text:
This conversation is closed.
What research has been done to inspect whether there are connections between the spiritual and the physical?
Starting from the belief that spiritual does in fact exist, has there been any research done to discover what sort of provable effects and connections exist between the physical and/or mental aspects of human life? If so, what do they present? Are their any TED talks directed towards this?
I assume those interested would be those who study and are interested in the overlap of various studies such has cultural, medical, religious, and psychological, and their practical relationships. Potential experts this question is geared to are those in the field such as neuroscientists, psychologists, endocrinologist, physicians, religious workers, etc...
There of course is a starting bias that the spiritual does in fact exist, and in definition is different that the psychological, emotional, and physical.
Also related, what experiences have you had that proof or disprove the overlap of the spiritual with human life?
Jan 18 2013: Hi again Tom,
Looks like nobody's around ... has the debate fizzled out ? .... Are you still there?
Here is one for anybody out there that might be following along...
The "spirit" is reflected in all of what we might call " human activity" All that mankind has created and designed. Put together or taken apart. Given color and form. Shaped and built.
The spiritual element of man " awakens" each morning from sleep. The spirit, one can actually say, "re-incarnates" each morning. It is ex-carnated at night only to reincarnate each morning. This is perfect evidence of the spiritual nature of man working in the physical. You may call it something else. You may say ... well ..... we don't really understand what sleep is yet.... but , we are working on it ....
Sleep is the excarnation of the spirit and soul bodies from the physical and life bodies.Jan 15 2013: Hi again Tom,
To say something general about the spiritual / physical relationship will be my comment this time. Specifics can be mentioned later on, however, there needs to be certain shared concepts in such a discussion. This may perhaps require its own discussion as it does lead us a bit astray from your original topic.
To approach the last part of your question, "the overlap of the spiritual / physical" can be an interesting starting point.
Now, if we are in fact spiritual beings ... living in the circular, repetitive condition of time, then it must be possible to observe how the spiritual manifests itself in the physical world without necessarily "seeing" the spiritual "in itself." We can then assume that we see the "footprints" so to say. What "lives" in the plant, lives also in the animal and the human being. This is what the esoterics call the "life force" or "etheric body" This is not yet recognized by the world of science. Kirlian photography may be approaching an understanding of this etheric element but in my humble opinion is not capturing what is the real essence of the etheric world. It is again only the footprint left behind. The life force is too fine of a "substance" (for lack of a better word) to be photographed. This example is necessarily a shortcoming.
As human beings, we share this life energy with all that is alive, one could perhaps take the idea of the etheric world as a starting point to go deeper into the higher realms of our existence. The next being the soul realm, and finally the spiritual realm. We are a composition of all four worlds. The physical, the life realm, the soul realm and the spiritual realm. Or what the ancient Greeks would have called earth, water, air and fire.
The stone is physical
The plant is the physical plus the life force
The animal is the physical, life, and soul elements
The human being is then all four
I will stop here.
....awaiting further comments.
Jan 16 2013: The question arises : what is physical ? What is matter ? Nobody knows how matter comes into existence : how particles get their masses ?
We take a lot of things for granted ; ' stone is physical ' , yes , it reflects heat and cold , it grows, it dies and we quick to explain that it is physical laws that ' governs' the stone existence. But what are the physical laws ? Where they were before the universe sprang into being ? There were no 'place' for them to be. Do they develop on the way ?
Science, physical laws describe one probability among infinite others ; this reality fallows the script this reality dictates !
What i am trying to say is : everything is conscious , the stone is conscious where the sun is, it reflects. ' Life force' or absence of such is just the models our mind creates, because to function, to make sense of something it needs the distance between the observer and the observed. But this distance is illusion.
It's not a problem to find it out, the problem is to face it : the only ' thing ' that is real is something we don't have a name for. We call it ' spirit', and it's OK and now we are debating its existence. Funny, isn't it ?:)
Jan 17 2013: Natasha,
There are a few discrepancies here. Both the physical and the spiritual must be taken into consideration
In the stone, or should we rather say in the physical world, the faculty of consciousness is not "incarnated" on the physical plane. The consciousness of the stone lies outside of its physical existence. It has no feelings in the sense that the animal or the human being does. It feels no pain. It has no inner experiences.
I think you meant to refer to the plant as growing and then dies. Also the plants consciousness is outside of its physical self. The life element in the plant is something more developed than the purely physical condition of the stone, but still it has no sense experiences like the animal and human being.
Continuing on the ladder of development, from the stone to the plant, and then to the animal, we see that a third element that arises. This is the soul element. Feelings of pleasure and pain. Desires, as well as consciousness. This is a level of existence that the animal has over the plant in the sense these soul forces are "within its being". The animal has a shared or "group consciousness" as a whole species. It operates often in flocks. One could say that the soul element of the plants (including the faculty of consciousness) is also present, but it is not manifest within its physical individuality. like the animal.
Arriving then at the 4th level of existence, in the human being, we find that all of the 3 previous elements are also contained "within" its being. But a new element is also present. This is the faculty of thinking and "self-consciousness". Not to say that the animals do not think, as they obviously do, but to a much lesser degree than humans. Animals follow their impulses and instincts while we can examine them from a higher point of view so to say.
Only mankind has an individualized self-consciousness.
Spirit / consciousness manifests itself in a vast conglomeration of physical expressions.
Jan 17 2013: Thanks for responding, Daniel !
I have the feeling that ' i've been here before, i know this room ,
i've walked this floor ' :)
I've read a lot of this stuff and i know that mind that creates these models tries to say something very important. And yes, to make it langugable in order to make sense of it we need to create divisions, levels ...separate and separate, language is a code , but nature is a flux. There are no clear cuts, if any at all, nature is fractal in its structure. What that means is that a pattern occurring on a given scale can be expected to occur on other scales, very different. But still the pattern remains the same.
Look at Mandelbrot set, it's a kind of Logos, visual language , no words , no ambiguity here; you can see how it is unfolding/enfolding insight out and outside in. The best i can put it : everything everywhere are doing the same thing ...infinitely. You are the center of the universe where the center is everywhere.
And i can repeat myself : everything, and i do mean everything, is different degrees of condensation of the same 'stuff'.
Sorry, sounds clumsy, but it's the best i can do :)
One more thing to make my point clear : mind creates a model ( for a example this one that you presented ) in order to understand how it all works, and it may succeed, we do understand, but the trick is the more understandable it is the less it's true.Jan 14 2013: It's pretty simple,matter is created by spirit.
You can't study spirit by a scientific method, which is based on separation, for spirit is a unity.
All nature is a unity, spirit and matter are not separate; all you see around is different levels of condensation of the same stuff, call it consciousness, spirit , god, vibration... what have you.
If it is not the evidence , i don't know what ' evidence ' is :)
Jan 15 2013: Hi Natasha,
Rudolf Steiner means to say that the spiritual world is here, now, all around us. Although we cannot see it, Steiner is telling us that we can learn to see it. Train ourselves to see it through meditation and careful observation. One has to strengthen the forces of our being in order to do so. The forces that more or less lie dormant in us until we actively awaken them ourselves. It's life long process for the most of us. But it is just to set ones foot on the path. The inner path of spiritual development. We are all on it, whether we know it or not. .... like it or not ... and it's just a question of time before we all arrive there and recognize the spiritual realities in the physical world. It may take years, hundreds of years ... even thousands..
... and Steiner claims that we do, in fact, have many lifetimes to get there.
One of the most special ideas from Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy is the idea that in this process of developing first the recognition and then an understanding of the spiritual world, one also is correct in choosing .... and even dependent upon using just the "scientific method." Thinking is THE most developed tool we have at our disposition. Thinking is the corrector of all our imaginations and intuitions. The corrector of all our feelings and emotions. The potential "overseer" of all our will impulses, both conscious and unconscious. And when one can finally say that one has penetrated into the depths of the spiritual realities of nature and the human being, thinking remains the corrector of the knowledge and impressions that are be gained there.
That which we see in the material / physical world, is, as you say, a manifestation of the spiritual world. There is no matter without spirit. But we also see that the spirit works on many different levels. We see how the plant differs from the stone. The animal differs from the plant. And how the human being differs from the animal.
It all becomes an enormous picture...
Jan 16 2013: Yes, indeed !
Hi, daniel !
People usually agree with a light heart, that we are a part of nature, it's become a working cliche. And it is correct, but it is not strongly enough put. Spirit is not a separate entity, arguably existing, spirit manifests itself in matter in nature in us, not in sequence but at once ! Devoted materialists deny spirit or demand evidence ; it's interesting how the evidence could possibly look like ?
I am not ready to discuss Rudolf Steiner's philosophy after an hour google search, but even what i managed to get from there and from your posts pushed me to thinking. Steiner introduced the notion of "pure thinking" :
' it is not the dry, gray, or abstract experience people often mean by "thinking". In what might seem a paradox, he says pure thinking is one with feeling and will in the depths of their reality; it is the power of love in its spiritual form."
Thinking, in its purest form, is "the conscious experience, in pure spirit, of a purely spiritual content"
It's a perfect realignment ! Pure thinking is a kind of ego dissolving thinking ; it's a grey thinking antidote.
