, the health in such regions
> tends to be better than average.
>
>
> How intensive was the radiation at its maximum in April-May 1986 in
> that region in the then Soviet Union which was forcibly evacuated?
>
> According to the well-known scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski, Poland (in
> an article in 1999), no more than some 60 mSv/year - considerably less
> than in many other regions mentioned above.
>
> [http://www.riskworld.com/nre****ts/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htmhttp://
w
> ww.riskw orld.com/nre****ts/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm]
>
> The same writer in an article in 1997:
>
> "The average whole body radiation doses received in the period
> 1986-1995 in the [pur****tedly - RM] most contaminated regions of the
> former USSR (6 to 60 mSv) were by a factor of 3 lower than the average
> lifetime dose which the population of the Earth receives from natural
> radiation sources..."
>
> Dangerous or even life-threatening radiation doses are many times
> higher than that. A dose of 1,000 mSv received within an hour is
> likely to cause radiation sickness. One of 3,000-5,000 mSv in that
> time is lethal in 50% of the cases, and one of 15,000 mSv certainly
> lethal. It was doses of that order that killed dozens of people in
> that reactor at Chernobyl which exploded.
>
> However, actual dangerous contamination there was only in an area of
> 0.5 square km, stretching in two patches up to 1.8 km from the damaged
> reactor. (Re****ted for instance by Jaworowski in 2000.) The nearest
> city, Pripyat, 3 km away, was not touched by this.
>
> [http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html]
>
> The absurdity of the enforced evacuation has been commented on by
> several writers. Here are some passages on this.
>
> On what occurred, first one from the Uranium Institute, Australia,
> which relates this, without any overt criticism:
>
> [http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm]
>
> "The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that
> the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged
> reactor ****elded more permanently. About 200,000 people
> ('liquidators') from all over the Soviet Union were involved in the
> recovery and clean up during 1986 and 1987. They received high doses
> of radiation, average around 100 millisieverts. [For an immediate
> dose, received within an hour, this is relatively high, but clearly
> not health-damaging. - RM] Some 20,000 of them received about 250 mSv
> and a few received 500 mSv. [Even this is below the danger level for
> immediate doses. - RM] Later, the number of liquidators swelled to
> over 600,000 but most of these received only low radiation doses. The
> highest doses were received by about 1000 emergency workers and
> on-site personnel during the first day of the [pur****ted - RM ]
> accident.
>
> On 2-3 May, some 45,000 residents were evacuated from within a 10 km
> radius of the plant, notably from the plant operators' town of
> Pripyat. On 4 May, all those living within a 30 kilometre radius - a
> further 116 000 people from the [pur****tedly - RM] more contaminated
> area - were evacuated and later relocated. About 1,000 of these have
> since returned unofficially to live within the [pur****tedly - RM]
> contaminated zone. Most of those evacuated received radiation doses of
> less than 50 mSv, although a few received 100 mSv or more.
>
> The average radiation doses for the general population of the
> contaminated areas over 1986-2005 is estimated to be between 10 and 20
> mSv, and the vast majority receive under 1 mSv/yr. These are lower
> than many natural levels.
>
> Workers and their families now live in a new town, Slavutich, 30 km
> from the plant. This was built following the evacuation of Pripyat,
> which was just 3 km away."
>
> On how the enforced evacuation was motivated by the reactionary
> authorities, Jaworowski in the abovementioned article in 2000 noted:
>
> "The basis for the resettlement was, first, the possibility that those
> people living in the [pur****tedly - RM] most contaminated areas would
> absorb a lifetime whole body dose (that is, their total dose received
> over a period of 70 years) higher than 350 mSv, which is about double
> the average global natural radiation dose. Later, this lifetime limit
> was lowered to 150 mSv, and then to 70 mSv (1 mSv per year)."
>
> The utter absurdity of this "basis" is obvious, considering those
> facts about normal radiation which are mentioned above. More than 350
> mSv in a lifetime, practically everybody here in Sweden for instance
> receives, and more than 150 mSv, almost everybody on earth. An
> additional dose of 1 mSv per year, or much more than that, is a
> natural consequence for instance of a person's moving into the house
> next door, even in regions with a low level of natural radiation.
>
> But these decisions in the then Soviet Union were in accordance with
> the then and still existing international so-called "health
> protection" rules concerning radiation, which were established, for
> anti-nuclear-energy propaganda reasons, in 1959 and which proceed from
> the - of course absurd - "hypothesis" that "all radiation is harmful",
> with "no lower threshold" for this, the so-called LNT hypothesis.
