date:20170218

Bob Higgins  wrote:

Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest
> comments.
>

Saying that an experiment failed is not extremist. Most experiments fail.

>   I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to *prove* that
> there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived "GPT".
>

The instruments and configuration that Rossi used could not prove anything.
There might have been excess heat, but he would never detect it. However,
I.H. used better instruments and saw nothing.

>   XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims, but
> that is not the same as 0 XH.
>

There was no excess heat. That is what they say, and I am confident they
know what they are doing. Unless they are lying to me, they got nothing. It
is not hard to see the heat balance is zero within the margin of error.

> I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that
> there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.
>

I do not think so. I think they made mistakes.

>   In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the
> Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano
> experimenters (JofCMNS v21).
>

MFMP has not seen any significant excess heat. In retrospect, there were so
many mistakes at Lugano I do not think it means anything.

>   Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it lends
> credence to the claim that Rossi does have *some* working technology.
>

I disagree.

> Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes that Rossi
> has nothing . . .
>

You are wrong. They say he has nothing. I agree with their analysis. It is
possible he had something in the past, but he has nothing now.

> It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing
> them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I
> personally believe this works or I would not be actively developing test
> systems for it.
>

You have no reason to think it works. There is no experimental evidence for
that.

>   I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to him
> speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.
>

Piantelli has nothing to do with Rossi. He does not believe Rossi. Also,
Piantelli has not been replicated, so there is no reason to believe his
claims . . . yet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test


Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil wrote:

Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work.


It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the 
patent to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no 
value. If someone else can make the patent work, that would change the 
situation. I.H. tried hard for a long time at great expense, but they 
failed.


There is a possibility that the deception runs much deeper - and Rossi 
wanted to get out of the contract with IH for a hidden reason. He could 
see that the big payout was not going to happen, but he has an ace in 
the hole. There is one detail which could hold the key to understanding 
all the strange behavior: it is Nickel-62 and the "lost IP".


The Euro patent app "Method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and 
hydrogen exothermal reactions" EP 2259998,was filed nine years ago and 
supposedly rejected, but in it Nickel-62 isotope is the secret-sauce, 
and the only thing protected. However, the supposed rejection could be a 
ploy or deception - as we do not really know what happened to it - other 
than everyone forgot about it when IH entered the picture. It hasn't 
been mentioned in years.


But what if Ni-62 actually works for excess heat - and this expensive 
isotope is the only thing that does work ? That would seem to limit 
commercial use, but maybe there is a silver lining to that dark cloud. 
The military, but not ours.


What if the whole lawsuit is designed to end the IH partnership in a way 
that Rossi can keep the $11 million and also any claim they would have 
for the lost Euro IP, which was never part of the IH contract anyway, 
and what if Rossi has another partner in the wings with a military use 
which does not really care about the high cost of isotope?


Given that his wife is a lawyer and owns this patent application anyway 
(as assignee) and understands patent law in Europe and apparently 
handles the business end of Rossi's endeavors - as evidenced by the sale 
of his other business ventures, this IP and her ownership may be the 
hidden jewel in the Rossi affair. It is a long shot but think about it. 
It makes some sense, and nothing else makes any sense.


Let's say Rossi thought he could pull off the year long contract in a 
way to get more money, but when that failed, because he was unwilling to 
use the expensive isotope and give up that secret - then he simply 
decided to become an apparent victim, and then quietly move onto 
something else with the Ni-62 technology. If Penon is in on it, then 
that could indicate a Russian connection. Supposedly he is over there 
and the Russians produce 100% of the Ni-62 in the world, and there could 
be many military and space applications for it.


Maybe the Russians will pay Rossi's wife handsomely for the Ni-62 
technology, if he can simple get rid of IH and any claims they would 
have for it. IH probably completely forgot about her anyway.


Now you are thinking that I am pulling your leg, mainly due to all the 
prior silliness in this absurd thread, right?