Maybe now i understand what Steiner meant by ' grace of thinking ', it's a kind of a dialogue with spirit, monologue, actually. Or maybe i am simply trying to fit it to my paradigm, it could be :)
What do you think ?
Thanks !
Jan 16 2013: Hi Natasha,
Rudolf Steiner gave roughly 6000 lectures in the course of his lifetime. Many of them are in print now. ...
..... It's just to start reading ... ;-)
http://www.rsarchive.org/Jan 17 2013: Thank you !Jan 13 2013: Hi again Tom,
Yes, Rudolf Steiner was an extremely special man. In all my years of searching for meaning in the relationship of the spiritual / physical world, I have never come across anyone like this man. It's hard reading though. Wasn't meant to be easy. Lots of new ideas. Difficult ideas. But fascinating and wonderful. I have been studying Steiner for about 30 years. Although it demands an open and flexible mind ....and hard work too, if one really goes in for it. I have never regretted it.
Fritzie -
Jan 10 2013: Hi, Tom. If you mean research in the sense in which the term is used technically, your question is challenging to research online, because you will need to plough through lots and lots of pseudoscience first.
- +1
If you are using the word research in the sense, rather, of what people have inquired about for themselves and come to conclusions about to their individual satisfaction, this will be a much simpler project. Many people believe their own evidence or other people's (non-scientific) evidence of the spiritual but much more importanty are happy with the positive impact spiritual belief and practice have on their own lives- health and psychological wellbeing and all their physical manifestations.
The TED talks about happiness (like Seligman's) will include elements that might be considered spiritual, depending what you include in that term. Both Amy Tan's talk and Elizabeth Gilbert's have a spiritual element to them, though not a scientific one.
There has certainly been scientific research into the health and emotional benefits of meditation, yoga, religious belief and alternative medicine. A useful, easily searchable source for the science-interested layperson is Science Daily, available free online. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (scholarly) has an institute in this area and I notice includes, as an example, research investigating a relationship between a particular gene and whether a person would be considered spiritually inclined.
If you are interested in your question from a scholarly rather than a popular angle, I would search on sites that screen out pseudoscience for you!. A site like the National Academy of Science is reputable also, and will typically label something as entertainment of it may look to the layperson like science but is not actually science. Good luck in your inquiry.
Jan 11 2013: Yes, unfortunately there is a lot of pseudoscience out there. I was hoping that posting this would help me in avoiding the necessity to wade through a lot of it on this particular issue. I meant research in the scientific sense, not based only on individual satisfaction. However, tangentially, I do find it interesting that we try to define such hard lines between scientific and non-scientific based on methodology, intent, and opinions. The language we have created doesn't quite match our modern day meanings. Often times what we really mean when we say "scientific" is that "this study has been standardized and is protected against the misleadings of only one person's observations and conclusions. This (whatever the conclusion or proof may be) can be generally accepted, or not accepted as truth and what will happen the majority of repeated occurrences undergone in similar situations."
Thank you for your references, I'll look into them in the hopes that they will be helpful.
I am aware and have read a few articles regarding the benefits of spiritual practices on a human beings life and well-being. Those sorts of articles could prove supportive evidence, but I don't think can be the foundational basis for my particular question. It is starting to appear that people have not targeted this sort of research from the angles I have proposed. It also appears that most people don't think it is feasible or conclusive to approach it from that angle.
Jan 11 2013: Your best bet on a question related to scientific evidence and the limits of science is a science venue. The integrity and credibility of science depends on not over-reaching in the sense of making false claims of what they have found or can find.
There are errors, of course, but it is almost always non-scientists who do the "spinning" of what science has shown.Jan 11 2013: Hello Tom,
Ever heard of this?
Jan 12 2013: Hi, wow. No, I had never heard of this. It is very interesting, thanks for sharing article, my wheels are turning.Jan 11 2013: You seem to be limiting your topic to modern scientific research.
Research linking the physical and spiritual has been ongoing for millenia. To date, success has been mixed. Billions of people are convinced that it is helpful to pray for earthly desires, particularly good weather and good children. Others see no connection, and some of them consider this perceived absence of evidence as sufficient reason to dismiss the possibility of the existence of anything spiritual. I find it interesting that people have so much confidence in modern research that they think a definitive answer may come to light sometime soon.
My own personal experiences do not prove anything, but they have me convinced that there is an overlap.
Jan 11 2013: Barry : given the long History of mysteries being solved (like "lightning", for examle), what makes you so sure that it is such a hopeless idea? And the reason for limiting "research" to science is simply that it is the only field of that sort that has any respect for the "Truth"., and ways to find it.
Jan 12 2013: I would not say it is hopeless, just not very likely. To begin with, many scientists do not consider this kind of research as serious science. Many journals will refuse to publish such research. Science is limited to that which is measurable, and the connections you are looking for may not be easily measured. Another limitation of science is that results must be repeatable, and that quality may not apply to the connections to the spiritual. Also, you can expect opposition from some people of faith, those who insist that faith is the only connection to the spiritual world.
I completely disagree that science is the only field that respects truth. Poetry can express truths that are universally accepted as integral to the human experience, and science is only beginning to find ways to research these truths.
I have a great deal of respect for science. Scientific achievements are largely responsible for the rising quality of life around the world. I also recognize the limits of science. Every child learns an enormous amount of information and knowledge long before learning the scientific method. Every day, you and I and everyone relies on knowledge that we learned without applying the scientific method. Science will never produce anything similar to the works of Shakespeare.Jan 11 2013: Hi Tom,
There are loads of stories out there, but little empirical evidence. One of the best I have encountered was the story of a 4 year old who reckons he went to heaven during an operation. It's strength lies in the age of the boy & the fact that he shouldn't have known what he knew. Vid & free e-book at. http://heavenisforreal.net/
Jan 11 2013: Thanks Peter, I know about and have read sections of the book, and it's worth me finishing. However, it is hardly of the scientific sort of publication, merely supplemental material.Jan 11 2013: Hi Kate, Thank you for this note. What book would you recommend by them, or on the topic in general?Jan 11 2013: Thank you Faisel.
"If you want to use prayer as evidence for a spritual world, you must conduct experiments with a large group of test subjects and control groups." This is not a bad idea entirely. Do you know of any experiments of this nature that have been conducted already?
Yes, I agree, data needs to be used. How to define the data content would be difficult, and hard to prove credible.Jan 11 2013: Nothing comes to mind for me other than the fact that when you die, I have heard that a lot of DMT (which is often called the spirit molecule) is released in your brain. Maybe we go on a DMT trip that feels like forever when we die! Or maybe we just die, so there is no DMT trip. But hey, I don't know. I have no evidence of this. I don't know how science could prove or disprove an afterlife.
Jan 11 2013: Okay, thanks for your response. I have heard of, and read very little about, the DMT molecule. I wasn't hoping to have any discussions about the after life on this particular thread.
Jan 11 2013: Misread a part of your question , oops
shawn disney
Jan 11 2013: It is entirely possible that scientific methods could enlighten us to some extent. as an example, consider the possible assumption that "Consciousness" is a Field of energy, analogous to electricity. In that case, the afterlife question could be seen to be a pseudo-Problem, with no need to answer it. (No distinction between "Life and Afterlife"). It like talking about an electric motor : what happens to it's "Sprit" after it goes up in smoke from an overload.? Answer, Nothing. the "Electricity" goes back to Ground, and is constantly recycled.Jan 10 2013: Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. That is not easy to observe in laboratory conditions. Nor is it easy to conduct experiments, formulate theories, and predict results. So, I say the answer to your question is "NONE". No research has produced meaningful, conclusive results about the relationship between the physical and the spiritual.After all, the existence of both has been argued since Man learned to argue.
- +1
Jan 11 2013: Thank you. Yes, indeed men argue, and will continue to do so.Jan 10 2013: I don't think it's possible to prove the existence of a spirit by science. The two just don't overlap. It will never be science's realm to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Can anyone here actually propose a conclusive experiment that proves or disproves spiritual things and doesn't rely on circumstantial evidence?
However, I do believe in God and the spiritual. I also believe in science. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are simply two ways of knowing things: one is by the scientific method, the other is by revelation. The scientific method is rational, methodical, and highly effective, but is limited solely to things you can objectively measure. That's just fine, we need that. Without science there is no way we could have come so far as we have.
However, I have had too many experiences feeling God's presence and receiving His guidance and help for me to deny the existence of the spiritual. Describing these to an atheist is like trying to explain the taste of salt. If you've had these kinds of experiences, (and I know personally hundreds who have) you know what I'm talking about. It's something undeniably not a product of your own mind or just of circumstance. I can talk about what it feels like, and the different miracles I've been part of, but if you don't want to believe in the spiritual, you never will regardless of what I say. Talking about it proves nothing to anyone, only personal experience of your own will convince you. Anybody can know what I say is true, but it's entirely up to them.
Jan 11 2013: Thank you for your response. It was interesting to read your definitive criteria for categorizing and organizing what is scientific and spiritual, and was insightful on what they are, and whether they can or cannot overlap.Jan 11 2013: Scot: you are describing the classic Western belief in "God", and assuming without question that there are 2 :"realms", one earthly and the other spiritual. That is a very large, and confusing assumption. Suppose we just assume that there is ONE realm, the one we are in.?
