Dr. Hiranuma and I were skyping until very late last night. I think we share an understanding and a dilemma. On the one hand, there is the mundane reality which is that what has happened is Fukushima constitutes the largest industrial disaster in world history. The situation is not remotely under control and the scale of the problems are such that there is no solution in sight. On the other hand, there is a groundswell of response that involves everything from cutting edge technology to return to more natural ways of living to transcendence, i.e., allow our own vibrations to increase to a frequency in which the radioactivity is harmless. Since the magnitude of the situation is being downplayed by officialdom, not just in Japan but around the world, there is very little support for facts or fury, for fear or futuristic possibilities, or even for practical measures to minimize risks.
My personal stance has been compromised by a deep inner conflict over two issues. The first is my long-time commitment to trying to deal with potentially dangerous matters in a manner that does not increase anxiety. However, I don't think it is possible to discuss radiation in a realistic manner without triggering some degree of panic. The medical complications have begun and deaths have occurred, most of them apparently among young adults. The official causes of death may not suggest radiation poisoning at all. For instance, I asked Dr. Hiranuma for her personal interpretation of heart attacks among people in their 30s and 40s. She felt that radioactive cesium might be depositing in the heart muscle in a way that affects electrical conductivity. I suspect that if this is true, other inner organs would also be weakened by the microperforations of tissues, including erythrocytes, and the damage could be random or systemic. In the case of the beef served to school children, radioactive materials were found in all parts of the animal, not just the organs thought to be most likely repositories of radioactive particulates. So, once again, realistically, there is no way to remove contaminated sections because the amount of testing required for such is beyond enormous.
||If I don't report what I know, I would be guilty of failing to urge people to take every precaution possible. Moreover, this is not a problem for Japan or specific areas in Japan, it is a problem for the world. In parts of Europe that were already impacted by the Chernobyl disaster, radioactivity has doubled. As you can imagine, there are countless people in Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, and so on and so forth who have geiger counters and who take measurements as a kind of hobby or intense passion. Similar devices are now common in Japan but less prevalent in North America. Unless individuals begin taking regular readings, we will probably ignore the risks until this is no longer possible.
However, as I said, there is another side to this and it evokes absolutely tremendous responses inside me. Back in the 80s when I was intensely involved with the anti-nuke movement, I was "different" in that my reasons for taking a strong position were based on misuse of technology and military use, not on a conviction that radiation is incontrovertibly dangerous. On some level, this is true, but like many in Japan and some from Eastern Europe, I believe that radiation is only "potentially" dangerous; and it might, under specific circumstances, be harmless. However, what precisely those circumstances are remains to be proved so there is a schism and while I should probably only speak for myself, I think Dr. Hiranuma is wrestling with the same inner conflicts. I.e., the "fact" is that the dangers are real; but the possibility is that if our vibrations adjust or transcend, we will not suffer. This is completely beyond the realm of normal science and hence might be regarded as speculative or mystical or flat out wishful thinking. We have talked to many with Chernobyl experience who believe that susceptibility to adverse consequences can be minimized or eliminated. This same conviction can be found in Japan but it is hardly the official voice.
Over the weekend, we both pushed our psyches about as far as they would go. Again, speaking for myself, what resonates as straight truth is that we are now in the early phases of a new era of ethical use of energy and power. I was very glad to have this feeling corroborated by the work of Calleman on the Mayan calendar. So, in the context of nuclear energy and nuclear power, it is time to realize that no one has an inalienable right to use weapons or systems for producing energy that have random impacts on innocents. By this I mean that spreading nuclear debris over the Planet, whether the depleted uranium used in weapons or emissions from power plants, the right to deploy a weapon or release toxicity simply does not exist unless all potential victims, now and in generations to come, consent to the risks. Children are not military targets even if they happen live in the path of oil or gold. Wild boar, cows, and fish are also innocent victims — and to support life on this Planet, we must end the insanity. Germany seems to have embraced this idea and this has had huge impacts on the political structure of the country. There needs to be a global awakening to responsibility and this will not happen if the truth is suppressed or if I allow my personal conflicts to get in the way of my responsibility to protect as many as possible and urge as much reform as possible.
For me this cycle of ethical unfoldment comes none too soon but if you think the evidence for such an impulse is missing, look at the results of the straw poll in Iowa and the countless attempts to halt misuse of power. Therefore, I would like to encourage anyone and everyone with "stirrings" to take these nudges seriously and act in a manner that assures the best possible outcome for the Planet.
Now to the really hard part, if we try to spell out what the real dangers from radioactivity are, they would be instability and perforation. In my estimation, the instability is more problematic because most people who are affected would not even be aware of the underlying risks and if the risks are not resolved more or less automatically, i.e., without specific measures, there would be a ticking time bomb. We thus encounter a dilemma very similar to that with mercury and aluminum in that some people are able to excrete the toxic metals in an efficient manner and others will warehouse them in the brain or kidneys or lungs or some other tissue where they constitute accidents waiting to happen. As with other toxic metals, some radioactivity is excreted by some people. The amount of testing that would be required to put some numbers in the blank spaces is staggering, but we know it is possible. If people successfully eliminate hot particles, they would only have minor short-term issues with plugging the perforations. In sum, the problems would be solved . . . except for the fact that the radioactivity is ongoing. It never stopped so the same successful actions have to be performed over and over again. Otherwise, the toxicity is cumulative, which is the basis of the theory of maximum safe levels. That theory is itself hogwash since a safe level is zero.
Then, jockeying for position with the conventional view is the metaphysical one that basically proposes that one can rise above the problem by increasing one's own vibration or, as Savika suggested, insulating oneself from risks by mastering the inner workings of body. I know that many will not agree with me, but I have no doubt but that Savika is a yogini who has been blessed with the opportunity to contemplate and process until understanding herself enough to reorganize from within. She often devotes weeks to her projects and when she is busy, she spends a lot of time alone. You can see that she is "working" on something and when she completes the task, she is happy to demonstrate her achievements. It's quite an honor to share space with her.
More importantly, what I am learning at this late age is that many creatures are very happy with their lives and not the slightest bit envious of humans. This said, to reach a point where frequencies are harmless suggests that our inner structures have to be flexible, adaptable, and capable of self-repair. Pressure to survive takes up time. Responsibilites are often time consuming. Therefore, I feel that even if the mind and emotions, not to mention soul and spirit, are critical to the success or failure of adjustments, common sense support for the inner might relieve some pressure and assure a better outcome.