Some Standards Needed
by Joel Carlinsky
A correspondent writes
From: Sylvain Pafumi <sylvainpafumi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re : [OrgonomicEcology] Re: Good Severe Weather?
To: OrgonomicEcology@yahoogroups.co.uk
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 3:32 AM
How many persons in the world are trained to do cloudbusting operations
and have enough information to do it properly ?
And if there are any, how many are ready to expose themselves to a
possible orgonotic overcharge which could be harmfull for their health, as
was the case for one of Reich's assistants (since an automatic rotation
of the device by electric remote control could cause additional DOR) ?
My reply
You raise a good question. I have no idea how many people there are who have done cloudbusting, how many of those did it correctly, or how many screwed up and caused a disaster. I also have no idea which of them could become good operators if they kept at it or had some training.
And the question becomes even more complicated if you realize that even the best operators will do something wrong at least some of the time. Nobody can be 100% successful every time. Even the best operators will make mistakes.
One way to add to the body of knowledge in the field and enable all workers in the field to help each other would be for a standard to be set up that all operations must be public, not only the successful ones. As things are now, the individual who wants to try out cloudbusting just does so, and then decides if he will tell anybody or not.
So of course, nobody ever published a report of a failure. James DeMeo and Trevor Constable both have published reports of many operations over a period of many years, and all you can tell from their reports is that they both are 100% successful. How likely is that?
Then, many who want to get into cloudbusting are paranoid. They fear to become known as doing cloudbusting because of irrational beliefs that some super-secret government spy agency will kill them or kidnap them for it. They forget that nobody INCLUDING REICH has ever had any troubles from any government over cloudbusting. The silly rumors about a conspiracy against Reich have an effect of preventing communication in the field.
Plus, of course, there are perfectly rational fears of being sued for damages if you cause a flood and somebody DOES believe you!
Another problem is, what skills are needed? Many people seem to think meteorologists and physicists are the right professionals to do cloudbusting. I disagree. Ecology is the relevant branch of science here and anyone doing cloudbusting who is not familiar with ecology is simply not competent to do cloudbusting. And as far as I am aware, so far, NOBODY who has even the minimum basic knowledge of ecology has ever done any cloudbusting work.
That is because cloudbusting is usually presented as ''weather control'' instead of as ''ecosystem medicine'' for healing a sick ecosystem. Many of the new crop of ''weather engineers'' come to cloudbusting from a background of having an interest in machines and inventions, and they think of the cloudbuster as a ''new technology''. It is not presented to people with an interest in trhe biological sciences as a new way to help protect the environment from human-caused damage.
So, here are some suggestions. All operations should be done by a group or team, not by a single individual. The team must either include at least one ecologist or must consult with an outside ecologist before starting operations. All proposed operations must be made public in advance, and a means provided to make public any criticisms and suggestions from the public.
Then, afterwards, all results must be published, including the failures and disasters, so the people working in the field can learn from the mistakes of others and will not have to repeat them. And insurance should be purchased to be sure of being able to compensate anyone who is harmed by an operation.
And anyone not abiding by these standards should be regarded as a renegade operator with no concern for the public welfare. Nobody should dare to think he can do what so many do now, announcing, possibly years after the event, that they have done some experimenting with a cloudbuster, placing the public at risk, and never told anyone until they felt like it, and never telling anyone if they failed to get the results they wanted.
From this you can see how far distant we are now from even a bare minumum of responsiblity and accountability in the cloudbusting field. It is a growing backyard hobby for a collection of incompetents with not even a clue as to how real science is done or how to avoid killing innocent members of the public when they play their exciting new game of ''weather engineering''.
Joel Carlinsky
by Joel Carlinsky
A correspondent writes
From: Sylvain Pafumi <sylvainpafumi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re : [OrgonomicEcology] Re: Good Severe Weather?
To: OrgonomicEcology@yahoogroups.co.uk
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 3:32 AM
How many persons in the world are trained to do cloudbusting operations
and have enough information to do it properly ?
And if there are any, how many are ready to expose themselves to a
possible orgonotic overcharge which could be harmfull for their health, as
was the case for one of Reich's assistants (since an automatic rotation
of the device by electric remote control could cause additional DOR) ?
My reply
You raise a good question. I have no idea how many people there are who have done cloudbusting, how many of those did it correctly, or how many screwed up and caused a disaster. I also have no idea which of them could become good operators if they kept at it or had some training.
And the question becomes even more complicated if you realize that even the best operators will do something wrong at least some of the time. Nobody can be 100% successful every time. Even the best operators will make mistakes.
One way to add to the body of knowledge in the field and enable all workers in the field to help each other would be for a standard to be set up that all operations must be public, not only the successful ones. As things are now, the individual who wants to try out cloudbusting just does so, and then decides if he will tell anybody or not.
So of course, nobody ever published a report of a failure. James DeMeo and Trevor Constable both have published reports of many operations over a period of many years, and all you can tell from their reports is that they both are 100% successful. How likely is that?
Then, many who want to get into cloudbusting are paranoid. They fear to become known as doing cloudbusting because of irrational beliefs that some super-secret government spy agency will kill them or kidnap them for it. They forget that nobody INCLUDING REICH has ever had any troubles from any government over cloudbusting. The silly rumors about a conspiracy against Reich have an effect of preventing communication in the field.
Plus, of course, there are perfectly rational fears of being sued for damages if you cause a flood and somebody DOES believe you!
Another problem is, what skills are needed? Many people seem to think meteorologists and physicists are the right professionals to do cloudbusting. I disagree. Ecology is the relevant branch of science here and anyone doing cloudbusting who is not familiar with ecology is simply not competent to do cloudbusting. And as far as I am aware, so far, NOBODY who has even the minimum basic knowledge of ecology has ever done any cloudbusting work.
That is because cloudbusting is usually presented as ''weather control'' instead of as ''ecosystem medicine'' for healing a sick ecosystem. Many of the new crop of ''weather engineers'' come to cloudbusting from a background of having an interest in machines and inventions, and they think of the cloudbuster as a ''new technology''. It is not presented to people with an interest in trhe biological sciences as a new way to help protect the environment from human-caused damage.
So, here are some suggestions. All operations should be done by a group or team, not by a single individual. The team must either include at least one ecologist or must consult with an outside ecologist before starting operations. All proposed operations must be made public in advance, and a means provided to make public any criticisms and suggestions from the public.
Then, afterwards, all results must be published, including the failures and disasters, so the people working in the field can learn from the mistakes of others and will not have to repeat them. And insurance should be purchased to be sure of being able to compensate anyone who is harmed by an operation.
And anyone not abiding by these standards should be regarded as a renegade operator with no concern for the public welfare. Nobody should dare to think he can do what so many do now, announcing, possibly years after the event, that they have done some experimenting with a cloudbuster, placing the public at risk, and never told anyone until they felt like it, and never telling anyone if they failed to get the results they wanted.
From this you can see how far distant we are now from even a bare minumum of responsiblity and accountability in the cloudbusting field. It is a growing backyard hobby for a collection of incompetents with not even a clue as to how real science is done or how to avoid killing innocent members of the public when they play their exciting new game of ''weather engineering''.
Joel Carlinsky