From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Re: quantity and quality at your location
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:26:14 GMT

In article <Bz7GJI.12r@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>=   "But I was not informed of their (neutrons, and high energy
>=    radiation) healing effects.  In fact I don't see how a massive
>=    neutron burst from a cold fusion experiment could help you more
>=    than it hurts you, but if you say it can, I'll consider that
>=    possibility.
>   This statement, coupled with an admission of a failure to be
> "informed", is a broad quick leap from logic.

I must confess that I was being silly.  If it's a first for
sci.physics.fusion, I apologize.

I add that I was being silly on purpose.

I disclaim that I am and was informed that high-energy radiation is
used in tumor therapy, just not neutrons specifically.  

>   Therefore, and in summary, the skeptics of "cf" continue to
> denigrate workers, theoreticians, and students in the "cf" field by
> falsely claiming that "megavoltage x-rays" and "neutrons" would
> "kill them all".  That statement is not necessarily true.  That is
> why the posting was made.  

Well if a nuclear reaction produces a few watts of heat in aggregate,
it stands to reason that it should produce a few watts of radiation
also.  In fact, assuming that only one charged nucleus is formed in a
given indivisible fusion reaction, conservation of energy, momentum,
and charge mandate some radiation.  I think the skeptics would say that
a quantity of radiation to match the observed heat would warrant
writing a will, or at least visiting the doctor, given that so many
cold fusion researchers avoid the planning planning planning that you
and I have both recommended.  Indeed, is the Notoya (Delta Airlines)
Cold Fusion demonstration shielded from its spectators?

I assume that Notoya et al think that their demo is neutronpenic, which
makes me wonder why it isn't called Cold Neutronpenision instead, but
it also reassures me that David Beuhler (or whoever it was) isn't going
to die because he tampered with the alligator clips.  Perhaps it's
radiationpenic because a team of three protons and one electron produce
a spanking new 3He atom and a momentous neutrino, neutrinos being a
harmless form of radiation to most fusion researchers.  Perhaps it
doesn't matter because Jed Rothwell, one of the caretakers of the demo,
only cares about money and by extension heat.

>  --  Could this be a diversion from, or a result of, the  "hot
> fusion" laboratories attempting to obscure their contaminations
> of their own laboratories, equipment, etc? 

I see.  Perhaps the hot fusion labs have far too many neutrons for
their own good, and in a vein of sour grapes, accuse of the cold fusion
labs of having too few.

>  --  Perhaps, Dr. Kuperberg might give his analysis [Given that the
> origin of his missive is U. of Chicago] of the remnant activity in
> some buildings there which are reported to have within them
> significant induced radiation accruing from past experiments.

Thanks for calling me doctor, although I am merely a Ph. D. and not a
real doctor.  When you call me Kuperberg, I can't say it's untrue, but
it's usually improper grammar to address someone in third person.  If
it's ok, I'll continue addressing Swartz as "you".

I am not aware of any fusion experiments at Chicago, now or ever.
It is true that we're the home of the world's first controlled
fission experiment.  Every day on my way to work I walk by a plaque
and a sculpture at the very spot where it was conducted and I give
it a mental salute.  As you suggest, we're radioactive and proud
of it.

I'm told that some of the uranium was stored in the very building
where I research and teach, but I'm sorry to report that I have
conducted no analysis.  I'm a topologist, not an analyst.  However,
I am confident that someone has done an analysis, because they know
that if I suffer adverse health effects, they will have to pay my
medical bills.  I'm on their health plan.

>  --  Is the confusion, and the leap (fall?) from logic,  here,
> yet another corroboration of the fragile shell(s) upon which the
> skeptics attempt to stand? 

Did I claim I was a skeptic?  Even if I did, I would never attempt to
stand upon a fragile shell.  That would be silly.