Jan 14 2013: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about assuming there is no such thing as a spirit? Or are you saying that spiritual things exist in the the "earthly realm"? Well, of course spiritual things exist in this realm if they exist at all. Otherwise there would be no way of knowing about them. Are you talking about what viewpoint you're coming from? Yes, I come from the "God exists until proven otherwise" standpoint. I take you it you come from the "There is no God until proven otherwise" camp. Could you explain further please?
Jan 14 2013: Scot: All I am assuming is that we live in the here and now. And I am aware that anyone who says things about "God" is usually talking about something that cannot be "shown". unless you identify "God" with everything that we experience.( AKA "Deism" ,or , possibly Zen Buddhism). But it is a fact of our culture that people who talk about "God" usually have a quite detailed list of unspoken assumptions about what constitutes "God", usually derived from 2000 documented years of History. It is a problem I have with people who insist that they are "Atheists". They so often adopt all these unspoken assumptions about "God", and then announce that no such being exists. Fine, but they provide no alternative theoretical structure to make sense of our existence. To answer your question more directly, I see no reason why all the folk wisdom, anecdotes, feelings, etc. about "Spirit" cannot be seen as natural outcomes of actual events. Consider how Cosmic Radiation, etc, were there all along in human history, but only recently were recognized as "real". "Spirit" could well be just such an entity. In fact, I would bet on its being something like the Electric Field, which I see as a "real" thing. But it has not much relationship to "God", unless God is merely everything,.Jan 10 2013: There is no evidential support that the spiritual even exists. All research over multiple decades has concluded that.
Before you ask if theres a connection between the two, you should first ask if one of those things is even real, otherwise you're just looking for the gold at the end of the rainbow.
Jan 10 2013: Xavier,
Can you please sight at least five authoritative, scientific, and credible studies that prove your point. It should be easy if there have generations of support backing your claim. Thank you.
I have my own personal opinions and biases from personal experience, we all do. I chose to leave those out of the question to emphasis the desire for provable or disprovable thoughts based on scientific and standardized research. I understand your 'rainbow' comment, and I suppose my hand (belief and bias) has been shown by me skipping that step in the preliminary question. I skipped it intentionally, thats is not what I wanted this thread to be about.Jan 10 2013: "What research has been done to inspect whether there are connections between the spiritual and the physical?"
If you can measure it (even indirectly) it's physical by definition, if it can't be measured then why the hell are you wasting your time talking about it as a researcher, because it probably doesn't even exist?
People who believe in spirituality conveniently keep moving the goalposts (like in Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage parabel) so science can't debunk their beliefs through cold hard measuring. Scientists don't believe the spiritual exists, yes there are things that we can't measure yet and there are things that we understand now but appeared miraculous centuries ago, but everything in the universe is physical: if telepathy exists it exists because the laws of physics allow it and the mechanism behind it can eventually be explained through scientific concepts.
Scot Wilcox
Jan 10 2013: Hold on a minute before you make a blanket statement like "Scientists don't believe the spiritual exists." My own father has a doctorate in microbiology and runs a DNA sequencing center. My sister has a doctorate in atmospheric science from the University of Colorado. My brother is working on his doctorate in physics at Michigan State. I'm not a scientist, just a mechanical engineering student. We are all very religious people that believe in spirituality and science both. You might be correct in saying "the majority of scientists don't believe in spirituality" but I don't even know if that's true or not. The atheists are just more vocal.
- +1
Fritzie -
Jan 10 2013: Here is some research on the matter. 2009 research by the Pew Research Center for the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed that of the scientists surveyed 33% said they believed in God and 18% said they believed in a universal spirit or higher power.
- +1
In 2007 research out of Rice University, a sociology professor surveys almost 2000 academic scientists at major universities in the US. 68% of natural scientists considered themselves spiritual and 69% of social scientists.
These beliefs were not reached through science. Science, according to professional scientists, can neither prove not disprove the spiritual.Jan 11 2013: What I described was the philosophy behind science (which, no offense to you, most engineers severely lack understanding, that's why there are so many crackpot engineers chasing ufos, building perpetual motion machines, blaming the Jews for 9/11, spreading the gospel of anarcho-capitalism, saying the world is only 6000 years old, etc...), it doesn't mean that every scientist is an atheist (though most are, especially outside the United States, which is a religious outlyer in the developed world), it does mean that good scientists keep religion out of their work and tend not to believe in an intervenionist god. No scientist worth his salt, even on who believes in god would recommend researching the spiritual.Jan 11 2013: First, I never said anything about measuring it. Second, I disagree with your definition of physical being only tied to what is measurable and immeasurable. Thirdly, I'll humor you for a moment and propose a fictional circumstance - a substance that is so potent that it can have effects, while at the same time is immeasurable. I'll admit that to ponder this takes some imagination and creativity.
I just read the "Dragon in the garage" excerpt from Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World." Interesting indeed. However, the neither the dragon keeper or the dragon keeper's friend can prove or disprove that the dragon doesn't exist, since the knowledge about the dragon's characteristics continues to expand as the questions do. Related to your example on telepathy, physical experiments have not always been the standardized method of testing to define reality, who says they always will be. And, if they haven't always been, therefore they perhaps won't always will be. If they won't always will be, whose to say that it isn't worth pursuing other methods and standards of discovering reality.
Scot, thank you for weighing in. Agreed, that blanket statement regarding scientists and believers in spirituality was outlandish.
Fritzie, thank you for those comments. I would like to follow up on those researches. Could you post those sources. And, that might be great supplemental material, but its not as specific as I was looking for.
Jan 11 2013: "First, I never said anything about measuring it."
How do you research without measuring, sitting on the couch and making stuff up?
"Thirdly, I'll humor you for a moment and propose a fictional circumstance - a substance that is so potent that it can have effects, while at the same time is immeasurable."
If it has effects it is measurable.Jan 11 2013: Tom, I cannot do more footwork on this for you, but you will find these references quickly from the info I posted.Jan 11 2013: John: being able to measure something makes it "physical"? what is physical about ligjht , or radiation in general.? What about "energy "? Is that physical. ? For that matter, I understand there is a lot of measuring going on in these brain scan exercises. It looks as though "Physical" merely means everything, including even sensations of hot and cold, etc.Jan 10 2013: I believe the Russians were studying these things for at least 100 years before those in the West (the U.S.) gave such things any credence at all.
They studied, did research, tests, experiments, largely without the world knowing anything about it.
They are really a brilliant people.
Looking into death, as did Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and Steven Levine, revealed a lot but one has to study it and go on that journey themselves to learn, understand and experience.
I myself, have very clear (what I call), pre-earth memories, just prior to coming to this planet and very clear pre-birth and birth memories. I also have several near-death experiences, where I left my body, as I was that close to complete death.
I rarely mention any of this to anyone, but here, it's okay, I suppose. Now, I'm close to death once more and it is not so pleasant as my younger events were.
I do find it interesting that all scientists who have ever lived and died, and who didn't believe in such things, if they were right, now know nothing about it at all and all those scientists alive today, who don't believe in such things, will more than likely die before humankind ever solves it, so they will never know the truth either - if they are right.
Actually, I don't know if anything really exists.
But, everything just is.
Jan 11 2013: Could you give some more specific sources? Thank you.
Gail .
Jan 10 2013: There are MANY such experiments and studies going on. Explanations remain controversial - primarily between those looking for more answers to explain the unexplainable and those who believe that the explanation is clear and self-evident. But I expect that this controversy is not long-lived. There is already a STRONG shift to delcare the fundamentals of what you ask about as being as legitimate as relativity.
- 0
Some experimental evidence? There really is a LOT!
Take what is happening at Princeton. Random number generators are used. Volunteers call the center, announce that they are going to use mind power to produce more zeros or more ones. Very surprising results are coming out of this. They include the fact that individuals can change the probability of random numbers, and that men and women are different in that men are stronger in one direction and women in another.
How about what's happening at Majarishi University? They were able to quantify a shift away from violence in a culture, and to duplicate the findings under the rigorous overview of many. In studies, it was discovered that if the square root of one percent of an area's population comes together to meditate (not pray - just meditate), that violence, crime, heart attacks, house fires, traffic accidents, war, war-funding & bomb dropping, emergency room visits, psychiatric admissions - and similar quantifiable data - all are reduced by at least 16%. Others have since studied this and have duplicated the results - even increasing the numbers in an advantageous way. (By the way, these experiments also quantify increases in quality of life improvements.
Others have put groups of people in front of tanks with balls that fall on at center-point on a fulcrum, where the ball drops either left or right. They discovered that the more people trying to get the ball to drop one way or another significantly impacts which side.
There are many more, but I only have 2,000 characters & I've used them up
Faisel Butt
Jan 10 2013: This is not true.
- +1
The number generator experiment was conducted by "The Global Consciousness Project" - people who already believe in parapsychology and quantum mysticism. The experiment has been refuted as being subject to selection bias. Independent researchers found no anomalies in the data that couldn't be explained by already existing statistical models.