Maybe so, maybe not ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

I wrote:

> That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds
> of U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238.
>

U-235 is 4% of the fuel in a reactor. It is 0.7 of natural uranium.

> Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 . . .
>

I meant it is mixed in with U isotopes and other radioactive glop.

> melting its way down relentlessly . . .
>>
>
> It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the
> accident.
>

You can be sure of that. There would be vast clouds of steam emerging from
the plant if it were still that hot. I think the remains of the reactor
core are mostly under liquid water and mud. Which is a problem, because the
water is flowing through. There are hundreds of tanks of contaminated
water, and a gigantic machine filtering and cleaning up the water,
concentrating the radioactive glop, and releasing the water.

As of last July TEPCO admitted the ice wall was not working well. I find it
too depressing to read about. It is on Japanese TV news often, which I
watch.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/20/national/first-tepco-admits-ice-wall-cant-stop-fukushima-no-1-groundwater/#.WKjvtlUrLs0

During the accident the material was hot enough melt through the
containment vessel and to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which
built up in the domes and exploded.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Bob Higgins

Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest
comments.  I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to
*prove* that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived
"GPT".  XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims,
but that is not the same as 0 XH.

I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that
there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.  In fact,
MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the Lugano
experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano experimenters
(JofCMNS v21).  Since this fuel system and experiment design came from
Rossi, it lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have *some* working
technology.  IH is duly indignant about the loss of $11M so far because
Rossi has not taught them the high power, high COP technology he claims he
has.  Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes that
Rossi has nothing - only that he has not given them anything of
significance compared to what he claims.  There was even IH testimony in
this case that there may have been some small XH measured in some of
Rossi's replications at IH.

It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing
them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I
personally believe this works or I would not be actively developing test
systems for it.  I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened
to him speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.  If Piantelli has
it, and Focardi said that Rossi had it (and I respect both of them), then
it is likely Rossi has something.

Regarding patents... the present patent is nearly worthless in the scheme
of things by itself.  It is nearly impossible to write a single broad
patent when you don't understand how the technology works.  No matter what,
you need a whole portfolio of patents to provide useful protection -
protecting both the core and all of the non-LENR peripherals around it.  IH
could have helped Rossi develop that portfolio, but Rossi's short-sighted
greed has cost him an important partner.

Maybe Rossi's stuff is not ready for product (which is not the same as
having nothing).  Rossi himself appears (but I have never met the man) not
behaviorally mature enough to bring whatever technology he has to product,
even with the best possible partner.  He is destroying his own technology
by his own bad behaviors.  In the end, whatever he has will leak out and he
will end up with nothing the way things are going.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.  I think you are
digging yourself into a deep hole with extreme statements which I believe
are not support-able, even with evidence to which most of us are not
privy.  Those people that are lined up so staunchly behind Rossi seem
equally guilty of an extreme position.  Where is the scientific moderation?

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered.
>>
>
> A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is
> worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely
> scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will lose all IP rights
> to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
> PHOSITA to replicate.
>
>
>
>> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>>
>
> This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with
> experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been
> able to replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from
> this experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and
> others, have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not
> work. That is regrettable but that's reality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

2017-02-18 Thread Russ George

This link might help with the flurry of nonsense in the Vortex 
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dementia/agitation-elderly 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

Jones Beene  > wrote:

The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, melted 
uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.

Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of 
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You 
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in a 
few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have not be 
built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.

For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975 by 
the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on how 
much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many other 
radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate out the Pu.

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among 
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than the 
Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.

and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the 
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into the 
ocean by groundwater.

melting its way down relentlessly . . .

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the 
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was 
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the wall is 
working.

The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were blown 
into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times before 
settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn door long 
after the horse left.

Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive material 
was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has increased at 
Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater washed the material 
out into areas where it can be detected.

Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted 
"fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima 
which could be much worse.

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

Jones Beene  wrote:

> The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive,
> melted uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.
>
> Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.
>

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in
a few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have
not be built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.

