• WoJian
  • 注册于:2005-01-19
  • 帖子:13725
发表于: 9/08/2010 13:54 发表主题: ZT 真的假的,接种疫苗会是阴谋?
引用并回复 快速引用
ZT 中国人,请警惕共济会阴谋!!
今年9月美国出钱联合国名义中国1亿儿童统一免费注射神秘疫苗


中国一亿儿童在十天内全部接种疫苗,这可能是一件关系到国家民族前途的大事。

这次全国范围计划外麻疹疫苗接种,是配合联合国世界卫生组织的要求进行的。世卫组
织的合作者(资金支持者)有比尔和梅琳达-盖茨基金会、洛克菲勒基金会等。该麻疹
疫苗只针对亚洲和非洲发展中国家的儿童进行注射。
该疫苗母本来自美国,在中国复制,但是去年我国的第一大疫苗生产企业已经被瑞士罗
氏制药控股。而瑞士罗氏制药的背后控股股东是共济会犹太金融核心家族───罗斯切
尔德家族!!!

对于这种蹊跷的专门针对亚非拉和中国儿童的疫苗注射,必须参考以下世界形势和背景:
不久前,比尔•盖茨一鸣惊人地声称:新型疫苗和转基因食物是降低世界人口的
好方法!

比尔•盖茨在美国加州长滩市(Long Beach)举行的TED2010会议上做关于碳排放
的演讲,题目是《创新到零》(Innovating to Zero)。在讲话开始后4分30秒的时候
,他说道:

“目前的世界人口有68亿,并且正在上涨到90亿。现在,如果我们能在新型疫苗、卫生
保健、生殖健康服务方面做一些真正超级棒的工作的话,我们也许能降低10%~15%的人
口。”────这段话的亮点是,盖茨公开提到:新型疫苗可以作为一种降低世界人口
的方法。

这次对中国全部儿童的免费麻疹疫苗注射来得蹊跷,有没有专业人士调查一下前因后果
??

1)此前我国有没有过在没有疫情的情况下,突然要求全国儿童限时全部接种的先例?

2)在没有事先专门的针对性准备的情况下,国内药厂应不应该有1亿只以上疫苗的储备
量?

【疫苗和生物技术是美国在新世纪进行不对称战争的特种新技术】
1/免费疫苗和转基因种子的积极推动者是:
非洲绿色革命联盟(AGRA)。该组织成立于2006年9月,由
比尔和梅林达-盖茨基金会(BMGF)和洛克菲勒基金会(RF)提供资助。
2008年英国的国际开发署(DFID)加入资助。前联合国秘书长安南任非洲绿色革命联盟
主席。

2/ 2009年5月5日,
在洛克菲勒大学校长保罗纳斯爵士的家中举行一次美国富豪高峰会议。
这次财阀会议的中心内容是比尔-盖茨提出的议题:即如何更有效地推进生育控制和全
球人口减少。会议达成的共识是,他们将支持“将人口增长视为对环境、社会和工业的
潜在的灾难性的威胁的策略。”

3/美国财阀特纳、盖茨和巴菲特都是共济会高层会员,也是全球人口大规模减少项目计
划的主要资助者。
这些项目为非洲穷人提供医疗服务的慈善事业的面目出现。实际上它们涉及通过接种疫
苗和施用其他药品,对人们进行非自愿绝育,使育龄妇女不育。
20世纪90年代早期,世界卫生组织监督了在尼加拉瓜、墨西哥和菲律宾进行的大规模破
伤风疫苗接种行动。疫苗中含有使女性无法维持妊娠的成分。
世界卫生组织疫苗项目的破伤风疫苗只给15~45岁间的育龄妇女注射,没有给男性或儿
童注射。此外,疫苗在数月内分三次注射,以此确保妇女的人绒毛膜促性腺激素维持足
够高的高剂量,尽管一次破伤风注射至少在十年内有效。而所有接种破伤风疫苗的妇女
都不知道该疫苗含有堕胎药剂。

