Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote:
> They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been >> performed with rats and other species. >> > > What are you describing here? There is no need for animal experiments > unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the > reactions. > Mild radiation has been measured from many cold fusion reactors. Radioactive products such as tritium have been measured. This reactor produced a large burst of radiation measured by Celani in January. It was enough to saturate both of his instruments. If it had continued for a few seconds they would all have been killed. In any case, there is always a need for animal experiments with new technology. Even things like cell phones held close to the ear may cause health problems, so they should be tested extensively. This adds little to the cost of the machine. This is the 21st Century. We have high standards for safety, as we should. We can afford testing, and we should do it. Until the nature of cold fusion is well understand, and a robust theory is developed, such that we know exactly what kind of radiation and transmutations it produces in different circumstances, I think it would be wise to restrict the use of it. And even then, the effects can be predicted from what is already known > about radiation exposure. > The radiation effects have to be measured first, in thousands of hours of rigorous testing. Assuming there is any radiation. > The purported devices don't leak nickel or nickel and copper compounds. > What's the concern if they make, as advertised, no external radiation? > The concern is that the advertisements are wrong. Regulators and insurance companies never trust a corporation's advertisement about matters relating to safety. That would be crazy. How would animal testing be of any value? > You have to do the testing to find out whether it is of value or not. You cannot know a priori. Biology is much too complicated. > And by the way, it's expensive. > It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of people. > If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be from > some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . . > There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not 1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and computerized control systems. - Jed
