Lg Commercial Steam Iron

The Chernobyl disaster: very probably sabotage

To continue on Chernobyl, by analyzing some mode of operation of a nuclear power plant, it is clear that it is most likely a sabotage.

A nuclear reactor is something very simple in principle and operation. it is never that of a metal rod that heats itself and is used to heat water and then run an electric turbine.

The only problem that can happen is that the tools used to control the nuclear reaction will fail, because in this case, there will be an explosion of steam, then water will hydrolyze (hydrogen separates the oxygen and then it may explode), and finally begins to melt uranium. To avoid this, there are two methods: 1) cool bars and moderate the nuclear reaction with a flow of water (hydrogen from water captures the neutrons that drive the nuclear reaction), 2) insert bars moderation (made of boron, but with pieces of graphite at Chernobyl) between the bar of uranium, to reduce the nuclear reaction (again by capturing the neutrons).

So the main problem is either to provide enough water so that the bars do not melt (water to be cooled the secondary circuit) is to stop the reaction with the boron rods. So it's a very simple problem. To control the flow of water, has several pumps (at least 8 to Chernobyl). In France, a pump alone is sufficient to ensure the cooling of the uranium. I do not know what it is exactly for these plants in Russia. But I think it should be roughly the same. We can count on a maximum order of two pumps for cooling the heart. And in addition, these pumps are usually aided by emergency pumps.


1) The official version

What is in front for Chernobyl is that the situation was not usual. Taking advantage of a scheduled shutdown of Unit 4 reactor, for routine maintenance, we wanted to determine whether, in case of loss of main power, the turbine idling could provide enough electricity to run emergency equipment and pumps for circulating water for cooling the core, until the emergency diesel generators can produce. This test was designed to determine whether the core cooling could continue to be insured in case of power loss. So, we say that these are decisions during this experiment were the cause of the disaster. Decisions which have been catastrophic as to cause some design flaws of the plant.

In fact, there have been several minor incidents that day (resulting in each time, before the final error leading to the disaster, a xenon poisoning of the heart). But it was around 1:23 that was located in a major incident that triggered the disaster. This is where the problem lies.

The official, prior to the implementation of the experiment, we removed all restraint bar, which was obliged to compensate for cooling uranium from the heart, put all the pumps at the bottom. Then, during the implementation of the experiment, at 1:23, at once, since the electric turbine has been slowed, 4 (those who were moved by the energy supplied by the turbine of the plant) of the 8 pumps were in turn slowed. It has increased the heat in the primary circuit, resulting in an unstable state of the reactor by increasing the amount of steam in the latter. To overcome this problem, a technician pressed the emergency stop button.

is presented as the error that started it all. All control rods are lowered into same time. But the problem is that the end of the control rods is made of graphite. However, very little graphite moderated nuclear reaction. And the control rods in question were the failure to descend rather slowly (20 seconds, 2 seconds cons in central western). So that during those few seconds, moderation is no longer (since there is more water to moderate the reaction, because instead, there is the bar graph and the boron rods are not yet in place). Therefore, the nuclear reaction was completely packed and was multiplied by 100 In seconds, reaching 300,000 MW. So, a large portion of the water turned into steam in seconds, causing an explosion. Then, under the influence of heat, steam was hydrolyzed, ie the hydrogen separated from oxygen. Finally, hydrogen, in contact with graphite overheated exploded, dispersing into the atmosphere a part of the radioactive fuel.


2) The problems with the official version

This version of things is fairly clean and logical. But if you scratch the surface of this varnish, one realizes that this is far from true.

Several questions arise:

1) How is the slowdown of 4 pumps caused an unstable state? What kind was it? Is having only 4 pumps running at full speed and 4 pumps weaker regime was insufficient to moderate and cool the heart with the bars removed moderation?

2) If this is so, why such a state was not expected? Yet it was perfectly predictable. It was not unusual to include such a thing. However, such a blunder was impossible, given the presence of many engineers and given the presence of more than likely a software expert warning of danger.

3) Why have lowered the control rods rather than having increased the power of the remaining pumps? Especially given the problem pieces of graphite control rods (known problem that Russian engineers). And if the problem was to get all the bars at the same time (known issue, so), why not have them down one after the other?

4) Why the downhill bars moderation he has not engendered the same kind of problem in power plants similar? Indeed, what seems to be a problem, not so much heat from the water, but the slow descent of graphite rod. If it passes the reactor for a few seconds to 300,000 MW, or 100 times the normal maximum, no matter how hot the water will be vaporized instantly.

What we actually said is that we put the reactor in a state where it was mandatory to run down all the bars in moderation, then, to stop the heart. Yeah, because if the lifting control rods required to put all the pumps at the bottom to avoid an accident, since we knew that stopping the turbine generator would slow to 4 pumps connected with its operation, remained only solution, lowering the bar for moderation.

