Rudolf Steiner Archive 

Awakening Anthroposophy
in the World

 [Prev] [Next] [Up] [Top] [Search] [Index] [Print] [Home]

An Article by
Sigurd Rascher
Autumn, 1972

Sigurd Rascher is a noted concert saxophonist, teacher, and graduate of the First Waldorf School, Stuttgart, Germany.

The Journal for Anthroposophy is published twice a year by the Anthroposophical Society in America. The Editor for this issue was Henry Barnes. Title design by Walther Roggenkamp.

Copyright © 1972
This e.Text edition is provided through the wonderful work of:
The Journal for Anthroposophy staff and
The Anthroposophical Society in America
Book Cover Image

Thanks to an anonymous donation, this article has been made available.
Portrait of Sigurd Rascher
Sigurd Rascher
Click image for large view

Forces of Death and Life.
The Nuclear Crisis


Note: Footnote references made in the accompanying text refer to the bibliography at the end of the article.

Longer than is known, man has striven to augment his muscular strength through the efforts of his mind. He tamed animals to help him pull, push, carry, lift; he made tools to extend the efficiency of his hands; he used water and fire to transform surrounding matter. Hand and head worked together. Rise and fall of local civilisations often depended on the success or failure of such endeavors. For millennia sources of kinetic energy were wind and water, sail and waterwheel. Energy can be taken from water in that phase of its cycle in which it is subject mainly to gravity, i.e. when it falls. Only because in the other part of this cycle the opposite force prevails, can this be so. Should this cycle come to a standstill, not only would this be the end of energy we obtain from water, but the end of most life on earth as well, since air and water movements are among the fundamental life phenomena of this planet. In falling, water does not decay; its substance is not changed. Fundamentally different is the process of burning. Through it, matter decays and the form, given to it by earlier life-processes, is dissolved. Light and warmth become free; the latter is often changed, though only partially, into energy, whereas the former is rarely used. Less well formed matter remains — ash, smoke, etc. Forces, once active in the process of life, are vehemently severed from matter for the production of energy. The residues are lifeless. With the invention of the steam engine it became possible to produce large quantities of energy. This process, however, is inefficient and wasteful. It produces ashes, smoke, soot, gases, heat, toxic substances, dirty industrial cities and general pollution. At best, only two-thirds of the energy released through the combustion of coal is used, generally much less.

Progressive knowledge of the earth and its substances gave man other materials for the production of energy: oil and natural gas; both, like coal, residues of former life processes.

And the practical use of electricity (invention of generator and electric motor) made the conversion of this energy into electric current possible. With this a development began that pushed a materialistic civilisation into dependence on a force man knows well how to use but as yet hardly understands. One of the typical features of this force is that its nature and far-reaching significance is little understood. Yet it has permeated today's industrialized society to such a degree that this society would soon come to a standstill without it. Small wonder that the producers of electricity have almost a stranglehold on such an industrialized society, a hold that reaches deep into its political life.

The drive to utilize matter more and more has brought us quite consequently into the “Atomic Age”. We easily overlook the fact that this age began many decades ago. Mankind as a whole, however, only became aware of it in 1945. Yet as early as 1904 Rudolf Steiner predicted that man would soon be able to release the energy of the atom and that this development, in connection with human egotism might bring upon us extremely precarious consequences. We need not look into the future for them.