> Jaworowski in 2000 on this:
>
> "The ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] bases
> its recommendations for protection of the public in radiation
> accidents on the LNT. These recommendations—the lifetime limits of 350
> mSv and 150 mSv—were used by the Soviet decision-makers, even though
> they are lower by a factor of 4 to 40 than the natural lifetime doses
> in many countries of the world, which have been inhabited for
> thousands of years."
>
> On the enforced evacuation, the website of Physicians for Civil
> Defence, the USA, said in 2004:
>
> [http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/may2004.html]
>
> "The most nonsensical action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000
> people from the regions of the former Soviet Union, where during the
> years 1986-1995 the Chernobyl fallout increased the average natural
> radiation dose (about 2.5 mGy per year [Gy - Gray - is another
> measuring unit than Sv - Sievert - and 1 mGy in many though not all
> cases is the same as 1 mSv - RM] ) by 0.8 to 1.4 mSv per year, i.e. by
> about 30% to 50%."
>
> In the 'ghost town' of Pripyat, the external gamma dose rate [one part
> of the entire dose rate - RM] measured by a Polish team in 2001 was
> 0.9 mSv per year, the same as in Warsaw and five times lower than in
> Grand Central Station in New York. The evacuation caused 'mass
> psychosomatic disturbances, great economical losses, and traumatic
> social consequences.' Current radiation protection standards 'have
> become a health hazard'."
>
> This lastmentioned certainly is the case, under the reigning
> conditions of imperialism. And as can be seen here too, the ruling
> Soviet social-imperialists in 1986 likewise most fanatically
> participated in this terrorism of the "traditional" imperialists' for
> anti-nuclear-energy propaganda purposes, and were the ones directly
> responsible for the very worst part of it which was perpetrated in
> connection with the Chernobyl sabotage.
>
> On these most damaging and harmful actions - they were in fact nothing
> else than largescale terrorism - Jaworowski wrote in another article
> in 1997:
>
> [http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.5.4.2Jawor97.html]
>
> "During the past ten years mass media and politicians of the former
> USSR has tried their best to convince the people in [pur****tedly - RM]
> contaminated regions of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia that Chernobyl
> radiation endangers their health and life. ... An aggravation of this
> problem was caused by official declaring of millions of people to
> belong to the category of 'Chernobyl victims'. This was done by
> implementation of laws on financial compensation for these people,
> called by the locals a 'coffin subsidy'. In the Ukraine alone, this
> category was assigned to about 3 million people and the costs involved
> reach 1/6 of the state budget (OECD 1996).
>
> In the impoverished Belarus these subsidies will reach 86 billion US
> dollars until 2015 (Rolerich 1996). Each act of signing a receipt for
> a monthly subsidy is for millions of receivers a confirmation that
> they really are the 'victims of Chernobyl'. For who would pay them
> just for nothing, and not for a real health detriment which they must
> already suffer, or for being in a situation of radiation risk, which
> sooner or later will cause such detriment. Nobody tells them that
> their small radiation doses (averaging 6-60 mSv in various regions),
> or even a bit higher doses to 'liquidators' (170 mSv in 1986) are
> below the level of 200 mSv at which an increase of cancer incidence
> was detected in Hiro****ma and Nagasaki, or that in these Japanese
> cities irradiated survivors of the nuclear attack live longer than non
> irradiated ones, and that no increase of congenital diseases was
> detected in their offspring.
>
> The second im****tant cause of non-radiation health effects was
> legislation (currently in force) prescribing the relocation of 850,000
> people, and the actual relocation of about 400,000 inhabitants of
> contaminated regions (Ilyin 1995; Anonymous 1996A; Filyushkin 1996)."
>
> An article at the website of the organization Workers in Nuclear notes
> on this, and also briefly on the massive international reactionary
> propaganda:
>
> [http://www.wonuc.org/xfiles/chern_03.html]
>
> "The highly contaminated area in the NPP vicinity measures only a half
> of a square kilometer! Such is the conclusion from the maps included
> in UNSCEAR re****t. On the other hand, most of the territory
> surrounding the plant poses no risk to human health. Why then is there
> a 30-km uninhabited safety zone? Why have the inhabitants of the town
> Pripyat been resettled? Why does this town stay closed until this very
> day?