From there, two possibilities. 1) is the increase in temperature of the water does not require the lowering of all the bars in moderation, and therefore did not require the shutdown of reactor. And in this case, one wonders why the operator has completed the shutdown of reactor. And we also wondered why there was explosion, since, as the water temperature does not require the shutdown of the reactor, it should not be hot enough to vaporize and cause the accident. Otherwise, it would have happened before in other central of this type or 2) it required the complete shutdown of the reactor (which was really not the purpose of the experiment). And in this case, one wonders why it took the reactor in this state, since it was perfectly predictable.

Obviously, if we could increase the flow instead of pumps to lower the control rods, one wonders why it has not been done.

We may also wonder why they did not anticipate that the slowdown of the pumps would occur and cause an unstable state. And why, then, they have not dropped a few control rods when they stopped the turbine, or why they did not increase the flow of remaining pumps (if possible, of course).

And before that, shortly before the establishment of the experiment, one might wonder why they did not come down rather few bars and had some moderation of pumps not operating at maximum, rather than riding all the bars and having all the pumps at most. It was a lot more sense. It would have allowed them, during the experiment, to have some leeway. Because they knew that some of the pumps was slow, it avoided a risk of overheating the water. Then we had time to start the generator relief to turn back the 4 pumps at the bottom. And at this point, we could trace all the control rods.

Moreover, one wonders how come there was no immediate replacement of the power of 4 pumps normally provided by the turbine of the plant, by the coming of emergency generators. This too should be expected. So they should not be surprised.

You might say that was the purpose of the experiment to determine what would happen in the event of loss of electrical power (due to the shutdown of the turbine generator) of certain elements vital for the plant. However, in this case, experience seems to experience the sorcerer's apprentice. It's like "we'll see how it feels if there is more energy to power pumps and backup systems. And if nothing happens before serious backup generators do start walking. " However, a priori, it is obvious that if we cut all that allows the plant to work properly, it will directly lead to a catastrophe. Or does the experience was not really that, but was to see if the emergency generator was working. In this case, he should have taken over immediately. And there was no downturn in 4 of 8 pumps.

And all this and more, ensuring that all cooling and calming the whole heart is provided by the pumps. We know that the pumps will reduce speed and we will not be able to accelerate before a few times. We know that they must be thoroughly to ensure proper cooling of the heart, and that any decrease could be a problem. But we did rest while cooling and calming the heart pumps. If we wanted to create an accident, you could not do better.

Moreover, France, cooling can be provided entirely by a single pump. So it seems very weird with 4 pumps still in full activity, and 4 pumps have only slowed, it has reached a critical situation.

In addition, the emergency stop may be used at other times. So that means that every time you press the button emergency stop while most of the control rod is withdrawn from the heart, you must obtain a Chernobyl-type accident.

All this is sewn white son. Whatever the situation possible, it is totally abnormal and led to think clearly about sabotage.

previous incidents in the day, causing an alleged contamination of the core Xenon, also lead to a finding of sabotage. There was there also no reason to get these incidents and therefore, the xenon poisoning. By cons, coincidentally, these incidents have served to justify the removal of several security measures that, thereafter, will be partly used to justify "the Accident" final. It

0:28, as the collapse of power of 500 MW to 30 MW has led to the deactivation of some automatic regulators to continue the experiment. So maybe we did it on purpose to have this power in order to collapse then override controls. Overriding controls that allow then to justify in part the "accident".


3) The liability transferred to the plant operators

Then, of course, as there was no reason that such a catastrophe happens, even if one party accuses the plant design, it puts the ultimate responsibility on the backs of the plant operators, who have taken the wrong decisions.

We do it based on an operator who would all of a sudden decided to get off the bars. But already he was not alone. So there would necessarily have been other operators who told him not to do so. And anyway, there's all that happened before, which makes the case for the incompetence of the operators very little credibility. And that makes it much more credible theory of sabotage voluntary.

That said, quickly, we operate a shift of analysis and is accused by the government is doing too which divides knowledge, which had put the plant manager by cronyism, that lack of means, technicians and engineers were poorly formed. In short, it is the fault not of chance, fate, the nature of things, etc. ... And there is no reason to make a very thorough investigation ... could hinder some people.

So we drown the fish.


4) A version likely, and those truly responsible

The version most likely is, therefore, that the Chernobyl disaster was due to sabotage. Incidents were created before the final catastrophe to remove automatic security measures. And the abolition of automatic security measures, added to the "error" of the technician who has lowered the bar all restraint at the same time then allowed to justify the disaster to the general public. On technicians, it is clear that a party should be part of the conspiracy.

As for the decision, it must come from the Russian government itself (and beyond, those who dominate global politics). The fact that the Government has made no investigation and did not mention the sabotage as a possible reason (while everything indicates that it is one) clearly indicates that the gun was his.

