From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: quality, quantity, location
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:56:22 GMT

  In 
       sci.physics.fusion:4525, and earlier postings
       [eg. <1992Dec10.191414.20023@midway.uchicago.edu>
       greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)]>

   there are discussions of neutrons and their role in
 biological systems.   Quality, quantity, location.

  In many such postings and in many lectures in this field,
 read and heard, there have been banterings that if "cold
 fusion" were "real" then everyone between the electrochemical
 cell and Central Square [Cambridge, MA, but substitute the
 radius of your choice] would be "dead". (Usually followed
 by laughter from the audience)

  FACT: Neutrons, like other particles, and like high-energy
 ionizing radiation, may cause cancer, but also cure it.
 
  Quantity is important, just as the quality is confused.

   As a cold fusion experimenter and theoretician,
 who has experience of having also treated scores of people
 afflicted with solid oncologic malignancies, I have used
 particle beams and am familiar with the role
 of neutrons to both cause, and to contribute to the cure of,
 cancer.  [For example, for soft tissue sarcomata of the 
 extremities neutrons can increase the local and regional
 control rates after a conservative surgical resection.  
 I admit that the cosmetic aspects of neutron therapy is poor
 in comparison to protracted ionizing radiation or protons,
 but for elderly patients where such late secondary effect is
 minor in comparison to amputation or tumor-recurrence
 neutrons are a reasonable option.]

  The facts are that neutrons absolutely do present a risk,
 but there is no evidence that "cold fusion" in a solid
 necessarily must generate the quantity of neutrons expected
 as predicted by neutron production rates in other neutron
 producing processes. 

  Therefore, people as erudite as  grace this forum,
 and scientific meetings on this subject, should simply not
 denigrate particles and radiation which has been used as
 tools in our armamentarium to cure cancer 
    [the 100th anniversary of the discovery of x-rays
     and their use to treat cancer is fast approaching].


                                                             
  Incidentally, the paucity of generated neutrons in these
 reactions has led to my suggestion several years ago that
 such "cold fusion" reactions be called 

  neutronpenic = "weak" in neutrons
                 that is, being void of the (relative) normal
                 expected quantities of neutrons.

  so as to distinguish them from plasma (and other types
 productive of mucho neutrons) fusion.


   Even given the general past observations of neutronpenic
 response, however, there is the possibility that advanced
 cold fusion reactors and systems, and successful primitive
 cells, may have both explosive potential
                                     (of numerous etiologies)

 as well as possibility of becoming irradiators of significant
 quantities of neutrons and other radiations.
    All involved should always plan on such accordingly.
 
==============================================================
       Mitchell R. Swartz              JET Technology
       mica@world.std.com              (617) 239-8383

   "Advanced technology may appear to be magic to primitives,
 but physics and technology remain a tough ride."

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion