Thursday, October 22, 2015

Media & LENR -Fast Forward to the Present

This month, Scientific American maagazine comments on the 1989 movie,
Back to the Future, Part II Predicted Techno-Marvels of October 21, 2015
Mr. Fusion aside, this 1989 time-traveling comedy was spot-on about many devices that we now take for granted.

In the movie: After a visit to the future the DeLorean returns powered by a cylinder-shaped energy source called Mr. Fusion. Several times, Doc feeds stale beer and banana peels into it.

Where are we now? This form of energy is created from nuclear fusion reactions that take place at millions of degrees Celsius, but Mr. Fusion appears to work at room temperature. Such “cold” fusion has never been achieved. There are no nuclear reactors powered by organic material, either... But so far, generating an endless supply of energy from nuclear fusion only exists in the movies.”

In October 2015, Scientific American tells its intelligent readers that nuclear fusion via "cold fusion" has never been achieved.

And, IndustryWeek magazine in looking ahead 50 years misleads the blinded by avoiding the reality of the biggest technology revolution since the steam engine -and a technology that Japanese researchers claim will eliminate the legacy of radioactive isotopes in stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Another US business magazine (Forbes) side-steps the experimental evidence, patents, investments and pre-production testing of cold fusion (Low Energy Nuclear Reactors) by posing this question to Dr. Egemen Kolemen who is associated with hot fusion research at Princeton University:

CD: Mr. Fusion would have to be doing hot fusion, because cold fusion is a myth, right?

EK: There is no scientifically known net energy-producing cold fusion reaction.

An Important Question:
Is a mid-continent earthquake of a magnitude of 1811-12 likely to occur before we can de-commission existing nuclear plants and safely dispose of all radioactive debris and stores of spent-fuel before a similar earthquake runs up the Missippi Valley and under Lake Huron towards the proposed Kincardine limestone vault for nuclear waste?
A US Geological Report of 1974 attempted to answer such a question:

"The felt areas of the three largest earthquakes were extremely large. They extended south to the gulf coast, southeast to the Atlantic coast, and northeast to Quebec, Canada. The western boundary cannot be established owing to a lack of population."

“It is easier to speculate on the effects that an earthquake the size of the 1811-12 series would have if it were to occur today than it is to predict when it will happen. In the epicentral area, a repeat of the kind of surficial damage experienced in 1811-12 can expected... However, this would result in a much greater loss of life and property today because of the much larger number of people and man-made structures in the region than were there 162 years ago... The emotional and psychological effects of a large earthquake in the central part of the country would probably also be considerable, particularly if the earthquake had a long aftershock pattern as the 1811-12 sequence did.
Perhaps the greatest danger of all arises from the sense of complacency, or perhaps total ignorance, about the potential threat of a large earthquake. The frequency of occurrence of earthquakes the size of those that took place in 1811-12 is very low; however, continuing minor to moderate seismic activity in the central Mississippi Valley area is an indication that a large magnitude tremor can someday be expected there again.”

The above excerpts are from the concluding paragraphs of the report; for the full report go to:

As with the rift in the Mississippi Valley, the same clock ticks along the North and South American Pacific coasts. Editors daring to predict the impacts of energy technology might familiarize themselves with the current status of LENR engineering and the dangers of nuclear plants and oil/gas pipelines near seismic rifts.

Update October 23, 2015
The Wall Street Joournal reports the Tennesee Valley Authority is about to fuel a new reactor designed 40-years pre-Fukushima. The WSJ does not include any editorial words of alarm or caution.


Post a Comment

<< Home