Do you mean the Maharishi University of Management? Founded by Maharashi Yogi who in the 70's claimed to able to levitate people? The same guy who preached spirituality, while owning dozens of luxury cars? His claims of influencing crime statistics have been refuted thoroughly.
It doesn't help your credibility that you are willing to use falsified research in order to promote this pseudo science. Where is your critical sense?
Tom Shank
Jan 11 2013: Although your retort has a few biased holes also, I do appreciate your honesty is wanted to make sure credible sources are known, and incredible sources thwarted. Thank you.Jan 10 2013: Prayers to the Most High is the research known to me; it makes tremedous power available, it enriches with grace.
- +1
Jan 10 2013: Hi Feyisayo
I'm sure prayers enrichen your life, however it is not research in any scientific sense.
Jan 10 2013: Scientific sense is not the only sense in the world.
Faisel Butt
Jan 10 2013: I know, but if you read Tom's post, you'll see that he is asking for evidence.
- +1
If you want to use prayer as evidence for a spritual world, you must conduct experiments with a large group of test subjects and control groups. It is well documented that when it comes to prayer, we have a selective memory and only remember the positive outcomes.
My point being, that if you want to make the point that prayer is evidence of a spiritual world, you need to back it with data. Otherwise it is just a personal opinion - which is completely legit, but not of much use to the rest of us.
And by the way, I used the word "sense" as in "meaning". Not as in "sensory apparatus".


text:
Firstly apologies for the noobie question.
I've been attempting to use the pear net_server package php to put together a basic multi-socket server. When using the chat server example that's included as part of the package, everything works fine as long as only one client is connected. If I try to connect more than one, the server locks up. Anyone any ideas as to what I might be doing incorrectly ?
Relevant info :
O/S Ubuntu 11.04
Php 5
Client connections are telnets via local terminal instances.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Attendees of the 2011 National School on Neutron and X-Ray Scattering.
Neutron Sciences staff are actively involved in educational outreach programs for local students from elementary school through high school and college age. Programs range from presentations about the important role neutron science plays in our everyday lives to workshops and hands-on activities about "the science" of neutron science.
Typically, 40 to 60 college and high school students participate in Neutron Science summer internships. Year-round internships are also available. For more information and to view open positions, see ORNL Careers.
Neutron Sciences strongly support the following K-12 educational activities in order to augment and support science teachers.
These week-long programs provide hands-on experience that show teachers how to use applied engineering techniques in the classroom. Camps are held across North America, usually at high schools, colleges, and universities. Camps usually last five days and can require over-night stays or just day visits.
Students in a variety of neutron science programs get hands-on experience with local instrument scientists.
Through ACTS, teachers from all over the United States come to ORNL for three consecutive summers to participate in research with leading scientists. The teachers gain valuable knowledge and experience that they can take back to their own schools. The three-year investment gives teachers a sustained opportunity to learn and make a difference at the Lab and with their students back home.
STARs provides middle school and high school STEM teachers the opportunity to engage with top scientists and researchers on short-term research projects about current topics of national interest that are related to ongoing research at ORNL. In addition to the research immersion, we provide additional educational enhancements throughout the program in the form of seminars, mini-workshops, tours, and field trips to focus and expand the research experience.
We're always happy to get feedback from our users. Please use the Comments form to send us your comments, questions, and observations.
Follow us on social media:


text:
BBD Editor: Dan Hope
With Saturday's deadline to cut down the roster to the regular-season limit of 53 players, the Buffalo Bills had a busy day Friday. The Bills released 18 players from their roster, while also placing three injured players on the season-ending injured reserve, in order to cut their roster down to 55 players (the roster was at the 75-player limit prior to the 21 moves, but free safety Jairus Byrd's roster exemption expires Saturday).
The Bills have not made any stunning releases yet, but they have released a few names who both Ryan Talbot and I had on our final roster projections. Conversely, the Bills have a few players still remaining on their roster who neither Ryan nor I expected to make the team.


text:
- Peter Gooley
- Glossodia
- Australia
This conversation is closed.
THORIUM. Is it really that safe and great alternative to Nuclear? Is it the Other Miracle that Bill Gates is looking for?
I've been against Nuclear all my thinking life.. so from about age 20 and am now 54. Japan has not helped me become a lover of Nuclear. One thing that I heard briefly in a news report, was the word Thorium. It is apparently a rare earth mineral that is found with Uranium and dug at the same time.
I read the following.. and are yet to check the facts...
* It is a very efficient source of power generating material.
* It has already been dug up and is sitting in piles
* If there is a problem, you just simply turn it off like a light
* The waste can not be used to make a bomb
* Current Nuclear plants can be converted to use it
* It's actually cheaper than Uranium
* It doesn't require those big exclusion zones
Personally, I don't know enough about it, but from what I've read in an article titled "A report on Thorium: The newest of the technology metals . by Jack Lifton" which certainly seemed comprehensive and informed, I'm starting to wonder why this conversation hasn't been had before.
Interestingly, I don't see any reference to Thorium on the Terrapower website even though Stewart Brand referenced it in his Debate FOR Nuclear Power at about the 7 minute mark in the debate. I do note that a search for Thorium on the Terrapower website gives no hits at all.. Refer 13:20 into the Bill Gates speech as well. Not sure why.
What do YOU think?
May 8 2011: This conversation took place since Kirk Sorensen spoke at Calgary's TEDxYYC, but before the TEDx Talk was available online. So as a follow-up, here's a 10 minute video on the subject of LFTR and Thorium! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw
Chris Prato
Mar 25 2011: Wayne, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are different things. I do think that the media's focus on the nuclear problems in Japan is out of proportion to, say, the hte thousands of people who have already died and the thousands more will will likely die as a result of desdtroyed sanitation systems, lack of food, water, shelter, and everything that comes with not having sufficient electricty for long periods of time in a disaster area.
- +2
But on to thorium. The thorium fuel cycle is very different than the uranium fuel cycle. The most promising design is the liquid fluroide thorium reactor, or LFTR for short. I highy recommend checking out http://www.energyfromthorium.com and http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com The ins and outs of the technology are too involved to go into here. But I'll mention a few:
LFTRs run at normal atmospheric pressure
Passive safety systems ensure meltdown will not occur
LFTRs can use our existing nuclear waste as fuel
The waste produced by LFTRs are much less in volume and the worst of the radioactive elements present in the waste are harmful for about 300 years. We have technical and geological solutions to storing waste for this long (in vitrified glass, for example)
Thorium is more plentiful than tin - there is no middle east of thorium.I share concerns about current gen II reactors and think the world's nuclear reactor's are outdated.
Switching to a thorium fuel cycle or building gen III and gen IV uranium-fueled reactors are the way to go moving forward.
Passive cooling systems would have been enough to stop the disaster in Japan. If a 40 year old, outdated reactor built to withstand an 8.2 can take a 9.0 earthquake and then only have it's backup cooling systems fail as a result of a 35 ft tsunami, I think that's a good sign of the safety of nuclear energy. So look up LFTRs and also the integral fast reactor (IFR), another nuclear fuel burning reactor that solves all the problems with traditional nuclear energy.Jul 10 2011: Hi Peter, Thanks for your interest in finding out the truth about all this, which sentiment I share of course. However, I think there is a real world problem in making the LFTR message simpler. What's bad is that Thorium is an alternative fuel in a solid fuel reactor of the usual type; this is poles apart from the liquid fuel Molten Salt type of reactor that Kirk Sorensen is talking about, and that Wigener invented 50 years ago. In fact, if you happened to see NRC chief's rsponse to the (poorly phrased) question from one of his audience, it certainly appears that he did not appreciate this difference at all, and he is a Nobel prize winner. Or maybe he has became tactful and political.. By the way, Mr. Large possibly is on the same track: he speaks of processing and waste difficulties: with Thorium as a solid fuel;in a breeder process yes, but that is not at all what the LFTR is about. I have heard it said that one can complete a Phd program in nuclear engineering and never hear a word about LFTRs, but of course, plenty about the existing industries practices and ideas. Let's be clear on my possible lack of clarity: when I say breeder cycle, I just referring to the standard type of reactor that produces more fuel as a byproduct: apparently Thorium in LFTRs does that, but the fuel is used right there in its cycle; it is not extracted and stored or used elsewhere (as in bombs). This may be incorrect usage on my part; as I say, I was an engineer for years , but up to a couple of months ago I never even heard the term "Thorium Reactor". By the way, how can Thorium LFTRs be said "not to work" if one was in use producing energy for 5 years, with the information part of the history of Oak Ridge.? Maybe it was formerly "Top Secret" no doubt, but that was years ago. I understand that part of the airplane engine project also made some basic discoveries about how to make the process not only work, but work better. Apropos of corrosion problems, etc.Jul 9 2011: Hi Craig. Reallly great to see so much interest in LFTRs. I am a retired engineer, but not nuclear. Haviing seen Kirk Sorensens videos, I am a little confused about "Breeder" reactors: are you saying that a LFTR is one because it produces the U233 it needs to continue the fission, once it has gone critical? By analogy to let's say, the infamous "Breeder Reactors " which could produce lots of bomb material. Mr. S. says the LFTR products cannot be used in bomb making, not because there aren't any, but because it is not a practical way to make a bomb.