4/2001年9月,位于美国加州圣地亚哥的一家生物技术公司Epicyte宣布创造了转基因玉
米的终极版本:“避孕玉米”,这种杀精玉米是对世界人口问题的一大贡献。当时
Epicyte与杜邦公司(DuPont)及先正达公司(Syngenta)已达成合资协议以推广这一
技术,预计该杀精玉米可于2007年前投入市场。值得高度关注的是,美国农业部支持和
资助了该项研究!
2004年5月,美国一家生物科技公司Biolex收购了Epicyte公司,从而掌握了杀精玉米的
转基因技术。从此以后,杀精玉米的话题从媒体上消失,变得讳莫如深!

【美国共济会核心成员洛克菲勒家族与优生学】
自1920年起,洛克菲勒基金会资助在德国的优生学研究,通过柏林和慕尼黑的威尔海姆
皇帝研究所(Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes),直到第三帝国时期。他们赞扬希特勒德
国的强迫绝育和纳粹的种族纯洁观念。 
约翰洛克菲勒三世是优生学的终生倡导者,从1950年起,通过他在纽约的私人人口理事
会,他用自己的“免税”的基金发起了减少人口的新马尔萨斯运动。

【美国新解密的1974“基辛格报告”提出减少世界人口行动计划】
1974年,美国国家安全委员会出炉了高度机密(保密期15年1989年解密)
的备忘录,题目是“世界人口增长对美国国家安全和海外利益的影响”。
这份备忘录中涉及粮食政策、人口增长和战略性原材料。备忘录的内容是由约翰•
;D.洛克菲勒三世授意,尼克松亲自布置的。这个秘密的计划在华盛顿被简称为NSSM
200,即《国家安全研究备忘录第200号》。1975年杰拉德•福特一上任就立即签
署了总统行政命令,使《国家安全研究备忘录第200号》成为美国政府的官方政策。
《国家安全研究备忘录第200号》(NSSM-200)的主旨是实施“世界人口行动计划”─
──大幅度降低世界人口数量。这一新政策的理论出发点是:大多数高质量的矿藏都位
于发展中国家,而发展中国家数量过多的“劣种人”妨碍美国获得充裕的、廉价的原材
料,必须除掉这些高速增长的人口才能保护美国利益。基辛格明确提出:美国要将粮食
援助作为“国家权力的工具”,对那些接受援助的国家来说,要么绝育要么挨饿。美国
的新政策实际上就是“如果这些劣等人种妨碍我们获得充裕的廉价原材料,我们必须想
办法除掉他们。”[注意:尼克松、基辛格都是美国共济会高层核心成员。]

[说明和建议]
一亿儿童在十天内全部接种疫苗,这可能是一件关系到国家民族后代前途的大事。
这次全国麻疹强化免疫接种,要求八个月到14岁的孩子都接种,不管以前是否接种过含
麻疹成分的疫苗。
全国这么大范围、这么短时间内针对麻疹开展的强化免疫活动,是我国免疫规划实践中
的第一次。
但这背后存在巨大的风险。
原因如下:
1, 孩子出生年龄不同, 可以在不同阶段接种不同疫苗, 为何同时接种??? 同时的接种
意味着如果有问题就一片全部杀光!!!
2, 去年要求全国人民接种猪流感疫苗,结果自动接种的人不多, 所以帝国主义黑暗势力
和卖国贼不满意, 今年想毒害下一代!!!
3, 有资料说明美国的黑人艾滋病比例远远高于非洲黑人, 他们感染艾滋病的主要途径
是接种疫苗!!!
4. 有资料证明帝国主义黑暗势力妄图杀我中华民族一半人, 大家可以看看何新的博客
5, 基因武器, 转基因食品, 气象武器, 大气层散发病毒或基因病毒激活因子, 都可能
表面中国感冒(实际上用生化武器来杀我民族!!!

