➡ The text discusses the Rutherford experiment, which aimed to prove the existence of atomic nuclei by shooting light at gold foil. However, the author argues that the experiment only proved that some radiation passed through and some reflected back, not necessarily proving the existence of the atom. The text also questions the reality of nuclear bombs, suggesting that the mushroom cloud is not proof of nuclearity but rather the size of the explosion. Lastly, the author discusses alchemy as a science of transformation, contrasting it with modern science’s focus on atoms as the building blocks of creation.

➡ The text discusses the process of using fuel pellets in nuclear power plants to slowly release energy, creating heat without producing light, sound, or waste. The author argues that nuclear power is safe and efficient, and doesn’t relate to nuclear bombs. They also discuss the political implications of the nuclear narrative, suggesting it’s used as a form of psychological warfare. Lastly, they briefly touch on the operations at CERN, which involves shooting energy at matter and observing the results.

➡ The text discusses the nature of electricity, radiation, and their relationship with elements like fire, air, water, and metal. It questions the traditional understanding of electrons and suggests that electricity is more like a fluid. The conversation also touches on the workings of a Geiger counter, which detects high-frequency energy, and the concept of radiation as different light frequencies. Lastly, it delves into the potential causes of nuclear plant explosions, such as the Chernobyl incident, suggesting that a failure in the cooling system could lead to such disasters.

➡ Fuel rods in a nuclear reactor generate heat, which is controlled by control rods. If the water in the reactor dries up and the fuel rods remain active, it can lead to a meltdown and potentially an explosion. However, this explosion is not radioactive. The text also discusses the concept of alchemy, specifically the principle of fire in matter, and how substances like potassium can be extracted from bananas through a process of burning, purification, and recrystallization.

➡ The speaker discusses three major nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, suggesting they were part of an anti-nuclear conspiracy to halt scientific progress and cheap electricity. The accidents led to nuclear shutdowns worldwide, with countries like Germany becoming completely nuclear-free. The speaker also mentions a Japanese connection to the Fukushima incident and ends with a discussion on waves and vibrations as movements in different mediums, like sound in air and light in the ether.

Okay, welcome, everybody, to another Wednesday webinar. Today is Wednesday, November 26, 2025. It’s actually, Steve, the day before Thanksgiving in the United States, where we celebrate massacring Native Americans or. Which probably didn’t happen like that, like they say in Thanksgiving. But anyways, that’s. That’s what we’re celebrating tomorrow. I don’t think they do that in, In. In Scotland. That’s where you are, right? Yeah. No, Thanksgiving is not one that we do. Even when I lived in the US for three years, I. I still didn’t do it. But, yeah, anyways, that’s tomorrow and thanks everybody for joining me and get right to it.

So last week we showed the talk that Steve did on, I guess you could say, the alchemical view of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. And so then I invited Steve to come back and answer questions that were submitted. And then if you also want to ask a question as you’re watching it live on the YouTube, just. Just write questions so I see it and then put it in the YouTube chat. And then once I get done with the questions that I’ve received so far, we’ll go to those. Is that okay with you, Steve? Yeah, sounds good.

So the only thing I wanted to say. I know, Steve, you talk a lot about that. One of the problems with, you know, relativity and nuclear theory and all that is that there’s not much use for it. Right. But I actually, for many years, I have used relativity theory in my practice with really good results, and so I wanted to share that with you. So. And again, I’m no expert on relativity and all that, but as far as I understand, in terms of relativity, there’s it when you have two objects and you. And one is in motion and the other is stationary, that they.

They actually say that you can never actually tell which one is in motion and which is stationary, that all motion is relative. Therefore, it’s not proper anymore to say, you know, this one is moving and this one is stationary. They’re both moving in relation to each other. Both are true. So the way I use that is when I had an overweight person, I would tell them that since you can’t tell whether you’re going to the food store or the market or the market is coming to you, as soon as you run out of food, just wait and let the food store come to you.

And every single person lost weight doing that. So it was a great use of that theory. I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but a little bit, yeah. The other one Which I heard yesterday has to also to do with relativity, which is, and this has to do with Thanksgiving that they, they do say again, I’m not no expert, but that time contracts when the relatives come. And pretty much everybody experiences that at Thanksgiving because time slows down. That’s what it is when the, when the relativities come. And I think we’ve all had an experience.

Yeah, I can relate to that. Yeah, we can all relate to that. Okay, enough of my usual nonsense. But so let’s get to the issues here. So first of all, people were wondering about your training and background. I know you said that, but if you could just reiterate that. Yeah, so I did a master’s degree, four year degree in theoretical physics and then went on to do another four years, PhD in theoretical nuclear physics. And I can actually provide, if anyone wants the thesis, I can provide a link to that where they can go and look at it if they wish.

Um, so yeah, that was over 20 years ago. So I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on everything I was taught and to really see whether or not it adds up, you know, see whether or not the theory that I learned in academia is actually being used in the outside world. So when it comes to nuclear physics, there’s really two main areas where it’s allegedly being used. And one would be in the development of nuclear bombs and the other the development of nuclear power stations. And, and I can honestly tell you that when I came age 25, out of academia with a PhD in nuclear physics, I had no idea how to build a bomb or a power station.

