On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms
runs counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not
saying most thought about LENR energy is right, you understand --
I'm just saying that if we explain away this "miracle" by that
means, we should certainly question such claims of "harmlessness" of
LENR radiation.
LENR produces radiation. This is the only way the energy can be
dissipated. The only unknown is the energy of the radiation and,
therefore, how much can escape from the apparatus to be detected. Many
measurements have detected a small fraction of the radiation, so we
know it exists. We know that radiation is harmful to life, depending
on its energy, because it disrupts the DNA. The facts are in place
to provide an explanation. The only question is whether the facts will
be used.
As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in
response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments)
then we have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous
evolutionary cost to such radiation hardening that kept it from
spreading throughout life? Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that
cost barrier to get the benefit of the BNAE?
Good question. Obviously that barrier is not easy to cross.
Nevertheless, many organisms are known to be immune to radiation. I
offered the cockroach as a well-know example. Perhaps experience
with LENR will now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear
products, which is not presently done.
Ed
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free
energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be
obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed
when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has
found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of
all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some
single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of
energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments
inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not
available.
In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be
causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong
evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the
reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the
effect is real.
You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did
evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from
radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a
cockroach?
Ed
On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote:
The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR "Miracle":
Evolution Didn't Find It'
If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be
exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE
(nuclear active environment)? If you say "It did." then you have to
explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy
source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled
biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
