3 ‘Modern’ Inventions That Existed Millions of Years Ago: Nuclear Reactor, Telescope, Clothes


In Beyond Science, Epoch Times explores research and accounts related to phenomena and theories that challenge our current knowledge. We delve into ideas that stimulate the imagination and open up new possibilities. Share your thoughts with us on these sometimes controversial topics in the comments section below.

Evidence exists pointing to prehistoric civilizations as advanced as our modern civilization—or perhaps more advanced.

Such evidence could turn our scientific certainties upside down. It wouldn’t be the first time—the history of science proves, after all, that science has been grossly wrong on countless occasions.

Paradigm shifts are ushered in amid abundant controversy. The following discoveries have been contested, but some scientists have maintained that they constitute indisputable evidence that tens of thousands, or even many millions of years ago, humans walked the earth with as much knowledge and culture as today’s people.

1. A Nuclear Reactor 1.8 Billion Years Old

In 1972, a French factory imported uranium ore from Oklo, in Africa’s Gabon Republic. To its surprise, it found the uranium had already been extracted.

They found the site of origin to be a large-scale highly advanced nuclear reactor that came into being 1.8 billion years ago and was in operation for some 500,000 years.

Scientists gathered to investigate, with many explaining it away as a wondrous, yet natural, phenomenon.

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, explained why he believes it wasn’t a natural phenomenon, and thus must be a man-made nuclear reactor.

For uranium to “burn” in a reaction, very precise conditions are needed.

The water must be extremely pure, for one. Much purer than exists naturally anywhere in the world.

The material U-235 is necessary for nuclear fission to occur. It is one of the isotopes found naturally in uranium.

Several specialists in reactor engineering have said they believe the uranium in Oklo could not have been rich enough in U-235 for a reaction to take place naturally.

Furthermore, it seems the reactor was more advanced than anything we could build today. It was several miles in length and the thermal impact to its environment was limited to 40 meters (about 131 feet) on all sides. The radioactive waste is still contained by surrounding geological elements and has not migrated beyond the mine site.


The Oklo, Gabon Republic, nuclear reactor site.

2. Peruvian Stone Showing an Ancient Telescope, Modern-Style Clothing

It is thought that Galileo Galilei invented the telescope in 1609. A stone believed to have been engraved as long as 65 million years ago, however, shows a human figure holding a telescope and observing the stars.

About 10,000 stones housed in the Cabrera Museum in Ica, Peru, show prehistoric humans wearing headdresses, clothes, and shoes. The stones depict scenes similar to organ transplants, cesarean sections, and blood transfusions—and some show encounters with dinosaurs.

While some say the stones are fake, Dr. Dennis Swift, who studied archaeology at the University of New Mexico, documented in his book “Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines” evidence that the stones date back to Pre-Columbian times.

Swift says one of the reasons the stones were considered fake in the 1960s is that, at the time, it was believed dinosaurs walked dragging their tails, but the stones depict dinosaurs with their tails up, and thus were thought to be inaccurate.

Later studies showed, however, that dinosaurs likely walked with their tails up, as depicted on the stones.

3. Advanced Culture in Cave Paintings

The La Marche caves in west-central France contain depictions over 14,000 years old of people with short hair, groomed beards, tailored clothing, riding horseback and suited in modern style—a far cry from the animal-skin loin cloths we usually imagine.

These paintings were confirmed as genuine in 2002. Investigators, such as Michael Rappenglueck of the University of Munich, insist that these important artifacts are simply ignored by modern science.

Rappenglueck has studied the advanced astronomical knowledge of Palaeolithic people. He writes: “For some years it has been left to broader media coverage (in the form of printed matter, audio-visual material, electronic media and planetarium programs) to raise awareness of proto-astronomy (as well as proto-mathematics and other proto-sciences) during Palaeolithic times.”

Some of the stones from La Marche cave are on display at Paris’s Museum of Man, but the ones that clearly portray prehistoric people with advanced culture and thought are not to be seen.


Cave painting from the cave of Altamira in the Anthropos Pavilion of The Moravian Museum in the Czech Republic. 

When paintings from more than 30,000 years ago were first discovered in the caves of Europe in the 19th century, they challenged the commonly accepted understanding of prehistory. One of the greatest critics of the discovery, Emile Cartailhac, came around decades later and became a leading force in proving the paintings are genuine and raising awareness of their importance.

He is now considered a founding father of cave art studies.

The first paintings were discovered by Don Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola, a Spanish nobleman, and his daughter, Maria, in 1879 in the Altamira cave. They showed an unexpected sophistication.

The discovery was dismissed, until the early 20th century when Cartailhac published a study of the paintings.

HARVESTING USABLE FUEL FROM NUCLEAR WASTE – AND DEALING WITH THE LAST CHEMICAL TROUBLEMAKERS


Nuclear energy provides about 11% of the world’s total electricity today. This power source produces no carbon dioxide during plant operation, meaning it doesn’t contribute to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions. It can provide bulk power to industry and households around the clock, giving it a leg up on the intermittent nature of solar and wind.

It also receives widespread contempt for a variety of reasons – many purely emotional and with little or no scientific grounding. The most pressing legitimate issue is the management of used nuclear fuel, the waste by-product that needs to be removed from the reactor and replaced with fresh fuel to sustain power generation.

Ongoing research is tackling this problem by attempting to figure out how to transform much of what is currently waste into usable fuel.

The nuclear fuel cycle.

How do reactors generate nuclear waste?

The reaction that produces energy in a nuclear reactor takes place in the nuclei of atoms – hence the name. One atom of uranium-235 (which contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons) absorbs a neutron and splits into two new atoms. This process releases large amounts of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that can be absorbed by other uranium-235 atoms, propagating a chain reaction. This process is called fission. The two new atoms are called fission products. They contribute to most of the short- to medium-term radioactivity of the fuel upon discharge from the reactor.

Replacing some of the core and replacing with fresh fuel.

Fission is most likely to take place in heavy atoms. Nuclear engineers and nuclear chemists focus on the heaviest elements – that is, the actinides, located at the very bottom of the periodic table. The fission process continues, consuming fuel, until the amount of burnable (fissile) atoms is no longer economical to keep using. Then the reactor is temporarily shut down for refueling. A third of the core is removed and replaced with fresh fuel. The remaining two-thirds of the core is shuffled around to optimize the power production. The leftover material, the used fuel, is highly radioactive and physically hot, and must therefore be cooled and shielded for safety reasons.

In a commercial power reactor, brand new unused fuel consists of 3%-5% uranium-235, with the balance being uranium-238. The heavier uranium-238 isotope will not fission but can transform to an even heavier isotope, uranium-239, via a process called neutron capture. Continued neutron capture eventually produces a suite of elements heavier than uranium (so called trans-uranics), some of which will fission and produce power, but some of which will not.

These trans-uranic, actinide elements – including neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium – have one thing in common: they contribute to the long-term radioactivity of the used fuel. After the energy-generating fission reaction, the fission products’ radioactivity decreases rapidly. But because of the other trans-uranic elements in the mix, the material needs to be isolated until deemed safe – on the order of millions of years.

At least 23 feet of water covers the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in Southport, North Carolina.

Upon discharge from the reactor, the used fuel contains only about 3%-4% fission products. The rest is uranium and trans-uranics that weren’t part of the fission reaction. Most of the material is the original uranium-238, still perfectly suited to use in new fuel, as is the remaining uranium-235 and the plutonium-239 (combined about 1.5% of the used fuel).

Disposing of this material as waste is like taking one small bite of a sandwich and then throwing the rest in the trash. It’s no surprise then that several countries arerecycling nuclear fuel to recover the remaining useful material. Other countries are revisiting these options, at least on a research basis.

Scope of the waste problem

A typical power reactor (1 GWe) produces about 27 metric tons of used fuel each year, in order to generate the electricity needed to power 700,000 homes (assuming an average American home consumes about 11,000 kWh annually and a power plant has an average capacity factor of 85%). For comparison, a coal plant of similar power output will produce 400,000 metric tons of ash.

The world’s nuclear power capacity is on the order of 370 GW, which corresponds to about 10,000 metric tons of used fuel generated each year worldwide. The total amount of used fuel in the world (as of September 2014) is around 270,000 metric tons, of which the US is storing about 70,000 metric tons.

The first round of reprocessing waste

Removing uranium and plutonium from used fuel relies on a chemical process. Reprocessers dissolve the used fuel in acid and treat it with organic solvents to selectively remove the elements of interest and leave the unwanted elements behind. Commercial plants all use more or less the same method, PUREX (Plutonium Uranium Reduction EXtraction).

Originally invented in the US in the late 1940s, over the years PUREX has been adapted slightly to improve its performance. This process doesn’t separate out elements heavier than plutonium. The waste product after the reprocessing still needs to be isolated for what is essentially an eternity.