For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975
> by the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on
> how much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...
>

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many
other radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate
out the Pu.

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than
the Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.

> and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...
>

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into
the ocean by groundwater.

> melting its way down relentlessly . . .
>

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the
wall is working.

> The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.
>

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were
blown into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times
before settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn
door long after the horse left.

> Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.
>

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive
material was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has
increased at Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater
washed the material out into areas where it can be detected.

> Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted
> "fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima
> which could be much worse.
>

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil Axil  wrote:

Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work.
>

It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the patent
to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no value. If
someone else can make the patent work, that would change the situation.
I.H. tried hard for a long time at great expense, but they failed.

> If someone can get it to work, then IH will benefit from that effort.
>

Yes, that is true. But they do not need to supply any information. On the
contrary, they *cannot* supply information. If they have to supply
information which is not in the patent, that makes the patent invalid. The
patent has to be complete or it will be ruled invalid.

As it happens, they have no information to supply. All they know is that it
does not work as described.

You have to be a PHOSITA to replicate. Who that would be and what they have
to know is often disputed. It is possible the I.H. people are not PHOSITA
enough, but neither is Rossi, since he could not get his own machine to
work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil,
Have you not seen Rossi's patent?
It doesn't even mention LENR and protects very little.
AA

On 2/18/2017 6:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile 
to verify that that patent is valid.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work
reminds me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work?  Then IH would have given
away Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little
protection he does have.
AA

On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth
that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and
advance their case against Rossi.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want
with Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have
agreed to give Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if
it works, is worth more than $11 million.

I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that
Rossi never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if
I'm wrong. If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not
seem to be a popular view.
AA

On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators
of Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an
additional hundreds that will enter the field as soon as
Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted with all the
innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will
be refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or
disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs
to do with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no
longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE
FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it
doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies.
Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of
Pons & Fleischmann?

AA

On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi
provided INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open
source community and Brian Ahern as its most
prominent member**to allow that community to run tests
to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This
verification would support IH in their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern
> wrote:

I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how
he had a loyal following. I see parallels to
Rossi's loyal following.

"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."

It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of
Planet Rossi to abandon their hero. He is too
charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be
able to de-program the earnest followers.

*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux
by wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the
questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very
unlikely that IH has all Rossi's data and so how
would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield >

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts.
They determined that the patent is not valid.

IH should make everything that supports this statement public so that it
can be verified by others in a public venue. IH has nothing to lose by
supporting their claims by public revelations.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered.
>>
>
> A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is
> worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely
> scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will lose all IP rights
> to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
> PHOSITA to replicate.
>
>
>
>> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>>
>
> This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with
> experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been
> able to replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from
> this experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and
> others, have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not
> work. That is regrettable but that's reality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

 Axil Axil  wrote:

Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered.
>

A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is
worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely
scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will lose all IP rights
to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
PHOSITA to replicate.

> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>

This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts.
They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been able to
replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from this
experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and others,
have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not work. That
is regrettable but that's reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents.

Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work. If
someone can get it to work, then IH will benefit from that effort.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP.
>>
>
> I repeat, his effort has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI, or Rossi's IP! It
> predates Rossi by many years.
>
> What the hell are you talking about here? It is not a red herring, or blue
> or green herring. It has no connection to Rossi. Period. Not a replication.
>
>
>
>> Jed, your position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding.
>>
>
> Again, what are you talking about? How can my position contribute anything
> either way to fact finding or to the lawsuit? I have nothing to do with it.
>
>
>
>> Why is your aim to hide the facts.
>>
>
> I am not hiding any facts.
>
>
>
>> You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want to protect IH from
>> revealing it as open source.
>>
>
> It is not valid as far as I know. When did I say it was? No one has said
> that but Rossi. I.H. saw no heat from any of their tests.
>
> No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents. Obviously it is
> not valid. If you can't replicate, that means it it invalid IP. Plus
> Rossi's 1-year test did not produce any excess heat as far as anyone can
> tell. The instruments and procedures were so bad that even if it had
> produced heat, there would be no way of knowing.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test


Jed, "none of these replicators has succeeded. Not one."
Russian Group Claims Rossi/Parkhomov Replication Success
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/10/05/russian-group-claims-rossiparkhomov-replication-success/
AA

On 2/18/2017 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of
Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern . . .


Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years 
before Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for 
the materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.


You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of 
these replicators has succeeded. Not one.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile to
verify that that patent is valid.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds me
> of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
> What happens if the experiment did work?  Then IH would have given away
> Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he does
> have.
> AA
>
>
> On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
> statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
> assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that IP is
> nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and advance their case
> against Rossi.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>> I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with
>> Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to give Rossi
>> $89 million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more than $11
>> million.
>>
>> I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi never had
>> anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, why would
>> Brian want to work on it?
>>
>> As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and
>> we should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's
>> tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that will
>> enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted
>> with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be
>> refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
>> research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
>> fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
>> NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil,
>>> Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to
>>> have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the
>>> replication of Pons & Fleischmann?
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving
>>> the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its
>>> most prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if
>>> Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their
>>> claims about Rossi.
>>>
>>> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
 following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.


 "Feed a cold and starve a fever;

 argue with no true believer."

 It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
 abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
 appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

 It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program
 the earnest followers.

 --
 *From:* a.ashfield 
 *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
 positioning an instrument

 That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
 You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has
 all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

 AA

 On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 a.ashfield  wrote:

 I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
> drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>

 Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
 messages from you.

 Done and done.

 - Jed



>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil Axil  wrote:

Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP.
>

I repeat, his effort has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI, or Rossi's IP! It
predates Rossi by many years.

What the hell are you talking about here? It is not a red herring, or blue
or green herring. It has no connection to Rossi. Period. Not a replication.

> Jed, your position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding.
>

Again, what are you talking about? How can my position contribute anything
either way to fact finding or to the lawsuit? I have nothing to do with it.

> Why is your aim to hide the facts.
>

I am not hiding any facts.

> You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want to protect IH from
> revealing it as open source.
>

It is not valid as far as I know. When did I say it was? No one has said
that but Rossi. I.H. saw no heat from any of their tests.

No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents. Obviously it is not
valid. If you can't replicate, that means it it invalid IP. Plus Rossi's
1-year test did not produce any excess heat as far as anyone can tell. The
instruments and procedures were so bad that even if it had produced heat,
there would be no way of knowing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

IH should want to prove that Rossi's IP is a fraud and that they want to
recover that $11 million in a case that features as evidence and expert
testimony  many hundreds of failed replications as they have themselves
failed.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state
of facts and evidence. John Adams

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
>> statement of verified fact.
>>
>
> Perhaps he would, but his experiment has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI. You
> wrote that he is replicating. That is false. If anything, it is the other
> way around. Rossi was trying to replicate the Mills experiments that Ahern
> is now working on.
>
>
>
>> IH et al wound want to verify their assertion that Rossi's IP does not
>> work.
>>
>
> They did not "want" to that. That is what they accomplished. They paid a
> lot of money and did a lot of hard work to discover it did not work. They
> were not happy with that result.
>
> I have done many experiments that failed. I did not "want" that to happen,
> but it happened.
>
>
>
>> If IH is telling truth that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing
>> related to that IP and advance their case against Rossi.
>>
>
> They lost $11 million for crying out loud! That's not "nothing"!!! The IP
> they paid for is worthless. It is a terrible loss.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined



Here is the bottom-line fact that should scare everyone, even those 
fearless fission advocates who can accept an occasional Chernobyl and 
TMI is the regrettable part of the package-deal for cheap power.


The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, 
melted uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.


Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 
pounds. For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed 
until 1975 by the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - 
depending on how much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium... and 
this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ... melting 
its way down relentlessly Many things could happen.


