|Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:00:36
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, the Shoulders process is quite real, and I certainly believe it can do the job, given the funding to get it developed. It is definitely one of those "most urgent" struggling technologies that should be funded for rapid development and with high priority. And as you pointed out, I am quite a bit rusty on where the Shoulders cluster work has now progressed, as my information is dated. No intention of slighting the importance of that technology was intended!
The whole point is that there are some marvelous emerging technologies out there, which with good research funding and a full research team could be developed to accomplish the remediation of nuclear wastes. Such remediation is sorely needed! Much of the nuclear wastes has such a long half life that it poses a threat and a hazard to even hundreds of future generations. Regardless of what experiments have been done in "storage" of such materials over the last half century, we really do not have any actual "long term" storage experience in terms of hundreds and thousands of years.
And some of the proposals from --- of all things --- the conventional scientific community, do bother me considerably. A trial balloon has even been floated to bury nuclear wastes in containers in so-called "stable mud flats" on the ocean's floor. A stable mudflat??? As an old swamp rat from Louisiana, I assure you that there is nothing stable about mud, regardless of how quiet it is sitting at a given time or how long it lies there so deceptively. It's as unstable as all getout, once anything in its environment disturbs it. This is only a short step removed from the disastrous former projects that just put drums of radioactive material into the ocean so it sank to the bottom. And later leaked and started poisoning the fish and other species, and being introduced back into the world food chain.
I do think that, with the new thermodynamics work that is just now weighing in, its impact on nuclear chemistry has not been assessed as yet. Processes CAN be developed that accomplish nuclear transmutation without high spatial energy, and certainly the cold fusion researchers worldwide have experimentally shown it. It does not matter that we don't have a convenient present math theory that is fitted to the new phenomena proven by the cold fusion researchers! The fact is that, scientifically, the experiment is or should be the decisive factor. No amount of theory can refute a single replicable experiment, and cold fusion researchers have achieved a set of much-replicated experimental results. To continue to pooh-pooh the experimental results because they do not necessarily agree with the conventional "pet theory" presently in vogue is directly against the entire scientific method. It is dogma, not science when it is upheld against a set of replicable experiments that contradict it.
That said, the potential technologies such as the clusters work, that can be brought to bear on the nuclear remediation problem, cannot move forward very fast unless funding is there for the research. All science is patronized; someone has to pay for the facilities, the salaries of the researchers, etc. So he who controls the allocation of the funds (the patronage) controls what shall be funded (and done) and what shall not be funded (and not done).
It is high time to get out of the "put it in the mudflats, store it on site at the reactor, or put it in some mountain cave," etc. mode in the commitment of funding for research on the remediation problem. I personally feel strongly that the cold fusion researchers have struggled and at least shown the way, over many years of work. The solid experiments are there, to show that it can very probably be done. Certainly transmutation of elements can be accomplished chemically, at "low spatial energy", in contradiction to the present assumption of conventional science.
So it's time for the leaders of the scientific community to get it funded and get it done.
Sadly, it appears that most of the leaders of the scientific community are still savaging cold fusion researchers, and the now more than 600 replicated experiments and their results, or are just ignoring it as. Putting it bluntly, we have a "power game" and an "Enron situation" in science and not just in corporations.
It's time that the leaders of the scientific community practiced scientific method with funding for demonstrated experimental results, and not just give lip service to it.
In this case --- where the problem of the wastes is so great, is increasing, and will be with us for a very large number of centuries unless the wastes themselves are transmuted to much less harmful form --- I do not believe the legislative branch can ignore scientific dogma which deliberately denies funding to such critically needed new technologies.
After all, if our children, our families, our neighbors, our nation, and our planet go down the sink because of our continued poisoning and strangling of our biosphere, then how many papers one gets published in the journals or how many awards one gets will be of no importance at all.
Science is supposed to practice scientific method, not the "Who's going to be the big monkey?" game.
With respect to nuclear wastes remediation, it's high time that it gets on with the use of forefront scientific method to solve the problem.
Pun intended, burying the problem is not the answer! Solving the problem by changing the wastes themselves is the answer, and the only viable answer.
Thanks for reminding me that the cluster techniques and results have already produced important experimental results in remedial waste research! Absolutely true, and that effort should be funded with very high priority.
in his letter, I have two comments that might be of interest to
you: 1. I learned after publishing the work by Santilli, that a
similar "arcing under water" had been discovered and was being
commercialized by another group. What both Santilli and his
predecessor did not understand was that nearly all "arc" and
"sparks" create high-density, electron charge clusters (HDCC).
This new HDCC technology has been discovered by four independent
investigators: Two in the U.S. (first by Shoulders and then by
the late Stan Gleeson), Ilyanok in Belarus, and Mesyats in
Russia. We have demonstrated in our lab here in Salt Lake City, Utah that
we can transmute radioactive thorium to stable elements. We have
presented papers at meeting of the American Physical Society. We
will soon be demonstrating our technology for the transmutation
of radioactive wastes to DOE-paid scientists at INEEL (Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). Senator Hatch has demonstrated interest in our work. We
communicate periodically with his "science advisor" on his staff
in Washington. We also keep Senator Bennett informed. 2. Tom Bearden is a close personal friend. However, we have
been doing some very important work in using these HDCC that Tom
has not received. Tom has been so busy writing his marvelous new
book that he now needs to be brought up to speed on our
developments in the areas of nuclear transmutation using these
enormously interesting HDCC. I don't know where you reside but
we would be pleased to have you visit our laboratory and see some
of these HDCC in action. I am 1/6th of the way through Tom's new
book and will be writing and publishing a review in the Journal
of New Energy and also in New Energy News. Give me a call: office 801-467-3338, home 801-467-3338. I expect to meet with Senator Hatch during his next break from
his work in Washington. Best personal regards, Hal Fox