Home / Forums / Anonymous vs Scientology / Leaks & Legal /
Elron brings the crazy: selected quotes from the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by MijnheerHuysmans, Jun 11, 2008.
MijnheerHuysmans Member
'sup, anonymeese?
A while back, I mentioned that I was giving some thought to posting a thread detailing the assorted craziness that can be found in the recently-leaked SHSBC. This is, of course, that thread.
Here, I aim to present you with only the finest batshit fucking insanity, made with the freshest LRH available, and served with a side of organic, free-range tech. Unfortunately, in order to get TO the craziness, I have to read through a metric shit-ton of mind-numbingly dull Scilon-speak -- but I consider that my penance-in-advance for missing Sea Arrrrgh.
However, all the dull stuff DOES mean that progress will be slow, because based on my readings thus far the ratio of Scilon-speak to lulz is over 9000:1 in any given lecture. So, what with the fact that there are roughly 400 lectures in this series for me to slog through, I don't expect to finish this any time soon.
What does all this mean for you, the reader? Basically: eh, check back from time to time for lulzy quotes. I guarantee there won't be any shortage of 'em.
TL;DR: This thread is a /secret stash/ of crazy Elron quotes. I'll put new ones up as I run across 'em. Dunno how often that'll be.
EDIT: You can find the transcripts that I'm working off of here, for those of you who feel like checking sources: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course(SHSBC)(Transcripts) '61-'66.rar
MijnheerHuysmans, Jun 11, 2008
Re: Elron brings the crazy: selected quotes from the Saint Hill Special Briefing Cour
The first quote comes, appropriately enough, from the first lecture in the series. Elron, in his awesome wisdom, sez:
"And we all of a sudden have a defense against the atom bomb. A person who is super-cleared, probably up around the level of Theta Clear, is not affected by them." (Lecture 1, p. 19; speech delivered by L. Ron Hubbard on May 7, 1961)
So not only can they fly, they can survive a nuclear holocaust. Intriguing, my good sir! Tell me moar about this... bridge... you wish to sell me that will help me to achieve these goals.
apownymous Member
"Probably Theta Clear" = "A high clear.. uh.. (hmm... what word.. Ah! Got it!) THETA! Theta clear! Yes the SUPER DUPER HIGH MEGA CRAZY Clear."
apownymous, Jun 11, 2008
100% true in every way, and not to be doubted
Then spake Saint Elron thusly:
"Now, oddly enough – strangely enough, a primary fault I have is honesty. I will tell you what I know, or what I think I know, when I know it. And if I find out it isn't true, I will tell you it isn't true. And if it happens to be discreditable along the line, I'm afraid I will tell you." (Lecture 3, p. 8 - delivered May 19, 1961.)
Also enjoyable, in an "oh the burning irony" sort of way:
"If the psycho-analysts were doing this, of course, at sixty pounds the hour, or something like that, they'd try to figure out how to stretch the assessment."
(Ibid., p. 11)
GEE GOLLY GOSH, WOULD THEY REALLY? Oh, those wicked psychoanalysts, eh?
That just might be the explanation there, apownymous.
But now, or possibly nao, I must move on to the truly remarkable passage that opens up the fourth lecture in the series -- I'm just gonna quote it verbatim because I honestly don't think excerpts could do it justice.
"Now, you may believe that good publicity in the newspapers will take Scientology someplace. You may believe that good public opinion on the part of the kings and presidents and janitors of the world will get Scientology someplace. And you may believe that it'd be wonderful if the head of the BMA or the AMA or the QBCs or the Ku Klux Klan or some other fascist organization [laughter], would announce that he was in favor of Scientology. You may believe all these things have value.
Well, I want to tell you today that they have no value of any kind whatsoever. They are as sounding brass and the tinkle of the temple bell. They are nothing. If you get the idea that Scientology will rise or fall by public opinion, circa 1961 or 1950, you are very much mistaken. They will have absolutely no bearing on Scientology.
It isn't necessarily that Scientology belongs to the ages, but this is vividly true, vividly: If you don't get results, all the publicity, good opinion in the world will do nothing. Your standard is quality, not opinion. From quality, opinion stems. The advance of this world does not depend on a bunch of wogs who happen to be heading the BMA, the AMA, the Ku Klux Klan or the World's Betterment Association for Emaciated Cats; it depends exclusively on better people. And the more better people you turn out, the better this world will be and that is the end of it. It goes no further than this.