The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl. Nor did 
radioactivity ever increase drastically over time. Even if the total 
damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted "fear-mongering" by 
the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima which could be 
much worse. There could be a natural mechanism in place which is 
converting fertile to fissile. Perhaps the site was located over a good 
neutron moderator - such as hydrated shale or coal and that is where the 
three cores are now festering.  If the shale deposit is cup shaped, the 
three cores could merge. Yikes.


Terry Blanton wrote:

Another one bites the dust

It’s now at least the seventh robot to have broken down while
investigating Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, which remain highly
radioactive. //

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP. Jed, your
position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding. Why is your
aim to hide the facts. You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want
to protect IH from revealing it as open source.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
>> working now including brian Ahern . . .
>>
>
> Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years before
> Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for the
> materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.
>
> You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of
> these replicators has succeeded. Not one.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds 
me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work?  Then IH would have given away 
Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he 
does have.

AA

On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a 
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their 
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that 
IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and 
advance their case against Rossi.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with
Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to
give Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is
worth more than $11 million.

I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi
never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm
wrong.  If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not seem
to be a popular view.
AA

On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of
Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional
hundreds that will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is
made available. I am disgusted with all the innuendo that is
involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be refreshing to deal
with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by research. IH paid
for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see fit. The
licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it
doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember
how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann?

AA

On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided
INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open source
community and Brian Ahern as its most prominent member**to
allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's
technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in
their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern
> wrote:

I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he
had a loyal following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal
following.

"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."

It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet
Rossi to abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and
has hypnotized a  group by appealing to their hopes and
dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able
to de-program the earnest followers.

*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by
wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the
questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely
that IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you
have the piping drawing but refuse to publish it
doesn't hold water.

Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will
block any further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil Axil  wrote:

Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
> statement of verified fact.
>

Perhaps he would, but his experiment has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI. You
wrote that he is replicating. That is false. If anything, it is the other
way around. Rossi was trying to replicate the Mills experiments that Ahern
is now working on.

> IH et al wound want to verify their assertion that Rossi's IP does not
> work.
>

They did not "want" to that. That is what they accomplished. They paid a
lot of money and did a lot of hard work to discover it did not work. They
were not happy with that result.

I have done many experiments that failed. I did not "want" that to happen,
but it happened.

> If IH is telling truth that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing
> related to that IP and advance their case against Rossi.
>

They lost $11 million for crying out loud! That's not "nothing"!!! The IP
they paid for is worthless. It is a terrible loss.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that IP is
nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and advance their case
against Rossi.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with Rossi's
> IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to give Rossi $89
> million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more than $11
> million.
>
> I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi never had
> anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, why would
> Brian want to work on it?
>
> As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and we
> should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.
> AA
>
>
>
> On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
> working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that will
> enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted
> with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be
> refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
> research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
> fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
> NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>> Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to
>> have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the
>> replication of Pons & Fleischmann?
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving
>> the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its
>> most prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if
>> Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their
>> claims about Rossi.
>>
>> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>> I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
>>> following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>>>
>>> argue with no true believer."
>>>
>>> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
>>> abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
>>> appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>>>
>>> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
>>> earnest followers.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* a.ashfield 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
>>> positioning an instrument
>>>
>>> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
>>> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
>>> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>>
>>> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
 drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.

>>>
>>> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
>>> messages from you.
>>>
>>> Done and done.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Axil Axil  wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
> working now including brian Ahern . . .
>

Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years before
Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for the
materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.