Jul 9 2011: Hi Shawn, Craig and everyone who has contributed here. .. Thank you so much .. There are still little niggles created by John Large a Nuclear Engineer of Large and Associates,who says there are problems with the Processing cycle to split the fuel from the waste and difficulties actually storing the fuel.. He even commented that the Thorium Reactors don't really work.. He said the problems related to Thorium Rectors are insurmountable, in his opinion!! This was from a news report on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLo73k3OG0&NR=1&feature=fvwp at about the 2:20 point in the video...
I guess the question that comes up for me is that is he a Nuclear Engineer and a consultant to the Nuclear industry or is he totally independent and unattached?
Listening to that 10 second grab can certainly press the HOLD THE BUS nerve if someone doesn't take the time to learn what is really the truth.
Might be time to simplify the message about LFTR to make it more easily communicated..
Jul 11 2011: John Large makes his living as a hired gun and has often been hired by Greenpeace.
"Once again we note the hazard to media credibility that comes from automatically attributing expert status to the hired guns of partisan causes."
IMO, for those that don't bother to read the link, John Large is a joke and every one of his comments is easy to prove wrong with a little research.Jul 11 2011: Shawn, yes a LFTR is a breeder reactor, but it operates in the thermal part of the spectrum so it breeds slower and is more stable than fast plutonium breeders. In Kirk Sorensen's longer talks he covers this very well. He may have shown an illustration of it in his TEDx talk but can't remember.
All commercial reactors breed fuel, but they have low (though still significant) breeding ratios.
By the way, there is nothing impractical about making a bomb from U-233 using modern robotic techniques. There are just easier routes to go if with current tech if you want to do it. Kirk's argument has nuances that are often lost in short heavily edited talks posted on youtube. Using thorium was the hardest path of the 3 choices they had on the Manhatten project to attempt to make a bomb so obviously they chose the other routes, the plutonium implosion device being the most stable if could be proved to work (Trinity). The point is that LFTR is a breeder reactor and could be designed to make plenty of U-233 for a bomb. This is why you want to design LFTR's technology with antiproliferation in mind, built into the design. It can be done. Making attempts for example to siphon off material for a bomb easily detectable (it would immediately cause the reactor to shutdown for example because one is operating in a correctly designed reactor just at criticality). One should also keep in mind that no civilian reactor of any kind has ever been used to make bombs. It's a very lousy way to go. Stealing the material from a civilian reactor is also a really lousy way to go.
It's important to read this rebuttal to critics to understand the nuances,
http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/May 17 2011: So far, I am flabbergasted that the MSR thorium reactor is NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the main stream media that I have seen, whereas "Nuclear Power Plants" (evidently of the Chernobyl and Fukushiima type) frequentlly are.
What a devastating commentary on our Society!Apr 19 2011: Peter I understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way. But I have been looking and I haven't found any negative information about LFTR's. So I have been wondering why they weren't built 40 years ago and why there still isn't a serious program in the USA to build a working commercialized prototype.
Even if they did not produce any power if they can burn up and transmute existing nuclear waste into material that is safe in 300 years that would be worth it. But they also have the potential of producing power for less cost than coal. But I still have some unanswered questions.
Are they a solution for the disposal of existing waste?
What is the worst possible disaster that could happen at one of these reactors?
Can they blow up?
Can they be blown up?
How safe would it be to live near one?
They don't operate under pressure but they do produce significant quantities of poisonous radio-toxic gases. What kind of danger do these gases represent.
Apr 20 2011: As I understand it, LFTR was not pursued primarily because its waste products were poorly suited for the production of nuclear weapons, and the reason that they still aren't being built commercially in the US is because the established nuclear industry makes all of its money on uranium fuel production.
Tanay Gahlot
Mar 19 2011: I think Thorium is an excellent fuel but unlike what you heard that waste could be used to make bomb is not true. Waste could be used to refuel the reactor.
- +1
Extensive research on this field have being going on in India.
India has the world's second largest thorium reserves, and thorium can be used to build "breeder" reactors (which produce more fuel than they consume) and lead to self-sufficient power generation.
I hope you found this useful!
Good day!
Jul 9 2011: It's great that India is working on Thorium reactors, but its NOT great that they plan to use it in plants similiar to the existing LWR solid fulel types, which have all these problems that the LFTR doesn't. Really, India already is known toave nuclear bombs, they really don't need any more; and what other reason is there to build "breeder" reactors? "Producing more fuel than they burn" is really a Faustian bargain, and an unnecessary one: Thorium in the US is so cheap, it is considered a waste product..
Jouko Salo
Mar 16 2011: Just to make one thing clear at first:
- +1
Thorium power is nuclear power.
The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold.
Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle.
If you consider the events which are now unfolding in Japan, the heat being released at Fukushima is from the fission products. Fission products are an inevitable result of fission processes and therefore such an event could also happen to a thorium nuclear power plant.
Thorium as a nuclear fuel is propably the way to go in the future. This is due to it's high availability and low price. But before we get there we need to learn a lot more about large breeder reactors and reactors operating on fast neutrons.
May 14 2011: No, the main point of Thorium is not it's greater abundance or where it's cheaper. IV generation uranium reactors would greatly extend the uranium resources making it last many many times longer than the current practices would allow.
The main point of Thorium is that it is ideal for use in a liquid fuel reactors. Liquid fuel reactors have several huge advantages in terms of efficiency and safety. Efficiency because the you can easily burn the fuel to near 100% rather than only about 1% for one pass of Uranium solid fuel. Safety because the liquid salts are self-quenching, you heat them up they expand and you lose criticality necessary to maintain fission reaction, also you lose power and the solid frozen salt plug melts allowing the core to drain by gravity into a tank that maximizes passive heat dissipation. No need for diesel power generators to cool the core on shutdown means the problem that occurred in Japan would not have happened with thorium liquid fuel reactors. These liquid salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure without high pressure water and can be gas cooled, Energy generation is more efficient gas turbines.
So no, the events as happened in Japan with the melting of solid fuel would not have happened with liquid fuel. The explosive expansion of high pressure water into steam or the creation of Hydrogen gas from the zirconium cladding of the solid fuel would not have happened either.
Thermal breeder reactors are much more inherently safe than fast breeders, and you can also build much small more compact reactors too. Bigger isn't necessary.
May 17 2011: I have been tryiing to locate some more specifics on MSR Thorium reactors. Thanks very much..Do I understand you correctly to say that such a reactor would be "failsafe" , or self-extinguishing (without positive human inputs) in the worst case scenario? If so, why aren't they all like that?! They might even be able to get Insurance...Rumor has it that the real reason is that the process doesn't produce weapons grade Uranium for bombs. What do you think of thiat idea?
Jul 7 2011: Yes,
a well-designed Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor would shutdown on it's own with no humans if the power went out.
If you tried to over-heat it you would just end expanding the liquid salt volume (the liquid is not pressurized and has a similar viscosity to water) & it there would be less fuel in the core of the reactor reducing fission causing the reactor to essentially shut off and start to cool.
Nuclear engineers during World War II had three choices to make fission bombs. One through Uranium, one through Plutonium, and one through Thorium. Two of those three choices had more direct solutions. The last one through Thorium required too many steps and some big technical drawbacks. They chose to work with making Uranium (Little Boy) and Plutonium (Trinity and Fat Man) bombs. After the war, the experience with nuclear reactors used to make bomb material (Hanford) was used to make power plants for Navy ships and submarines. The first civilian reactors were basically Navy designs place on land. Only the nuclear plane idea being worked on at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 50's and 60's and funded by the Air Force put such constraints on the designs (safety, compactness, no high pressure, no need for water, higher efficiency of fuel, no need to replace fuel because of Xenon desturction, etc.) that liquid reactors (molten salts) using Thorium which is usable in the thermal part of the spectrum became seen as a necessity. The lead scientist on the project was the same scientist who invented the light water reactors that the Navy was using. He though that use of liquids and thorium for civilian use was by far the better way. During the Nixon Administration, his voice become politically isolated. All the expertise in liquid reactors was at Oak Ridge NL where he was in charge. Other national labs and those in the administration favored solid fuel, fast breeder plutonium reactors. He was fired. Liquid reactor project lost it's funding.Jul 7 2011: the irony. is that several years later, the Carter administration canned the Fast Breeder Plutonium reactor program. That ended the U.S.'s research into any kind of breeder reactor (plutonium faster breeder solid fuel reactors now used by the French, and the safer thorium thermal breeder liquid fuel reactors which are now gaining a new look in the last few years). Breeder reactors become synonymous in the U.S. with proliferation risks even though because people talked about faster plutonium breeder designs as if that was the only type of breeder. All institutional memory of the Thorium thermal breeder program was lost by late 70's and early 80's, and in the era before the Internet, the work became just books on the shelf in the library of the national labs. So much so that you could get a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering and NEVER learn about Thorium as a nuclear fuel.
So problem is now while all the work was documented and because of the internet much of it is now online for people to discover, all the engineers and experts that worked on liquid reactors from the 50's through the early 70's in the U.S. are either dead or long retired.