To grasp the significance of nuclear power plants, we need to know that they were developed from an aggregate that had been constructed for a warship. But the ship was not built as originally planned. What to do with the expensive reactor? It was erected as an electrical power station in Shippingport, Pa., still under the management and control of the navy. We must furthermore know that six to nine nuclear reactors near Richland, Wash., functioned for many years for the sole purpose of producing plutonium. Everyone knows that this substance is the main ingredient of “The Bomb”, of which many thousands are now stockpiled in various countries. This then is the origin of the “Peaceful Atom” — truly a macabre background, matched by an equally promising future, that makes anyone who knows some basic details in this field shudder. Of the many consequences we have to face, let us consider only three: radiation — atomic waste — catastrophe. Each of these is so enormous that man can not cope with it. What does this mean? Radiation is produced in every fission process. Small quantities in a small research reactor, huge quantities, surpassing those produced by an exploding bomb, by today's commercial power station reactors. Most of this radiation is contained, but not all. Some of it escapes, some is released routinely into air, water, soil, notably with the official permission of the governmental agencies licensing such establishments: in the USA, the Atomic Energy Commission. Quite correctly the AEC informs us: “Nuclear power reactors also add waste heat and low levels of radiation to the environment.” [see Note 1] We are, of course, constantly assured by persons “in charge” of such problems that only minute, altogether insignificant amounts of radioactivity are released. Why then in a hospital are even a few milligrams of radium shielded by lead though its radioactive potency is much less than that of many isotopes, i.e. radioactive substances which are byproducts of man-made fission? And why is a nuclear power plant on the Hudson river officially permitted to emit annually 16 million curies. [“curie” is a radiation unit, i.e. the amount of radiation, emanating from one gram of radium through the disintegration of 37 billion atoms per second.] [see Note 2] If only 1%, or one tenth of 1%, of this amount of radioactivity reach the biosphere, it still is not insignificant! Nor does it seem to be inconsequential that, as the AEC reported as early as 1969, “some 4 billion gallons of radioactive wastes have been produced and disposed of over the past 20 years.” [see Note 3] The enormity of the above statement becomes clear when we know that the world supply of radium is only about 3000 grams, representing a potential of 3000 curies. [see Note 4] And remember, there are more than a few nuclear reactors in the world today!

It is known that radiation causes various kinds of cancer and other ailments, as well as genetic damage. It is also known that the effects of radiation are in direct proportion to the amount received; but it has yet to be proven that even the smallest doses cause no harmful results. The American Public Health Association, Inc. states: “Radiation hazards are real. Public exposure to radiation is increasing. Each exposure adds to the body's burden of insults or stresses.” [see Note 5] That is: radiation is cumulative! To this the Federal Radiation Council adds: “Every use of radiation involves the possibility of some biological risk either to the individual or his descendants.” And although some isotopes lose their destructive potency within seconds of being produced, others keep it for hours, days, years, centuries and millennia. Plutonium loses only half of its potency in more than 24,000 years. It will take more than 100,000 years before it is harmless to man. Immediate death, caused by man-made radiation in the biosphere, is not the problem today. But vital statistics show already — and the “Atomic Age” has just begun — an increase in the rate of cancer, infant mortality, still births and genetic deformities in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant here and there. No less disturbing are the results of studies, lasting over 6 years, conducted by Drs. Gofman and Tamplin of the AEC's own research team. In their books Population Control through Nuclear Pollution and Poisoned Power the situation is eloquently described. And in Earth Day — The Beginning we read from the same authors: “As a minor digression, let us also recall that radioactive substances emit ionizing radiations, capable of instantly or slowly destroying virtually all forms of life.” All too well does this accord with the wisdom of Dr. Walter Russell, whose profound knowledge of matter and the forces active in it enabled him to predict by many years the discovery of Deuterium, Tritium, Plutonium & Neptunium — only with other names. He wrote in 1957: “We are planning to use the most deadly, destructive force of Nature to enrich our lives, without knowing its deadly power to destroy every organic living thing on this planet, even to the last grass blade, the last drop of water and the last breath of oxygen in our atmosphere. If man knew the Why and What of radioactivity he would not dare use it.” [see Note 6] One year earlier the German biologist H. V. Brondested wrote: “It is the biologist's duty to warn and to counsel for the utmost caution. It is certain that, should the frequency of mutations increase, society will not be able to cope with this development. And if in the future this will be the case, there will be so many tragedies that future generations will curse the present one for not recognizing clearly the ability of radiation to cause mutations.” [see Note 7] And Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Laureate in genetics, warned that a coming generation might have to spend $10 billion annually on account of genetic damages. Large groups of physicians in this country as well as in Europe speak out against the proliferation of nuclear power. Still, some of the most far-reaching decisions in this field are made by men with next to no knowledge in it; said President Nixon recently on a visit to Hanford, Wash.: “I mentioned a moment ago how all this business about breeder reactors and nuclear energy is over my head. That was one of my poorest subjects, science. I got through it but I had to work too hard. I gave up when I was a sophomore.” [see Note 8]

One might well ask what, in spite of such devastating information, propels the further development of this technology. Could it be that the editor of the N.Y. Times (July 23, 1972) hinted at an answer to this question under the headline “Halting Nuclear Spread”? He wrote: “By 1976 about one-fourth of the countries in the world will have large nuclear reactors in operation for the production of electric power and thus a significant potential for making atomic weapons. Apart from the five nations armed with nuclear weapons — the United States Russia, Britain, France and China — some 27 other countries will be producing plutonium as a by-product of electric power generation, enough of it to make at least 900 Hiroshima bombs a year.” A promising accomplishment!