Like, it’s like, of course I was familiar with the theory of like the uranium atoms splitting and all this kind of thing. I was familiar with all that. But the thing is, that’s not something a person can do, right? You can’t just go and split an atom. You can’t just go and get uranium and you can’t just go and split the atom. It’s, this is a theoretical thing. And as a nuclear physicist, I never came anywhere close to anything like that. And so I’ve reflected on as the years have gone on and you know, this was an important one for me.

I thought actually, what if I just take alchemy and I go and look at nuclear power station and try to explain it in those terms. And, and when I did, I started making that presentation and then things just really started adding up as, as I went through it and yeah, so I know that, I see there’s a bunch of questions there so there’s a bunch of questions that have come up from people over the last week, but anyway, I’m available to answer them. Yeah, you know, I don’t know if we should do this now, but we, we talked a lot, you know, in various meetings that we’ve been together, that the actual way of science is finding the claim and then seeing if it can, it’s falsifiable or if you can falsify it.

And you know, that’s what we did with the virus story. You know, they, there’s a claim, there’s this thing, and then you, you look at the evidence and if you, you know, the rule is if you can’t falsify it, it’s a belief. Right. And you don’t have to come up with an alternative theory like whether you know or not why, you know, Aunt Bessie got sick, doesn’t mean there, that means there’s a virus. Right. So yeah, in, in a way you took the other route on this in saying, I’m going to explain a different way of looking at nuclear power.

And so I wonder if it would be useful to say, to tell people, you know, did they ever tell you what is the evidence that there is an atom and that you can split it? Not really. I mean, the. Well, I suppose you have to realize what academic nuclear physicists are doing, right? They’re not actually designing bombs or designing power stations. They are modeling the interaction of energy with matter. So really what that comes down to when you do the experiment involves firing laser beams at materials and then seeing what happens and developing a model to predict what will happen when a light beam is incident on a particular material.

And so that’s really what academic nuclear physicists are doing. They’re not, you know, they’re not involved in any building or designing of these so called, do they tell you, like, okay, here’s how we know there’s an atom because I actually, but I actually looked it up and let me just share this because it might be interesting for you. So can, can you see this? Yes. Oh, it just disappeared there. I’ll just keep it there. So they. Can you see it now? No. Oh, let me, let me see if I can get it together. There we go.

How about that? Yeah. So this guy Dalton said that, you know, I don’t know what he did, but he said atoms are discrete units. And then they, they, they had this model and then they did the Rutherford experiment where they shot a laser or some, something through gold foil and it mostly didn’t deflect, but a Few places it did. And they said that must be the atom. Yeah, those are the key. Key ones. Yeah. The discovery of the electron with the cathode ray, and then the gold foil experiment, which was the discovery of the nucleus, allegedly.

Yeah. And then Brownian motion, which was. Then Einstein developed a theory of saying that this was caused by atomic motion and. Right. Because he saw pollen grains moving in water. Yeah. So it was called. Because at the time, it was called the molecular kinetic theory of heat, because he’s basically, it was the heat that’s causing the things to wiggle, because if you take away the heat, it stops wiggling. But he was theorizing that the heat affects the atoms and. And then the atoms causes the things to wiggle. So it’s like an intermediary sort of molecular atomic theory between the heat and the observed phenomenon.

So in other words, they never saw an electron, they never saw a nucleus. They never. They just. It’s like I’ve heard Schrodinger say. Yeah. You know, if you looked at an atom, you’d never see an electron. Yeah, that’s it. I mean, they haven’t seen them. These are theories about what energy and matter consist of in the electron. We’re talking about electricity or cathode rays, photons being what light consists of, and then. Yeah, the nucleus being what matter consists of, like, at its. At its core. But I don’t think those experiments, like the Rutherford experiment, I don’t think proves the existence of the nucleus.

It just proves that some of the radiation went through and some of it reflected back, you know, the structure that is structure in matter. But it doesn’t prove the atom. Right. I’ve heard it said that. How does he. He said it was the new. Basically, you shoot. You shoot some sort of light at a gold foil and 99.9 of it goes through unimpeded. And then the 0.1%, it deflects. So that’s the nucleus. Yes. Yeah. Now, the first thing that. That suggested to me is, so 99.9% of stuff is nothing, which is weird because, like, I can’t stick my hand through my desk.

So if there’s. If my hand is nothing in the desk is nothing. It’s just weird. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we are told that 99 of the atom is. Is nothing as well. Yeah. Which is another thing that just goes against all our sensory expectations and sensory reality. Yeah. And then Dewey Larson pointed out, how did he know that wasn’t the whole atom, not just the nucleus. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so he was allegedly Using radiation from a source of radium. And so I believe in the Rutherford experiment it was supposed to be alpha particles that were, that were being used in the experiment.

But again, how did he prove that he had alpha particles? You know, I looked into this. Like, if I know proof, we just, we just have to take on trust that he had a legitimate source of alpha particles for the experiment. But again, it’s not observation. Right. It’s just, it’s, it’s a assumption. Yes, got it. And different frequencies. Yeah, this is one point there. Different frequencies of radiation have different depth of penetration. Yeah. Some will go through, some will reflect back depending on, on their frequency. In other words, there’s other explanations for that observation, including there’s impurities in the metal.

Yes. I mean, well, there’s just structure in the metal which is, you know, reflective of certain types of radiation. Yeah, I think we can say that for sure. But you know, to attribute it to this atom, this nucleus with the protons and the neutrons in that particular model, I don’t think is, is justified. Yeah. Okay, the net. Let’s get to the. Back to the questions people. A lot of people asked. So what was happening in all these nuclear tests, you know, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And I have something to say about that. But let. Well, you mean bomb tests.