So in the information age. U.S. has no jump on anyone that decides to pick up the ball and run with it. Like for example China.
Wayne Busby
Mar 16 2011: Just this afternoon I stood outside the metro on the way home and began a discussion with two scholarly youths about a certain political foundation they are promoting, nuclear, thorium, what is happening in Japan etc...
- +1
The whole of the conversation I found myself wondering if they found me as troubling as I found them. They were earnestly trying to convince me that the media coverage of Japan was being influenced by pressure from various diabolical Green organizations.
Nuclear is completely safe as evidenced by the fact that no one has died in Japan. I guess Hiroshima doesn't count.
There is in fact no need for the various redundant and in this case curiously ineffective safety systems.
That teams of safety, rescue and health care professionals can afford to commit their time to involving themselves in assessing the fake and impossible threat of radiation poisoning.
Persons who are anti Nuclear are caught up in a fear campaign to excite the ignorant public opinion and interfere with the progress of nuclear science...
Is it just me who is a little worried here about what our education system is efficiently turning out.
Its up to us to get our ignorant selves informed.
May 13 2011: No Hiroshima doesn't count as that was a bomb. That would be like equating a diesel generator to the Firebombing of Dresden. It's this kind of confusing nuclear weapons with nuclear energy that is exactly the problem. The fact that there has not been a new reactor built in over 30 years in the US has simply resulted in an industry dependent on running old reactors several generations behind current technology and incentive to develop better engineered systems. The whole industry in dependent on making a profit on the fuel production which itself is horribly inefficient (most of what is called waste is actually unused fuel that needs to be reprocessed). In Japan, you had 40+ year old reactors that had been scheduled to be decommissioned 7 years ago. The newer Tech survived the tsunami just fine and shutdown properly.
I don't know about media coverage influence or political groups, but every large scale power system requires safety systems.
People die installing solar or wind systems. A wind turbine blade value is pretty spectacular and dangerous.
both sides need to be more informed.
Jul 22 2011: Once again I did not mean to trivialize the usefulness of this tech. I am sorry as once again my comparison drew away from my intended message. I just dont want the next generation to become as complacent in thier ignorance as we were about coal and oil... we all need to be aware and respect the fact that like a blade this tool can cut the hand that wields it. Nothing more.Jul 9 2011: Wayne: Pardon me if I didn't underand your comment clearly: were you saying that the students were getting everything garbled up, or that you really were impressed that no one was killed by the reactors at Fukushima? The main point of all this is that ALL LWRs ()existng plants) CAN blow up, mellt down, and/or release incredibly toxic materials.. Yes, they do have an impressive safety record in comparison with coal mines, but iit is brought about by an ongoing, intensive, superivision program which requires outside energy as well as personel to keep going. The Thorium LFTR system, on ltlhe other hand, shuts itself down automativally without power intputs or intervention, in cases of trouble. To my mind, that is a game-changer. Anollther excellent point in favor of LFTRs is that they seem to solve complettely what to my mind was the ultimate objection to existing Nuclear LWR plants: they produce great quantities of super-toxic material that no one knows what to do with. (for the next 17,000 years or so), while the LFTRs can "burn" that stuff for fuel, and actually destroy it. Another game changer. You should look up Thorium-Kirk Sorensen" on Youtube for some fascinating videos aboout this.
Jul 22 2011: Yes I guess you can say the information was 'garbled up.'
Your dialouge with Craige has been very infomative. Thank you Shawn.
Please read my note to Craige above for more clarification.Jul 12 2011: No problem at all Craig.. I took it as a positive...Jul 12 2011: Thanks Craig.. checking out the link
Jul 12 2011: sorry, I was tired. I meant that comment about barely touching the subject to be directed to Shawn.Jul 11 2011: hmm... so I get the feeling you don't have a vested interest in this, but are, like myself, searching for the facts and trying to get your head around why this isn't a major direction that governments aren't supporting.. I guess it's because they just don't know enough about it... time to raise the bar methinks....
Jul 11 2011: Russia has a program that may be further than anyone knows.
France has a largely theoretical program that maybe finally be getting engineering experience it needs from the Czech Republic making it more of true European effort.
South Africa is throwing their hat in the ring with a serious startup effort
China maybe putting some big bucks into a LFTR project,
and there are the guys in Huntsville plan to have a working commercial prototype in 5 years.
remains to be seen who will be firstJul 11 2011: Never underestimate technological and industrial inertia. LFTR while it seems a no-brainer still takes some serious money and engineering talent as well as consistent effort. You could say up until recently there hasn't been the consistent effort since the ORNL program was killed as it was about to take the next step during the Nixon Administration.
just saw this, a nice essay on exactly this topic
title: Fukushima: Nuclear power's VHS relic?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14060913Jul 6 2011: Fast Facts: What so great about a Thorium Reactor?
•It's safe: Nuclear reactors, like the one at Fukushima need constant cooling – even if they've been switched off. Nuclear 'meltdown' happens when these cooling systems fail (like in Fukushima) and the uranium fuel core overheats. But within a thorium reactor, a 'meltdown' simply isn't possible – turn the power supply off and the reaction just stops.
•It's cheap: At the moment, thorium is being thrown away. In rare earth metal mines around the world, millions of tonnes of thorium are extracted. They don't need it – and so these companies are literally paying someone to get rid of it!
•It's efficient: Thorium reactors (also called LFTRs) use liquid fuel rather than solid uranium. Liquid fuel means things can mix together better, meaning thorium reactors are 200-300 times more efficient than even the best uranium reactor. Powering 1,000,000 homes for one year needs only one ton of thorium! (compared to 250 tons of uranium)
•It's clean: Thorium 'burns' much more cleanly than uranium, and only produces 1% of the waste (see image below). Much of the 'waste' from a Thorium reactor is actually quite useful and can be re-used for powering space probes (amongst other things)!
•Reactors are easy to build: Conventional nuclear power plants take about 15 years to set up and build. A thorium reactor is a much more simple structure and operates at a much lower temperature., therefore they can be much smaller and are faster to build.
Advantages of Thorium 233 over Uranium 235
1. Waste products can contain significantly less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium.
2. Weapons cannot be proliferated from Thorium.
3. Thorium is more energy efficient, operating at higher temperatures.
4. There are massive supplies of Thorium worldwide.
5. Less environmental damage to the environment through mining, extraction, and processing.
6. Less damaging health effects to workers during extraction.
7. Thorium does not require enrichment.
Jul 22 2011: Wow.
Jul 22 2011: your response got me to look at Tushar's response and in the interest of get the story straigh, there is a mistake in his post
This is not correct.
"A thorium reactor is a much more simple structure and operates at a much lower temperature... "
Thorium fluid reactor, LFTR, or any molten salt reactor actually operates at a higher temperature than a conventional solid fuel reactor. That's one of it's advantages. Running at a higher temperature means it can use the more efficient gas turbines (Brayton cycle) rather than the less efficient fluid/steam turbines (Rankine cycle) found in conventional pressurized water reactors. The narrow range for water as a fluid is why conventional reactors run at high pressures, so that the temperature range can be increased to increase efficiency by running the reactor at higher temperature. But there are limits to this and it creates safety issues from both the high pressure and the presence of water. Water under such high pressure is the reason that containment vessels are so large because a loss of pressure would result in instant explosive conversion of water to a gas. A thorium fluid reactor like LFTR runs at higher temperature and the salt remains a fluid over a much larger range including the working temperatures so there is no need to pressurize. And this means your containment structure needs to be only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel. Far simpler for safety but the plumbing is very challenging requiring very smart careful engineering for the two fluid systems that would be the best.May 14 2011: Yes, "Current Nuclear plants can be converted to use it" BUT, you give up a LOT of the advantages of thorium by using it in solid fuel form. It's the reason the current nuclear industry is negative on Thorium. They only know the solid fuel engineering and from a solid fuel perspective thorium isn't that good.
India is trying to go the solid fuel thorium route, I feel it's a big mistake. Given their greater abundance of thorium resource rather than uranium you can see why thorium is attractive to them. It's just unfortunate that they are going with the familiar solid fuel route. Lots of issues with that.
China now appears to be pushing to using thorium the smart way in new fluid fuel reactors (molten salt reactors).Mar 16 2011: OK.. thanks Wayne and Jouko.
If that is what education institutions are putting in our kids heads, then I also have concerns Wayne. I look at the comment that was thrown out there almost off the cuff that if this was a Thorium Reactor, then you would just turn it off.. From what Jouko has just educated me on, I see I was completely mis-informed... good thing I have an enquiring mind and clever people in my life.. well at the end of a keYboARD.. and an 18month old grandson pressing caps lock with his toes..
Craig Hockre
May 14 2011: Jouko misinformed you so the kids are alright after all LOL
- +2
Turn off the power on Thorium Liquid Fuel Reactor and it shuts itself off with any human intervention. It's what they did weekly for 5 years with the test reactor in the 1960's. On Friday, they would shutoff the power and go home for the weekend and come back on Monday and turn it back on by heating up the salts and pumping the back into the reactor core.
