On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
Where did you get the idea that soft x-rays were not harmful? In fact they > are deadly, but not instantly deadly, if that makes them slightly less > problematic. > The thought did occur to me after I pressed "send" that given a sufficient flux, you could end up cooking yourself before too long. My remarks about soft x-rays were ambiguous -- I could have meant that they do not pose safety concerns when shielded by the kind of housing that a reactor will typically have, or I could have meant that they are benign in general. My actual meaning was to suggest that they might be benign in general (without shielding). As someone who knows nothing about nuclear physics, I feel at liberty to make one or two embarrassing comments. ;) > Sterling Allan, whom you quote - is a tireless PR person and promoter in > the PT Barnum tradition - but not a scientist. Even Hadjichristos, listed > as CTO of Defkalion has given no indication of being literate in several > important scientific fields. > My apologies for the confusion -- I didn't intend to offer Allan or Hadjichristos as authorities. The quote was meant to provide another data point and does not give anything to base any conclusions on. But it is interesting to note that if the quote is half accurate, Defkalion's description of the reaction is still consistent (?) with there being copious soft x-rays that are being blocked by the housing of the reactor. Eric