Why would the Russian government created this accident? Well, to give the final blow to the development of nuclear energy worldwide. These are not the Russians who specifically did it, but the clique that controls the government. And it worked. Nuclear power, which began to be strongly criticized, but whose supporters were still relatively strong, and whose public image was still fairly positive, has seen its development almost completely stopped in the world. There were Three Mile Island, which has already led to strong doubts about the safety of nuclear power, doubts relayed by environmental groups, Hollywood and the media. Chernobyl has come and deliver the coup de grace. It was the mega accident needed to kick off the development of nuclear power in the world. A bit like the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the pretext for the war in Iraq and the establishment totalitarian measures around the world (obviously attacks by the clique that runs the affairs of the world, not some poor Muslim terrorists armed with knives. But hey, given the number of sites on the subject, everyone knows that now. I did not come back).

Moreover, Gorbachev was the first sexton of Communist Russia, which has then under Yeltsin, the holdup of the oligarchs on the Russian economy. So things are all in the same direction. Gorbachev was an agent of those who dominate the political world. And to sabotage a nuclear plant to halt development of nuclear energy globally, for someone who was trying to liquidate the Soviet Russia was a really minor operation almost.

The fact that it was allowed to spread lies about the impact of the radioactive cloud of radioactivity in Europe shows that all European governments were in cahoots. Otherwise, it would have been easy to show how little impact it would result in, as I did in the previous section.

Finally, it is of course possible that none of this had to happen as not said officially, from near or far. After all, in the same kind, we know that there was no Boeing 757 flown by beginners who have flown 850 km / h at ground level, has completely engulfed in a window on the ground floor of the Pentagon, leaving only two or three pieces on the lawn before being completely annihilated by the flames, September 11, 2001. So, the outright lie is perfectly possible. Who knows if the uranium rods were not removed before the disaster, and we have not just blown the roof of the plant? Then, it was enough to show some pictures of the roof of the station with smoke escaping therefrom, a few films made by computer from the extension of the cloud in Europe, estimates peaks of radioactivity bidonnées, invented stories about the hundreds of thousands of workers took turns at the foot of the plant (that it might be true though. They did not need to lie specially above. But it can be as completely false). And since no one could check, and that in any way, such people would not have access to mass media, all this was as a letter in the mail. It is of course very possible that some plant operators who died shortly after the disaster, have been killed (by taking an overdose of drugs for example, or simply mixed with poison) so they do not speak. It was easy then to involve radioactivity as responsible for their deaths. Of course, this is only a hypothesis, but you never know.

Best Mahabhringaraj Oil

The influence of the Chernobyl disaster on the amount of radioactivity in Europe

I enjoy the blog, and also because I talked about the nuclear (indeed, I have not finished talking about) to address one thing that annoys me a long time (21 years actually): the problem of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on Europe and France.

Apparently almost nobody thought the next thing, which is nevertheless the domain of the most blindingly obvious, the first something we should think, since the dispersion of uranium was carried out on the whole of Europe (including seas), it would be so diluted that, except near the plant, the impact of being almost zero in terms of increased radioactivity.

Now, we have 70 tons of fuel in a power plant. The density of uranium is 19 tonnes per m3. So 70 tons are a volume of 3.6 m3. Say 4 m3 to simplify calculations. Apparently, at least half the fuel melted and remained in the Chernobyl plant. So it would only be 2 m3 who escaped from the plant by air. Apparently, part of the 2 m3 fell near the station and around a little further away. Suppose there were only 1 m3. It would mean a cube of 1 m3 would have contaminated the whole of Europe. This is totally ridiculous.

It would the equivalent of a bag of 1 m3 of uranium powder (and other radioactive elements) that was dispersed over 10 million km2 (the size of Europe) and it would have increased in enormous proportions radioactivity and that would have endangered the people who have eaten the plants harvested at that time. At the outset, we say that is nonsense. But do the math.

To get to cover the equivalent of 10 million square kilometers (10 trillion sq since a square mile equals one million square meters) with a cube of 1m3, it would take 10 trillion square 1m2 and 1 / 100 000 000 th of a millimeter thick, 10 picometers (10 x 10-12 meters). So, on every square meter of europe, there would deposit a film thickness of 10 picometers uranium and other radioactive elements.

In terms of weight, it is therefore (since 1 m3 of uranium weighs about 20 tons), 20 tonnes divided by 10 trillion, or 2 millionths grams per m2. However, in granitic and sedimentary rocks, the proportion of uranium is 3 grams per ton of rock. Therefore, the increase in radioactivity was necessarily ridiculous.

According to Wikipedia, a garden square of side 20 meters (400 square meters) contains about 10 meters deep, 24 kg of uranium. So, 400 times 2 millionths of a gram, that is 800 millionths of grams of added to the garden, or 0.000003%. Of course, there is more surface. Therefore, calculate a meter, it is 0.00003% of radioactivity and more. 0.0003% and 10 centimeters. In short, it is in the background.

