Safety Warning!

[A warning developed after Longview (biomedical scientist Ph.D) realized there may be parallels or identical reactions in any lithium containing LENR reactor to a known or claimed situation in which beryllium, a well characterized carcinogen, is readily produced as an apparently a radioactivity free isotope, and hence not easily detected--- the only good news there is that letting the item sit for two years should convert nearly all the Be 7 by internal electron-capture decay to Li 7. Longview is researching this now. Would appreciate any indication of a gamma associated with the internal decay, as well as any other clarifying information, Thanks]

Taken from recent Longview post at "Physics" here at LENR Forum, Please read:

A safety issue for "replicators", such decay curves are seen in time course of

radiative decay of radioisotopes. Good for folks here to contemplate for a couple of

reasons arising. Since the Be 7 may be created in a Lipinski or possibly in Rossi type reactor

from Li 6, and it likely does not immediately disappear, as it has a half life of 53 days

(at least outside of a proton flux of the Lipinski reactor), so that means

about 530 days until this very toxic metal falls to roughly 0.1 % of its

initial concentration and if we're lucky "disappears" for practical and toxicity

purposes. By contrast, the decay to Li 7 is 100% by internal electron capture and thence

becomes relatively harmless [recall that Li 7 itself is fuel for the "cleaner"

Lipinski results. That cleaner result being for the Be 8 to promptly

fission to 2 alphas (He nuclei) and MeV energy readily absorbed as heat

in the chamber walls].

In Lipinski and perhaps other proton and lithium reaction chambers the Li 6

at the reported 7.5 % +/-2.6% (that is ~5% to ~10% abundance range) in natural

undepleted Li, takes on a proton and

becomes Be 7 which would have the definitive potential as an IARC (WHOs

International Agency for Research in Cancer) Category I (human and

animal) carcinogen-- which has long been known from [guess where?]...

the nuclear industrial complex. I still haven't determined exactly why

the Lipinskis patent application says Be 7 also splits. That's not what I

find on the web. Perhaps one or another source is dissembling for

strategic reasons, but the Lipinski work was largely conducted at

National accelerator labs, so no radiation reporting issues should have

arisen there. The nuclear establishment may have wanted to discourage

Lipinski-like experiments by placing "scary" results in the data... I

don't know, and don't have the means to easily find out. For beryllium

carcinogenicity, regardless of isotopic identity, please see:

monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol58/

But the Lipinskis suggestion of "no problem" with the Beryllium made

from Li 6 --- might be completely reasonable... if it remains in the reactor

indefinitely... but I suspect no Parkhomov or Rossi-Lugano replicators are doing

the necessary diligence after seeing no counts on their GM counter. Spread the

word please. Do not open reactors outside of a glove box, or breathe any of

the fumes or dust. Make no contact with the contents.... wash and shower

after any such potential contact. be wary of any sweet taste from from

reactor fumes or dusts, it diagnostic of beryllium (also incidentally some lead salts

and vapors have that sensory quality).

Repeating: experimenters here with lithium in reactors that might have been

protonated to any isotope of beryllium, watch out!

Being a trained biomedical scientist, I'm obligated to report here when I

have more information.

Yours is a great leading question, NickEc, thanks. We have to get a handle on this issue.

The postal service in the US is very difficult with anything conceivably hazardous, or at least that is what they say to the general customers. Few of us would like to be in the headlines for mailing something that contravened the rules.

Common carriers (trucking firms, with appropriately displayed labels, and perhaps even air freight) carry much more hazardous cargo than a few milligrams of Be, all the time. From my experience in labs, I have seen an ever increasing avoidance by firms of shipping things that might lead to a huge liability. Items as mundane as dry ice -- a lot of CO2 gas in a cargo hold could suffocate a rare or otherwise very valuable animal, for example. It would be interesting to see if DHL, FedEx or UPS might have special provisions for difficult items. As an example surely someone must be carrying and shipping ebola virus suspect samples, for example. I imagine there may be specialized "crash-proof" containers for small amounts of hazardous materials that might find exemption or exception under special provisions of DOT (Dept. of Transportation in US) rules. After all "black" boxes are surviving the worst types of plane crashes.

Testing for Be or Be7?, not me, yet. But it seems really important. I hope folks are placing their failed and/or used reactors in a couple of layers of zipup poly bags. I suspect a trip to a good University library will show some older but reliable and simple analytical techniques. The depletion of Li6 would be a key and completely durable indicator, so one should also save a sample of the original Li containing material, that way the abundances of Li6 can be compared in the unused fuel with that in the used fuel-- even if it takes several or many Be7 half lives to finally assay the fuel. If such sample pairings are diligently done, one can even deduce the amount of LENR that may have occurred.... so I guess a log of the time "under fire", the relevant dates and notebook pages for such fuel pairs should be kept (tape it to the outside of the zipup bags for example), photo the label for later confirmation, mark as much detail as possible on the bag as well, put it in a safe place where no one, no child nor animal will get into it. Then wait very patiently.

If anyone knows either of the Lipinski (Hubert M. father and "Steve" Stephen), please let them know we want their take on this issue, preferable right here at the Forum.

I asked before about NMR as a possibility. Another handy field tool today is XRF, X-ray Fluorescence. But I have no idea if it could distinguish Be 7 from Li 7 with nuclear masses so close..... I suspect the answer may be no. It cannot distinguish the oxidation states of sulfur compounds, I happen to incidentally know.

Quote from me356

Maybe we can ask Rossi directly about his opinion?

The fastest means for that may be taking the issue over to E-cat News at E-cat World. I'll defer to someone else known to Rossi to do that, since I have never even posted there. Perhaps best to do that by embedded link out to bring the interested parties here (?).

