On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mary Yugo 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? > > > You can measure radioactivity with instruments but you cannot predict what > effect it will have on different species. > No radioactivity at all has ever been found in any other than the very first Rossi experiment and it has been looked for each time. If it's not there at all, you don't need animal experiments! The cause of the first burst in Rossi's experiment is suspected by some of being some sort of "plant" (deliberate placement and brief exposure of a radioactive source to deceive) and/or artifact. > At the National Plasma Fusion Science Lab in Nagoya, they exposed fish and > other species to tritium at levels much higher than national standards > allows. (Standards in Japan, the U.S. and Europe are pretty much the same, > I gather.) They saw no ill effects. Tritium is a lot safer than people > think. That's good because I believe tritium is the most common radioactive > product from cold fusion, and it is difficult to contain. > Tritium is a "low energy beta emitter" exclusively. As such, there is no biohazard whatever from external use because the skin stops beta particles. The problem arrives if tritium is ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. In that case, it's toxicity depends on dose. It's limited because of the turnover of water in the body which is fairly brisk but it's still a concern in people if not in fish. I have no idea what this has to do with the price of aardvark teeth in Scotland. As to what is politically expedient for Levi, he'd better think of something. I suspect his career at U of Bologna is going to be curtailed some time soon unless Rossi coughs up some miracle such as $500K and a device to test. And that, in my view, is exceedingly unlikely!