You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of these
replicators has succeeded. Not one.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

2017-02-18 Thread Terry Blanton

Another one bites the dust

It’s now at least the seventh robot to have broken down while investigating
> Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, which remain highly radioactive. *Reuters* had
> counted up to five by March 2016
> .
> Last week, a scouting robot was sent in
> 
>  ahead
> to clear the way for the scorpion robot, but it was pulled back out after
> about two hours: the camera had been fried
>  by
> record high levels of radiation estimated to be about 650 sieverts per
> hour
> .
> (For scale, a CT scan exposes you
> 
>  to
> 0.006 sieverts, and just half a sievert
>  is enough to
> cause symptoms of radiation sickness.)



http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/14652274/fukushima-nuclear-robot-power-plant-radiation-decomission-tepco

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here are two other frightening data points.
>
> 1. Some years ago, NHK (national TV) had a special on the effect on
> wildlife in Fukushima Pref. There has been a tremendous increase in the
> animal population because humans evacuated farmland. It is all growing back
> into forest. That part is okay. But some animal species that eat a lot of
> plants are highly contaminated. Wild boars are common in Japan. They are
> omnivores, eating lots of plants. Biologists have been trapping and
> shooting them. Animals taken up to 50 km from the reactors are too
> contaminated for human consumption by factor up to ~6,000. (I don't recall
> the units, but anyway, they exceed the limits by that much.)
>
> The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
> sure if that is good news or bad news.
>
> 2. Tadahiko Mizuo has a degree in nuclear engineering. During the cold
> war, he monitored North Korea with 1960s instruments on the roof of the
> Engineering Dept. building. That building was torn down some years ago, so
> those instruments are gone, but anyway, after the accident the government
> dragged him and other superannuated experts out of retirement and asked
> them to analyze soil samples for radioactivity. Some of the samples they
> sent him were so hot he was afraid to work with them, and he wasn't sure
> where to store them at night. He risked harming someone, or contaminating
> the locked cabinets.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test


Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with 
Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to give 
Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more 
than $11 million.


I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi never 
had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, why 
would Brian want to work on it?


As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and 
we should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.

AA


On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's 
tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that 
will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am 
disgusted with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech 
issue. It will be refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified 
or disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do 
with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. 
LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't
help to have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and
CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann?

AA


On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO
involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community and
Brian Ahern as its most prominent member**to allow that community
to run tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This
verification would support IH in their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern > wrote:

I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a
loyal following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet
Rossi to abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has
hypnotized a  group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of
clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions
I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that
IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have
the piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold
water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block
any further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that will
enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted
with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be
refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to
> have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the
> replication of Pons & Fleischmann?
>
> AA
>
>
> On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving
> the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its
> most prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if
> Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their
> claims about Rossi.
>
> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
>> following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.
>>
>>
>> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>>
>> argue with no true believer."
>>
>> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
>> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
>> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>>
>> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
>> earnest followers.
>>
>> --
>> *From:* a.ashfield 
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
>> positioning an instrument
>>
>> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
>> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
>> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
>> messages from you.
>>
>> Done and done.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test


Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to 
have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the 
replication of Pons & Fleischmann?


AA

On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO 
involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian 
Ahern as its most prominent member**to allow that community to run 
tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would 
support IH in their claims about Rossi.


Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern > wrote:


I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a
 group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH
has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the
piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any
further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

[Vo]:integrity of the LENR profesional?

2017-02-18 Thread Peter Gluck

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/02/feb-18-2017-professional-approach-to.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

Here are two other frightening data points.

1. Some years ago, NHK (national TV) had a special on the effect on
wildlife in Fukushima Pref. There has been a tremendous increase in the
animal population because humans evacuated farmland. It is all growing back
into forest. That part is okay. But some animal species that eat a lot of
plants are highly contaminated. Wild boars are common in Japan. They are
omnivores, eating lots of plants. Biologists have been trapping and
shooting them. Animals taken up to 50 km from the reactors are too
contaminated for human consumption by factor up to ~6,000. (I don't recall
the units, but anyway, they exceed the limits by that much.)

The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
sure if that is good news or bad news.