Among the problems of energy production, that of unavoidable residues is urgent today. Wind and water alone give us energy without burdening us with wastes. We remember that these elements and their movements are among the basic phenomena of this planet's life. When wood is burned, ash remains that contains many substances which, in small quantities, are beneficial for plant life. Coal and oil, being denser and heavier than wood, give us more heat per weight unit but also residues that are good neither for plant, animal, or human life. A good gardener avoids coal ashes in the garden. Yet a pile of it is hardly a threat to our health, and nature will gradually spread her green cover over it. Very different is the situation with radioactive substances left over from any fission process. They are residues of some of the heaviest substances on earth; to break these up a great deal of force is needed. Fittingly, the term “smashing the atom” was coined. That this process found its first “practical use” for non-peaceful purposes should not surprise us. On the contrary — this was altogether in keeping with its actual “nature,” which is deceptively covered up, but not changed, in the “Atoms for Peace” program. The fission process in the reactor as well as the reprocessing of the nuclear fuel burden us with vast amounts of violent waste. So intense is the radiation emitted by this “hot soup”, that a few quarts would suffice to kill millions of people. It contains “several hundred to several thousand curies per gallon” [see Note 3] and must be stored safely for “600 to 1000 years”. [see Note 9] Of this hot soup we have already 80 million gallons, stored in government-owned tank-farms. It must be cooled and stirred permanently to prevent overheating. And so inimical is this seething broth even to the best material that no tank can hold it for more than a few decades, when it must be pumped into a new one. Efforts to solidify the wastes and bury them in salt mines have not been successful. Is the waste problem solved?

Now, what are the radioactive by-products of fission? Of the many known isotopes, let us have a look at only two: Strontium 90 and Plutonium 239.

An engineer at the AEC's Hanford reactors figured that 1 gram of Strontium 90 would make the Columbia river with its daily flow of 53 billion gallons unfit to drink for 8 hours. [see Note 6] I must admit that I can not relate 1/28 ounce to 53 billion gallons of water! Yet I want to grasp how potent Strontium 90 is! Now, I have often filled a 5 gallon pail at an ordinary faucet; at full stream it takes about one minute. That makes 60 pails per hour, i.e. 300 gallons — and so forth. That tap should have been turned on long before Cheops built the great Pyramid to dilute 1 gram of Strontium 90 to a safe level!

The toxicity of Plutonium has been given by experts as being up to 2 billion times that of chlorine. Of the latter ½% in the air is fatal. Both substances are highly volatile. In other words, if both were in spray-bottles, the poison in one single bottle of Plutonium 239 equals that in one billion (let us be conservative) bottles of chlorine! 16 bottles can stand on one square-foot, 44,000 times that many on one acre ... it takes more than 1,400 acres of chlorine bottles to equal the poison in the one Plutonium 239 bottle! Its name was well chosen. Small wonder that Nobel Laureate Dr. Hannes Alfven said: “In a full-scale fission program, the radioactive waste will soon become so enormous that a total poisoning of our planet is possible.” [see Note 10]

A generous heritage for future generations.

Nor is the third possible consequence of “nuclear power” more comforting: catastrophe. Although a massive break, or meltdown, in a “Nuke” is not very likely, it never was officially denied as a possibility. Nor should we forget what could happen in a war or through sabotage. In such a situation large amounts of radioactivity could escape into the biosphere, killing thousands of people outright and forcing the evacuation of large areas immediately and for a long time; possible property damage up to $7 billion. (AEC Brookhaven report) Existing evacuation plans for New York State are hopelessly cumbersome, inadequate and inefficient. Yet their very existence is a tacit admission that not all is well. Indeed, the AEC's “Reactor Operating Experiences 69-9” states: “In the recent past, there have been a number of occurrences at reactors where human error resulted in undesirable situations. None of these situations represented a threat to the health and safety of the public. The absence of more serious effects is largely the result of good luck.” [see Note 11] Commendable optimism? Yes, and a grain of realism, since without such “good luck” many “occurrences” in reactors in the USA, in Canada, in England, Germany, Switzerland could easily have become unprecedented calamities. How long will our good luck last?