建议有孩子的和亲戚朋友有孩子的家庭打过疫苗的不用打了, 没有打过麻疹疫苗的孩子
过一年或3年再打不迟!!!

----------------------------
何新博客的转贴说明:
1、以上这篇博文是网友来贴,博主让何新先生看后他说不明真相,但是确实十分蹊跷
。所以让本博转发,供各方关注者参考。

2、为什么联合国不要欧美注射?香港小朋友注射吗?日本小朋友注射吗?韩国小朋友
注射吗?还是只对中国和亚非拉其他穷国垃圾人的小朋友们注射啦?而这两年这些地方
好像没有闹麻疹啊?而且一旦有流行,难道欧美精英小朋友可以不受传染吗?真的是共
济会基金哺乳下的国际卫生组织特别关爱亚非拉穷光蛋地区的孩子们呵?

3、根据确有其事的共济会未来消除亚非拉垃圾人口计划(实施时间───2012?)─
──这个过于慈善的行动时间地点不能不令人生疑问。
在如今这一伟大市场经济时代──什么东西突然对一亿小朋友免费啦?啊哈!
王小东提到一本美国人杰弗里.柏克写的书《西方之所以赢》,其中一个绝招是讲究对
敌人斩尽杀绝。
何新先生说,自古以来华夏非亡于夷狄,而亡于内贼。
  • 开会
  • 注册于:2007-08-07
  • 帖子:12883
发表于: 9/08/2010 14:28 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
你怎么最近看什么都是阴谋啊 confused
谢国忠也阴谋了
麻疹疫苗也阴谋了
最明显的,说“美国的黑人...感染艾滋病的主要途径是接种疫苗”,这你都信啊!
我晕

国内小孩是有很多一岁以上不注射麻疹疫苗的,这个和美国小孩医疗的现行标准是不一样的。我最近接待过一个国内小孩来这边参加美国的小孩活动,被要求出示1岁以上时注射麻疹疫苗的证明的。

疫苗没这么可怕了,我和老公每次出国旅游,要是去经济不发达的地区,都会先去travel clinic注射或者口服疫苗,还会开一些跟特定地区疾病相关的药物。疫苗就是防患于未然,等大面积疫情发作了再搞,就来不及也没意义了。

凡事多往正面想想,别老首先往阴谋上联系啊
_________________
ǝʇuǝl ɐuıʇsǝɟ

发表于: 9/08/2010 14:54 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
阴谋论是人类的动物本能,进化的产物。凡事往好的地方想的动物,大部分被人类吃光了。

打着慈善幌子的反动会道们组织不可不防。那个几千年前就开始专门写童话骗人的人种有进行大规模人类实验的传统,对他们提高警惕是必要的。
  • WoJian
  • 注册于:2005-01-19
  • 帖子:13725
发表于: 9/08/2010 14:59 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
开会 写到:
你怎么最近看什么都是阴谋啊 confused
谢国忠也阴谋了
麻疹疫苗也阴谋了
最明显的,说“美国的黑人...感染艾滋病的主要途径是接种疫苗”,这你都信啊!
我晕

国内小孩是有很多一岁以上不注射麻疹疫苗的,这个和美国小孩医疗的现行标准是不一样的。我最近接待过一个国内小孩来这边参加美国的小孩活动,被要求出示1岁以上时注射麻疹疫苗的证明的。

疫苗没这么可怕了,我和老公每次出国旅游,要是去经济不发达的地区,都会先去travel clinic注射或者口服疫苗,还会开一些跟特定地区疾病相关的药物。疫苗就是防患于未然,等大面积疫情发作了再搞,就来不及也没意义了。

凡事多往正面想想,别老首先往阴谋上联系啊


我没什么主意啊,所以转过来让大家讨论讨论。

麻疹疫苗本身这个标签是一点问题都没有的。但疫苗菌株本身如果有双表达,那就可能会有问题了。

我大概查了一下,epicyte corn contraceptive是有的,那个玉米产生抗精子抗体。不过,我不知道这个玉米要怎样服用才能起设计的效果,光是吃能行吗?

