On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And by the way, it's expensive. >> > > It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of > people. > What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors? Or do you think animals are used to verify that conventional nuclear power plants are safe? Maybe they use canaries? > >> If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be >> from some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . . >> > > There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not > 1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be > widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not > how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our > modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is > wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without > extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering > people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like > thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold > fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to > replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and > computerized control systems. > So you don't think Rossi will sell a million E-cats this year through Home Depot? That puts you at odds with lots of believers, LOL!