2. Tadahiko Mizuo has a degree in nuclear engineering. During the cold war,
he monitored North Korea with 1960s instruments on the roof of the
Engineering Dept. building. That building was torn down some years ago, so
those instruments are gone, but anyway, after the accident the government
dragged him and other superannuated experts out of retirement and asked
them to analyze soil samples for radioactivity. Some of the samples they
sent him were so hot he was afraid to work with them, and he wasn't sure
where to store them at night. He risked harming someone, or contaminating
the locked cabinets.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving
the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its most
prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's
technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their claims
about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
> following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.
>
>
> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>
> argue with no true believer."
>
> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>
> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
> earnest followers.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning
> an instrument
>
> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>
> AA
>
> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
> messages from you.
>
> Done and done.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

2017-02-18 Thread Alain Sepeda

question is the distance,
it is well explained, especially in extremetech article.

there changed the distance, and the measure changed.

anyway, on this subject too, there is bubbles.
I'm tired.


2017-02-18 20:00 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

>
> Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of these
> attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized and put
> into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The company has been
> caught in many outright lies since the accident and this is more of the
> same.
>
> The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from the
> comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is preposterous to
> imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr now measured ...
> "could be expected" given the intervening years and prior levels which were
> low. Do  you understand what this level means so long after the accident?
> Apparently not.
>
> TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the
> accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and
> relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the new
> reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should have
> dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the wrong way.
>
> It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts,
> possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming fissile
> (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary explosion
> cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the cores are
> melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3 should
> merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO  a site in Africa
> where natural uranium went critical.
>
> "If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been
> normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should
> have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should be
> seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times higher
> in one location after almost 6 years.
>
> Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts not
> associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than
> expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or
> less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being used
> were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until failure)
> which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them if you were
> "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they quickly failed and
> this means the rate was a huge surprise.
>
> Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers
> they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a factor
> of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they needed for a
> meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates their "no
> surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot proves they
> are lying.
>
> Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to
> explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed
> "prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and possibly
> the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since the robot
> failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to speak.
>
> Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless
> you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both in
> the design and more so in the response.
>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>
> At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as
> expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.
>
> Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.
> On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> to relativize the fearmongering
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/
> high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-
> reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/
> science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-
> internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
> http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-
> residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
> https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/
> thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test


Leonart,
I agree with you.  It serves no useful purpose to repetitively run down 
Rossi like Jed and Brian do.
I do think Rossi has discovered something for the reasons Frank Acland 
wrote here: (saves me writing it myself.)

http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

AA

On 2/18/2017 12:21 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:


Brian it is not a question of being a believer. Rossi has propelled 
LENR forward. If he has what says _ then great.
If he does not have it we will soon learn. Than he still has 
contributed. I then have a hard time understanding why he still works 
on the project
Why not save the good earnings. Well there is something there. Until 
he is proven wrong I think he needs full support. Yours and worse 
Jed's statements are not founded on anything but guesses. Wait and 
see. I am sure that you have been the target of others unfounded 
critic. Not funny or did you enjoy?

Lennart Thornros


On Feb 18, 2017 08:45, "Brian Ahern" > wrote:


I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a
 group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH
has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the
piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any
further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

2017-02-18 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>

Into a nice pool of lithium surrounded by beryllium.  A man-made
supervolcano.

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUYFzBq3VU

PBS Nova Nuclear Meltdown Disaster

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.1200.pdf
Detecting Special Nuclear Material Using Muon-Induced Neutron Emission

Muon imaging could help image the meltdown cores at meltdown sites.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of these
> attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized and put
> into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The company has been
> caught in many outright lies since the accident and this is more of the
> same.
>
> The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from the
> comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is preposterous to
> imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr now measured ...
> "could be expected" given the intervening years and prior levels which were
> low. Do  you understand what this level means so long after the accident?
> Apparently not.
>
> TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the
> accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and
> relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the new
> reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should have
> dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the wrong way.
>
> It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts,
> possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming fissile
> (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary explosion
> cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the cores are
> melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3 should
> merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO  a site in Africa
> where natural uranium went critical.
>
> "If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been
> normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should
> have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should be
> seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times higher
> in one location after almost 6 years.
>
> Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts not
> associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than
> expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or
> less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being used
> were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until failure)
> which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them if you were
> "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they quickly failed and
> this means the rate was a huge surprise.
>
> Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers
> they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a factor
> of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they needed for a
> meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates their "no
> surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot proves they
> are lying.
>
> Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to
> explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed
> "prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and possibly
> the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since the robot
> failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to speak.
>
> Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless
> you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both in
> the design and more so in the response.
>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>
> At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as
> expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.
>
> Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.
> On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> to relativize the fearmongering
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/
> high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-
> reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/
> science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-
> internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
> http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-
> residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
>