Yeah, they’ve tested, you know, like. Well, let me say, you know, they did somewhere between 23 and 36 tests at the Bikini Islands, you know, full on nuclear explosions. And so that’s supposed to be 23 times, at least we destroyed the world. But the Bikini Islands are now a tourist resort. So what happened? Like, anyway, that’s funny. I mean, honestly, I can’t say I looked into every test of a bomb that they’ve done. I mean, I’m obviously I’m looking at the fundamental science and, you know, taking it at that level. But I’ll tell you what, I did speak to a guy the other day, a sailor who sails all around the world and everything, and he told me that he went to look for one of the craters in Bikini.

Was it called Bikini something or other atoll? Yeah. And he went to look for it and was not able to find it, even though it was on the map. This giant crater or whatever that was just that came to me the other day. But look, I mean, at the end of the day, when it comes to nuclear bombs, all you have is videos, you know, you have videos of explosions out of context, videos of explosions and mushroom clouds and we’re being told that they’re nuclear, but as Michael Palmer has argued, and I think it’s absolutely true, is like the mushroom cloud doesn’t prove the nuclearity of the bomb is just simply the magnitude of the explosion above a certain size will create a mushroom cloud which is really just up and out.

Right. It’s like the energy is just going up and then coming out. So that’s not proof of nuclear in any. In any way, shape or form. In other words, that’s not proving the mechanism, it’s proving the intensity or the size of the explosion. Yes. Yeah, I know with the Trinity test, they actually show they loaded this, this thing with, you know, hundreds of boxes of. Of gunpowder or something. Tnt. Tnt. And it’s interesting because the people were looking at it from close distance and nothing happened to them. Yeah, well, apparently it was called Trinity because it was named after tnt, which is Trinity or something.

I can’t even pronounce it. It’s a really weird Trinity torture. Lino something. But, yeah, you know, and the thing is, it’s scalable. You can essentially build a bomb as big as you. As big as you can afford. Right. With tmt, I mean, I don’t see how there’s any, like, limits to that, particularly if you’re blowing up something out of sea or whatever. I mean, you could stick as much TNT together as. As you want and just blow it up. All right, then. Was 9, 11 done with nuclear bombs? No, I don’t think so, no. Because there are nuclear bombs.

All right, that’s an easy. What. What about. Can you give a definition of alchemy or alchemy? Definition of alchemy? Well, it’s called the science of transformation. So it’s, you know, I see alchemy as being a science which is rooted in the fire, earth, air and water. So it fundamentally treats fire, earth, air and water as the basis of all creation. And it differs from modern science because we’re told it’s the atom, it’s the particles, that is the fundamental building blocks of all creation. And so I’ve gone through that journey myself, being indoctrinated one way and then coming to alchemy and finding that it all just makes more sense.

And I can understand things better in terms of fire and water than I can in terms of, you know, uranium atoms, let’s say. Yeah, so it’s so. So alchemy is really about how far earth, air and water work, what their properties are, how they blend together, and how they transform to create all the things that we. We have. Got it. These next two questions, I, I think are the most sort of, in some ways challenging. And I think they came actually because one of the listeners had a friend or cousin or brother who’s a physicist. And so I didn’t.

Let me just try to get it as best I can. So if you calculate the electrical output of a power plant, wouldn’t this also. This, wouldn’t this show you whether it’s possible with yellow cake and it can’t. And it, or it couldn’t be possible and you’d need a more powerful fluid fuel. Sorry. In other words, if you get, if you know the output of a power plant and you can then say, okay, if, if your method was correct, I would, I can get this much output. If you don’t get that output, then there’s got to be some other kind of fuel there.

I think that’s what he’s saying. Well, I don’t really know how to answer that as such. I mean, I’m just, you know, with. The explanation I’ve given is, is basically a way that this could work just using standard, like thermal processes and techniques without anything kind of exotic. But in terms of like, the scale of the output, I mean, it’s going to depend on, you know, how much fuel you use and I guess the enrichment process and everything. So, I mean, I don’t know. It’s just a bit of a technical question. I’m not sure how to.

Yeah, I, I think it’s his way of, of, of questioning not to support the nuclear theory, but to question. So in the, in the, the second part of that was, is it true that if it was done by sort of burning yellow cake or burning this sulfur stuff in capsules, that it would burn out and you’d have to see trucks delivering more and more yellow cake, like you know, every single day. And so that’s not what we see. And so it can’t be that, I think, is this point. Okay, well, I mean, the yellow cake, you know, that’s not, that’s not my theory.

I mean, you can go and look that up and you know, they use these capsules filled with yellow cake. That’s, that’s what, that’s what we’re told about how it works. But see, there’s different levels to it. Right. Because we’re also told they use uranium, right? And that’s what most people think. They think there’s a metal, uranium metal in there. But when they’re like, actually, no, it’s uranium oxide. And, but the uranium oxide is in a metal pellet. So they’re not like little bits of uranium, they’re little pellets with fuel inside of them. But you know, I mean, in terms of like how much they use and what kind of efficiency and conversion, everything they get.