文章中说的kissinger nssm 200也能查到。
  • 开会
  • 注册于:2007-08-07
  • 帖子:12883
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:24 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
看了这个文章让人又想起国内现在的社会生存状态
就是你要时时刻刻提防被人骗
对任何人都不能相信
不被骗的最有效办法就是不说真话甚至主动去骗人
整个就恶性循环了
每个人天天都生活在紧张之中
这样的社会真的很悲哀
_________________
ǝʇuǝl ɐuıʇsǝɟ

  • Quincy08
  • 注册于:2008-07-08
  • 帖子:2972
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:28 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
我算很老了,在我小时候,每次打预防针的时候就有谣言,说是不育针,说是国家为了计划生育采取的新措施。家长不让孩子来上学,想多过一劫。

现在谣言象论文一样
有根有据,有引用,有数据,有视屏。
看了不得不信
这美国种族灭绝计划。
美国是又种玉米,又免费打针。
最后就一大家族能活在这地球上。
  • Himalaya
  • 注册于:2009-08-06
  • 帖子:3116
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:28 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
开会 写到:
看了这个文章让人又想起国内现在的社会生存状态
就是你要时时刻刻提防被人骗
对任何人都不能相信
不被骗的最有效办法就是不说真话甚至主动去骗人
整个就恶性循环了
每个人天天都生活在紧张之中
这样的社会真的很悲哀


If it is really like this,

co- frustrated
_________________
Love and Peace

  • Quincy08
  • 注册于:2008-07-08
  • 帖子:2972
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:32 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
这篇倒是也可以写篇类似货币战争的书,肯定火。
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:41 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
美国历史上曾经在本土小范围的实施过这个实验。The last case of forced sterilization was in 1981.

Quincy08 写到:
我算很老了,在我小时候,每次打预防针的时候就有谣言,说是不育针,说是国家为了计划生育采取的新措施。家长不让孩子来上学,想多过一劫。

现在谣言象论文一样
有根有据,有引用,有数据,有视屏。
看了不得不信
这美国种族灭绝计划。
美国是又种玉米,又免费打针。
最后就一大家族能活在这地球上。

发表于: 9/08/2010 15:42 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
你回国为什么总怀疑餐馆里使用了地沟油?为什么不相信这些善良的餐馆老板呢?

开会 写到:
看了这个文章让人又想起国内现在的社会生存状态
就是你要时时刻刻提防被人骗
对任何人都不能相信
不被骗的最有效办法就是不说真话甚至主动去骗人
整个就恶性循环了
每个人天天都生活在紧张之中
这样的社会真的很悲哀

  • Quincy08
  • 注册于:2008-07-08
  • 帖子:2972
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:47 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
xiaoqiang 写到:
美国历史上曾经在本土小范围的实施过这个实验。The last case of forced sterilization was in 1981.

Quincy08 写到:
我算很老了,在我小时候,每次打预防针的时候就有谣言,说是不育针,说是国家为了计划生育采取的新措施。家长不让孩子来上学,想多过一劫。

现在谣言象论文一样
有根有据,有引用,有数据,有视屏。
看了不得不信
这美国种族灭绝计划。
美国是又种玉米,又免费打针。
最后就一大家族能活在这地球上。


中国的计划生育政策不还在执行中吗?
  • WoJian
  • 注册于:2005-01-19
  • 帖子:13725
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:49 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
谣传归谣传,但那个解了密的基辛格200可是美国正式的United States National Security Council文件呀。在当时的那个文件里没有列出中国。那个文件把别国人口问题列为影响美国安全的大事,蕴涵了拿粮食换取那些国家推行节育的想法。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
_________________
全世界变暖,原来不是气温更高,而是水分蒸发加快,旱灾水灾雪灾加重,天气大起大伏。

---我见 :)

发表于: 9/08/2010 15:52 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html


I'm going to talk today about energy and climate. And that might seem a bit surprising because my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds, about the things that we need to invent and deliver to help the poorest two billion live better lives. But energy and climate are extremely important to these people, in fact, more important than to anyone else on the planet. The climate getting worse, means that many years their crops won't grow. There will be too much rain, not enough rain. Things will change in ways that their fragile environment simply can't support. And that leads to starvation. It leads to uncertainty. It leads to unrest. So, the climate changes will be terrible for them.