Given that there are as uranium in concrete in the rock (since the concrete is composed of rocks), and considering the thickness of 10 cm, so an individual receives from him 3,000 times more radiation per year because of the ground and walls of his apartment only because of Chernobyl. If he goes for a single half-day on the mountain, where often there are two times more radioactivity than plain, he will receive more radioactivity than that caused by additional one year by the Chernobyl cloud.

Although it was slightly more concentrated in streams, it remained the domain of background noise. Moreover, the Rhone single-handedly carries 100 tons of uranium per year (see Wikipedia), or 5 times as much as 20 tons distributed throughout Europe. And there

3mg of uranium per cubic meter of seawater is 1000 times more uranium than the amount that was deposited on 1 m 2 of ground because of Chernobyl. So when you bathe in the sea, assuming that the duration of the holiday, we stayed 24 hours in, we take 2.7 (1000 divided by 365) times the radioactivity taken over one year because of the disaster Chernobyl. And certainly many more, since we are mostly in apartments, therefore, areas or dust in question is not returned, be returned, but was quickly removed from the initial vacuum.

And besides, France, the cloud was at an end. It was supposed to have gotten rid of most of its radioactive dust. So we can safely rely on a quantity 10 times less radioactive material.

I do not know, but it's really the first thing that comes to mind when we speak of a dispersion on this scale. Is the volume set is not too small to be completely diluted? Because, even when we talk about Europe as a whole, not a few kilometers squares.

Instead of making these reflections based in France, everyone focuses on the fact that the cloud had crossed the border, contrary to what the government said, believing themselves very smart (like us, we do we did not).

And that's where everyone was distraught at the time.

In fact, believe that uranium has contaminated the Chernobyl across Europe at enormous rate, is like believing that one or a few bags of fertilizer could fertilize all agricultural land in Europe. Anyone would react immediately and say that it is anything, it's ridiculous. But with Chernobyl, no.

Loss Of Normal Cervical Lo Lordosis

The hoax of global warming is used to accept high oil prices

What is the lie about global warming? In reality, to accept the high price of oil in particular, and hydrocarbons in general. And in fact it is even better. It is even to be desired by people who believe in this theory.

According to the model in question, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which cause global warming. And the latter is presented as a phenomenon with catastrophic consequences. However, consumption of oil is the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, someone who cares about global warming will desire a lower consumption of these hydrocarbons. And what better way (apart from an authoritarian decision) to get that down a price increase?

So, this person will be happy that oil prices rise, since it will mean a drop in consumption and therefore lower CO2 production. This person will accept more readily the high oil prices. Either low case (if the person is moderately involved), it will find it hard, but she said that at least it will fight against global climate. Either high case (if the person is highly involved), the person will applaud the arrival of oil price increases. She ardently wish.

is even better than the theory of peak oil. It can present high prices of oil as a fatality. So it allows to accept the increase by the people. The theory of global warming, it allows outright desire to rising oil prices by the people. It is more passive and it eventually becomes active side of the oil industry. It is even harder. But hey, it's not so much to do even better but rather to have two theories that work together to accept the high price of oil.

course, in reality, those hopes are dashed. Rising oil prices will not lead to a decrease in consumption (the rise is of course carefully controlled and limited to such a thing does not happen). It will only result in huge profits for the oil industry.

course, it can lead to other developments, if we go further into hysteria on global warming. It can afford to accept draconian laws by citizens on behalf of the fight against global warming. So the hysteria to a potential which is not confined to the mere adherence of people to higher oil prices. Anyway, in fact, it already fits the kind of current climate of fear (fear of terrorism, fear of new diseases, fear of man-made disasters, etc ...) which is one of the elements allow to pass draconian laws to put safety first.

For more information on lies about global warming, see the blog http://www.climat-sceptique.com/

Coca Tea Legal In America 2010

Those who lie about the origin of Oil also seek to reduce the production of nuclear energy

The hidden power that lies at the origin of oil does, ultimately, to control people. If a nation decides to appoint headed by a leader who is not a representative of this occult power, it can cut the supply of oil and gas and thus make the knee economy. Moreover, a country that has more fuel is invading a country that can easily. So not only may cause unrest in the population due to the collapse of living standards, but it may be more militarily crush the country.

Nuclear power threatens this strategy . Indeed, it is possible, with nuclear, to have enough fuel for a few years. And it would be even more true with plants breeder. It would then be difficult for this occult power to collapse the economy. Especially with the Fischer-Tropsch process, it is possible for a country to use its coal resources (resources fairly well distributed worldwide) and nuclear power to produce oil.

So the clique that rules the world does not at all interested in what is developing nuclear power in the world. Instead, it has an interest in that it has an extremely small share in energy production.

It is therefore logical that we have witnessed the growth from thirty years of very strong criticism of nuclear power, and that these criticisms have led everywhere in Europe except in France (for moment), a trend away from nuclear power in countries with power, and its non-development in the country does not possess.

What leads the abandonment of nuclear power in reality? Well, its replacement by plants running on fossil fuels: coal, gas and possibly oil. If we take the example of Germany, the abandonment of nuclear power, voted in 2002, will lead the coming years to build 45 power plants and improved 200. Of course, at the same time, we create a smokescreen by pretending that pushes renewable energy. But ultimately, those are the power stations to oil that are favored most.

Obviously, that's all profit for the oil industry. Most importantly, the country becomes more dependent on outside with nuclear power plants.

All movements that lead to the abandonment of nuclear power are clearly paid by the occult power, as well as politicians (not environmentalists) who are receptive to this kind of discourse. As it is environmentalists who criticize mainly nuclear, we can say safely that their leaders are corrupt and paid by the occult power to encourage the replacement of nuclear power by electricity obtained through oil.

PS: it is also quite clear that the power in question has sought to minimize the sources of uranium. Presumably, as with oil, there are exploitable uranium mines anywhere on earth. Similarly way, this occult power to believe that uranium mining resources are very limited (between 30 and 60 years at current rate of consumption). While it is likely that there is infinitely more, as for oil. Besides, of course, we can obtain uranium from the sea

Board Freeones Milena Velba

kerogen: the problem of the quantity of carbon necessary to its formation

By learning about the official theory about the transformation of plant oil and coal, it becomes clear that implies the presence of huge quantities of carbon in the Carboniferous era. Indeed, to obtain quantities of fossil carbon that already important is the form of coal, oil, gas, etc ..., the official theory says it should constitute a much more important fossil carbon in the form of kerogen.

1) The massive amounts of carbon present on earth in the carboniferous implied amount of kerogen present in soil

For the amount of kerogen present in the soil, the official oil theorists have already made a estimate. There would 10 million billion tonnes of kerogen in the crust (10 power 16). As kerogen is mostly carbon, we can say that it is almost the same in terms of quantity of carbon.

In the official model in question, the biomass was pumped into the air a quantity of carbon equivalent to the amount of kerogen formed: about 10 million billion tons of carbon. So, we are told that there were ten million billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere and soil were found in the crust via the burial of plants. Let

thus the amount of carbon currently present on earth, both in soil than in air.

39,000 Gt of carbon in the oceans
2000 Gt of carbon in the biosphere (plants and animals: including 600 Gt of living organisms and a priori 1400 GT consist of detritus)
750 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere

Total: about 42,000 Gt (gigatons)

Over 30 million Gt of carbon in the lithosphere (ie the earth's crust, it is mainly limestone)
And 10 million Gt of fossil carbon (kerogen, coal, oil, gas, etc ...)



So we are currently about 42,000 Gt of carbon by land, sea and air (excluding carbon fossil). Is already 238 times less than the carbon of the kerogen.

But in fact, remove the carbon from the oceans of the problem. Indeed, the carbon in the oceans and land, carbon is ultimately pumped into the atmosphere. These amounts are added to the mass of carbon lost by the atmosphere. This is in addition to the 10 million Gt of fossil carbon present in the earth. So ultimately, we have 10 million Gt of fossil carbon + 30 million Gt of carbon in rock + 39 000 Gt of carbon in the wonders pumped into the atmosphere. Consider that 39,000 Gt oceans are negligible compared to the carbon stored in the lithosphere. was therefore 40 million Gt of carbon from the atmosphere and stored in the crust.

Also, where does the carbon in biomass? CO2 from the air, primarily. So the source of renewal is in fact mainly CO2 in the air.

So, the source of carbon in biomass which could be pumped to form kerogen is only the atmosphere. So, more than 750 Gt

course, lithosphere rebroadcast via volcanoes, 0.1 Gt per year of carbon (carbon, according to the official theory is the one who ended up buried in the lithosphere. So , this is not an inflow). But as the balance is negative to the lithosphere (0.3 against 0.1 Gt Gt injected reissued), anyway, it's the atmosphere that provides carbon to the lithosphere and not the reverse.

This means that the kerogen contained about 13,300 times more carbon than the amount of carbon present on Earth that can serve as a source for biomass. If we add carbon to the lithosphere in the form of carbonate rock (30 Gt), that means there are 53,300 times more carbon in the lithosphere in the atmosphere.

So it causes a big, huge problem. It means Carboniferous say that there was in the atmosphere 53,300 times more carbon than now.

This is completely absurd. In fact, it seems that the official model, biomass, or invents the atmosphere of carbon. There would be creation ex nihilo of carbon. There would be 300 Mt of carbon that disappear each year in the land (according to the source Wikipedia). What should have resulted in hundreds of millions of years to tens of millions of Gt of carbon buried. And those 300 come from outer space Mt. biomass or the atmosphere would have a magic power to create carbon. And theorists would never occupied with the problem of the origin of carbon. Of course, under these conditions of total lack of reflection on this subject, the question of where do the massive amounts of carbon that was originally in the atmosphere does not arise (indeed, given that it seems that carbon goes only in one direction, from the atmosphere to the lithosphere, one wonders how anyone could have initially an equal quantity of carbon into the atmosphere).