I mean, I just, you know, I don’t know, I can’t, I can’t really answer that. But I just think it’s. If you just think of a way of slowly releasing the energy from the fuel, that’s what the pellets are doing, right? So the fuel would just explode if it was ignited, like all fuels do. But in this situation, contained to this pellet, no oxygen, so it can’t burn nowhere for it to go, so it can’t produce light or sound or, you know, it can’t like blow up. It kind of forces the, all the energy to release in the bandwidth of heat because the heat can penetrate the pellet, but the other frequencies of radiation can’t get, get through the pellet.

So I believe that’s what’s happening. You know, as, you know, as I know about this, this kind of technique, the, the secret fire, the heating things in the absence of oxygen, they call it the secret fire in alchemy. And it does have, you know, special properties. So I know some people were asking like, well, how do they heat the fuel if that’s the case? And all I can say is they heat it with heat. You know what I mean? It’s like there isn’t different types of heat. You know, this is what the nuclear theater, they’ve told us, they’ve told us that the neutrons or a particular type of heat, but I’m just arguing that like heat is heat.

You know, if it, if it boils water, it’s just heat, it’s infrared radiation, regular heat. So you know, whatever they use to ignite the fuel, you know, I don’t know exactly what that is at the moment, but it’s just an ignition. It’ll be like a pulse of heat which then triggers a reaction which then self sustains. It’s not that they, I don’t think they need to keep constantly feeding it heat. So. So what, what I think I’m hearing is, is you don’t actually know how much heat per like milligram of yellow cake they get. No, I don’t know that.

And it, maybe nobody knows that. Well, they might know it but, but the, the magic of a nuclear power plant, if you want to use that word, is they actually have in fact figured out a, I think seemingly safe way of converting stuff, you know, which they can mine into a very efficient heat producing, therefore steam producing mechanism. Maybe way more than like burning, you know, putting a propane gas under your, your tea kettle. Yeah, yeah. Well, propane produces like water as well as a waste product, doesn’t it? You get like humid when you’re burning propane.

Yeah. So someone asked about this recently. So I mean, propane is, is a water based fuel. Right. It’s like, it’s a liquid fuel. So it burns, it’s got sulfur in it, which will burn, but then it will leave water behind, which makes things moist. But when you’re burning something like wood, which is dry, you’ll have ash left behind. Right. Instead of water. It’s like an earth based fuel but with this yellow cake stuff. I think it just, it has this implicit like fieriness, like sulfur. And you know, through this pellet technique they’re able to like have that release slowly rather than just, you know, consume in an instant.

Slowly and maybe efficiently too. And efficiently. Yeah, yeah. And so it doesn’t produce any smoke. Yeah, no sound, no light, no water, no ash, just heat. Yeah, yeah. And so I actually think it’s pretty clever and it is a clean, you know, energy. I mean, it produces a lot of steam or whatever. But. And maybe we’ll get into this with some of the other questions. But. Yeah, so what I’ve discovered since doing this talk is that there’s this whole broader nuclear conspiracy that I wasn’t quite aware of. And this gets into like Fukushima and Chernobyl and everything as well.

But so, you know, first kind of coming at this thing thinking it’s a dangerous thing because you think nuclear bombs are dangerous, therefore nuclear power must be dangerous as well. If something goes wrong, it’s going to blow up, it’s going to be like a bomb. But I’ve kind of peeled those apart now. I don’t think actually the bombs don’t have anything to do with the nuclear power stations at all because I don’t think the bombs even use yellow cake or like those pellets or anything. It’s like a different tech altogether as far as I can tell.

So the bombs are like TNT with like napalm and some stuff in it, like mustard gas. Yeah. And the nuclear power plants allegedly are an efficient, interesting, probably very safe, you know, way of burning yellow cake to create only heat which then can be harnessed or harvested to create power. Yeah, yeah. Although technically it’s not burning because there’s no oxygen. Yeah, yeah. Hi, Raul. Soon. So, yeah, it’s sort of heated to A point where it then starts releasing the heat that’s within it, releasing the energy that’s in it, and then, and that sort of self sustains until all the energy is released.

And then, you know, people asking about waste as well. So what’s, you know, what’s left behind? I mean, what does it look like inside the pellet after all the energy has been released? I’m not entirely sure I’d need to look into that, but I mean, Galen Windsor said they were handling all that stuff. Yeah. You know, with their bare hands. You know, he said it was a black powder at what, Coming out of the. Yeah, coming out. Yeah. Well, that would make sense. Right? You certainly wouldn’t expect it to be yellow anymore. Yeah. Because they got rid of the sulfur.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, got it. All right, these are in some ways more political questions, but, and I have my own theories about this. Why don’t the Iranian government just say, hey folks, there’s no such thing as nuclear weapons. You don’t need to bomb us because they, they don’t exist anyways. Yeah. So I mean, this is in reference to a few months ago when allegedly Trump sent in some planes to go and destroy some uranium enriched Richmond facilities. Yeah. No one saw a thing. Right. It happened in the dead of night with stealth bombers. And you know, we’re just, we just have to take their word for it.

But. Yeah. So look, I think the nuclear narrative is a convenient lie for all of these nations to, to hold. You know, it’s like a psychological warfare technique, like the ultimate power, as it were. And so I don’t think any of these governments are going to come out and say the nukes are not real, just like they’re not going to come out and say that the moon landings weren’t real. You know, they’re still, still holding to that to this day. So I think it’s a convenient lie, you know. Yeah, not only convenient, but when we all understand that the function of government is to terrorize their own people, basically this is, this is like the perfect terrorizing scheme.