It is behind this that my press policy has long been: When the newspaper reporter knocks on the door, let him climb the stairs so that you can kick him down them. We care nothing for adverse publicity or publicity that is for us. I certainly would not go ask the opinion of a tinker on the quality of the atomic bomb." (Lecture 4, p. 1, May 26 1961)
Oddly enough, L. Ron was absolutely and completely right about ONE thing: from quality, opinion stems... which is why so very, very many people have such low opinions of Scientology.
As an aside, this is actually L. Ron at his best -- when he's /not/ speaking in droning Scilon-ese, he can be a very strong, compelling orator who can really hold the audience's attention. Unfortunately, these speeches were written by, for, and about Scilons and the Tech, so he spends most of his time talking about e-meters. Joy.
As for the rest -- "we care nothing for adverse publicity or publicity that is for us" -- wouldn't it be awesome if that were true? Also if pigs could fucking fly.
Ball Member
you're only claiming its crazy because you haven't voluntarily submitted yourself to long-term systematic hypnosis.
once the reactive mind is handled its all good
Ball, Jun 12, 2008
And one more before I turn in for the night
"Time has a temperature. Yeah, there's a startler: Time has a temperature. Time has a certain temperature. If you don't believe it, put some meat in the ice box. Doesn't decay as fast, does it? Put it out in the sun in August. It decays much more rapidly, doesn't it? 'Ah yes,' you say, 'but this is the decomposition of the bacteria which is operating against the roodlepuffs.' [laughter] No it isn't.
Time is a temperature. I don't know what that temperature is in Kelvin, but now that I know that time is a temperature, I can find it. And the moment I find the exact temperature, I could make any area, at any given instant, timeless or speed its time up. I know that sounds very strange. But this is a great discovery in physics. Only you know about it, but it is a great discovery in physics. It's rather a staggerer." (Lecture 4, p. 9. May 26, 1961.)
Um. What? How did he get from time /has/ a temperature to time /is/ a temperature? Also: had he been corresponding with Gene Ray? Y'know -- the Time Cube guy. I mean, that would explain a LOT.
I Member
if you're wanting the complete set, there are 4 more of these documents in the multileaks release. (well, there are more than that, but some are repeats from this one)
4 out of 12 of the confidential ones that aren't in the leak you're using.
I, Jun 12, 2008
QAnon Member
"Time has/is a temperature"...well, technically, he's correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. It can be implied from quantum theory. And if you want to generalize, L. Ron, you can say that the temperature of "time" is 3K, the background temperature of the universe...
...wait a second, did he say he could mentally control the flow of time? (looks to the side) My degree certificate in Physics has started weeping. And it looks like it's tears of blood.
QAnon, Jun 12, 2008
Legionnaire 148 Member
QAnon;339924 said:
That's because your degree is based on peer reviewed science, which is an invention by evil psychs. :roll:
Legionnaire 148, Jun 12, 2008
WBMBacker Member
Ball;339742 said:
Yeah... what he said!
(continues in brainwashed fog to eat his rice and beans)
:frustration:
WBMBacker, Jun 12, 2008
plaguedoctor Member
Re: And one more before I turn in for the night
MijnheerHuysmans;339768 said:
I think he was thinking of the meat example, and that decay of the meat is an absolute -- with time, meat naturally decays (meaning, it's not due to bacteria and such). Even if the meat was in a sterile vacuum, with time, it would decay. (BS? I'm thinking so, but my memory of biology is a bit fuzzy right now).
Thus, the fact that meat decays slower in a freezer than outside in the summer is indicative that time and temperature are interrelated.
When it's hot, time is going faster (as evidenced by the increased rate of decay), and when it's cold, time goes slower, as shown by the reduced rate of decay.
It's basically an argument based on a fallacy.
Also, would the temperature of time be anything above 0K? Since then all energy and activity would cease, thus any change also cease? Hmmm...:text:
plaguedoctor, Jun 12, 2008
time having a 'temperature' would help to put a 'why' behind the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that the time arrow is irreversible.
however I can't think of anything to suggest that it's actually true or how it would work, and what elron said is definitely not how it would work.
his argument is just so... mediaeval.