>
> The resettlement was implemented swiftly and on a large scale. Within
> 11 days (from 27 April until 7 May 1986) 116 000 people were forced to
> change their place of residence. - 'The decision on resettlement has
> been taken with no notice of the opinion of Russian scientists, who
> suggested that the majority of people living in the NPP neighborhood
> should be left alone' - says Michael Waligórski, the head of the
> Health Physics Department in Oncology Center in Cracow.
>
> - 'Resettled people did not die from lethal radiation doses, but from
> high stress. We observed similar reactions to stress also in Poland,
> during the flood of 1997. Many people died then not from drowning but
> e.g. from heart attack.' - adds Waligórski.
> ...
> From the very beginning the media were promoting a tragic and
> exaggerated picture of the disaster. In May 1986 the American press
> re****ted that the reactor explosion killed 80 people immediately, that
> further 2 thousand died on the way to hospitals and their bodies are
> buried not on the cemeteries but in a place called Pirogovo, where a
> nuclear waste disposal site is located. The enormous headline in New
> York Post threatened: 'Mass grave - in Kiev 15 thousand human bodies
> pushed down by bulldozers into the waste pits', while National
> Enquirer described a mutant chicken 2 m high, caught by the hunters in
> the forests close to Chernobyl."
>
> The "Chernobyl" canard of the reactionaries' really is something like
> a "mutant chicken 2 m high". In many European countries outside of the
> then Soviet Union too pur****ted "countermeasures" were undertaken,
> likewise of a terrorist character, "against" barely measurable, and if
> anything, beneficial increases of the radiation there. Concerning
> Sweden I've written on this in Infos #119, part 1/2 etc and #120en,
> part 1/7 etc. I shall not add more on this subject here.
>
> On a not untypical piece of the continuing scare propaganda, the
> abovementioned CDP website also noted, in 2004:
>
> [http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/may2004.html]
>
> "The Popular Internet Photographic Tour
>
> It is claimed that millions of people every month visit the 'Ghost
> Town' website, based on Elena's motorcycle tour of the Chernobyl area,
> nearly abandoned by human beings, though photographs show luxuriantly
> blooming nature. You can find it with an AltaVista search on
> 'Chernobyl' and 'microrads' (www.kiddofspeed.com).
>
> 'Radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48,000 years,'
> Elena writes [or is it until the end of time?], 'but humans may begin
> repopulating the area in about 600 years, give or take three
> centuries'."
>
> Another piece in the same vein can be found, also very typical of the
> many phony"Leftist" and phony"Marxist" organizations closely connected
> with the imperialists, at the website "socialistworld.net", dated
> 14.04.2006.
>
> [http://socialistworld.net/eng/2006/04/14ukraine.html]
>
>
> From some recent articles pointing out what the Chernobyl event did
> show
>
> I'm including here, first, the abstract of an article by T. D. Luckey,
> the USA, which does not deal directly with Chernobyl but is of
> interest in this context anyway since it contains an *****sment by
> this well-known radiation expert, advanced in this year (2007),
> concerning what level of ionizing radiation is probably the best for
> human health:
>
> [http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=14806]
>
> "Do***ented optimum and threshold for ionising radiation
>
> Abstract: A concept of the complete dose-response curve of ionising
> radiation will allow us to live in harmony with this ubiquitous agent.
> Convincing data show ionising radiation is essential for life. Ambient
> levels of ionizing radiation (about 2 mSv/y without medical and cosmic
> radiation) are adequate for life but insufficient for abundant health.
> We live with a partial deficiency of ionising radiation. Thousands of
> people have lived for generations with 2–20 times the ambient levels
> of radiation without showing ill health. A conservative threshold, the
> maximum safe level of radiation, was estimated from abundant rodent
> data to be about 8000 mSv/y. When human and rodent data were collated,
> a conservative optimum of 60 mSv/y was obtained. Radiation levels
> greater than the threshold are harmful. The facts suggest that
> radiobiologists and governments should abandon the 'linear no
> threshold' (LNT) paradigm and accept natural and industrial low level
> sources of ionising radiation in order to promote abundant health."
>
> The reactionary governments of course, on the contrary, will continue
> to terrorize the people in the world, including massively damaging
> their health and including combating all modern energy sources.
>
> On 13.07.2007, Robert J. Cihak wrote, at the NewsMax website, on the
> Chernobyl event and related matters:
>
> [http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/underexposed_to_radiation/2007/07
/
> 13/17803 .html]
>
> "Are We Under-exposed to Radiation?