And I tell you, you know, when you think back, you’re not as old as I am, but I remember hiding under my desk in elementary school. And if you read. When you, when you realize that, I mean, that is a pure terror, terror campaign, because nobody could possibly think that hiding under your desk if there was a nuclear explosion right in your neighborhood could do you any good. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that is terrifying. Just lying there and trying to, you know, process that scenario under a skill desk. Yeah. Yeah. And they, they get to, you know, have big budgets and scare people and, you know, and the whole thing, like, that’s the whole thing with the.

In Ukraine now that Putin’s going to use nuclear weapons. And so then they get, you know, as somebody, I don’t remember who said, you know, war is the business of government and they like it. So this is a great way to. Anyways. Yeah, they love it. Yep. So they’re not giving that up. And so they. They just keep. Keep that story going. Yeah. All right. I’ve heard you say, talk about this a little bit before, but what are they doing at cern? I’m not really sure. I mean, to be honest, that’s not really related to this particular topic, is it? I mean, I need to do more research on cern, but it’s not actually related to this.

I mean, yeah, they’re supposed to be shooting energy, like I said, with what. What academic nuclear physicists do. They shoot energy at matter and then see what happens. Well, that’s what CERN is allegedly doing. You know, they have a big beam that they generate, and then they fire at matter, and then they observe what happens, supposedly. But there may be things going on there that we just don’t know about. And they have huge magnets there. Right? Isn’t that how they do it? Yeah. So the magnets guide the beam and the beam. Essentially, you can think of it like a current.

So it’s, you know, the faster it’s going, the more kind of electrical current they’re generating. And when you generate a current in a ring like that, it produces a toroidal magnetic field. And so because this is such a big ring that they have there, you know, it’s possible that they are generating some huge magnetic field around that area for, you know, for purposes that we. We’re probably not privy to. And it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but just because there’s a current doesn’t mean the mechanism of the current is electrons. No, no, it’s just electricity. If you look into how the current is generated, I mean, it’s generated from a tungsten filament, you know, like how you generate a cathode ray and then they use magnetic fields to, like, guide it and accelerate it and stuff.

But, you know, they would talk about it as a beam of electrons, but, you know, you can equally just talk about it as electricity or cathode rays. You know, a lot of it just comes down to language. Right. You know, the particle called an electron has never been, quote, isolated or found, but there’s some. There’s obviously electricity, and that’s something to do with wires and heat and magnets, I guess. Yeah. Or. Well, the fire and air element. So, you know, because electricity fundamentally comes from lightning, which is the fire and air element, you know, together in certain conditions that, like, produces that.

So we look at it elementally that way, but then it also, it flows through water, it flows through metal. There’s, like, water and metals, like, conductive to electricity as well. So. Yeah, you know, the CERN thing, I mean, there’s shady stuff going on there. I mean, you saw. You’ve seen the whole ceremony that they did for and everything. Yeah, it’s. There’s a deep rabbit hole to go into there, but. Yeah, I haven’t fully looked into it yet. But the, the point, you know, from a quote, science point of view, is electricity does not prove that the mechanism is electrons.

No. And as I often say, like, electricians don’t work with electrons. They work with electricity. You know, it’s like academics and physicists talk about electrons, but people who actually work with electricity just talk about electricity. They talk about current and resistance and voltage and wires. Yeah, and wires. And flow. Right. It’s like electricity is talked about more like a fluid, like water going through a pipe, but in an academic, mathematical way. It’s sort of broken down into these, like, little particles, you know, flowing through, like, one by one down the tube kind of thing. It’s. It’s.

I mean, I can only say it’s just a model, you know. Yeah. That has never been seen, observed, or experimentally demonstrated. I. I don’t believe so. I mean, I looked into it a lot before I started writing my book, trying to find proof of the particles, but I’m not convinced. Got it. What are they sensing with a Geiger counter? Okay, so the Geiger counter is sensing high frequency energy. So like, you know, energy beyond UV frequency, essentially. So it’s a. An ionized, what you call an ionization event. So you have a gas inside the Geiger counter, and when it’s exposed to energy of a certain frequency or above, it will become electrically conductive.

And, and that’s what creates the click every time it kind of becomes into that electrically conductive state. So, you know, I, I, yeah, I grew up thinking the Geiger counter was, like, catching the particles, which is what it sounds like. But now I just think it’s just radiation of a certain, you know, of a certain intensity and frequency is able to ionize this gas to make it conduct. And that’s what causes the click? And so radiation is just a particular frequency of, of matter, of light or something. Yeah. So radiation just means light, light frequency. So any frequency of life, infrared, radio waves, microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet, X rays, gamma rays, like all of that is radiation.

But then they told us, then there was a radioactivity was particles. So not actual light, but particles. And it was two types of radioactivity. You’ve got your alpha and your beta because gamma is also radiation. And they tell us that. So it’s. Alpha and beta are said to be particulate radioactivity, but all other radiation is light. And so I would just argue that actually alpha and beta are just like close. It’s just radiation real close to the source. They tell you that. They say alpha radiation only goes 10 centimeters. It’s only got 10 centimeter like range.