Also, the price of energy is very important to them. In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of, to reduce poverty, by far, you would pick energy. Now, the price of energy has come down over time. Really, advanced civilization is based on advances in energy. The coal revolution fueled the industrial revolution, and, even in the 1900's we've seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that's why we have refrigerators, air-conditioning, we can make modern materials and do so many things. And so, we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world. But, as we make it cheaper -- and let's go for making it twice as cheap -- we need to meet a new constraint, and that constraint has to do with CO2.

CO2 is warming the planet, and the equation on CO2 is actually a very straightforward one. If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted, that leads to a temperature increase, and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects. The effects on the weather and, perhaps worse, the indirect effects, in that the natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystem collapses.

Now, the exact amount of how you map from a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will be and where the positive feedbacks are, there's some uncertainty there, but not very much. And there's certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad. I asked the top scientists on this several times, do we really have to get down to near zero? Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is that, until we get near to zero, the temperature will continue to rise. And so that's a big challenge. It's very different than saying we're a 12 ft high truck trying to get under a 10 ft bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under. This is something that has to get to zero.

Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billion tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero. It's been constantly going up. It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all, so we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.

This equation has four factors. A little bit of multiplication. So, you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that's going to be based on the number of people, the services each person's using on average, the energy on average for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy. So, let's look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. Now that's back from high school algebra, but let's take a look.

First we've got population. Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.

The second factor is the services we use. This encompasses everything, the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating. These are very good things, and getting rid of poverty means providing these services to almost everyone on the planet. And it's a great thing for this number to go up. In the rich world, perhaps the top one billion, we probably could cut back and use less, but every year, this number, on average, is going to go up, and so, over all, that will more than double the services delivered per person. Here we have a very basic service. Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework, and, in fact, these kids don't, so they're going out and reading their school work under the street lamps.

Now, efficiency, E, the energy for each service, here, finally we have some good news. We have something that's not going up. Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting, through different types of cars, different ways of building buildings. there are a lot of services where you can bring the energy for that service down quite substantially, some individual services even, bring it down by 90 percent. There are other services like how we make fertilizer, or how we do air transport, where the rooms for improvement are far, far less. And so, overall here, if we're optimistic, we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even, perhaps, a factor of six. But for these first three factors now, we've gone from 26 billion to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons, and that just won't cut it.

So let's look at this fourth factor -- this is going to be a key one -- and this is the amount of CO2 put out per each unit of energy. And so the question is, can you actually get that to zero? If you burn coal, no. If you burn natural gas, no. Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. And so, we need energy miracles.

Now, when I use the term miracle, I don't mean something that's impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle. The internet and its services are a miracle. So, the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don't have a deadline, where you have to get the miracle by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand by, and some come along, some don't. This is a case where we actually have to drive full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight time line.

Now, I thought, how could I really capture this? Is there some kind of natural illustration, some demonstration that would grab people's imagination here? I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitos, and somehow people enjoyed that. (Laughter) It really got them involved in the idea of, you know, there are people who live with mosquitos. So, with energy, all I could come up with is this. I decided that releasing fireflies would be my contribution to the environment here this year. So here we have some natural fireflies. I'm told they don't bite, in fact, they might not even leave that jar. (Laughter)

Now, there's all sorts gimmicky solutions like that one, but they don't really add up to much. We need solutions, either one or several, that have unbelievable scale and unbelievable reliability, and, although there's many directions people are seeking, I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers. I've left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels. Those may make some contribution, and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better, but my key point here is that we're going to have to work on each of these five, and we can't give up any of them because they look daunting, because they all have significant challenges.

