Well just about all experts agree the global warming is real, yet it too doesn't exist. I'm beginning to see a theme developing here...
When the US government started down the path to Hiroshima, all the books about atomic energy were pulled from the public libraries. I suspect the official position on AE would be somewhat recognizable to LENR researchers today. I really doubt there is such a weaponization program now; but it is funny how similar the situations are. If there was any serious work done before the war to make an energy source it was certainly discouraged after the bomb project began. The Germans certainly weren't shy about weapons development, and they funded any number of crazy projects with less chance of working. Apparently new information has surfaced that they experimented with dirty bombs towards the end of the war. But no fission bomb as such. It was claimed that German scientists discouraged such work but I don't think such claims would have been made had the Germans won. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roomba as monster Keith Nagel wrote: to mind. It was pretty well understand by the beginning of WWII that atomic energy was possible, although whether it could be made into a practical energy source was in question ( just a step beyond where LENR is now ) Only after the first public debut of atomic energy ( the utter destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ) was it generally acknowledged that fission energy could be practical. As far as I know, after 1939 all experts worldwide understood that fission was a real potential source of energy. Leading Japanese physicists had no doubt about it, and they were not surprised when the U.S. used nuclear weapons. Within a few months after the war they secretly analyzed the fallout and other physical evidence and then circulated detailed reports describing the bomb. (These reports were kept secret for decades; the occupation authorities had no idea how much the Japanese government and science establishment knew.) It is impossible to run history over again, but even if there had been no war I expect fission reactors would have been developed soon. The U. Chicago reactor was not all that difficult or expensive to make, and in peacetime the details of its construction would soon have become known worldwide. The bomb was much more difficult. So yes; to travel down the path of Fear to the new energy technology will require the promotion and (possible) creation of an instrument of mass destruction. Well, the fear may help motivate some people, given this so-called war on terror, but 90% of the appeal is positive. My book is mostly positive. We should emphasize all the good things CF can bring, and not worry too much about the risks. As long as we are prepared, most risks can be neutralized. I think CF is much less risky than U fission -- or fossil fuel, for that matter. Terrorists and criminals are clever, but so are the people who oppose them. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, and you should never underestimate them or sell them short. Yesterday Standing Bear correctly pointed out that there are courageous people everywhere, and civilization is a lot more resilient than it seems. I agree, of course. But even extraordinarily brave and resourceful people can be overwhelmed by a small "temporal gap" in technology. The British people and the RAF were magnificent in 1940, but if the Germans could have magically reached 10 years into the future and armed themselves with 1950s radar, guidance systems, jet aircraft, missiles, or nuclear weapons, Britain would have been overwhelmed in a week. - Jed