It could be quite a shock to belatedly realize that one had been exposed numerous times. Just to put an edge on the issue, many types of cancer have quite long latency times, in lung cancer these are now known to be decades in many cases.

But the reduced form of Paracelsus' much longer Latin dictum "the dose makes the poison" still, 500 years later, generally applies.

Quote from me356

Here we have response from Rossi directly for mentioned Safety Warning.

7Be formation is barred, electron capture is impossible without strong nuclear proton excess, strong nuclear proton excess does not exist in LENR.

Thanks for getting that me356! Rossi is assuming a W-L-S mechanism, it appears. No surprise. But the comment is a classic from Rossi... they are almost like Zen koans-- or maybe they are, has he studied Zen?. And do we actually know if he has any lithium in his Cats? I assume someone must know this.

If he has no lithium in them, then the comment is irrelevant, although interesting.

If the replicators using lithium believe it is all W-L-S, it still does not mean that it actually is exactly all W-L-S.

And, by the way, hydrogen is the essence of proton excess, there is no other element with more "excess" protons per atom, the p/n ratio is infinite!

The caution flag should still be up.

[ And as an experimental cancer researcher, not more than a few years back: cancer latency is often quite long, multi-causal, so don't assume anything from a statistical "N" of one, that is: one thin ultra-marathoner, non-smoker's survival a few years after what may be only a few modest exposures to Be, Zen practitioner or not.]

Now I suppose I should call or write Steve Lipinski and get his opinion-- hopefully someone here actually knows him and ask for us. I have to say the Lipinkis UGC patent application is a picture of great clarity compared with most other patents relating to LENR. And that includes the couple of modest but perhaps dangerous omissions or errors that appear to be present. If the UGC application is accurate, then Rossi [above] would be semanticizing around the word LENR, in my humble opinion. Of course LENR has always been a misnomer, the only thing "low" about it is the activation energy. The COPs often vastly exceed those in hot fusion, whether at ITER, NIF or in the Sun-- The Lipinski team at UGC have chosen to deny that their process is LENR, nor is it to them CF. Nearly any reader familiar with LENR and CF examining that patent application would likely disagree.

But, who cares what we call it. Let's get it out there!

And let's not kill ourselves or anyone else doing it, regardless of our personal "beliefs"!

Quote from Rical

About "Safety Warning! Beryllium in LENR":

In this post there are many uncertainties on the reality of the alert, and that is perhaps the begining of a strategy to publicly destabilise the research on LENR or at least the big wave of replications by many people. The begining of a war from the hard business against the people and their liberties.

Please also see my post here:

Reactor parameters

Rical: Perhaps you should look back at my 150 or so postings here at the Forum. I just this week developed my concern for Beryllium after reading the Lipinski UGC WIPO patent application which was linked last week or so at this Forum. The issue became apparent to me after seeing that this WiPO patent application, as worded at that April revision, was not consistent with the widely reported half life of Be 7. I have worded my latest "Safety Warning- in tentative terms because my concern is in direct contrast to the claims of that patent application and its presumably very hard working and well educated applicants.

I have no motive to destabilize the research, on the contrary I hope to push it forward in every way possible, through funding, information spread, and of course through self-regulated safety. Unfortunately, [and I am sure this is NOT your motive or intention, Rical], but your post and other efforts to minimize concern could encourage reckless handling of reactor contents. A true destabilization of the whole field could then easily occur if even one or two young replicators die from berylliosis and the mass media supporting fossil fuel interests starts calling for "tighter regulation" of LENR research. As a fellow enthusiast, I feel the obligation to warn of that possibility as well.

I am a "retired" Ph.D. bio-medical scientist with perhaps more chemistry background that one might ordinarily find in that area. The measly two acres of "retirement dream" land my wife and I own is (or was at the last USGS survey!) exactly 23 feet above mean sea level. Although I have long been concerned about global warming, even as an old guy I am realizing we have to act soon. To make things worse, our land is but 12 miles from a coastal nuclear plant.

I realize there is a lot of special-interest and corporately funded "trolling" out there. I detest it, and I'm pleased you, Rical, are also wary of it. I am not "it", I assure you, I am perhaps lucky to have never represented, let alone run, any corporate interest above the level of 10 employees. Perhaps I should, but I have never lobbied. I currently see my main life purpose is to try to help preserve the biosphere itself-- perhaps as a sort of "museum" where future intelligences can marvel at an intact bio-system and where they can investigate how it is that biology arose and how it ultimately gave rise to their own technological dominance in the local astronomical system. It is an ideal I have, it keeps me focused, it may not come to pass (the "museum"), but at least I will die having tried.

I still work with enough ordinary scientists in a volunteer capacity that I have chosen to keep some anonymity here. I hope you understand. Best of luck and health, please be careful, and please read my various other recent responses concerning safety here, before finalizing your judgement....

PS. Beryllium toxicity and Be carcinogenesis are dose-dependent. If I suspected any Be exposure myself, I would immediately stop smoking [stopped that in 1964], and would also be wary of nicotine in any form--- since a metabolite, a carbonyl functionalized derivative of nicotine commonly called "NNK" is not activated in the lungs of smokers, but instead returns to lung from elsewhere in the body, or otherwise somehow appears to accelerate lung cancer development experimentally in the once common experiments with rodent "smokers". Cancer is very often a multi-event process.... it is important to start avoiding the risks while one is still "immortal" .... a conundrum the old, and hence mortal, cannot easily communicate back in time from their graves--- with one foot in it already, I write here.