Let's look first at the burning fossil fuels, either burning coal or burning natural gas. What you need to do there, seems like it might be simple, but it's not, and that's to take all the CO2, after you've burned it, going out the flue, pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere, and hope it stays there. Now we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level, but getting up to that full percentage, that will be very tricky, and agreeing on where these CO2 quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here is this long term issue. Who's going to be sure? Who's going to guarantee something that is literally billions of times larger than any type of waste you think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume. So that's a tough one.

Next, would be nuclear. It also has three big problems. Cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high. The issue of the safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators, that the fuel doesn't get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? And, although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems that might be solvable, and so, should be worked on.

The last three of the five, I've grouped together. These are what people often refer to as the renewable sources. And they actually -- although it's great they don't require fuel -- they have some disadvantages. One is that the density of energy gathered in these technologies is dramatically less than a power plant. This is energy farming, so you're talking about many square miles, thousands of time more area than you think of as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources. The sun doesn't shine all day, it doesn't shine every day, and, likewise, the wind doesn't blow all the time. And so, if you depend on these sources, you have to have some way of getting the energy during those time periods that it's not available. So, we've got big cost challenges here. We have transmission challenges. For example, say this energy source is outside your country, you not only need the technology, but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere.

And, finally, this storage problem. And, to dimensionalize this, I went through and looked at all the types of batteries that get made, for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything, and compared that to the amount of electrical energy the world uses, and what I found is that all the batteries we make now could store less than 10 minutes of all the energy. And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here, something that's going to be a factor of a hundred better than the approaches we have now. It's not impossible, but it's not a very easy thing. Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent source to be above, say, 20 to 30 percent of what you're using. If you're counting on it for 100 percent, you need an incredible miracle battery.

Now, how we're going to go forward on this: what's the right approach? Is it a Manhattan project? What's the thing that can get us there? Well, we need lots of companies working on this, hundreds. In each of these five paths, we need at least a hundred people. And a lot of them, you'll look at and say they're crazy. That's good. And, I think, here in the TED group, we have many people who are already pursuing this. Bill Gross has several companies, including one called eSolar that has some great solar thermal technologies. Vinod Khosla's investing in dozens of companies that are doing great things and have interesting possibilities, and I'm trying to help back that. Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a company that, perhaps surprisingly, is actually taking the nuclear approach. There are some innovations in nuclear: modular, liquid. And innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising.

The idea of Terrapower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium, the one percent, which is the U235, we decided, let's burn the 99 percent, the U238. It is kind of a crazy idea. In fact, people had talked about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate and see that, yes, with the right material's approach, this looks like it would work.

And, because you're burning that 99 percent, you have greatly improved cost profile. You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuel all the leftover waste from today's reactors. So, instead of worrying about them, you just take that. It's a great thing. It breathes this uranium as it goes along. So it's kind of like a candle. You can see it's a log there, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem. I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky. This is the left over, the 99 percent, where they've taken out the part they burn now, so it's called depleted uranium. That would power the U.S. for hundreds of years. And, simply by filtering sea water in an inexpensive process, you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet.

So, you know, it's got lots of challenges ahead, but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideas that we need to move forward. So let's think, how should we measure ourselves? What should our report card look like? Well, let's go out to where we really need to get, and then look at the intermediate. For 2050, you've heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important, that we get there. And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries, still some agriculture. Hopefully, we will have cleaned up forestry, cement. So, to get to that 80 percent, the developed countries, including countries like China, will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether. So, the other grade is, are we deploying this zero-emission technology, have we deployed it in all the developed countries and we're in the process of getting it elsewhere. That's super important. That's a key element of making that report card.

So, backing up from there, what should the 2020 report card look like? Well, again, it should have the two elements. We should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions. The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO2, and, therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there, doing things that don't get us all the way to the big reductions, is only equally, or maybe even slightly less, important than the other, which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs.

