From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Subject: Quality and quantity neutrons in your location
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:28:09 GMT

In article <Bz5zHy.3sC@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  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. 

My point is not that you know that there will be dangerous amounts
neutrons if there is cold fusion, but rather that there might be.  You
don't just take an umbrella when you know it will rain, you take one
when you think it might rain, or else you might get wet.  Similarly you
might get wet with a lethal dose of neutron radiation unless you shield
yourself from your fusion experiments properly.

I must confess that I do not research cold fusion.  But if I did in the
hope of actually finding it, I would be prepared for the possibility
of lots and lots of neutrons.

>  FACT: Neutrons, like other particles, and like high-energy
> ionizing radiation, may cause cancer, but also cure it.

I certainly didn't mean to denigrate neutrons.  They are a noble
particle species.  But I was not informed of their 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.

If that's really so, then if you have cancer, you should consider
working on cold fusion as a form of radiation therapy.

>  Quantity is important, just as the quality is confused.

I see.  If you're going to do cold fusion experiments in the hope
that they will cure your cancer, you should first have a reason to
believe that the experiment will produce Quality neutrons rather
than mundane neutrons.

>  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.

Since this was several years ago, you must have been thinking of
Pons-Fleischmann-style experiments which, in Jed Rothwell's
terminology, exhibit Conestoga Wagon cold fusion.  Jed says that Notoya
et al have moved way beyond that and are now doing Delta Airlines cold
fusion.  Do we really know that DACF is neutronpenic just as CWCF is?
And what if a third kind of cold fusion, say F15 cold fusion or at
least Air Canada cold fusion, is discovered by accident in Notoya's
lab?  Will F15CF be neutronpenic also?

>   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.

I agree completely.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion