Dear Jones How is connected GENIE with the Cincy Cell- in your opinion? Americium per se is very dangerous, see please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium#Health_issues
Peter On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Peter Gluck **** > > ** ** > > Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died**** > > due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, > sorry for that.**** > > ** ** > > Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless > the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a > symptom of same)**** > > ** ** > > Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back > to the issue of unreliability.**** > > ** ** > > *From*: blaze spinnaker**** > > ** ** > > What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as > important… The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't > rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor > will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. > The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched > uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is > costly to handle.**** > > ** ** > > The GEC reactor, as I understand it – produces fast neutrons from LENR > reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two.**** > > ** ** > > If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group > technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that > there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful).**** > > ** ** > > However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium > and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and > cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information > coming out. **** > > ** ** > > Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the > negative features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no > clever nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, > given that the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the > same, and it is cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better > choices than either for lower toxicity and compactness.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