Insurance companies, well aware of this precarious situation, have refused to insure us against its risks beyond a nominal sum of a few million dollars. Therefore a law has been passed, putting the burden on the shoulders of the person who is already forced to accept the risks: the taxpayer! And the construction of more and more of these “nukes” continues at an undiminished speed, in spite of radioactivity, in spite of hazards, in spite of wastes, in spite even of their unreliability and their enormous cost! Insanity? Who pushes this technology?

Let us look at it from another angle.

The “Atomic Age” is the result of the scientific and technological development of the past few hundred years. In its beginning, science enjoyed rather low esteem among many educated minds because it was aimed at the knowledge of the physical world. This world was then known to be the created world and a complete understanding of it, it was realized, must necessarily include the forces that created it. The knowledge of such forces gradually waned, and the interest in man's physical surroundings commanded the greater part of his interest until the forces that created it were no longer understood, then denied, ridiculed and forgotten. The knowledge of things (physical objects) grew proportionally.

Things, however, all have two characteristics in common: they occupy space and because they do so, they are divisible, that is: they decay. Such decay appears in many forms and situations: a stone is eroded to sand, a tree rots to humus, and man and animal die. Death is only one, though a highly symptomatic, example of this divisibility common to all things. Even man's body is a “thing” and therefore subject to this phenomenon. However, only his body is; his inner being is non-divisible, hence an in-dividual.

Here is a polarity of contraction and expansion, a basic phenomenon of all life processes. Rudolf Steiner gave us the most far reaching example of it in his cosmogony, An Outline of Occult Science. [see Note 12]

We have here the grandiose description of the condensation of spiritual force and substance into warmth, air, water and eventually into solid matter. Some of the matter which has reached its densest state has by itself begun a slow disintegration, clearly a reversal of this cosmic process. Formative forces that once sacrificed themselves to build matter, are slowly released again, free to be active elsewhere. And since here their release is not due to actions of man, it is not man's responsibility to engage and direct them; rather is it his privilege if he freely decides to do so. Much good can so be done. Altogether different is the situation when matter is forcibly disintegrated by man. The results here are fundamentally different from those following natural decay. To balance them, man needs to exercise his noblest capability, that of making moral judgments.

The polarity of contraction and expansion prevails from our first to our last breath, it leads us through every single breath between them, it lets our heart beat in systole and diastole. It is with us through day and night, through summer and winter, in light and dark, from birth to death. Yet these are only the smaller rhythmical phenomena in a much wider polarity — that between life in a physical body and a non-corporeal, spiritual existence after death, lasting to the next physical birth. As the heart can not stay alive without systole and diastole, man can not live in the world of matter very long without at least a knowledge of the existence that precedes and follows it.

This polarity is nature's miraculous “open secret” in order to create new life. In the plant world much of this new life appears in the form of “new matter”, largely a result of the interplay of terrestrial and cosmic forces through photosynthesis. The amount of such “new matter” by which our planet is enriched annually is so enormous that it is difficult even to estimate it. It directly enables us to live on earth. We would do well, gratefully to recognize this fact instead of taking it more or less for granted.

Now, since the thrust of “modern science” has for such a long time been directed overwhelmingly towards the world of things, in which a non-understood creative process (contraction) is balanced by a no more understood process of death (expansion), it was logical and consequent that man's interest gradually penetrated to the very smallest components of this world of things. To divide them ever more in order to find out their innermost secrets was therefore the logical path of “natural” science. In doing so the process of death became an accepted method of “investigation.” What had been thought of as the non-divisible (a-tomos) basic “building blocks” of matter, what had withstood repeated attempts of splitting, now yielded to the attack of determined physicists: “The atom has been smashed,” we were triumphantly told. Indeed a very different approach from nature's process of slow decomposition. Here we have violence, there gentle preparation to nurture new life.

Nuclear fission is, among man's scientific and technical accomplishments, one of the strongest — it probably is the strongest process and use of the force of death. It is at the borderline between the physical and the non-physical. To achieve it, man indeed uses things, i.e. some highly complicated machinery. The resulting radiation, however, is a sub-natural phenomenon and can not be observed by any of our senses. Therefore it is easily bagatellized by the promoters of this technology. That a manifestation of the force of death can not be used in any manner without also bringing various degrees of death to those who are in its path needs no elaboration. It has been documented with painful thoroughness. It is now necessary that we understand that this death force can never be beneficial to mankind.