>
> Everyone's aware of overexposure to radiation, but can someone be
> underexposed?
>
> In a word, yes. A radiation shortage afflicts most of the human race.
> In his well-do***ented and entertaining book 'Under-Exposed: What If
> Radiation Is Actually Good for You?' engineer Ed Hiserodt accurately
> describes this pandemic.
>
> In round numbers, Americans absorb an average of about 0.3 rads [3 mSv
> - RM] worth of 'background' radiation every year from entirely
> natural sources such as cosmic rays and the naturally occurring
> potassium-40 in our bodies. For clarification, a rad is one measure or
> absorbed radiation, and in humans is essentially the same as a rem, a
> centisievert (cSv) or a centiGray (cGy) so I'll just use rads to
> minimize further confusion.
>
> Governments and the media almost routinely overreact to the word
> 'radiation.' For example, during the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
> accident in the former Soviet Union, the Soviet Army evacuated people
> from their homes if the radiation level exceeded a rate equivalent to
> 0.5 rads [5 mSv] per year. Yet if that level triggered evacuation
> elsewhere, Grand Central Terminal in New York City would be closed
> because of its 0.525 rads [5.25 mSv] radiation level.
>
> Traveling to or living on the Colorado plateau, at 0.6 rads [6
> mSv/year], would be illegal. Kerala, India, (1.3 rads [13 mSv] ) would
> be a ghost town. And, the popular Guarapari Beach in Brazil, at over
> 26 rads [260 mSv], would be off-limits to sunbathers and swimmers
> alike.
>
> In contrast to public and media misperceptions, more ionizing
> radiation would be good for us. The optimal dose is about 10 rads/year
> [100 mSv/year] , more than 20 times our current average dose,
> according to biochemist T. D. Luckey, Emeritus Professor and
> Biochemistry Department Chairman at the University of
> Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. " [As seen above, Luckey himself
> wrote: 60 mSv/year, in an article - RM]
>
> Particularly clearly, the correct conclusion concerning radiation
> caused by the Chernobyl event in regions somewhat distant from that
> disaster itself was drawn by Peter Fong, of Emory University, the USA,
> in an article in 1997, in which he also mentioned the beneficial
> consequences of the fact that in Colorado, the radiation level is
> somewhat higher than in most other parts of the USA:
>
> [http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR97/BAPSSES97/abs/S2000001.html]
>
> "The Ultimate Experiment Proving the Beneficial Effect of Low Level
> Radiation and Safety of Nuclear Power Plant: Serendipity of the
> Airborne Nuclear Weapons Test
>
> The cancer deaths per 100,000 U.S. population plotted as a function of
> time (year) over the past 60 years can be represented by a smooth
> curve except the years 1952-1978 where the data points fall below the
> smooth curve indicating a reduction of cancer deaths of a total of
> 418,000.
>
> This anomaly is traced, through the space-time correlation of the
> mortalities with the 48 States, to the airborne nuclear weapons tests
> (mostly in Nevada) during that period when 500 nuclear bombs were
> exploded in air, generating an extra amount of radiation of 30
> mrem/year [0.3 mSv/year - RM]. From this serendipitous experiment we
> deduce the law of the beneficial effect of low level radiation that a
> doubling of the background radiation (as in Colorado) [an addition of
> 0.3 mSv would not mean such a doubling; 3 mSv would do that -
> possibly, there was a writing error here - RM] will reduce cancer
> death rate by 24.3%. The actual rate of reduction in Colorado is 25%
> lower than the national average. Thus the law is verified.
>
> [Certainly, the nuclear-weapons tests by the imperialists were always,
> and are today, a very negative thing for the people in the world. It's
> ironic that they in some cases have actually had as one small side
> effect a certain improvement of the environment in some regions, and
> also that, as mentioned in one quote above, even the atrocities at
> Hiro****ma and Nagasaki in 1945 had similar effects in areas relatively
> far from the atom bomb explosions. - RM]
>
> In another aspect Kerala,India has a background radiation 20 times
> higher than normal and it has a life expectancy 10.7 years longer than
> average India, thus showing the great beneficial affect of low level
> radiation.
>
> Concerning the nuclear power plant safety, the 500 bombs exploded are
> equivalent to 50 Chernobyl type nuclear plant explosions, the results
> of which are the reduction of 418,000 cancer deaths. Thus the nuclear
> industry is absolutely safe under any catastrophic disasters that may
> befall on the 414 nuclear plant now operating on the earth.
>
> [Clearly true, as far as effects for most people are concerned, and an
> im****tant conclusion. The vile sabotage at Chernobyl in 1986 did kill
> some 50 people, serious enough. The likewise vile terror propaganda
> and pur****ted "countermeasures" after the event have killed many more,
> and caused much more serious material destruction. - RM]
>
> The beneficial effects of radiation have been taken advantage of in
> folklores and health practices in Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Germany and
> Colorado. These health practices can benefit from the radiation
> generated from nuclear power and the nuclear waste disposal problem
> can be solved by turning trashes into treasures."
>
> This no doubt will be done, on a large scale, under the future
> conditions of socialism in the world. At present - and who knows for
> how long - there are instead some "mutant chickens 2 metres high".
> (See a quote above). One "mutant chicken 2 m high" is the reactionary
> "manmade global warming" propaganda, now desperately being howled to
> high heaven as never before, another the continuing
> anti-nuclear-energy campaign including not least its big Chernobyl
> hoax part. And the phenomenon that's the very epitome and uncle of all
> "mutant chickens 2 m high" is the entire reigning social "order" of
> imperialism.
>
> [END OF QUOTE]
>
>
>
> 5. THE MAIN AND ARCH-REACTIONARY MOTIVE BEHIND THE PRESENT-DAY
> ANTI-NUCLEAR-ENERGY CAMPAIGN, DISCOVERED ON PRINCIPLE BY KARL MARX
> ALREADY BACK IN 1856/1881
>
> You wrote, glaparramatta, already early on in your posting to the MM
> list its message #1466:
>
> "Marx's call to liberation 160 years and still going strong
> <http://www.links.org.au/node/323>."
>
> Yes, in this you absolutely were right. This I liked very much.
>
> And concerning some im****tant things today, not least those of certain
> policies of the ruling reactionary bourgeoisie and of the so-called
> "green movement", he not least is going very strong. That's why I
> translated a certain (not all that well-known) speech of his, in
> London in 1856, into Swedish, and submitted this to MIA in 1996,
> together also with the version in German of it, taken from a volume of
> the well-known "MEGA", and asked the already "MIA"-active signature
> "Zodiac" if he had it in the original English, which he did, and soon
> put on to MIA, at that time suggesting to me privately, because of the
> situation in a certain international Internet political struggle then
> - the so-called "Quispe" fight (see my Info #121en, part 1/8 etc) -
> that there "was no need to mention his name in that connection". It
> does stand at MIA anyway, as the contributor of that Marx speech in
> English, which among other things contains these, in my opinion, very
> perspicacious and today very im****tant lines, which I think that not
> least people having "your" general political standpoint today,
> glparramatta, should note,
>
> [Swedish: http://www.marxists.org/svenska/marx/1856/peopleps.htm
>
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org/
>
> German:
> http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/marx-engels/1856/04/56-
peopp.htm
>
> English: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1856/04/14.htm]
>
> "Steam, electricity, and the self acting mule were revolutionists of a
> rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbès, Raspail and
> Blanqui."
>
> And:
>
> "This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand,
> modern misery and dissolution on the other hand; this antagonism
> between the productive powers and the social relations of our epoch is
> a fact, palpable, overwhelming, and not to be controverted. Some
> parties may wail over it; others may wish to get rid of modern arts,
> in order to get rid of modern conflicts. Or they may imagine that so
> signal a progress in industry wants to be completed by as signal a
> regress in politics."
>
> Likewise im****tant and notable today, from a first draft by Marx of a
> letter to Vera Zasulich in Russia in 1881
>
> [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm]
>
> "...the capitalist social system...in Western Europe as well as in the
> United States, [is] engaged in battle both with science, with the
> popular m*****, and with the very productive forces it engenders."
>
> It's that battle that today has become very intensive, and it's a
> global one.
>
>
>
> 6. ON THE BIG TURNING-POINT CONCERNING THIS, IN THE LATE 1960S / EARLY
> 1970S
>
> This I've written about in several earlier Infos. Here are some lines
> on it from my #287en,
>
> [QUOTE:]
>
> [Referring to the abovequoted speech by Marx in 1856:]
>
> Back in 1856 of course, only some feudalist forces were thinking and
> acting in this way.
>
> But from the early 1970s on, or even from the late 1960s on, some big
> forces of the imperialist bourgeoisie started doing it too, the US
> ones quite in particular. And today, this is how the entire
> imperialist bourgeoisie is thinking and acting, pu****ng these things
> further and further, in a most massive attack against practically
> everybody on earth.