2) The incredibly lucky to still have carbon in the atmosphere despite the loss it has been over the ages

So in fact, there would be a loss huge carbon from the atmosphere. This would tend to disappear into the earth. But, coincidentally, there is a time when we are lucky to still have enough carbon to there being life on earth.

calculate the amount of kerogen formed each year to obtain the total amount of kerogen present. There were 10 million billion tons of kerogen formed over 360 million years (early Carboniferous). It's been 10 billion tons lost every 360 years. Either 1 billion every 36 years. So about 28 million tons every year.

On the side of the atmosphere, there are 750 billion tons of carbon. So with the pumping of carbon from the atmosphere by plants required to obtain the amount of kerogen present, all 36 years, it loses 1 billion tons of carbon and therefore, after years 750x36 is to say, after 27,000 years, there will be more CO2 in the atmosphere .

short, we have a chance absolutely incredible. At about 27,000 years near, there was more carbon in the atmosphere and life on earth disappeared. It would have been enough that at times the pace was faster, so we're not here to talk about. Wow, what incredible opportunity. Because that 27,000 years, across the earth, there is nothing at all.

And in any case, the rhythm disappears when the carbon in 27,000 years, unless you reject a good amount in the atmosphere, there will be more carbon.

And in fact, maybe even less than that. Given that ultimately, there are 300 million tons of carbon sink into the ground as the official model (300 to form carbonate rocks, 100 to form the kerogen, which are less than 100 re-emitted by volcanoes from carbonate rocks ) was in reality 10 times less time than that before the carbon has completely disappeared the atmosphere. So in reality, it would only 2,700 years of carbon into the atmosphere before us.

All this is absolutely ridiculous.

3) The amount of carbon that implies it is compatible with life?

Conversely, it means that every 27,000 years preceding our era, the amount of CO2 increases the amount present . There are 0.036% of carbon into the atmosphere. So there are 270 million years ago, there were 10,000 times more. Or 360%. There were 3.6 times more carbon than all other elements contained in air (nitrogen and oxygen). And there are 360 million years ago, it was 479%, almost 5 times more. So, a priori, there was no one living thing on earth. Unless of course, that living beings can live with such a large proportion of carbon. A priori this is not the case. So one wonders how early dinosaurs may have occurred.

If one adds the amount of carbon in carbonate rocks, we multiply this figure by 4% or 1916 there are 360 million years.

And if we take the official figures of the annual transfer of carbon to the soil (10 times higher than the figure required to arrive at the amount of kerogen present) we arrive at the figure of 4790%.

Above that problem, we have official figures on the rate of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are 4.25 billion years, there have been 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere. And we would have had only 3% there a billion years. So the figures we can deduce the amount of kerogen (and carbonate rocks) does not fit at all with the official figures.

4) Why do not we see the amount of carbon decline over millions of years?

should also be noted that since the plant carbon into the earth, it would of attending a gradual decline in the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere on all of the 360 million years ago . And with a very precise amount of about 0.144% of the current atmosphere every 27,000 years (the amount of carbon lost in the lithosphere during this period; kerogen + carbonate rocks). See about 0.36%, using the figure of 300 million net tonnes of carbon lost annually in the lithosphere. But precisely this is not the case. CO2 levels remained relatively stable (with the addition of lifts at times) over time.

5) More than CO2, but climate colder

the way, if carbon was present as CO2, as we are told that CO2 is responsible for global warming, it would be a tremendous heat there are 360 million years. However, precisely the Carboniferous period is supposed to be a rather cold, with a portion of the continents under the ice (Africa and South America). He should know.

is probably the reason why the official theory says there were only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere there is a billion years. Otherwise, yes, with a much higher rate, it would be a problem regarding the temperature of the climate, the official model, there are 360 million years.

Hair Doo For Grecian Dress

debris of bacteria in oil, other questions

Moreover, one can ask more questions when these biological debris.

course, we saw that it was very possible that there are bacteria living in the land that would have contaminated the oil.

But insofar as the amount of organic debris should be small, one wonders how scientists are doing to detect them. These bacteria are primarily made of carbon. Yet, precisely, they swim in a sea of oil, which is also mainly carbon, such as bacteria in question. And we wonder how it's done so well to distinguish these carbonaceous debris from the rest of the carbon. Both distinguish

lead, or sulfur, which are very different carbon and have a molecular weight also very different, okay. Distinguish different types of compounds in the oil present in significant quantities, okay. But successfully identifying the tiny fragments of bacteria, which should not represent more than a few billionths of the total mass of oil, there is much doubt. Apparently, using chromatography to the identification. Is that is specific enough to successfully identify these compounds present in minute traces in the middle of lots of other carbon compounds? It begs the question.