Life on this planet would not be possible without the forces, and, equally, without the elements, of life. Most obvious of these are air and water. Both have for long ages given us energy without polluting the earth; and since their cyclic movements are endless, we need not fear an end of the energy we can get from them. We should, however, try to make much more efficient use of them. What we have grossly neglected so far — probably because we were interested more in the force of death than in that of life — is light ... yes, the “simple” light from the sun. There is hardly more than a beginning of research into how to produce “solar power.” Some very successful pilot plants have been built to concentrate sun-heat for a pollution-free energy source; buildings can be heated with it. Grumman Aerospace has plans to convert sunlight directly into electricity, and so forth. [see Note 13] All of these are much more progressive than the archaic method of nuclear power stations: make heat — boil water — make steam — turn shaft — to electric generator. Except for the fifth step this is basically the same that Watt & Stevenson used some 200 years ago ... how antiquated a method! Different only is the method of producing heat, and at what a ghastly price and risk: deathly radiation, unmanageable wastes and potential disaster. Equally important: can we not even think of an energy other than that of electricity to help us with our daily chores? Can we not investigate this most common of activities, the light-force: photosynthesis, a force we have barely thought about in this connection? Through this process in green plants uncounted billions of tons of “new matter” are produced annually on earth! Might this not yield us, beyond food and fuel, beyond home and health, even clean energy as well? In a report of the National Science Foundation of June 7, 1972, [see Note 14] the word photosynthesis does appear. But only in connection with various applications of old and well-known methods. What is needed is an altogether new direction and thrust in thinking, a searching for the doings of life forces on and around our earth, instead of once more re-searching the interplay of “things.” Is it not clear by now that natural science, as it has evolved over the past few centuries, is limited in the scope of its investigations predominantly to the field of physical things; that is, to the investigation of such objects and phenomena as will decay eventually, as are time-bound? What a narrow horizon: physical matter and existence to which our time concept applies. (It is indeed proper to speak of fission as a “timely” discovery!) If mankind is to survive the next few decades as a civilized society, it is necessary now to widen the scope of science to include first and foremost the study of life-forces manifest in nature and man. In his book Man or Matter, Ernst Lehrs concludes the chapter on “Radiant Matter” with the following sentences: “The insight we have gained into the nature of electricity and magnetism has led us to the realization that with every act of setting electromagnetic energies in motion we interfere with the entire levity-gravity balance of our planet by turning part of the earth's coherent substance into cosmic ‘dust.’ Thus we may say that whenever we generate electricity we speed up the earth's process of cosmic ageing. Obviously this is tremendously enhanced by the creation of artificial radioactivity along the lines recently discovered, whereby it has now become possible to transmute chemical elements into one another, or even to cancel altogether their gravity-bound existence.

“To see things in this light is to realize that with our having become able to rouse electricity and magnetism from their dormant state and make them work for us, a gigantic responsibility has developed for mankind. It was man's fate to remain unaware of this fact during the first phase of the electrification of his civilization; to continue now in this state of unawareness would spell peril for the human race.” [see Note 15] Lehrs speaks of a needed new awareness. Max Born — teacher of Robert Oppenheimer, Edvard Teller and many other famous nuclear physicists — was equally outspoken. “It is of critical importance that our generation be able to “re-think” (umzudenken). Should it not be able to do this, the days of civilized humanity are numbered,” [see Note 16] said Born in 1955. Nor had Albert Einstein any doubts about the situation: “Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good or evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Elsewhere he said “We need an essentially new kind of thinking if mankind is to stay alive.” [see Note 10] Did he not know that Rudolf Steiner had given us this new kind of thinking even before the Theory of Relativity was announced in 1905? A thinking not limited to an awareness of things and their interplay, however complicated, but one able to grasp and recognize the forces that created them and still are active in them; a thinking that allows us to become aware of these forces in an altogether concrete manner, yet not patterned on the thinking of concepts of a physical nature — yes Nature, because now in our thinking we need to rise above her. This alone will enable us to recognize the “nature” of fission as a death force and give us the moral strength to make the decision not to use it, neither in war nor in peace. Otherwise the spiritual being that gives men the impulse to promote a nuclear development in an electrified civilisation will remain unrecognized.