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of
these attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized
and put into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The
company has been caught in many outright lies since the accident and
this is more of the same.

The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from
the comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is
preposterous to imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr
now measured ... "could be expected" given the intervening years and
prior levels which were low. Do you understand what this level means so
long after the accident? Apparently not.

TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the
accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and
relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the
new reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should
have dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the
wrong way.

It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts,
possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming
fissile (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary
explosion cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the
cores are melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3
should merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO a site
in Africa where natural uranium went critical.

"If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been
normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should
have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should
be seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times
higher in one location after almost 6 years.

Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts
not associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than
expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or
less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being
used were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until
failure) which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them
if you were "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they
quickly failed and this means the rate was a huge surprise.

Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers
they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a
factor of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they
needed for a meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates
their "no surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot
proves they are lying.

Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to
explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed
"prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and
possibly the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since
the robot failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to
speak.

Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless
you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both
in the design and more so in the response.

Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic,
since it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile
uranium into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a
secondary explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out,
should not TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?

At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as
expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.

Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.

On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

to relativize the fearmongering
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-soaring-at-fukushima-daiichi/
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

diversify your sources, or at least avoid the fearmongers and the
salesmen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

I note your pseudo skeptical certainty, but the truth will not be known 
until all the data comes out in the trial.  Now set for June.


AA

On 2/18/2017 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal 
following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.



"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to 
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group 
by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.


It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program 
the earnest followers.



*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly 
positioning an instrument

That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has 
all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?


AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further 
messages from you.


Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Lennart Thornros

Brian it is not a question of being a believer. Rossi has propelled LENR
forward. If he has what says _ then great.
If he does not have it we will soon learn. Than he still has contributed. I
then have a hard time understanding why he still works on the project
Why not save the good earnings. Well there is something there. Until he is
proven wrong I think he needs full support. Yours and worse Jed's
statements are not founded on anything but guesses. Wait and see. I am sure
that you have been the target of others unfounded critic. Not funny or did
you enjoy?
Lennart Thornros

On Feb 18, 2017 08:45, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

> I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
> following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.
>
>
> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>
> argue with no true believer."
>
> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>
> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
> earnest followers.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning
> an instrument
>
> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>
> AA
>
> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
> messages from you.
>
> Done and done.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

2017-02-18 Thread Alain Sepeda

to relativize the fearmongering
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-soaring-at-fukushima-daiichi/
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

diversify your sources, or at least avoid the fearmongers and the salesmen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html
http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120507-03/

anyway there have been an heavy death toll, beside the huge 20k of living
near water
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/fear-of-radiation-has-killed-761-and.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/evacuation-deaths-in-japan-in-2011-were.html

water kills, we should forbid it

2017-02-18 16:19 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

> Fukushima much worse than imagined - 3 cores in runaway meltdown with no
> chance to stop them. China syndrome in reverse...
>
> Makes Chernobyl look like spilled milk
>
> http://www.environews.tv/world-news/alert-new-radiation-
> readings-fukushima-reactor-2-unimaginable-lethal-1-min/
>
> How long before the entire Pacific fishing industry is shut down?
>
> http://dailyoccupation.com/2016/12/28/fukushima-radiation-
> contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-going-get-worse/
>
> Be sure to take your rad monitor to the fish market... and avoid the
> specials.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined