> This was widely reported, in a major magazine article ("Atlantic
> Monthly," if I remember correctly) several years ago. It was also
> debunked.Yes, it was an old story. But a nice one... :) Debunked? How? > A "reactor" made with bits of smoke detectors (Am-241) and other cruft > is _not_ a reactor. It's not a chain-reaction nuclear reactor. However, we could argue that a reactor is a device in which something undergoes some reaction. Being it a chemical reaction, or nuclear chain reaction, or a non-chain nuclear reaction (eg, shelling nuclei with particles, like in this example). > And yet he posts at least a couple of credulous, recycled news stories > or rumors each week. Some of them are interesting, even if old. Some of them I even hadn't seen before. > He desperately needs to get up to speed. Speed makes you paranoid in a while. (...or would it be "get up on speed"? English propositions are a minefield.)