The problem with solid Uranium fuel is that it is a ceramic and has very poor heat dissipation properties. Got to be constantly pumping water to get that heat out.
shawn disney
Jul 9 2011: This whole topic is quite tricky. We "onverts"think that LFTRs are the greatest, but let's be aware that when some , even knowledgable,people talk about "Thorium Reactors" , they may very well be thinking of the solid furel, "fast breeder" reactors, simply using Thorium instead of Uranium; this is not much of an improvement over the Fukushima type, as far as saftety goes. It's good if you want to make bombs, I suppose. I heard a talk by Nobel prize winner head of the NRC who seemed to be thinking this way, I understand it is possible to get a degree in Nuclear Engineering and not even hear a word about LFTR. i am a retired engineer, civil , but I must say I never heard a word about it before a couple of months ago. It looks like it was all (internal) politics in the atomic bomb program of years ago, and of course was "Top Secret". Now there is the promblem that the large nuclear power industry "business model" completely depends on keeping soliid Uranium fuel rods as the standard fuel. Thorium is so cheap in the US , it'sthe status of a waste product (I mean the ore residue from "Rare Earth" production; its not radioactive particularly.)
- +2
Jul 11 2011: @Shawn, Excuse me for saying this as a physicist, but you need to do a lot more reading. All the comments you have made here seem to be just as someone who has barely touched the subject.
Also, a Nobel prize is nothing more than a recognition of an achievement in your area of expertise. It doesn't necessarily make you any smarter or more knowledgeable than any other scientist outside their area of expertise. Just as a black belt in Judo may not be much more knowledgeable about karate than a white belt in karate, and likely to make white belt mistakes, head of the NRC which is head of an organization that spends all it's time thinking about solid fuel uranium pressurized water reactors and that has never studied in real depth liquid reactors would also be unlikely to get the facts straight on LFTR.
LFTR doesn't need converts, it needs people willing to look at it with an open mind because like any dense energy system there are risks. It's just happens to be a system where engineering safety doesn't have to fight the physics making it very attractive when compared to current LWR designs.
Jul 12 2011: You're absolutely correct.. I HAVE barely touched the subject. I am not an engineer or a physicist, and come from a place of totally ignorance, hence me query out to the world to find people like yourself and Shawn who will know more than me so I can learn the TRUE facts rather than just what I can find on the web.
Thank you very much for being a large part of my learning. I'm off to those links you suggested and more research.Jul 12 2011: Craig: You are certainly right that I have just touched the subject; I thought I sort of explained that myself. Did you mean to say that what I said was incorrect? And about Nobel prize winners was, I thought , almost exactly what you said as well: he's very capable, no doubt, but perhaps overspecialized. As to engineering safety, is it not correct to say thlat LFTRs are potentially "failsafe " in the sense that no outside actions or powered devices are required for an automatic shudown? I am of course, just repeating what some actual nuclear engineer said; is it not correct? I do not consider the usual run of industrial accidents as in the same risk class as a "critical " meltdown like at Fukushima. As to my admitted lack of qualifications: since we all are going to suffer the consequences of nuclear accidents, we are naturally curious about the whole thing. It's sort of like being a passenger on the Titianic. But any clarifications you can provide would be most welcome. Incidentally, I think LFTRs really DO need converts; even the technical people I've discussed it with are all too quick to say "Oh, it's been tried, and found wanting, otherwise we'd have it now.


text:
[AUDIO] 2-19-14 DJ Big Rob – The 9 O' Clock Mixshow On WBLK In Buffalo NY
If you haven't heard, you can catch me on 93.7 WBLK from Monday - Saturday 6p-10p! I also do the mixshow at 9pm on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, here's Wednesday 2-19's edition of the mix! Featuring the new Nicki Minaj song "Lookin


text:
Scene Info - Bella Stuart, Scene #01
- Bonus Sites8
- Models2060
- Scenes3945
- Hours of Video2556
- Pictures468945
- Customer Support24/7
Guys are simple, they only want two things on Valentine\'s Day -- a blowjob and a night of not having to watch any of those crap-tastic TV reality shows. Well, 19-year-old Bella Stuart has at least one of those covered. When you\'ve got a girl as young and naive as Bella, you might have to teach her a few things. So we taught her how to stroke and suck at the same time and schooled her in the fine art of giving the perfect blowjob. Ahhh...just in time for V-Day and now she\'s our gift to you. Enjoy!
Bella gives beautiful blowjobs!


text:
Experience free range of motion with the Shock Doctor 864 Knee Compression Sleeve.
This pre-curved compression fit sleeve, designed with closed patella coverage, stays firmly in place while the breathable mesh window strives to increase breathability and raise comfort levels. This compression sleeve offers light support for minor pain, sprains and strains allowing for daily use for an extended period of time.
This item contains 1 compression sleeve.
Helps to reduce odour causing bacteria
Provides enhanced fit, comfort and performance.
Provides cooling and comfortable full-range of motion flex.
N-TEXâ"¢ AIR FLOW NEOPRENE
Provides moisture wicking compression for therapeutic warmth and healing.
For comfort and long lasting wear.
For easy grip pull when fitting.
The sizing of these compression sleeves are based upon the circumference measurement of your knee, measured 5cm below the center of the knee cap (Patella):
Small: 31.1cm - 33.7cm
Medium: 33cm - 35.6cm
Large: 34.9cm - 37.5cm
X-Large: 36.8cm - 39.4cm
Please be aware that (due to hygiene reasons) under no circumstances are we able to accept the return or exchange of this item in compliance with the current Health and Hygiene regulations. This does not affect your Statutory Rights.
We do our best to provide accurate sizing info for all items of MMA Clothing & Equipment that we sell at MMA Universe.
You can find our sizing information here
Should you be unable to find the information you need you can contact us at any time, we would be delighted to help you!
We do our best to ensure that our shipping prices are as fair and competitive as possible. We offer four tiers of delivery each with their own benefits and we offer free delivery options with orders of £50 or more.
If you place your order with us before 2pm GMT on Mon-Fri, we guarantee to ship your order the same day. Orders placed after this time may not be processed until the next available working day (but we'll do our best to get your order on it's way ASAP). Our typical delivery times are:
|United Kingdom:
|Within 48 Hours of shipping
|Within Europe:
|Within 5-7 Days of shipping
|Outside of Europe:
|Within 7-10 Days of shipping
MMA Universe have simple returns policy where if you are not 100% satisfied with your purchase, you can return it within 14 days of receiving it for any of the following:
- Exchange your purchase for another size or colour, or a new item entirely.
- Return your purchase for MMA Universe Store Credit.
- Return your purchase for a refund.
- Return your purchase for a replacement if it is damaged or faulty.
Items to be returned for exchange or refund must be unworn and in the original packaging, unless faulty, in which case please wash them first!You can find more information about our returns policy here


text:
Re-live New York Yankees history like never before! This amazing mega-boxed set features no less than 30 complete one-hour episodes of the Emmy-winning YES Network series "Yankeeography", with each episode giving a full historical biography on a particular player (or, in the case of the final three episodes, a group of players). With exclusive interviews and rare archival footage, each show is a time-capsule celebrating Yankee legends to perfection! In addition to the 30 episodes, this set also includes a whopping 10 hours of bonus footage, which includes Hall of Fame induction speeches, milestone game footage, extended uncut interviews, and more. A must-have addition to your sports DVD collection!
Episode List: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Phil Rizzuto, Yogi Berra, Billy Martin, Whitey Ford, Mickey Mantle, Casey Stengel, Elston Howard, Roger Maris, Bobby Murcer, Sparky Lyle, Craig Nettles, Lou Piniella, Catfish Hunter, Ron Guidry, Willie Randolph, Reggie Jackson, Goose Gossage, Don Mattingly, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill, David Cone, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Joe Torre, Tino Martinez, Roger Clemens, "Hall of Famers", "Left-Handers", and "Right-Handers".
Product Specifications:


text:
Try To Survive The Vietnam War And More In 'The Cape: 1969′ #1 [Preview]
If you've read Joe Hill, Jason Ciaramella and Zach Howard's original The Cape, chances are you've come to expect a level of... darkness... from the creative team. From the looks of The Cape: 1969 #1 by Hill, Ciaramella new artist Nelson Daniel, fans can expect a consistent tone in the pages of the new four-issue miniseries, which takes place in the thick of the Vietnam War and tells the story of just how the book's titular "cape" came to be. IDW's provided us with an early l


text:
Schedule of Events
Hall of Fame/ Hall of Honor
and lodging
Attendance list
Visit the
Saint Martin's University bookstore during the weekend to add to
your Saint Martin's spirit collection! All alumni will receive a 10%
discount on apparel and gift items. Just be sure to mention that you
are a Saint Martin's alumn back on campus for Homecoming.
Offering a wide range of apparel, accessories, and gifts ,
you'll be sure to find something to show off your Saints pride.
The bookstore is located on the 2nd floor of Old Main on the
Saint Martin's University campus.
It will be open the follow times over homecoming
Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Sunday CLOSED


text:
Bridgeport Hospital's Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Program helped this Stratford mother deliver a healthy baby in spite of a high-risk pregnancy.