So alpha radiation is when you’re really close up to the source. And beta radiation is when you’re a bit like mid range. And then gamma radiation is like long range away from the source. So it’s, it’s radiation gradation by penetration depth. The alpha, beta, gamma thing. Yeah. And all that is explainable through different frequencies or different wavelengths. Yeah. So I mean, I find it easier to think about it in terms of sound. So like sound coming at the speaker, for example, you have, you have nice music playing. It feels good, right. You’re sitting, you’re enjoying it.

But if you get too close to the speaker, you can hurt your ears. Right. It can be damaging because the quality of the frequencies are different up close to the speaker than they are further away. So when you get up close, the high frequencies will get louder and the bass frequencies will get lower because the bass needs space to open up. So you need to be kind of a bit farther back from the speakers. Plus it’s also going to be louder when you’re close to speakers. So it’s louder and the spectrum is tilted. And so it’s more damaging.

It can be damaging in your ears when you’re up close. Even though it’s the same music that’s good for you when you’re farther back, it can be damaging when you’re up close. And I think you can think of radiation in exactly the same way. It can be damaging. It can burn you when you’re up close to the source. But when you’re further back, it’s not as much of a problem. And I think it’s okay to just think of sound and light in the same way in that regard. So. So in a power plant Like Chernobyl allegedly exploded.

And you can understand that by, if you let the water drain out somehow, like a mistake and there’s nowhere for that heat to go, that might just explode the, the apparatus. Seth yeah, I’m not sure exactly what caused the explosion there. I mean, it could have just been, yeah, just dodgy engineering, just coming under strain after, like a lot of use or whatever. But I mean, what they do in these plants is they pump water in from the river or the lake, and that sort of runs through the whole system. So Chernobyl produced a lot of poisoned water, I believe afterwards that was what, what made people sick was like water contamination.

So. Yeah, because if the nuclear plant is pulling in water from the river or the lake, and then that’s getting then, you know, mixed or processed somehow in the plant. And then if it was like spilled back out into the lake, that could, you know, pollute it. But. Yeah, so I don’t know exactly what happened there. It caused it to blow up. But, but it seems to me there was no nuclear winter. Right, that’s the, right, that’s the, the problem. I mean, anything could cause a machine to blow up or a factory. But, you know, it’s, the fact is there’s no nuclear winter afterwards, you know, so there’s no evidence that it was a nuclear explosion.

Right. It seems to me, though, that if you, if the water is, and they say it’s for cooling because the heat goes into the water to create steam. That’s the whole point. If you had a leak in the water tank, water pipes or tank, or somehow the water got shut off, even for nefarious reasons, then it would, it would seem like it would have to heat up to the point where it could very well explode. Aha. Yes, I see now. Yeah, yeah, I see what you mean. Yeah. If the water didn’t get in there and. Yeah.

But the heat was still continuing. Yeah. You know, it could cause the metal to melt and. Yeah, whole thing could fail. Yeah, yeah. And the metal might melt and then you’d get, instead of pyrolysis, you would have an oxidate oxygen burning and then you get an explosion. Yeah, yeah. And so, and it could even have been done for. You see how horrible these things are? And don’t ever, anybody ever use them, because don’t listen to Galen Windsor. He said everybody, you know, you could put one in every community and run your own power and wouldn’t need any money, etc.

So, no, this is this horrible. You should stop these because it is true, if you heat anything. You know, if you have a wood stove and you. You overheated, I guess it could explode. Yeah, yeah. 100. So the water is there, you know. Yeah, it cools the reaction. I saw someone was asking about the control rods. So the control rods, that’s what they’re supposed to do, is take the heat out of the system. So the control rods act like a negative electrode. So your fuel rods are like your positive electrode. That’s where the heat is coming out into the water.

And then your control rods, you dip them in. And when the control rods are all the way in the water, then they’re basically drawing the heat out like a circuit. And. And then the amount of steam production will go down if the control rods are in. And then if they take the control rods out, then you’ll get maximum, you know, steam production, maximum heat kind of going through the system. But. Yeah, absolutely, you’re right. If. If the water was drained out of it for whatever reason, it kind of dried out, but the. The pellets were still active, then that could result in.

Yeah, probably why they call it a meltdown. Right. The metal melt. And. And then the fuel would start to burn and. Yeah, and you get an explosion and that. And. And the explosion would hurt people, just like shrapnel and all that. But it’s not a radioactive explosion, which is why Chernobyl apparently is perfectly healthy, you know, however many years later. And all the, you know, this is like the atoll islands and all that. Yeah. They don’t have any nuclear winner. They just had a big bang. Yeah. Yeah, that’s it. I mean, you know, it can still be dangerous, you know, with the explosions and, you know, all the materials and everything that they have there and, you know, God knows what else they have going on in these facilities.

But, yeah, it’s the nu. Nuclearity of it, which is, you know, it’s what’s been called into question. And maybe even they chemically contaminated the water. So that. That’s. It’s not like radiation contamination. It’s some other contamination. Yeah. And I would just say just, you know, I’m just trying to, like, get people to, like, think again in terms of the four elements, you know. So, like, what a fuel actually is is fire in matter, and that is the sulfur principle in alchemy. So we’re used to thinking of sulfur as a chemical, like this random yellow chemical or whatever, but in alchemy, it’s actually a principle, and it’s the principle of fire in matter.