How important this is was pointed out by Rudolf Steiner when he said that it is one of the secret aspects of the spiritual world, that evil forces can retain their power only as long as we are not conscious of them. The development of consciousness, of the awareness of certain evil spiritual forces can be compared to the daylight, dispelling evil spirits. Rudolf Steiner suggested that we make as strong and as clear an inner picture of these inimical forces as we possibly can so that we learn to recognize them. Then we find that we are also creating a counter-picture of them in our mind, and this acts like the light, forcing them to flee. The power of Light! It gives life to our planet, it warms our hearts, it illuminates our minds! Might it not be that the supreme force in the world also will give us renewed energy, if we but resolve to cooperate with it!


[A bold number in brackets at the end of an entry refers to a corresponding footnote in the text.
Click it to read the text.

Bryerton, Gene. Nuclear Dilemma, Ballantine Books, N.Y. 1970.

Curtis, R. & Hogan, E. Perils of the Peaceful Atom, Doubleday, 1969.

Eggers, A. J. Jr. (National Science Foundation) comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, June 7, 1972.

____________ Public Exposure to Ionizing Radiations, American Public Health Association 1958. [5]

____________ Nuclear Power and the Environment, AEC Division of Technical Information 1969. [1]

____________ Reactor Operating Experiences, AEC in Congressional Record, March 22, 1972. [4]

____________ Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point 3) Docket No. 50-286, AEC Secretariat ARC-R 193/6. [2]

____________ Watch on the AEC, Citizens Energy Council, 113 2nd St. N.E., Washington D.C., April 15, 1972. [10]

____________ Energy Crisis, Nuclear Information Center, 2604 24th St., N. Arlington, Va. 22207, Feb. 15, 1970. [8]

____________ Solar Energy A Viable Alternative, Grumman Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. 11714. [13]

Fox, Charles H. Radioactive Wastes, U.S. AEC Division of Technical Information, 1969. [3]

Gravel, Senator Mike, Congressional Record, April 30, 1970. [9]

Lehrs, Ernst. Man or Matter, Harper Bros., N.Y., 1958. [15]

Rapoport, Roger. The Great American Bomb Machine, E. P. Dutton, N.Y., 1971.

Russell, Walter & Lao. Atomic Suicide?, University of Science and Philosophy, Swannanoa, Waynesboro, Va. 1957. [6]

Steiner, R. An Outline of Occult Science. [12]

Sternglass, E. J. Low-Level Radiation, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1972.

Tamplin, A. R. & Gofman, J. W. Poisoned Power, Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa., 1971.

____________ Population Control, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1970.

____________ Earth Day — The Beginning (Collection), Bantam Books, 1970.

Brendested, H. V. Das Atomzeitalter und unsere biologische Zukunft, Vandenhock & Ruprecht, Goettingen, 1956. [7]

Hageman, E. Kernreaktoren sind lebensgefaehrliche Strahlungsquellen, Beitraege zu einer Erweiterung der Heilkunst, Arbeitsgemeinschaft anthroposophischer Aerzte, Weffingstr. 24, Stuttgart.

Hemleben, J. Biologie und Christentum, Verlag Urachhaus, Stuttgart. [16]

Hessenbruch, H. Das Geheimnis der Materie anders gesehen, Oda Verlag, Koeln, 1959.

Jaeckel, E. Toedlicher als die Bombe, Drei Eichen Verlag, Munchen, 1968.

Knauer, H. Ueber die Entfesselung der ‘Atomkraefte’, Das Goetheanum, 27 Juni, 1954.

____________ Atomenergie, Das Goetheanum, 23 October, 1955.

____________ Welchen Einfluss hat die radioaktive Strahlung auf Mensch und Erde?, Das Goetheanum, 4 November, 1956.

Schultz, E. H. Vorkommnisse und Strahlenunfaelle in kerntechnischen Anlage, Verlag Earl Thiemig Munchen, 1966.

Schuepbach, W. Biologic an der Grenze, Verlag die Kommenden, Freiburg i.Br. 1965.

Schwab, G. Morgen holt dich der Teufel, Verlag Das Bergland Buch, Salzburg/Stuttgart, 1968.

____________ Aerzte-Memorandum betreffend die Errichtung von KernspaltungsKraftwerken, Oesterreichische Aerztezeitung, Wien, 25 Oktober, 1970.

 [Prev] [Next] [Up] [Top] [Search] [Index] [Print] [Home]

We need your support!

We are a small nonprofit with the expenses of a large website. Your generous financial gifts make this venture possible. If you can't contribute now, please visit our Help Out page for additional ways to support our work in the future. Thank you!

External Links