"medieval"...
That's exactly what I was thinking. When I first read this bit about the meat thing, I automatically thought about old the idea that rotting meat becomes maggots.
I guess we can say that CoS is a backwards, medieval thought system, but instead of being a geocentric cosmology, it is Hubbardcentric?
A-non-y-moose Member
apownymous;339618 said:
What your looking for is "Motherfucking Clear™"
A-non-y-moose, Jun 12, 2008
DavidFreehug Member
plaguedoctor;340241 said:
Dollar-centric ?
DavidFreehug, Jun 12, 2008
Toxic Rose Member
I remember reading one of the FZrs going on about DM being a CIA plant altering the 'tech' to keep clears from messing with nukes...
Toxic Rose, Jun 12, 2008
I: Thanks for the info on the missing four lectures. Right now, I'm inclined to carry on with what I have -- I just wanna work through the lectures that are in front of me, and then at the end of that I might go back and read the other four confidential lectures and find more lulz there.
To the rest of you: thanks a bunch for all your physics learnings -- and for your attempts to decipher L. Ron's babble. You're scholars and gentlemen.
I not only have a degree in Physics, but I've spent a great deal of time in the meat industry in regulatory and quality assurance (exactly how much time I will not mention due to it being identifiable information, since I do have resumes out on the Net right now). So, hey, I know the answer to this one. The decay of meat is not caused by time. It's caused by bacteria feeding on the organic matter as a source of nutrient.
Meat will decay in what you call a "sterile vacuum" (by definition, a vacuum is sterile since it contains nothing). Aerobic bacteria do require oxygen as part of their metabolic process, but it can obtain oxygen from the blood that is still trapped in the meat (regulations require as much bleed-out as humanly possible during the slaughter process, but you can't get rid of all the blood). The bacterial growth will be slowed significantly by lack of oxygen, which is why you get more shelf life out of vacuum-packed meat. But unless the meat itself is sterilized, it will still rot.
Proper heat treatment of products during processing is designed to do just that. That's why some sausages are shelf-stable. This is the reason that the meat industry wants to push radiation treatment of fresh meat; it kills the bacteria inside the meat and extends shelf life. However, people get freaked out about radiation so much that it's getting resistance.
Then there's the whole issue of anaerobic bacteria, bacteria that don't need oxygen as part of their metabolic process. The best-known to consumers is Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that causes botulism. That's meat rotting in a vacuum.
So, no, L. Ron, it's not time causing the rotting. What a putz.
No, there's the whole thing regarding entropy and the nature of space-time. Energy has to be lost, and it's lost in the form of heat. That's why 3K is more of a good guess as the temperature of "time".
So, I'm curious. How do aerobic and anaerobic bacteria interact when they're both present on a given chunk of meat? Does one kind tend to crowd out the other? Or are they living off of different resources so that there is no competition with each other?
XenuLovesU Member
Even if you did manage to sterilize a hunk of meat completely (through radiation or *gasp* cooking it), it would still continue to decay, even in a vacuum, through enzymatic processes. It's not just bacteria that causes "decay."
XenuLovesU, Jun 12, 2008
They're not competing for oxygen, but they are competing for the nutrients contained in the meat that they require. Aerobic bacteria generally have a much faster growth rate than anaerobic bacteria, so they usually dominate in an oxygen-rich environment and "crowd out" anaerobic bacteria. In an oxygen-poor environment, the growth rate of aerobic bacteria is slowed to a crawl, and anaerobic bacteria dominate. Since anaerobic bacteria do grow at that slower rate, it takes more time for a health-threatening situation to develop. However, the threat posed by anaerobic bacteria is, in general, far greater than most aerobic bacteria, so don't take any chances at all if you're even remotely suspicious. Anon must stay safe and healthy.
And, yes, XLU, enzymatic processes are important to decay, but from the standpoint of food safety, bacteria are far more important, since not only the bacteria but their waste products (as is in case of botulism) are what tend to cause disease. So that's what's concentrated on when it comes to making your New York Strip edible.
As for your spinach-and-tomato side salad...I know about that too, but it's not my department.