So it begs the question of the possibility of identifying the actual traces of biological organisms in oil. And if the remains are not identifiable, the story of biological evidence could simply be a lie invented to counter easily people asking questions. Maybe people knowing that the official theory is false, expressed concern about the weakness of the theory in question and were told he had to invent evidence. Evidence obtained with complicated equipment and therefore, few people would question it.

also provided for the remains lately (for example, the remains of bacteria living in the Earth's crust), we can accept that it was not distorted. Both for bacteria remains dating back hundreds of millions of years, frankly, they should have been destroyed or recombined with the oil, since that time. So, if indeed there was debris, it would be justified much more easily with the theory of bacteria living in the Earth's crust with the official theory.

Last Posting Day For Australia

biological debris in oil, so-called proof of the orgine biological thereof

According to the official theory of oil, there would be biological debris that would fall into the oil. And, according to the official theory, it proves that oil is of biological origin. That would be the remains of bacteria that were there originally.

But it is by no means an argument refuting the theory of abiotic oil. To make this refutation, there should be no other explanation possible when the presence of these traces. Now we can explain that to at least two other ways.

1) It is possible that these are only biological contamination once the oil came to the surface. Or via the tube wells, which are certainly not kept in sterile conditions.

2) It has been shown that there are bacteria living in the stone to great depths. So it could be simply a contamination during the ascent of oil to the pocket where it will stand. This contamination during ascent is a more than likely. And even once in the reserve, oil is likely to be contaminated. So now, we are sure these bacteria will be found in the oil during extraction.

So this argument that supporters of oil would biotic final, is no absolutely not.

Red Flower British Pm

Some information from an engineer Schlumberger

The chance would have it, a few months ago during a family reunion, I learned quite a distant member of my family there that night, worked for Schlumberger. He worked in oil exploration as an engineer for dozens of years, traveling from one place of production to another. So he's very experienced in this field of oil exploration.

During the meal, the discussion drifted to his work. We then issued some information, not fundamental, but interesting.


Petroleum Exploration

On oil exploration and the possibility of finding new fields, we were treated following the revelations. In fact, I think he talked about it when it came about world oil reserves.

1) Wanting to show us that we are far from having explored everything and can easily fall into new wells, even in areas of major production, he gave us the example of an independent company acquired a concession to Shell Offshore North and found a large oil fields.

2) Idem. He said that Saudi Arabia has been little explored. He gave us the example of a well found by chance between two production zones, just 15 km. This shows that only 15 km from the deposits in question had not been explored. So much for the myth of the total grid area of the most important production. And if even the most productive areas were not squared, one can imagine other areas.

It goes in the direction of the idea that there is still plenty of oil to find, and that Shell and other companies do not hurry too much for find new fields.

For the case of fields in Norway, it was probably expected to find oil and that the dealership sold by the Shell was a company effectively controlled by Shell, allowing it to pay less taxes. Otherwise, why would sell Shell a concession which is suspected of finding oil so it can make itself the exploration and reap substantial profits after the discovery?

He also told us that the power of the financiers had slowed the search for new deposits for 20 years.

So the search for new deposits has been deliberately slowed down. It has nothing to do with the fact that we would find nothing. And if the search was slowed during the past 20 years, this is not because we do not find anything, but because of the financial decisions of the heads of these companies. If you want to be on the plane not conspiracy, it's normal. The ancient wells already provided the perfect application. And it is clear to return to the idea of conspiracy, that if we had done research in non-producing countries, most would become independent, thus destroying the international oil business and political control that allows the different nations. And even in producing countries, the proliferation of wells would have led to a collapse in oil prices.

Regarding oil exploration in France, he told us that France has been little explored.

So the idea that France was explored and fro across and we have found nothing is wrong.


Quantity barrels from which a well is profitable

We speak of oil in France, while another family member asked if these wells should not make much were profitable, he we learned that a well in the Paris region is profitable after 10 barrels per day, even at 2000 meters . And, even with oil prices at $ 25. It's very easy to drill. We were amazed. But it was something so obvious to him that the coup is as if speaking to some guys who arrive completely. Of course, it reflected the cost of exploration.

It changes greatly from what is heard saying in general. In general, we hear that a well must go to be enormously profitable, especially if it is deep. A well of 2000 meters is presented as very deep and we can imagine it is very expensive and should make it at least, say 500 or 1,000 barrels per day to be profitable (well, at least at least a few hundred barrels per day).

So a shallower wells, the threshold of profitability must be even lower. Probably 5 bbl / day.


On the offshore oil African

We learned that terrestrial sinks in Congo had been abandoned in favor of offshore wells because the oil company was too embarrassed by the rebels.

So, as I mentioned earlier, we leave out the wells onshore for offshore wells, which are much less easily controlled by the African authorities, which allows the sale of oil which has not been reported to government authorities of the country. This will therefore make more profit.

On the history of the rebels, it is clear that this is a pretext. One can think of three possibilities.

Let the attack by rebels of the wells is a pure invention, or a very strong exaggeration on the part of the company to have a reason to justify the abandonment of wells. Given the power of oil companies, it is unclear they have difficulty to protect their wells.