These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed, and we can measure that in terms of companies, pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed. There's a lot of great books that have been written about this. The Al Gore book, "Our Choice" and the David McKay book, "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air." They really go through it and create a framework that this can be discussed broadly, because we need broad backing for this. There's a lot that has to come together.

So this is a wish. It's a very concrete wish that we invent this technology. If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years, I could pick who's president, I could pick a vaccine, which is something I love, or I could pick that this thing that's half the cost with no CO2 gets invented, this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact. If we don't get this wish, the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the U.S. and China, between poor countries and rich, and most of all the lives of those two billion will be far worse.

So, what do we have to do? What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn't just discuss the CO2. They should discuss this innovation agenda, and you'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches. We do need the market incentives, CO2 tax, cap and trade, something that gets that price signal out there. We need to get the message out. We need to have this dialogue be a more rational, more understandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one I think we can achieve.

Thank you. (Applause) Thank you.

Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. Just so I understand more about Terrapower, right -- I mean, first of all, can you give a sense of what scale of investment this is?

Bil Gates: To actually do the software, buy the supercomputer, hire all the great scientists, which we've done, that's only tens of millions, and even once we test our materials out in a Russian reactor to make sure our materials work properly, then you'll only be up in the hundreds of millions. The tough thing is building the pilot reactor, finding the several billion, finding the regulator, the location that will actually build the first one of these. Once you get the first one built, if it works as advertised, then it's just clear as day, because the economics, the energy density, are so different than nuclear as we know it.

CA: And so, to understand it right, this involves building deep into the ground almost like a vertical kind of column of nuclear fuel, of this sort of spent uranium, and then the process starts at the top and kind of works down?

BG: That's right. Today, you're always refueling the reactor, so you have lots of people and lots of controls that can go wrong, that thing where you're opening it up and moving things in and out. That's not good. So, if you have very cheap fuel that you can put 60 years in -- just think of it as a log -- put it down and not have those same complexities. And it just sits there and burns for the sixty years, and then it's done.

CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution.

BG: Yeah. Well, what happens with the waste, you can let it sit there -- there's a lot less waste under this approach -- then you can actually take that, and put it into another one and burn that. And we start off actually by taking the waste that exists today, that's sitting in these cooling pools or dry casking by reactor. That's our fuel to begin with. So, the thing that's been a problem from those reactors is actually what gets fed into ours, and you're reducing the volume of the waste quite dramatically as you're going through this process.

CA: But in your talking to different people around the world about the possibilities here, where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?

BG: Well, we haven't picked a particular place, and there's all these interesting disclosure rules about anything that's called nuclear, so we've got a lot of interest, that people from the company have been in Russia, India, China. I've been back seeing the secretary of energy here, talking about how this fits into the energy agenda. So I'm optimistic. You know the French and Japanese have done some work. This is a variant on something that has been done. It's an important advance, but it's like a fast reactor, and a lot of countries have built them, so anybody who's done a fast reactor, is a candidate to be where the first one gets built.

CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihood of actually taking something like this live?

BG: Well, we need, for one of these high-scale, electro-generation things that's very cheap, we have 20 years to invent and then 20 years to deploy. That's sort of the deadline that the environmental models have shown us that we have to meet. And, you know, Terrapower, if things go well, which is wishing for a lot, could easily meet that. And there are, fortunately now, dozens of companies, we need it to be hundreds, who, likewise, if their science goes well, if the funding for their pilot plants goes well, that they can compete for this. And it's best if multiple succeed, because then you could use a mix of these things. We certainly need one to succeed.

CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changes, is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?

BG: An energy breakthrough is the most important thing. It would have been, even without the environmental constraint, but the environmental constraint just makes it so much greater. In the nuclear space, there are other innovators. You know, we don't know their work as well as we know this one, but the modular people, that's a different approach. There's a liquid type reactor, which seems a little hard, but maybe they say that about us. And so, there are different ones, but the beauty of this is a molecule of uranium has a million times as much energy as a molecule of, say, coal, and so, if you can deal with the negatives, which are essentially the radiation, the footprint and cost, the potential, in terms of effect on land and various things, is almost in a class of its own.

