Posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] :

Activist Mailing List - http://get.to/activist

Below is the response of leading new energy scientist Hal Fox to two leading
members (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)of the science
advisory panel to California Governor Gray Davis considering alternative
nuclear waste disposal ideas in an apparent new initiative to open Ward
Valley, CA, as a nuclear waste dump http://www.llrw.org/llrwscimembers.html
.  Fox is also head of the Institute for New Energy in Utah which has held
numerous conferences about new energy technologies to replace nuclear and
fossil fuel power (eg, cold fusion, zero-point energy devices, low energy
nuclear reactions, etc.)  see http://www.pakrak.com/ine

Please also email these panel members and Governor Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to urge their consideration of the below "onsite
nuclear remediation" alternatives to the "mobile Chernobyl" plan of shipping
radioactive wastes across country for burial at Ward Valley, Yucca Mountain,
et al.  Paying attention to the new science behind these LENT (Low Energy
Nuclear Transmutation) technologies also means more awareness of new energy
technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power.

For more information on the efforts to Save Ward Valley, contact:

Molly
Save Ward Valley
107 F Street
Needles, CA  92363
ph. 760/326-6267
fax 760/326-6268

http://www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html
http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley
http://www.ctaz.com/~swv1
http://banwaste.envirolink.org
http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html
http://www.greenaction.org

Global Peace Walk 2000 will be stopping at Ward Valley for second occupation
anniversary gathering February 12-13, 2000, en route from San Francisco to
Washington DC to the United Nations in New York City.
http://www.globalpeacenow.org

For further discussion of new energy technologies and links for technical
info, see Global Emergency Alert Response
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000

Date:  22 November 1999
From:  Hal Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:  "David Crockett Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:   "Eugene Mallove - IE Mag." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        "Gary Vesperman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
         "Save Ward Valley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
         "*Global Peace Walk Project" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
         "Shundahai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
         "Peace through Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Scientific Panel List - Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Dear Friend David Crockett Williams,

Here are some of the issues for the treatment of low-level radioactive wastes:

1.  The biggest danger for low-level radioactive wastes comes from the political 
damage.  Few citizens want anything radioactive moved through or stored in their 
community.  Fortunately, there are on-site treatments for such radioactive wastes as 
described below.

2.  One method of treatment is "phyto-remediation" or remediation by using plants.  
The plants are grown in the radioactive soil or in the soil in which the radioactive 
low-level waste is buried.  Plants take up and store the radioactive materials in 
roots or stems.  Then the plant material can be carefully burned (without the release 
of smoke) and the ashes disposed of properly.  The hemp-producing plants and 
sunflowers (among others) have been shown to be effective.  There is some literature 
on this topic.  The applications are best for soils (such as around Chernobyl) that 
have been contaminated.  This process can concentrate some of the radioactive 
materials and reduce the overall local radioactivity.

3.  Soil treatment is another method.  It has been found (especially in Japan near the 
two areas where U.S. atomic bombs were exploded) that the degree of radioactivity in 
many soils reduced much faster than predicted by nuclear physicists. This type of 
handling of radioactivity needs further scientific treatment to determine the type of 
organisms that might optimize the handling of low-level radioactive wastes.

4.  Many life forms have the ability to perform limited amounts of nuclear processes.  
The work of Kevran and Komaki should be considered.  See the paper by Dr. John O'M. 
Bockris (retired distinguished professor at Texas A&M) in the issue of the Journal of 
New Energy, being sent to the printer this week (vol 4, no 2).

The above citations should be carefully considered in two ways: a.  There should be 
more interest in finding ways for on-site handling of radioactive wastes. b.  There 
should be more government funding made available for optimizing the many findings of 
biological mechanisms that can handle or transform radioactive substances.

There are specific micro-organisms that can exist in quite high levels of 
radioactivity.  However, almost no effort has been made to study the use of life forms 
to transmute radioactive elements into stable elements.  The current (but incorrect) 
scientific model does not allow for any type of transmutation of radioactive elements 
to stable elements except by high-energy means.  That current scientific model is no 
longer valid.  There have been several international conferences on low-energy nuclear 
reactions.  In our own laboratory, we are working on techniques for the stabilization 
of high-level radioactive wastes.  We have been successful with radioactive elements 
dissolved in liquids and are now obtaining equipment to work in low-pressure 
environments with pulverized solid fuel pellets.

Best personal regards,  Hal Fox, editor, Journal of New Energy

P.S.  As one of the better informed scientists in the area of
amelioration of radioactive materials, I would be pleased to appear
before the committee.  My fees and travel expenses are modest.



Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine 
of international copyright law.
                  <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<>
           Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
                   http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/       
                  <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<>
                              

Reply via email to