The benefit, though, is that it can recycle about 97% of the spent fuel, massively decreasing the volume of waste. The bulk of the material can then be made into new reactor fuel containing a mix of uranium and plutonium, so-called mixed oxide or MOX-fuel.

Major reprocessing plants are located in the UK, France and Russia. India has some capacity, and Japan has a reasonably large plant that was recently completed but is currently not used. Global reprocessing capacity of commercial fuel is around 4,000 metric tons per year. To date about 90,000 metric tons of used fuel has been reprocessed, about 30% of the total amount of used fuel produced in commercial reactors.

Some countries that do not have their own reprocessing plants ship material to countries that do, such as France. It’s expensive to invest in reprocessing infrastructure. It can also be a political decision not to do so, as in the US, because the technology can be used to create material for weapons (this was the original use in the 1940s). Of course, all reprocessing plants are under the scrutiny of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, and must account for all processed material to ensure that nothing is diverted for potential use in weapons.

IAEA inspectors seal the spent fuel pond at Dukovany Nuclear Power Plant in the Czech Republic.

Dealing with that last 3%

But that level of reprocessing doesn’t completely solve the issue of used nuclear fuel. My research at UC Irvine, as well as that of other labs around the world, focuses on new ways to deal with the last few troublemakers in the used nuclear fuel.

We’re working on how to remove the remaining long-lived trans-uranic actinides with an efficiency high enough that the remaining nuclear waste’s isolation time would be decreased to 1,000 years or less. Maybe this still sounds like a long time, but the world is full of structures that have lasted for more than 1,000 years; we should be confident that we can construct something that will last a millennium. We could also, with reasonable confidence, create signs or informational material to mark the storage that people 1,000 years from now could reliably interpret.

While removing uranium and plutonium is readily done (as via PUREX), the next separation step is a grand challenge for various reasons. One is that many of the remaining fission products behave chemically very similar to americium and curium. This requires highly specialized chemicals that are often complex and expensive to synthesize. The radioactive nature of the material provides an additional layer of complexity; the radiation is not only hazardous for people but will also break down the chemicals needed for separation and may speed up corrosion and damage the equipment used in these processes.

The research efforts under way focus on developing new chemical reagents that are more stable with regard to radiation, more selective for the elements we are interested in recovering, and easier to make. Because of this, a lot of effort goes to fundamental studies of the chemical interactions between reagents and elements in used fuel. The problem at hand has been described as a chemists’ playground and an engineers’ challenge.

The bottom line is that none of this is science fiction. Getting to a point at which almost all nuclear waste can be repurposed poses a grand challenge, perhaps comparable to putting a man on the moon, but it is not impossible.

Magnetic nanoparticles could aid heat dissipation.


Cooling systems generally rely on water pumped through pipes to remove unwanted heat. Now, researchers at MIT and in Australia have found a way of enhancing heat transfer in such systems by using magnetic fields, a method that could prevent hotspots that can lead to system failures. The system could also be applied to cooling everything from electronic devices to advanced fusion reactors, they say.

The system, which relies on a slurry of tiny particles of magnetite, a form of iron oxide, is described in the International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, in a paper co-authored by MIT researchers Jacopo Buongiorno and Lin-Wen Hu, and four others.

Hu, associate director of MIT’s Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, says the new results are the culmination of several years of research on nanofluids—nanoparticles dissolved in water. The new work involved experiments where the magnetite nanofluid flowed through tubes and was manipulated by magnets placed on the outside of the tubes.

The magnets, Hu says, “attract the particles closer to the heated surface” of the tube, greatly enhancing the transfer of heat from the fluid, through the walls of the tube, and into the outside air. Without the magnets in place, the fluid behaves just like water, with no change in its cooling properties. But with the magnets, the  is higher, she says—in the best case, about 300 percent better than with plain water. “We were very surprised” by the magnitude of the improvement, Hu says.

Conventional methods to increase heat transfer in  employ features such as fins and grooves on the surfaces of the pipes, increasing their surface area. That provides some improvement in heat transfer, Hu says, but not nearly as much as the particles. Also, fabrication of these features can be expensive.

The explanation for the improvement in the new system, Hu says, is that the magnetic field tends to cause the particles to clump together—possibly forming a chainlike structure on the side of the tube closest to the magnet, disrupting the flow there, and increasing the local temperature gradient.

While the idea has been suggested before, it had never been proved in action, Hu says. “This is the first work we know of that demonstrates this experimentally,” she says.

Magnetic nanoparticles could aid heat dissipation

Such a system would be impractical for application to an entire cooling system, she says, but could be useful in any system where hotspots appear on the surface of cooling pipes. One way to deal with that would be to put in a magnetic fluid, and magnets outside the pipe next to the hotspot, to enhance heat transfer at that spot.

“It’s a neat way to enhance heat transfer,” says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. “You can imagine magnets put at strategic locations,” and if those are electromagnets that can be switched on and off, “when you want to turn the cooling up, you turn up the magnets, and get a very localized cooling there.”

While  can be enhanced in other ways, such as by simply pumping the cooling fluid through the system faster, such methods use more energy and increase the pressure drop in the system, which may not be desirable in some situations.

There could be numerous applications for such a system, Buongiorno says: “You can think of other systems that require not necessarily systemwide cooling, but localized cooling.” For example, microchips and other electronic systems may have areas that are subject to strong heating. New devices such as “lab on a chip” microsystems could also benefit from such selective cooling, he says.

Going forward, Buongiorno says, this approach might even be useful for fusion reactors, where there can be “localized hotspots where the heat flux is much higher than the average.”

But these applications remain well in the future, the researchers say. “This is a basic study at the point,” Buongiorno says. “It just shows this effect happens.”

Sea salt and baking soda, best all natural remedy for curing radiation exposure and cancer.


If you have been exposed to any form of radiation, either for medical diagnostic purposes (fluoroscopy/mammography/other medical x-ray exams) or in the course of radiotherapy treatment, or if you are otherwise concerned by excessive radiation exposure, overload or poisoning (such as living near a nuclear reactor facility, working with diagnostic radiological equipment/in the nuclear processing industries/uranium mining/uranium or plutonium processing), or if you have been exposed to radioactive particles or higher ionizing radiation doses stemming from other sources such as depleted uranium (DU), testing of atomic weapons, frequent flights in higher altitudes, a nuclear disaster (radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear power plants) etc., here are a number of tips and suggested remedies how to naturally help your body excrete damaging radioactive elements (e.g. strontium and radioactive iodine) or detoxify their noxious byproducts such as free radicals as well as deal with radiation burns.

If you are having any kind of radiation treatments, macrobiotic is the cure.  Macrobiotics is very effective in curing radiation sickness and cancer.

If you are diagnosed with cancer and you want to survive the cancer avoid any and all exposure to radiation treatment. Radiation treatment of any kind is what actually kills people diagnosed with cancer.  Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Free radicals damages DNA, protein, and fats. Free radical damage has been clinically proven to be a major contributor to cancer.  That being said, people don’t die of cancer, they die of radiation poisoning.  The repeated exposure to radiation through so-called treatment overwhelms the body’s immune system. Cancer doesn’t cause hair loss for cancer patients, the radiation treatment is solely responsible for that. Cancer doesn’t cause weight loss, the radiation treatment causes that because it suppresses your appetite. Cancer doesn’t cause a cancer patient to become very weak and sick, the radiation treatment poisons the body and makes them very weak and sick.

According to Michio and Aveline Kushi, in his book Macrobiotic Diet, Michio Kushi states: ‘At the time of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945, Tatsuichiro Akizuki, M.D., was director of the Department of Internal Medicine at St. Francis Hospital in Nagasaki. Most patients in the hospital, located one mile from the center of the blast, survived the initial effects of the bomb, but soon after came down with symptoms of radiation sickness from the radioactivity that had been released. Dr. Akizuki fed his staff and patients a strict macrobiotic diet of brown rice, miso* and tamari soy sauce soup, wakame and other sea vegetables, Hokkaido pumpkin, and sea salt and prohibited the consumption of sugar and sweets. As a result, he saved everyone in his hospital, while many other survivors in the city perished from radiation sickness.’”

In case you missed it the secret to surviving all forms of radiation exposure is sea salt. If you are concerned about the radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear plants disaster or if you had an X-ray (from hospitals and airport screening) or radiation treatments for cancer, soak your body in sea salt (not iodized table salt) baths to help pull out the radiation from your body.

If you were diagnosed with mouth or throat cancer and you were subjected to deadly radiation treatments gargling with baking soda mixed in water will help neutralize the radiation.

Baking soda is so powerful in curing radiation contamination that at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, researcher Don York has used baking soda to clean soil contaminated with uranium. Sodium bicarbonate binds with uranium, separating it from the dirt; so far, York has removed as much as 92 percent of the uranium from contaminated soil samples.  Still not convinced?  Would it help to know that the United States Army recommends the use of baking soda to protect the kidneys from radiation damage.

Radiation is very toxic. Exposure to radiation of any amount is harmful to your body. Exposure to radiation through x-rays (hospitals and airport screening) or any of the so-called cancer treatments are the most dangerous source of radiation poisoning. X-rays and radiation cancer treatments are far deadlier than radiation fallout because the exposure is concentrated and frequent.

To pull the radiation poison out of the body, try bathing in half a cup of sea salt and half a cup of baking soda. Soak for at least 20-30 minutes, every day for three weeks or every other day for six weeks. . . or go on a vacation to the West Indies or South Pacific and swim in the ocean every day for three weeks! Why the Indies or South Pacific? Because of the higher concentration of sea salt.  Where is the best place on Earth to go for curing yourself of radiation?  The Dead Sea.   The Dead Sea salt content is four times that of most world’s oceans.  Sea salt draws the radiation out of the body.

Can’t afford to travel to the Dead Sea and cure yourself of the radiation poison from nuclear plant fallout, x-rays and radiation cancer treatment?  A tiny pinch of good quality sea salt in several glasses of distilled water each day will provide one with all the minerals and trace elements you  need to rid your body of the radiation and stay healthy.

Can’t stomach sea salt? The amino acid, cysteine also protects against the damaging effects of radiation by terminating the free radicals produced by ionizing radiation. Cysteine, together with methionine, cystine, and their derivatives, is numbered among the “sulphurated amino acids” due to the fact that these amino acids contain sulfur in addition to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.

Simple Steps to Help Protect Against Radiation Exposure.


Our lives are so very busy that sometimes it seems that worrying about one more environmental health threat is too much to bear.  But there are some simple steps to take on a daily basis that can help to protect our internal environment from man-made radiation.

I

When considering radiation exposure it’s crucial to understand the Principle of Selective Uptake, as explained in nutritionist Sara Shannon’s book Radiation Protective Foods.  Simply put, when we load and maintain adequate stores of vitamins and minerals in our systems, the unhealthy minerals (think heavy metals and radionuclides) are less likely to be absorbed. Stable elements in our diet are similar to unstable and radioactive elements, the body doesn’t know the difference at first. If we have a sufficient amount of the stable type stored in our system, we won’t absorb their radioactive counterparts as readily. Just as we’ve heard that taking potassium iodide helps to protect the thyroid against radiation, the same principle applies to calcium, magnesium and other healthy minerals that are required so that Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 to name a few, won’t be readily attracted to the bones, heart, and other organs.  There is always a point to consider where the total body burden could potentially be too high to maintain a healthy state, but steps can be taken on a daily basis to help manage toxins while we also address the problem at it’s core.

Taking a high quality, digestible multivitamin and mineral supplement formulation takes some of the guesswork out of the equation while helping to keep the body from a depleted state.   While vitamins have been generally given more attention,  healthy minerals must not be overlooked and are just as critical for human health.  (Due to reports of radiation contamination from Fukushima Daiichi, please examine labels carefully to ensure that the iodine is not sourced from kelp, and that omega 3′s are plant based and not from fish, especially tuna.)

Ms. Shannon deserves a huge amount of credit for both her first book, Diet for the Atomic Age and her updated book cited above, Radiation Protective Foods.  She also understands that it’s not enough try to protect ourselves from the effects of man-made radiation. Indeed the problem must be addressed at it’s very source ~ the nuclear power industry. Radiation is not only coming from Fukushima, far from it.  Every operating nuclear reactor in the world emits radiation via planned “batch releases” as an inherent part of reactor functionality.

In addition to a multivitamin and mineral supplement, there are some other tools to keep on hand for an immune system regimen including Vitamin C, apple pectin fiber, fresh garlic, chlorella, spirulina and zeolite tincture.  Be sure to research the source by calling the company or searching online.

And last (for now) but not least, always be sure to maintain a positive outlook.  Repetitive stress endangers us by our lowering our immunity. When dealing with stress responses, the body’s natural healing functions are essentially disabled.  Daily meditation, even for five minutes, has been proven to help reduce stress and improve health.  Prayer or giving thanks to an entity larger then ourselves has also been shown to be beneficial to our health. And giving thanks before eating meals helps redirect us away from a stress response to a more healthy way of being.

Simple, small steps to take to give us, our families and communities a fighting chance in a stressful world.