indeed, there are easier and cheaper ways to burn down a building.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > Rossi has previously said the eCat is no danger : at most it would melt > and stop working. > > Andrea Rossi > November 13th, 2013 at 12:24 > PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=4#comment-856396> > > Hank Mills: > Safety certification is necessary and must be made by a major > certification company. Laws regarding safety are basically and > deonthologically the same in all the world. The E-Cat poses relevant > problems in domestic applications, where not qualified Customers can use > it. We should be exposed to enormous risks, also for voluntary sabotages. > Can you imagine what our enemies could do in a “friendly” apartment with > an E-Cat they could buy for 1,000 $ in a shop ? This is why, realistically, > domestic application cannot be a priority. It is a matter of good sense. It > is not a matter of product failure to get a certification, it is a matter > of a situation that makes impossible to get a certification in these > conditions. Safety remains an absolute priority, wherever we put the E-Cats > in the world. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the > defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) >
