Here are more quotes from Elena, verbatim from her surreal websites:

"Evil wind brought here 70% of Chernobyl radiation... Houses here mostly made of wood and they absorb radiation like a sponge."

"radiactive technics as far as only eyes can see.  There were [bones of] people inside of each [abandoned] vehicle."

"fire-engins are the most poluted objects in a region. They have been trying to put down those radiactive fire. ...fire-engins never returned in their garages."

"If I keep walking all the way to reactor, then at the end of a journey I will glow in a dark... this sort of a magic when one walk in in a biker leather and coming out like a knight in a shinning armour."

"It is hard for me to describe what I feel, when I come in a village with no people, but I will try- first is a feeling, like I got deaf. The silence is tremendous. No birds singing, no wind, nothing that can break this silence. Villages more picturesque then towns, houses and sheds do not look real.  All look painted and I feel, like I walk inside of this painting."

"...people in Ukraine rose up [in late 2004] and swept aside the Kremlin backed regime of president Kutchma.  Kutchma and his gang stole away the money that the whole world had collected to build a new sarcophagus around the radioactive ruins of the Chernobyl reactor...  Meanwhile, Chernobyl's radioactive fires still smoulder deep inside, waiting to erupt again..."

"Wherever the great star [Chernobyl] will fall again, the future of this land will be only wormwood, the grass of oblivion."

Unusual coincidence: I have a very eerie video tape of a program that I personally recorded as it was broadcast on PBS many years ago.  The subject was the same 1986 Chernobyl disaster.  In fact, some say that the entombed ruins of that reactor is not dead at all; that today it still seethes with uncontrolled nuclear fission deep in its entombed hell-pit (and could still go critical almost any time).  The first radiation cloud poisoned most of Europe and Scandanavia to at least some degree, and the second cloud (pray it never comes) will be worse.  The Russians were still operating the evil twin of that failed reactor right next door as recently as 2001 as if nothing had ever happened.  Duh and double Duh.

Revelation 8:10 - And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11 - And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

What's the big deal about all this, you ask?? Get this: The moderator on the tape quotes these same verses from Revelation above, ending with the statement that 'Chernobyl' is Russian for "Wormwood". For all these years I've wondered if this were the correct translation or if it was done for the hype...

Elena confirmed this on her website, saying: "In Ukrainian language Chernobyl is a name for a grass, wormwood (absinth)."  Very prophetic, I would say.

Among other definitions, Absinth (also spelled Absinthe or Absynth) is today a strong alcoholic liqueur made with herbal extracts, the main herb being wormwood (Artemisia absintheium). It is an emerald green drink with a distinctive bitter taste.   There's much more to be learned about the herb  if you click here.

But, my friend, what could be more bitter than  Chernobyl?   Play that  ghostly sound again (115K .wav file)

LISTEN UP: With gasoline prices at over $3 per gallon after hurricane Katrina (September 2005), there will be ever more clamor from all sides - especially from the "Global Warmimg" crowd - for renewed construction of nuclear powerplants in the USA, and everywhere else on the planet.  This is a fool's desire.  Nobody can protect 100% against terrorist acts and accidents, and NOBODY knows how to deal with the spent fuel.  The proponents of nuclear energy never, never factor in ANY costs - or risks - of storing the DEADLY radioactive waste for 100 generations.  Truly safe and permanent disposal is IMPOSSIBLE.

My prediction above is sadly TRUE.  In April 2005 Denver TV stations began airing pro-nuclear advertising.  The 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear holocaust (April 26, 1986) had passed by only one day when President George W. Bush publicly called for more nuclear power plants in America.  With my own ears I heard him speak the same half-truths and outright lies that have always been slung about ("inexpensive clean energy"; "completely safe", etc) so as to favorably impress the greedy, gullible public.

As a way of constantly reminding mankind of the malevolent nature of atoms gone wild, I believe a law should be passed in every country that all new nuclear plants be required to bear the name of a past hurricane, pandemic, or serial killer.  Good examples are Katrina, BlackDeath, TedBundy, etc.  The name selected would be required to be used in every reference to the new nuclear plant from the moment first proposed, through the approval process, construction, and forever thereafter.

We have all looked into the baleful red eye+ of atomic energy    and seen the preview+ of its infernal heritage:    Think about it...

In its Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences - Fiscal Year 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported a spill of highly-enriched uranium that had occured at the NFS Erwin nuclear fuel plant on March 6, 2006:

"In a facility authorized to process high-enriched uranium (HEU), a transfer of HEU solution through a transfer line resulted in a portion of the HEU solution, approximately 35 liters, leaking into a glovebox where criticality [nuclear explosion] was possible and subsequently to the floor where criticality was also possible because of the presence of an elevator pit." [...]  In different circumstances, the total volume of the transfer would have been more than enough for criticality to be possible in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit.  If a criticality accident had occurred in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit, it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death."