And so when you. You. You Think about that. So people asking, like, is radiation dangerous? And what about stuff that tests positive with a Geiger counter and all this? It’s like, you know, we’re talking about fire and matter. Right. It’s like if there’s a big explosion, that’s fire being released from matter, but then some of that fire can then go into the matter that surrounds the explosion area. Right. So. So then you could then get your Geiger counter and put it up there and you would get a reading because there’s still energy in the matter. Yeah.

From. From the after effect of the explosion. So, you know, fire can, can do that. It can be trapped in. In matter. And so. But the question as to whether or not that’s dangerous, again, it just depends on dosage and exposure and, you know, frequency. Yeah, got it. Okay. Somebody asked. I thought this was a good question because I don’t think I’d heard this either. You. And maybe this isn’t quite what you meant, but that the metals can be transmuted from minerals. Yes, yes. Is that. Can you say more about that? Like, what happens? How does that work? Yeah, I mean, it’s essentially, you know, the old alchemical dictum.

Solve et coagula. Yeah. Dissolve and coagulate. It’s essentially that’s what you do. So starting with a salt, like a fine white powder, like potassium potash. Yeah. Not potassium. In fact, I saw a video the other day of a guy getting potassium from a banana. Passing from banana. So this is exactly how he did it. He sliced up like, loads of bananas. He burned them until they were like, you know, completely dried out and black. And then he crunches it all up and it’s a black ash. And then he. He purifies that and makes it into a white ash.

And then that white ash, he then basically dissolves and. And recrystallizes it over and over again until it becomes potassium metal. And you know, that that’s, that’s how it’s done. So the, the, the ash, the. Yeah, the, the fine white ash is dissolved in water, and then the water is evaporated, and then it comes out crystalline. So that’s how you take it from a kind of powdery ash to a white crystal. But then if you continue do that, you know, it can be many times, like seven times, 10 times, you know, dissolve and coagulate. It’ll get more purified each time and become more metallic.

And then. Yeah, as I say. So you could make potassium metal from bananas, but, you know, it’s. I don’t think it’s right to say that there’s potassium in bananas because potassium explodes in contact with water, whereas, you know, bananas don’t explode when you put them in your mouth. Right, so the water is bananas. So it’s the same with like sodium. Right. So you have sea salt, which is the natural stuff, and then you can then break that into soda and chlorine and then soda can then be purified into, into sodium or soda can be transmuted into sodium.

But again, you know. And sodium is the metal. Yes, sodium is the metal. Yeah, yeah. Is, do we, is. Do you have any idea, like, what is the starting point for like gold? Well, they talk about monatomic gold, which I would call non metallic gold. So, yeah, gold in sort of powdered form. But what is the starting point for it? Well, no, that’s a good question because, you know, gold is found in nature in its raw form. Like, you know, unlike other metals which usually have to be made, gold is actually found in nature. Well, maybe it comes from lead.

That’s a bit of a copy of an answer, but maybe it’s from the ether. Yeah, yeah. And, and there’s a, a series of transmutations of the ether and the end result, the ether is not a salt. Like, well, banana is not a salt either. No, but you can transmute it into potassium, apparently. And maybe you can transmute the ether into gold. Yeah, yeah. Well, you have to make it into a powder, obviously, by boiling off all the water and all the essences and everything and really just reducing it down to its ash. And then from there you can then transmute it into its crystalline form and then into its metallic form.

But yeah, so we talk about like that we’re like if we’re, if we’re eating sea salt, that we’re eating sodium, you know, that we say like, the body needs sodium. But, you know, I don’t think that’s the correct way of looking at it. It’s like, just because sodium can be made from soda doesn’t mean that sea salt contains sodium. I think you know what I mean. Yeah, I know exactly what you mean because I’ve come to the conclusion that we don’t have like testosterone. Now you can take somebody’s testicle and grind it up and then, you know, I’ve actually looked up how do you get testosterone from a testicle? And you mix it with acid and then base and then centrifuge it and filter it and then wash it with acetone seven times.

Because if you do it six times, you don’t get anything, which is weird, and then you get this powder and then you purify it and then you get this chemical we call testosterone. And you know, I went and, and talked to some analytical chemists and said, why don’t you just like put it on a, on an electrophoresis grid, you know, and, and, and just, just get a band of pure testosterone from, from the testicle. No, you can’t do that. So the next question was, how do you know that all these steps that you didn’t, didn’t make something appear that wasn’t actually there in your testicle? You know what the answer was? Of course, I have no idea.

So I think it’s the same, right? It’s. Yeah, you, you take something which is a thing like a banana or a salt, and you can do something to it and transmute it and use these fire principles and distillation principles and, and that. And make something different. But that wasn’t in the original stuff. No, no, because you have to look at the properties of the substance. And it’s like these metals have particular properties, right? They’re. Yeah. Conductive, they’re lustrous, they’re, you know, they have strength or reactivity or whatever. They have all these like, properties which you just don’t see in the starting salt.

Yeah. And so it’s just, I think, not right to say that the metal is in the salt. Right. But that’s the way we’re taught about it. Like the metal atom is and the oxygen atoms are all around it. But yeah, it’s more like it’s like in there in potential. Right. It’s like what it needs to be. Yeah. Worked, right? Yeah. All right, let me go to YouTube and see if there’s any. Whoop. I think I lost you there. Still here. Yeah. Let me just see if there’s any burning question. I might. There’s something that came out a few times.

Well, I noticed a bunch of people had asked me about Chernobyl and Fukushima, you know, what the deal was there. I know we discussed Chernobyl before, but. Yeah, I looked into this a bunch after I finished this presentation and you know, because there’s also Three Mile island as well. Right. You heard about the Three Mile island disaster? Yeah. So those are the three big ones. You got Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And they all appear to have been part of a anti nuclear conspiracy. And you know, Three Mile Island, 1979, that actually happened. It was 12 days after the release of a propaganda film called the China Syndrome.

I haven’t seen it, but there was a movie called the China Syndrome which was about a nuclear disaster happening in America. And then 12 days after the release of that movie they had the Three Mile island accident. And then that, that accident was used as the justification to stop all nuclear power stations being built for the next 30 years in America. Yeah. So these accidents actually become the justifications for like nuclear shutdowns. So with Chernobyl it was like all across Europe, like Germany and Italy and all that started shutting down their plants. And then with Fukushima they then accelerated the shutdown and now Germany is now completely like nuclear free.

A lot of these other countries are as well. And in Japan, even after Fukushima, they shut down every nuclear power station in the country for safety inspections. Like 54 power stations got shut down after that. So it seems where this all goes back to is actually that the anti nuclear conspiracy is not like a sort of grassroots conspiracy of people who are concerned about the safety of these things, but it’s actually like kind of like an anti human agenda. It’s the, you know, it goes back to like the Council of 300 and the Illuminati and this kind of anti science.

Like they don’t want scientific progress, they don’t want us having cheap electricity, cheap power, you know, they don’t want us having our own nuclear generators in our houses, you know, with 10 years of free energy and all this like. And it’s actually one of the stated goals of the was the council of 300. I’ve got a link for this. But it’s one of their stated goals is to basically phase out nuclear power. And it looks like these accidents, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all part of that agenda and they were just used to shut down nuclear power plant programs across the world.

But curious, they also get, you know, good hearted people to, you know, go on marches and get rid of nuclear power and all this. So they, you, you really co op people’s energy essentially against them, their own interests. Yeah. Which is really nasty. Yeah. And I mean just as an interesting point as well, I was talking with a Japanese lady who’s translating my book at the moment and yeah, we were talking about this and so there was actually Fukushima was the name of the Lord of Hiroshima. Did you know that? A really funny connection there. Yeah, yeah.

The lord of hiroshima in the 1600s was this guy named Fukushima Monsanari or something. And you know, she was telling me that, you know, as a Japanese lady and going around exploring a lot of these sites and old castles and everything is just lying all the time. Like the history of Japan. They’re just lying to the Japanese people about the history. And she said she thinks the Imperial family have been replaced and everything. It’s. So, yeah, I didn’t know much about Japan, but, you know, there’s a lot going on there as well with all this nuclear stuff.

But. All right, maybe. Final question. Are waves and vibration the results of the ether? Are they. Are they like primal activity, you might say? I’m not sure what the word is or how to phrase this. Activity, I think, is a good word. Yeah, I mean, it’s just. It’s a type of movement. Yeah. So, yeah, but in physics with. With the photon theory, we’re kind of led to believe that a wave is a thing, you know, a thing that can be reduced to a particle. But I think it’s just a cyclical movement, you know, waves, a cyclical movement.

And light wave is. Is movement in the ether. So sound is. Is the movement in air, light is the movement in the ether. So that’s why if we take the air out, right, there’s no sound, but the light still. The light travels. Yeah. So basically the created life, the. The. The world that we see and experience is. This may be too simplistic, but it’s sort of result of movement of various frequency sorts through the different mediums. Yeah, that’s what. And that’s what we’re working with. So we’re working with sound and light and electricity is work is movement through a different medium.

And maybe we don’t know the character of that medium, but it’s just. And things aren’t like, there’s no speed of light. It’s not traveling from A to B. It’s just. There’s just a perturbation or what I think Tesla said. A vortex in the ether. Yeah, yeah. Perturbation in the ether or just a sound wave in the ether. You know, it behaves essentially like sound, but it’s obviously much higher frequency. It’s about 40 octaves of the difference between sound and light. But, yeah, I. I kind of see them as just equivalent and interchangeable. Okay, so everybody check out Steve’s book.

I think it’s called A Fool’s Wisdom. You can get it at Amazon or probably. Do you have a website or anywhere people can if you’re in the U.S. probably better to get on Amazon, honestly. I had some trouble shipping to the US recently. Some packages just never arrived. I think it’s to do with tariffs and stuff. So yeah, if you’re in the U.S. probably better to just get it on Amazon at the moment and maybe I can sign it for you if I, if I ever meet you in the future. But I also have a website, stephenyoung.uk and yeah, I’m gonna make a follow up video to this nuclear one because.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve also learned a whole bunch of stuff since I, since I finished it. So. Yeah. Thanks very much, Tom, for, for showing it and, and having me on to answer some questions. I’m sure there’s going to be a lot more comes out from this, actually. Yeah. I always tell people you write a book and then you actually start learning about the subject. Yeah. People say no, no, you, that’s not right or whatever, but you didn’t say anything about it before. So. Yeah. Anyways, thanks, Steve. And this is great. And everybody out there, have a great time with Thanksgiving.

I hope your family’s there and I will see you next week. Thanks, Steve. Bye. Bye.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.