Either it is a reality. But in this case, one wonders who is behind. Probably a power that has an interest in the company abandons the field. It is unclear just rebels without a sub dare attack a power that could easily reduce them to ashes. There would therefore necessarily a power back. But given that oil company executives are certainly part of the clique that runs the world affairs in hand, there is no other power that would be likely to develop such an attack. So it is not credible.

Either it's both. Rebels have actually attacked the wells of the oil company. But they were paid by it for the thing is done and the oil company has a reason for the abandonment of wells onshore.

What Does Mean Red Flower That Everybody Wears

Lindsey Williams: agent of influence or honest man?

Obviously, there is the credibility of what Lindsey Williams said.

1) This book is there a complete invention?

course, Lindsey Williams could lie. It could be a kind of "false flag" business can rise to deceive people. We saw that for example for September 11 where people who present themselves as dissenting from the official are actually government agents.

But we must see that the book was published in 1980, therefore, at a time when power had total control over information. At this point, it was the era of mass media kings and their influence on public opinion was absolute. The power had won the information war. Without access to newspapers, radio and television, dissident voices were relegated to an audience of small groups. So, the power had no interest in inventing a story as this one. Nobody could get out of this case. And even if someone would release it would have been confined to a confidential hearing (what happened to Lindsey Williams, since virtually no one has apparently never heard of). Out such a story just to prevent the release of a real case, a case which could easily have been buried, it would shoot itself in the foot in a completely delusional, so it was useless.

So, under these conditions control of information, we do not see too what would have been the interest of the thing. It could have been used to light a fire-cons, in case someone else would have had inclinations to leave a case similar. But at the time, nobody or almost nobody knew about such matters. So the government should have issued a book for use against fire when there was no fire and it was not likely to be there (because if the book was a book done by the container government, it would mean that no independent person has never released a book on the subject). In short, the idea of a book published to manipulate public opinion seems a priori absurd (course of time, the government plans are very tricky, so you can never say never).

And then, the oil company or the government would have refuted his claims. What has apparently never been done.

So, a priori, Lindsey Williams is telling the truth.


2) The company would be innocent?

Another question arises. Lindsey Williams tells us that the manager told him it was the government that forced the company operating the Prudhoe Bay (ARCO) not to use or exploit the sub-fields of Kuparuk and Gull Island and do not reveal reservations in these places, and that the company had no part in these decisions. I think not. The most senior officials of the company would have to be aware and active in the decision process leading to the non-exploitation (Gull Island) or under exploitation (Kuparuk) of these deposits.

As a priori, Lindsey Williams is not lying, in my opinion, there are two possibilities:

1) The official who found the pot to the roses in Lindsey Williams saw that he had made a mistake, sought to mislead into believing that it was only the government was behind when he knew the company was also involved. But if he was involved, then it would not make the ball in question. So this assumption does not hold.

2) The charge to which Lindsey Williams has dealt was honest and he himself was misled by officials higher up, which made him believe that was the big bad government, not companies. That's why the manager has revealed the matter to Lindsey Williams. He was not aware he had to hide this stuff at people outside the company. Then, its hierarchy, told him especially not to speak of this discovery, and provided as the reason, the fact that it was the government who was behind this decision. And then, with pressure from his superiors, he asked Lindsey Willliam reveal nothing. Sounds like the version most likely.

Indeed, it can be a way to control high officials, but more or less honest. For such people, that kind of decision comes from the government, it may be the reason of state. Whereas if it came only from the company, it would be treason.

Similarly, if it came from the company and the government, it would be the plot. What could cause the indignation of honest and courageous and encouraging reactions of termination of the case. So it's probably smarter to put concerned only the government.

And if it comes from the government alone, a guy who wants to speak knows he can not go to the authorities and worse, he'll have all the secret services of the government against him. It calms passions. Whereas if only one company is involved, we may decide to go more quietly authorities of the state, see the papers, to prove the case. Involving the government alone can have a reaction to submission to authority (it accepts the idea that the ways of government, such as the lord works in mysterious) and fears about the immense power that represents the state.

course, Lindsay Williams is a cons-example, since he spoke. But, a priori, it was a person who is particularly pure, courageous and naive with respect to government action. And it was not financially linked to the oil company. Most other people are more cynical, less courageous, and derive their income from the oil company. So the likelihood of this kind of people talking is almost nil.

Here, in this case, the reason was the influence of so-called environmentalists. Therefore, the matter was not even suspicious. It was not even presented by the government as a lie, as the concealment of the truth. It was just an unfortunate problem of influence of environmentalists. What fate, and the annoying problems of politics.

Finally, if there was still the fact of lying to the American people on the reserves present in the area. But much of the case remained near normal.

In any case, we see that the oil companies are quite likely to lie about the state of their reserves. They are quite capable of lying on giant fields that could make the U.S. independent in oil.