The Nuclear Debate

On the brink of a Nuclear Holocaust

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. We always comfort ourselves with those words every time we feel we are about to confront inevitable demise. As of this writing, a fourth loud explosion rocked Fukushima and fears of possible nuclear meltdown skyrocketed as levels of radiations increased a hundred fold. All workers have already been evacuated from the power plant, while a mass exodus of foreigners scrambling for flight home.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

What is Nuclear Power Technology?

Basically, it is the utilization of energy produced by splitting the atom in a process known as nuclear fission. The energy derived is in the form of heat which will then be used to produce steam or water vapor. Enough steam pressure can drive a turbine coupled to an electrical alternator hence the production of electricity available for distribution to power industrial productions, as well as commercial and domestic applications. The most obvious reason for installing a nuclear plant is its low operating cost which would translate to cheaper rate per kilowatt of power for the consumers. The disadvantage is the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown.

Proponents of nuclear power contend that nuclear power plant design can be made safe enough to prevent accidents or meltdowns like what had happened in Chernobyl, Russia. Multiple Containment System and fully automatic and redundant safety mechanisms are just few of the measures being incorporated into later designs. But these were not enough in the case of Fukushima which is now confronting a very high possibility of a meltdown due to failures on the emergency power systems, critical in supplying power to water pumps to cool off the reactors, which were flooded earlier by tsunami.

The splitting of the atom is an unnatural process of harnessing power from Nature. Nature itself operates in exactly the opposite. Consider for example how a tornado is formed. First, there’s the difference between atmospheric pressures due to a difference in temperature. Higher pressure gas moves toward the lower pressure gas. If there are two points of warm air and the cooler air is in between them, both warm air move towards the center, and eventually collide, initiating an action that is repeated until a circular motion is achieved as a natural consequence towards equilibrium. It must be understood that the origin of circular motion emanates from the periphery towards the center, the former being slower than the latter. The center or the “eye” of a tornado rotates at a much higher velocity than at its periphery. This is the most interesting part because the spiral rotation from the outside towards the inside results in a negative pressure or suction potential. That’s why it behaves like a supergiant vacuum pump, sucking everything in its path, whenever there’s a landfall.

This spiral rotation is replete thoughout the entire body of Nature, i.e. from the humble seashells to galaxies.

What this means is that, the invisible force we call energy is moving in spiral.This spiral movement towards the center axis, which inspires coherence and unity, is the cause of all Creations. In contrast, the opposite outward movement means decreation or destruction. (Please refer to the table below.)

On the other hand, consider how we design our machineries. Let’s look at a simple electric motor with a grinding stone attached to it. This very useful abrasive tool is rotated from its center towards the periphery, or is being subjected to an outbound force, i.e. centrifugal force. This is exactly the reverse of nature’s tornado which uses centripetal force or inbound force. Every grinding wheel is rated to a maximum operational RPM (maximum rotations per minute) for safety considerations. Going beyond the rated RPM will increase its outward driving force (i.e. centrifugal) and may result to partial or total disintegration.

The splitting of the grinding stone is akin to the splitting of the atom in a nuclear reactor. To summarize the differences between natural and manmade machines, please refer to the following table:

Manmade Machineries Natural Phenomena

Outward Rotation

Centrifugal Force

Heat or Positive Temperature



Positive Pressure



Inward Rotation

Centripetal Force

Cold or Negative Temperature



Negative Pressure / Vacuum



The splitting of the atom or Nuclear Fission Technology, like the one use in Fukushima Power Plants, therefore is not the best method of harnessing the energy from the atom. It is unnatural and destructively dangerous. But then, isn’t it that tornadoes and cyclones or typhoons are destructive, too? Yes, it is so destructive to manmade structures indeed. That’s why we need to redesign our architectural mentality, and should follow Jacque Fresco’s ideas. Trees in the countryside have existed for thousands of years and still standing, until we came of course. Such is the destructive character of man. When will we ever learn?

The Nuclear Transition

Abruptly abandoning nuclear reactors is not feasible for some countries like Japan which satisfies 70% of its power requirements from nuclear energy. There must be a saner approach – one that still utilizes the present structures while operating it in a much safer way without relying on prayers and sheer luck. This is where the NuCell Technology comes in.

About two decades ago, a young inventor named Paul M. Brown obtained a patent for…

“A nuclear battery in which the energy imparted to radioactive decay products during the spontaneous disintegrations of radioactive material is utilized to sustain and amplify the oscillations in a high-Q LC tank circuit is provided. The core is fabricated from a mixture of three radioactive materials which decay primarily by alpha emission and provides a greater flux of radioactive nuclide.”


Yeah, it’s a mouthful. Basically, what it means is that, all radioactive materials can be used to generate electricity, and as a consequence, nuclear wastes can be converted back to its former non-radioactive glory. And in the process, a bigger amount of energy can be generated. And did I mention its sheer microscopic size?

“The primary object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus for the direct conversion of the energy of radioactive decay to electric energy.

Another object is to provide an electric power source which is small, compact, reliable, lightweight, self-contained and rugged and therefore adaptable for use in automobiles, homes, industrial, agricultural and recreational applications and satellites.”

Roughly speaking, upon reading the patent, a 5kg. NuCell (nuke waste + circuitry + packaging) could produce an output equivalent to 20kW of A.C. Power, enough to power all electrical appliances in an average size homes! Of course, this design could still be improved.

“Still another object is to provide an electric power source capable of providing large amounts of power for long periods of time with little or no maintenance or refueling required.”

What? No refueling?

Did I misread that?

But it is already patented as early as May 30, 1989, and you can download a copy here. So, why on Earth then are they not using it? Why are they still trying to pollute the Pacific with Nuclear Wastes when there is already a technology that could neutralize radioactivity? Does Greenpeace know this? Or are they part of a regulated dissent mechanism designed to fool us into believing that the only alternative to Middle East Oil is the mammoth Wind Farms and gigantic Solar Panels, both of which are manufactured by the same multilayered companies that are selling oil and are very expensive nonetheless?

Sadly, Paul Brown will never see the day his hard work had saved mankind from possible total extinction for he died in an “accidental car crash” on April 7, 2001. It should therefore be our task to bring this wiser Nuclear Transition Strategy to public light for the benefit of your grandchildren and mine. And bring those who murdered him to justice.

Thank you for bearing with me, for I have successfully turned this age-old debate into a fertile monologue.

(I think I forgot to tell you about Cold Fusion. Maybe next time. See you soon!)

Update (20 March 2011):

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium

A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

– The Telegraph


Health & Medicine - Top Blogs Philippines

One thought on “The Nuclear Debate”

We do appreciate sensible comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.