But wait... There's more!  A recent article says that the European Union currently has 156 operating nuclear reactors (average operating age of well over 20 years).   An additional 56 have been closed and 2 are under construction.  Many were designed by the less-than-clever Soviet trolls. Imagine, 214 potential  Wormwoods - and the numbers do not include any of those in the Russian (former USSR) bloc.  Typically, none of the nukes operators have sufficient budgeting for increasing maintenance costs, much less any workable plan for spent fuel disposal or safe decommissioning.   Oh yes, the entire EU is bound by the 47-year-old  Euratom treaty which compels all its members to build still more Wormwoods.  Sleep well, friends...

Some very Good News: In Spring of 2008 a possible new anti-radiation drug was announced.  Scientists say "We demonstrated the drug is efficacious when injected before radiation and after radiation."  Sounds rather like some kind of morning after pill, except the trick (sorry) will be in knowing just when the best before has happened...

I have come to believe that the Global Warming Hoax is beginning to have an unexpected positive (for mankind) side-effect: Fewer new nuclear power plants will ever be built.

Why?  The Political, Corporate, and Financial leaders of the world are beginning to understand how profitable an ongoing, artificial crisis can be.  Better for them to continue fanning the worldwide fear of Global Warming (more recently repackaged as "Climate Change") by silently encouraging use of CO2-producing fossil fuels.

By abandoning calls for construction of new nukes, the PC&F leaders can more easily promote new CO2 taxes and regulations on We The People.  More money means more control, and more control means more power over their subjects.  This equation also applies to world organizations such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, so we can expect them to turn their propaganda machines away from promoting nuclear energy.

I am prepared to offer an olive branch to the extent that more advanced nuclear reactors may make Chernobyl and TMI-type accidents way less likely, but they still do not address the major problem of long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.  Short of flying this nuclear dung into the sun, there is no such thing as actual permanent, safe disposal.  In addition, the new advanced design reactors still have not yet seen the end of development and testing costs.  Therefore I think the odds are heavily biased towards our leaders deciding that more of the same old [dangerous] designs are just what we "need."  What do you think?

Bet you can't wait to have one of these nuclear devils built near your town so the folks can [somehow] have 'cheap gas' for all their SUVs again.  Hardly !!   Instead, you should inform yourself as to why, exactly, gasoline prices are so high and rising in the United States.   This article gives an even-handed analysis (it's not just OPEC to blame).

In this eye-opener #1 you will learn that there's an abundance of untapped, non-nuclear American resources available that is both safe and economical.   It can provide all our needs, for the next 40 years, without further kowtowing to the America-hating Arabs, or paying any more ransom to the rabid dictators of South America.  Sweet.  And in this almost fairy-tale eye-opener #2 you will learn even more exciting info about nearly unlimited energy waiting within huge deposits of Colorado oil shale.

BOTTOM LINE: We don't need any more Arab oil and we certainly don't need any more Nuclear powerplants !!

I believe the basic premise on which the scientific community in general (maybe even yourself) all hang their pro-nuclear arguments is nothing more than unproven speculation - albeit oh so "scientific."  Their line goes something like this:

Basically, the main drawback of fossil fuels is pollution. Burning any fossil fuel produces carbon dioxide, which accelerates the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect", warming the Earth.

I certainly do not dispute the actual facts.  The facts are arrayed for you, along with many links to important reference material, in this essay on Global Warmimg.

After considering the link above, dear reader, I hope you agree that there is a good possibility that so-called Global Warming (i.e., a human-accelerated Greenhouse Effect) is just the boogeyman du jour.  

The pro-Nuke folks never seem to address the question of 'just where does all their uranium fuel come from, anyway?'  Urainium consumption worldwide is almost twice the quantity that is being produced, making for a rapidly growing shortage of uranium.   The pro-Nuclear activists and Global-Warming handwringers are neglecting to warn us that, by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, we are just trading-in one type of fuel shortage for another!!  Further, no one ever mentions that mining, transportation, and purification of uranium ore is highly, almost 100%, dependent on fossil fuel.  So the highly touted "freedom" that nuclear energy supposedly grants from Arab-oil-dependence is merely a hollow argument based on a false premise.

I maintain that 40-50 more years of fossil fuel usage could safely buy mankind the time needed to research and develop a viable and non-nuclear fission alternative - a fusion process comes to mind.  More likely, major breakthroughs in solar-cell, battery, and/or fuel-cell technology could be all that we need to bail us out of nuclear bondage - forever and ever, Amen.