Hostile Member
here's one
"Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns." - L. Ron Hubbard, ALL ABOUT RADIATION, p. 109
... wow... idiot...
"Radiation is apparently enormously water-soluble as well as water removable. According to researchers, one merely has to take a hose to a building surface or a road to wash the radiation off of it. This factor is well known to defense trained personnel." - L. Ron Hubbard, Clear Body, Clear Mind, page 47
if it was that easy chernobyl wouldn't have been nearly as bad... he seems to be missing that the water used to cool and slow down nuclear reactors is actually H(isotope with an extra neutron)2O.... heavy water is not water
and another idiot phrase
"Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'" - L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 15-G, 1953
no ron... you can't cure cancer
and now my favorite lron quote
"Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence." - L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20
so true... so very true
/threadjack, I know this is meant for saint hill briefing, but since we were on physics I thought I might bring up some of his idiot quotes... sometimes I can't decide if he was truly a genius to be able to use so many logical falicies to control peoples' minds or if he's truly a nutcase... usually I settle for nutcase
Hostile, Jun 12, 2008
HALP ME OBI-RON KENOBI. YOU'RE MY ONLY HOPE.
Lectures 5 through 9 are almost exclusively e-meter-related, with very little craziness for me to pass on to you, sad to say. Lecture 9 DOES contain a shout-out to Anonymous, from almost 50 years ago -- impressive, right?
I've posted it before, so some of you will be seeing it for the second time. Tough shit. I command you to giggle.
"All right. Now, this is the 7th of June, isn't it?
Audience: Right. Uh-huh..
Marcabian intelligence report date – something or other. Did you hear about the Marcabians who had to PDH the Thedeans who had to – in order to make Frank Sullivan safe for democracy. Anyhow [laughs] – ah, it's a wonderful life." (Lecture 9, p. 1. June 7 1961, obviously.)
PDH stands for Pain, Drug, Hypnosis, and on this subject Hubbard mentions that "[t]here's been somebody crashing around the United States who has evidently – since 1952, has been complaining to me bitterly about all of the thetans that come in the night and PDH him." (Lecture 8, p. 7 -- June 6, 1961)
I know the dude was probably mentally ill, but holy crap, I lol'd. "RON! RON! Why can't you save me from the thetans that torture me at night?!"
BTW, for those of you who wonder how L. Ron's anti-psychiatry stance could ever have won him any followers (but are too lazy -- or too busy fapping -- to hit the library and find out for yourselves), lemme give you a quick primer on the state of psychiatry in 1950, when Ron wrote Dianetics.
PUBLIC NOTICE: TL;DR FOLLOWS, AND CAN BE SAFELY SKIPPED BY MOST OF YOU. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF :guyfawkes: WHO AREN'T QUITE OLD ENOUGH TO OWN A :anon: AND ARE EXCEEDINGLY AVERSE TO :text:.
Back in 1950, there were no psychiatric medications. None. Mental problems were basically treated with, 1) therapy (usually talk therapy, almost always Freudian, Jungian, or otherwise a total crock of shit), or 2) putting the patient into a mental institution and leaving him or her to rot.
Seriously. Because there was no way to treat most mental illnesses, once you were committed to an institution, you were pretty much there for life unless your family came to take you back out -- and often, they were the ones who put you /in/ there because (obviously through no fault of their own) you were just too much for them to handle. It was a fucked-up and miserable situation all the way around, and because of that, alternative treatments for mental illness flourished.
Scientology and the famous (but not actually performed with an icepick) "icepick lobotomy" are the two most notorious and are also, frankly, the only ones I /know/ about -- but in the circumstances, it's not surprising that desperate people who were mentally ill themselves (hello, Mr. The-Thetans-Come-At-Night!) or who had a loved one who /was/ screwed up in the head might turn to something that would otherwise seem mind-bogglingly stupid.
I actually read a lengthy book by one of the inventors of the icepick lobotomy that contained some /fascinating/ accounts and case studies and all that jazz, but this isn't really the right place to go into that. Suffice to say that I found some of their methods questionable (in some of their earlier operations, they used local anaesthesia and operate on a conscious patient, maintaining a conversation with her as they operated -- the idea being that they would STOP when her speech became too slurred to understand, or when she started babbling. That's... that's kind of an alarming stopping point, right there.) -- but I did understand their goal, which was to keep their patients from living out a miserable, trapped life in an asylum.
Getting back on topic here, I think that's basically the reason Scientology was able to gain so many adherents in the early days: psychiatry really /wasn't/ working at the time, and it wasn't until well into the '50s that the first modern psychiatric drugs were discovered, tested, and introduced.
By that time, of course, Lafayette Ron already had a pretty sizable group of followers who were ready and eager to pay big cash $$$ for e-meter-related services.
And that, boys and girls, is where Scientology comes from. Well, I mean, that's not the ONLY source -- top scientists suspect it /also/ comes from goatse -- but it's a useful piece of background information.
This broadcast has been brought to you by Marcabian Intelligence, and will be repeated every half-hour on the dot here on Radio Free Teegeeack.
Hostile;341866 said:
I think the term "evil genius" is apropos.
And I don't think it's so much of a threadjack. My recall of my science courses is a bit fuzzy, and while I realize what LRH is saying is completely wrong, I can't really pinpoint WHY it's wrong. So the physics/biochem tutorials are particularly helpful.
Also, thanks to whomever for the stuff about meat/vacuums/physics/etc stuff. Cleared some stuff up for me
QAnon: When you say that anaerobic bacteria are, in general, more dangerous to a human being than aerobic bacteria, what exactly do you mean by that? Is it just that certain (relatively common) types of anaerobic bacteria are known to cause sickness in human beings? Or is it that /all/ anaerobic bacteria are dangerous in some way, or for some reason, that doesn't apply to aerobic bacteria?
Also, Hostile: nah, that's not a threadjack -- it's quality crazy, which is really what I made this thread for. I just picked the Saint Hill stuff because it happened to be available here and because there was a LOT of it; God knows it's not the only source of "LOL WUT" to be found in Scientology. Other folks are more than welcome to post their favorite nuggets of L. Ron's treasured wisdom here. (I'm still on the fence about whether he bought into Scientology or not, by the way -- in fact I go back and forth on that one pretty regularly. Right now I lean towards yes, but there's really no way to know for certain. So I know what you mean about having a hard time telling if he's crazy or just full of shit.)
Really, the only thang I have about this thread is that, if you put up an example of L. Ron's shining wisdom, it should have the source prominently noted so that anyone who's so inclined can look it up. This is especially important because some of what LRH says sounds so crazy that it can be hard to tell a genuine LRH remark from a clever satire, so -- sauces are delicious, y'all. Apply them generously.
Anonyneko Member
I'm wondering if decay isn't also just a natural product of the lack of bio-energy needed to keep the atoms bonded together. Since our bodies naturally produce energy to replace/replenish/re-etc... without such an energy source, the body would eventually lose the ability to keep its form intact?
And in a perfect vacuum (no gravitic influence, zero degree kelvin temp, etc), meat wouldn't decay due to lack of molecular motion.
Anonyneko, Jun 12, 2008
Doublepost faygo trees. I love this forum software.
Voland Member
Legionnaire 148;339940 said:
Chii Duh.. Everbody knows the phycs cant be trusted..:roll:
Voland, Jun 12, 2008
hmm... well... most decay starts when microbes start using the dying, nutrient and oxygen deprived cells of the food as their own food
the parts that the microbes can't absorb and use, do not decay as quickly... but of course, there can be no "perfect vaccum" because no matter how close you get, there's no way for something to be zero kelvin (unless the object is hypothetically outside of the ever expanding universe)
yeah I think that's how things decay... I'll just check wikipedia...
ah here it is
Decomposition (or spoilage) refers to the reduction of the body of a formerly living organism into simpler forms of matter. The body of a living organism begins to decompose (as part of a succession) shortly after death. Such decomposition can be simplified in two stages: In the first stage, it is limited to the production of vapors. In the second stage, liquid materials form and the flesh or plant matter begins to decompose. The science which studies such decomposition generally is called taphonomy. Historically, the progression of decomposition of a living organism has been described as taking place in four stages: fresh (autolysis), bloat (putrefaction), decay (putrefaction and carnivores) and dry (diagenesis).
There are environmental influences that will affect decomposition. A body that is exposed to air will decompose more quickly and will have more insect activity. A buried body will decompose eight times slower than a body exposed to air. This is due in part to limited insect activity and possibly lower temperatures. Likewise a body submerged in water decomposes at half the rate of an exposed body. The rate of decomposition depends on the temperature of the water. Cold water will allow slow decomposition and warm water causes faster decomposition. The body is also shielded from insect activity as long as it is submerged.
so basically, the cellular parts lose energy (membranes break down due to lack of atp energy etc) and the liquid portions of the body start to evaporate.
microbes also eat and absorb the stuff, insects carry away pieces... eventually leaving only the solid bits (like bones and bits of dried flesh)
I'm pretty much concentrating on microorganisms that are responsible for foodborne illness, which I think I should make clear so there's no confusion. The discussion was caused by L. Ron babbling about rotting meat, after all.
There is a much higher lethality percentage for people who suffer foodborne illness caused by intoxication with anaerobic bacteria. Staph aureus, an aerobic bacterium, will upset your tummy for three to seven days and, in general, will only make you wish you were dead. Salmonella has a higher rate of kill, but it can be treated with an antibiotic regimen. Clostridium-related intoxication (botulism or C. perfringens) has a really good chance of Ending your Cycle. Antibiotics won't help, because what's causing illness isn't the bacteria themselves, but the waste products they excrete.
Botulinum toxin is one of the most lethal known to man. It's still regarded as one of the core bases for a good chemical warfare program. The bacteria is easy to culture and the excreted toxin is easy to concentrate. It's harder to disseminate and get to work than anthrax, but it's more effective. If you see a swelled can in your cupboard, dear God, dump it. Do NOT open it under any circumstances.
By the way, should you need an expert on food safety who you know isn't a Scilon plant and actually knows his stuff, I'm available for employment and can relocate. PM me, but you'd better have good bona fides.
anonymousguyfalkes Member
yeah, all you have to do is cool yourself to 3K and then, being in harmonious union with time, it will obey your every command... ;-)
anonymousguyfalkes, Jun 12, 2008
L. Ron got EVERYTHING WRONG when it came to science. I'm not a PHD, but I've been accused of being on (by other phd's). This is only because while I love science, I hate math, and I think proving what we know is best left to people who have a tremendous genius a bit too much accountant in them. It's too tedious. Science is fascinating, learning about how they figure stuff out. The proofs are great. But what I care about is "does it work", and "do we know enough about how it works to make it do other things".
So I can easily spot each and ever piece of BS that L Ron spews. If you remember your history lessons, he almost reminds me of the ideas of spontaneous generation... the ideas are that primitive.
And water washing off radiation? Yeah, they use heavy water, that should be double good at washing, shouldn't it? ;-)
He didn't even know enough to talk about alpha particles, high energy, highly destructive, most destructive to DNA, yet it can be stopped with tin foil. Or beta particles, less deadly, but a little harder to insulate. Then there's always gamma particles. How about the mechanisms of a nuclear powerplant? You use U238 control rods, (at least in some of the older ones they might have better materials now), U235 fuel, and a neutron source. Under sufficient temperature and pressure, you shoot the neutrons into the U235 splitting it, which produces neutrons that split others. Eventually this cascade creates critical mass, a self sustaining reaction. If the reaction takes off too much, you lower the U238 control rods, which are less radioactive and more stable, soaks up the extra neutrons, and idles back the reaction.
And then what happens if you decrease the mass but radically increase the pressure huh? Move those atoms a little closer together? Wink Wink?
For the lesser scientifically-educated Anons:
Alpha particles: nuclei of helium. Two protons, two neutrons. And you don't even need tinfoil to block them. Single-ply toilet paper will do. Save the tinfoil for your hats.
Beta particles: free electrons. As such, easily diverted.
Gamma particles: extremely high-energy photons. Light On Steroids. This is what will kill you eventually.
Control rods in reactors these days are usually better neutron absorbers than U238. I believe they're using alloys containing hafnium, which soaks up neutrons like Bounty soaks up spills. The principle reason for using U238 in reactors is to soak up neutrons for them to undergo nuclear charge conversion and turn the U238 into plutonium-239. This is what's called a breeder reactor. If you're not making weapons-grade plutonium, you use something else to absorb neutrons.