CA: If this doesn't work, then what? Do we have to start taking emergency measures to try and keep the temperature of the earth stable?

BG: If you get into that situation, it's like if you've been over-eating, and you're about to have a heart-attack. Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something. There is a line of research on what's called geoengineering, which are various techniques that would delay the heating to buy us 20 or 30 years to get our act together. Now, that's just an insurance policy. You hope you don't need to do that. Some people say you shouldn't even work on the insurance policy because it might make you lazy, that you'll keep eating because you know heart surgery will be there to save you. I'm not sure that's wise, given the importance of the problem, but there's now the geoengineering discussion about, should that be in the back pocket in case things happen faster, or this innovation goes a lot slower than we expect.

CA: Climate skeptics: if you had a sentence or two to say to them, how might you persuade them that they're wrong?

BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics come in different camps. The ones who make scientific arguments are very few. Are they saying there's negative feedback effects that have to do with clouds that offset things? There are very, very few things that they can even say there's a chance in a million of those things. The main problem we have here is kind of like AIDS. You make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later.

And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later -- and a somewhat uncertain pain thing. In fact, the IPCC report, that's not necessarily the worst case, and there are people in the rich world who look at IPCC and say, okay, that isn't that big of a deal. The fact is it's that uncertain part that should move us towards this. But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic, and meet the CO2 constraints, then the skeptics say, okay, I don't care that it doesn't put out CO2, I kind of wish it did put out CO2, but I guess I'll accept it because it's cheaper than what's come before. (Applause)

CA: And so, that would be your response to the Bjorn Lomborg argument, that basically if you spend all this energy trying to solve the CO2 problem, it's going to take away all your other goals of trying to rid the world of poverty and malaria and so forth, [that] it's a stupid waste of the Earth's resources to put money towards that when there are better things we can do.

BG: Well, the actual spending on the R&D piece -- say the U.S. should spend 10 billion a year more than it is right now -- it's not that dramatic. It shouldn't take away from other things. The thing you get into big money on, and this, reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something that's non-economic and you're trying to fund that. That, to me, mostly is a waste. Unless you're very close and you're just funding the learning curve and it's going to get very cheap. I believe we should try more things that have a potential to be far less expensive. If the trade-off you get into is, let's make energy super expensive, then the rich can afford that. I mean, all of us here could pay five times as much for our energy and not change our lifestyle. The disaster is for that two billion.

And even Lomborg has changed. His shtick now is, why isn't the R&D getting discussed more. He's still, because of his earlier stuff, still associated with the skeptic camp, but he's realized that's a pretty lonely camp, and so, he's making the R&D point. And so there is a thread of something that I think is appropriate. The R&D piece, it's crazy how little it's funded.

CA: Well Bill, I suspect I speak on the behalf of most people here to say, I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much.

BG: Thank you. (Applause)
  • Quincy08
  • 注册于:2008-07-08
  • 帖子:2972
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:54 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
WoJian 写到:
谣传归谣传,但那个解了密的基辛格200可是美国正式的United States National Security Council文件呀。在当时的那个文件里没有列出中国。那个文件把别国人口问题列为影响美国安全的大事,蕴涵了拿粮食换取那些国家推行节育的想法。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200


美国这些文件多如牛毛。

我还奇怪为什么没把中国列进去。
  • WoJian
  • 注册于:2005-01-19
  • 帖子:13725
发表于: 9/08/2010 15:58 发表主题:
引用并回复 快速引用
xiaoqiang 写到:

First we've got population. Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.



所以这句话也是有的。beer盖子的本来含义是什么呢?想来他不会在大会发言中密含发布种族灭绝的指令的吧。当然,如果他想到我们都不认为他会这么做,那让他这么做的障碍倒是排除了。 Laughing Laughing