Early in their first pregnancy, Stacy and Matt Mezick learned that this was not going to be the blissful, blooming nine months they had expected. It was, in fact, going to be a high-risk pregnancy.
"Way back in the summer of 2001, the first ultrasound at my doctors' office, Women's Health Care of Trumbull, suggested that I had placenta previa," says Stacy.
She tosses that Latin medical term off pretty casually. And why not? In the next six months, she became very familiar with placenta previa, and what it was going to mean to her and her unborn child.
Her obstetricians referred Stacy to Bridgeport Hospital's Antenatal Testing Unit, where a more sophisticated ultrasound confirmed placenta previa. In this serious condition, the placenta is positioned low in the uterus so that it partly or completely covers the opening of the birth canal. The placenta, a large, flat organ attached to the inner wall of the uterus, helps nourish and provide oxygen to the unborn child.
Placenta previa can cause several problems:
Placenta previa can't be treated. There is no medicine or procedure that could have moved Stacy's placenta away from the birth canal. But the condition can be managed, to ward off trouble for as long as possible. And for the birth, Stacy could have a cesarean section—delivery of the baby by surgery rather than through the birth canal. That would prevent major blood loss during delivery. But first, Stacy and her doctors needed to make sure Stacy didn't go into labor before the baby was big enough to survive.
Bloodless Medicine & Surgery in The Birthplace at Bridgeport Hospital
Bridgeport Hospital's Bloodless Medicine & Surgery Program is the only service of its kind in Fairfield County with a dedicated coordinator to make all the arrangements for Bridgeport Hospital patients who want to avoid transfusions. The coordinator is the link between the patient and physicians, making sure that everyone on the team-including caregivers, patient, and family-understands the entire situation and has all the facts to make sound decisions.
In The Birthplace at Bridgeport Hospital, we respect your decision not to receive blood.
For more information call Ron Travaglino, 203-384-3848.
The first step for Stacy was to stop working. Starting in October, she began spending most of her time at home on the couch, avoiding any activity that might cause contractions.
But on November 12, at 32 weeks (normal delivery is at 40 weeks), the placenta began to separate from the uterus, and Stacy began bleeding. She went straight to Bridgeport Hospital and was taken directly up to The Birthplace. After consultation with Gary Kleinman, MD, a Bridgeport Hospital perinatologist (a doctor specializing in high-risk pregnancies), medications were started to stop contractions and control the bleeding.
Stacy needed constant observation from now on. So she went into Bridgeport Hospital's Special Care Maternity Program for high-risk pregnant women. And there she stayed for the next month, under the eyes of expert nurses.
Coordinated care was provided by a team of Bridgeport Hospital perinatologists, Obstetrics & Gynecology resident physicians (doctors who are dedicated to learning the specialty of OB/GYN), and her own obstetricians, all of whom saw Stacy daily. The goal was to make sure she stayed healthy—and pregnant. This was important, because twice more over the next month, as her placenta continued to separate from the uterine wall, Stacy had episodes of increased bleeding.
Loss of blood is, of course, a problem for the mother. It's also a problem for the baby, who relies on the oxygen it gets from its mother's blood until it is fully born and breathing on its own—so separation of the placenta can be harmful or fatal to the baby too.
Clearly, it's all about blood—the river of life that connects mother and baby. One way to ensure that the river keeps flowing is to provide blood transfusions—to replace what is lost with someone else's blood that matches the mother's in every important way.
But Stacy was reluctant to receive transfusions. "To me, it's a matter of good health," she says. "I just didn't want a transfusion if it could possibly be avoided." Early in her stay at Bridgeport Hospital, she told her obstetricians how she felt. They immediately called Ron Travaglino, the coordinator of Bridgeport Hospital's Bloodless Medicine & Surgery Program, who explained to Stacy the steps that could be taken to prevent the need for transfusions.
Stacy's bleeding episodes caused her to become anemic. Anemia is a condition in which there is a lack of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in the blood, so Stacy's doctors kept a close eye on her hemoglobin levels. A normal level is around 12-14. At one point, hers dipped below 10.
Stacy's doctors prescribed a weekly shot of Procrit®, a medication that makes the body produce more red blood cells. These are the cells that carry oxygen, so the more of them, the better.
"At this point, a hospital without a Bloodless Medicine program would probably be thinking about transfusion," says Ron Travaglino. "Instead, Stacy's doctors were patient. While monitoring Stacy's health, they watched and waited for the Procrit to do its job. Her hemoglobin crept back into the normal range.
Her doctors also prescribed iron, vitamin C, vitamin B12, and folic acid as supplements to nourish Stacy while her body worked hard to make new blood. These nutrients are good for any pregnant mother, but especially when anemia is part of the picture.
Meanwhile, perinatologists performed frequent ultrasounds to monitor the baby's growth and development.
The goal was to buy time. Stacy's care team wanted to take her as far as they could before her obstetricians had to deliver the baby.
In late November, at 34 weeks, her doctors began trying to plan for the cesarean section (c-section) they knew would be required. First they needed to know if the baby's lungs were mature enough to avoid severe respiratory problems after birth—so perinatologist Steven Laifer


text: Campus Ministry home service & justice local service service-immersion trips social justice worship catholic liturgy schedule liturgical ministries music ministry protestant worship ecumenical opportunities retreats 19th annotation retreats kairos retreats upcoming retreats faith formation lent rcia faith sharing community koinonia and cocoa upcoming events weddings after graduation religious vocations post graduate volunteer service about us professional staff campus ministry student leaders mission statement 19th Annotation Retreats The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola at Le Moyne College Encountering God…encountering you! You are invited to: Encounter the living God and God's presence in creation, your personal life story and current life circumstances. Better discern your deepest desires to understand God's call and presence in your life and in the world. Become Contemplative in Action, experiencing more deeply the vision of "finding God in all things." What are the Spiritual Exercises in Everyday Life? The Spiritual Exercises grew out of Ignatius Loyola's personal experience as a lay person seeking to grow in union with God and to discern God's will. He kept a journal as he gained spiritual insight and deepened his spiritual experience. Eventually Ignatius gathered these prayers, meditations, reflections and directions into a carefully designed framework of a journey which he called "spiritual exercises". For centuries these Exercises were most commonly given over a thirty-day period in solitude and silence. But Ignatius himself found that many people could not, because of family or business reasons, take thirty days off, leave home, and go away for a retreat. So he created an adaptation of the Exercises, which would be extended over a period of seven to eight months. This is what is known as a 19th Annotation Retreat because Ignatius described this method of retreat in his 19th Annotation, or Supplemental Note, in the Spiritual Exercises. This journey with the Lord helps the retreatant to grow in spiritual freedom and the ability to find intimacy with God in the midst of everyday life. Who will benefit from the Spiritual Exercises? Those who desire to grow in their relationship with God. Those who have a desire to live life at a deeper level. Those who seek to understand more clearly God's movements in their lives. Those who want to discern the next step in their lives. Those who are in transition. What will be required of me, and some practical considerations for the 19th Annotation Retreat at Le Moyne College? Requirements A daily meditative period of prayer. A short period of reflection on my prayer experience, taking notes of the insights I have received. Share with my director what has occurred in my prayers Meeting once per week with my director. Some Practical Considerations The 19th Annotation Retreat will be offered with the support of and in collaboration with the college offices of Mission and Identity and Campus Ministry Retreat directors will be Jesuits, religious and lay women and men who are experienced in the Spiritual Exercises. The actual director of the retreat is the Holy Spirit. The retreat director is a guide to help and accompany the retreatant during the spiritual journey of the 19th Annotation Retreat. The relationship of retreatant and director is privileged and confidential. Private individual meetings of retreatants and directors will take place on campus. The program will begin the week of September 15, 2013 and conclude in May 2014. Does a retreatant need to be a Roman Catholic? No. In addition to Catholics, people from Protestant and Orthodox traditions of Christianity have made the Exercises. Since the purpose of the retreat is a personal encounter with God, in Christ Jesus, a level of comfort with the Christian tradition and Bible is foundational. Formal affiliation with a Church is not required. Adaptation of the retreat can be available for those from other spiritual traditions. Information Sessions on the 19th Annotation Retreat Meetings will be held on September 4 and September 5 from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., in the Drescher Community Room of the Panasci Family Chapel. At these sessions, a retreat director and former retreatant will be available to answer questions and share from their experience. Any who are unable to make the Information Sessions may contact Fr. Dan Mulhauser, S.J., email@example.com , (315)445-4617,or Fr. Bill Dolan, S.J. , email@example.com, (315)445-4110, evening 445- 4643, for further information.


text:
The browser you are using is out of date and is no longer supported. To view and use this site correctly, please update your browser to the latest version.
3 November 2008A school visit to Edinburgh Castle in the run up to Remembrance Day will enable a 15-year old descendant of one of the heroes of the Great War to see his great-great uncle's Victoria Cross - the British army's highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy.
For further information


text:
The largest modular green roo, has been installed on top of the new "Court at Upper Providence" shopping center in Pennsylvania. The 2.3 acres green roof was constructed with GreenGrid modules. These modules are made with recycled plastic, and they contain small but hardly plants like sedums.
You are here: Home / Archives for Acres