>
> What has made them do this, and in what cir***stances did it start?
>
> It started out as more or less a direct reaction against that broad
> youth and student leftist movement in many countries in the late
> 1960s.
>
> In Germany and France, many young workers joined that movement; as you
> know, practically all of France was on strike during the entire month
> of May 1968, for instance, and in the USA, that movement was quite big
> too, wasn't it, and it was countered for instance by the CIA's (etc)
> pu****ng not only dope on a rather large scale - at Berkeley, I've
> read about, and there was such a phenomenon here in Sweden then too -
> but also an only pur****tedly "leftist" or "pro-environment", in
> reality reactionary, "new" ideology, the "green", anti-industrial, and
> at that time also openly anti-growth, one.
>
> What was the basis of that new leftist movement? Inspiration from the
> then ongoing Cultural Revolution in China, and disgust with the
> massive oppression and exploitation of the poorer countries, with the
> war against Vietnam in particular - in the USA, also disgust with the
> continuing racial oppression. And one im****tant part of its basis was
> also the fact that the productive forces in the most "advanced"
> countries had developed enormously in the last few decades. People
> thus saw no reason why everybody, in the future, shouldn't lead quite
> good lives, which at the time was far from the case.
>
> The beginning utilization of nuclear energy, not least, was an
> im****tant factor in this. You, for instance, David, happen to know
> about the - potential! - enormity of this thing, and so do I, having
> read about it as a teenager in the 1950s.
>
> As the well-known scientist Linus Pauling, for instance, wrote in
> 1954:
>
> "The discovery of the controlled fission of atomic nuclei and
> controlled release of atomic energy is the greatest discovery that has
> been made since the controlled use of fire was made by primitive man."
>
> And this discovery, which is making it possible to extract, very
> cheaply, practically limitless amounts of energy, the most im****tant
> stuff - technically speaking - for the entire modern civilization,
> making it possible also, technically speaking, to eradicate all
> poverty on earth and this within only a few decades, was made when
> there still reigned that extremely oppressive system of capitalism in
> its imperialist stage on this planet.
>
> [Added in this Info (#287en): On nuclear energy, see websites I'm
> linking to under "On nuclear energy" and earlier Infos of mine under
> "anti-nuclear-energy campaign" in my homepage section "Subjects in
> postings".]
>
> So in the late 1960s / early 1970s, the capitalists' political
> representatives started thinking: "Now what have we done, what genie
> is it that we've let out of the bottle; that steam and electricity, of
> which such enormous amounts are coming from those nuclear power
> plants, for instance, indeed are turning out to be the most horrible
> revolution-inducing stuff! We cannot have that much of it!"
>
> Which is why they started doing something which has never been seen in
> history before - at least not on any similar scale - *attacking* the
> (by far, even) very most modern and efficient (and also clean)
> technology in that vital field, that of energy, striving for technical
> *retrogression* and not for development.
>
> It wasn't only nuclear energy that they started attacking at that
> time; it was several other modern things too, and even economic growth
> in itself they began to attack openly, with for instance that infamous
> publication by the "Club of Rome" in 1972: "The Limits to Growth". But
> the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, that was the main target
> of those campaigns, their "flag****p target".
>
> And they started "selling" some scientifically most absurd notions to
> the public - that nuclear wastes constitute a "serious technical
> problem", that "we're running out of oil", even "out of natural
> resources as a whole", etc, etc this of course combined with a
> deterioration (an even further such) of the science education in the
> schools etc.
>
> [Added in this Info (#287en): On oil, see the website managed by J. F.
> Kenney, the French-language blog "le pétrole abiotique" and/or my Info
> #267en. On natural resources in general, see John McCarthy's website
> "Progress and Its Sustainability".]
>
> [http://www.gasresources.net/
>
> http://petrole-abiotique.blogspot.com/
>
> http://www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/]
>
> That was a new form of class struggle. Today it has been employed by
> the main forces of the bourgeoisie for over 30 years, and of course
> has caused mass unemployment - much over and above that which
> capitalism entails anyway - in the more highly-developed countries,
> and enormously increased misery - in fact mass murder - in the poorer,
> internationally-exploited countries, by making modern, and thus cheap,
> energy technology largely unavailable to the people there.
>
>
>
Har du ****at misshandla din pojkvän än?
--
---
Sometimes the only sane answer to an insane world is insanity.
- X-files
|