See, people? Reading this thread, you've picked up more nuclear physics than L. Ron learned in his college classes.
L. Ron, on the /awesome/ standards of pastoral care you can expect from auditors (SHSBC 14, p. 10, June 14, 1961):
Same guy, I pulled the same gag – another gag on him. I hypnotized him – this was early in research – and turned his stuttering off like that. Hypnotists do this rather well. The guy goes around in a total fog after this, you see, but he can talk just fine. Of course, he can't think of anything to say, but... [laughter] And I said he would cease to stutter until I said the word boggleboo or something to him. It was very funny. I called him up on the phone. And he was at work; he worked in a shipyard. And I called him up on the phone, and he answered the phone. And cheerily, cheerily, he was saying, "Well, well, well. How are you today, Ron? Yes. Oh, I'm getting along fine. Everything is going along fine."
I said, "Boggleboo."
And he said, "Bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-bu. Wha – what did you ssss-sss-ssssss-sssa-ssss-sss-sss-say?"
I was not aware of the item on the Auditor's Code that says, "The auditor retains the right to fuck with your head at any time if he's, y'know... just feeling bored or something." But it clearly must be in there, because L. Ron was a paragon of Scieno virtue.
He really WAS, too, or at least he embodied what y'might call the core value of the Church of Scientology: acquiring cash $$$ from the desperate. How do I know this? Because on the same page he mentions that he'd charged this gentleman $500 to get rid of his stutter, but he then found that the fellow became fixated on the money he'd just given L. Ron. (I would be too. I'd ask myself, "Self? Why did I just give L. Ron Hubbard a large sum of money for a cure he probably can't deliver? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME?", but I digress.)
So, what did L. Ron do to get over that little therapeutic hump? I'm glad you asked!
"So what I did was process him, and I cured his inability to have or give money." (Ibid.)
I'll bet you did, L. Ron! /I'll bet you did/. In fairness to Hubbard, he claims that /after/ he cured that... curious disability, what he did was-- well, I'll let him tell the story: "And then he – then he paid me the five hundred dollars, and I cured his stammering and then gave him the five hundred dollars back again. (I never told anybody this whole story.) And he started to stammer instantly." (Ibid.)
Remember, people! ELRON ONLY TAKES YOUR MONEY /FOR YOUR OWN GOOD/. Because if he let you keep it? You would never, ever solve your problems. /Ever/.
And, yes. The awesome thing about the Internet is that you can learn about nuclear physics /and/ mock Scientology at the same time! /In the same thread/! /Superb/.
Hubbard on anesthesia
"What gives with an anesthetist? Don't you suppose—here's a more direct Q and A that's more easily understood. How about this anesthetist? You start auditing this anesthetist and she goes blooeea-bong! Why? ... Because, of course, every time she anesthetizes somebody, she lets them be less familiar with pain, and they will recover much more slowly." (Lecture 15, p. 4, June 15 1961)
QUICK, L. RON. LET ME PERFORM THIS EMERGENCY APPENDECTOMY ON YOU WHILE YOU'RE FULLY CONSCIOUS. THIS WILL ONLY HURT AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT, PLUS ALSO YOU'LL SCREAM AND TRY TO THRASH AROUND A LOT AND YOU MAY CAUSE THE SURGEON TO CUT PARTS OF YOU HE DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT.
Doing this will /totally/ help you recover much more quickly!
It should be noted that my ... was a /tiny/ bit misleading: that's not actually the reason he proposes for the hypothetical anesthetist's hypothetical abnormality in her hypothetical auditing session. What /is/? According to Hubbard, apparently it's because "he's running a not-know about the operation," which totally makes perfect sense, because anesthesiologists are IN NO WAY required to know how long an operation will take, or what the operation actually entails, in order to do their jobs. I mean, that's crazy talk, right? Clearly it's much more efficient to desperately tune out all such information.
There's a bunch of other stuff in lecture 15 that shows LRH never bothered picking up an actual goddamn history book before he spouted off about history, but it's not really all that /crazy/ -- it's just misinformed and sloppy. It's also TL;DR, so I'll spare you. Suffice to say he's juuuuust about as good at history as he is at nuclear physics.
Thanks for the up to date on that, I actually haven't delved into it since the early 90's. I'm sure a lot has changed.