Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

  • If you read the internet, you would think not. Ruby wrote a good article about that 7 years ago:


    https://coldfusionnow.org/no-f…diation-from-cold-fusion/


    Things seem to have changed since then, as you will notice when reading. One being Rossi is now claiming radiation sickness after being exposed to his unshielded reactors, and strange radiation has become a hot topic. There are also anecdotal accounts surfacing of periodic, yet significant gamma bursts, and a growing list of radiation type sickness reports.


    This is an important safety topic for the researchers in the field, and in particular for the amateurs chasing the dream without taking proper precautions.

  • Here is one such account by an accomplished LENR researcher, who I believe it best we leave unnamed:


    "From early days I was aware of the energetic potential of reactions, so generally used physical shielding such as metal sheeting to reduce risk. The experimental setup also reduced radiation exposure by: (1) distance from source than 5m, (2) only running a small number of 1/1000's sec pulses per test day, usually no more than twenty, (3) starting with lower power reactions first, (4) very small quantities of reactants, (5) radiation and EMR testing.

    As reaction power was increased with each subsequent improvement in prototypes, I became more aware of some adverse health impacts of experiments.

    Symptoms observed included: Shortness of breath, chest soreness, "shell shock", muscle cramps, irritability, loss of fitness.

    Ultimately it is hard to separate symptoms from other potential causes such as chemical and nanoparticle exposure, too many late nights, stress, fatigue, etc. As such, I can not conclusively say they symptoms were due to radiation, however I will definitely recommend considerable care for any experimenter."

  • “I cannot conclusively say”


    Hmmm, who does that sound like?

  • Every researcher I know places radiation alarms and sensors next to experiments. As far as I know, no one has ever detected any dangerous radiation, except Celani with the Rossi experiment, as noted previously. No one other than Karabut, and Smith and George has reported significant levels of gamma rays, as far I can recall. See:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABnuclearpro.pdf


    Karabut was doing glow discharge cold fusion. I do not know if that is related to the Fleischmann-Pons effect. For that matter, I have no idea whether Rossi's experiment was related, or even whether it was real.


    The only thing I am pretty sure of is that the Fleischmann-Pons effect (conventional Pd-D cold fusion) does not produce dangerous penetrating radiation. It does produce x-rays that are attenuated or stopped with the water in a typical cell. To detect them you have to put x-ray film right next to the cathode, in the water. The people at BARC and the ENEA did this.


    If it isn't in the form of radiation of some type, what is it supposed to be?

    It is not dangerous, high energy, penetrating radiation. It is more like the radiation from fire.

  • To detect them you have to put x-ray film right next to the cathode, in the water.


    Which also subjects the film to hypering, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…raphic_hypersensitization ("Practical, user-applied hypersensitizing techniques have evolved over most of the last century and fall mostly into four types of treatments. Broadly, these involve liquid phase (washing), gas phase (out-gassing and baking and hydrogenation), "), which makes them ultrasensitive, and then the heat from the current flow and/or external heater fogs the film. No clear proof of x-rays.

  • Other x-ray detection instruments have been used successfully, so this is not a problem. In all cases, they have be very close to the cathode.


    a.) reference please. I don't automatically accept "Jeddisays".

    b) then you should stop referring to the flawed film technique and cite the above ref, if you can find a good one.

  • This 2006 paper by a Russian group led by Pryakhin, is titled: "Assessment of the biological effects of "strange" radiation". Along with the clip I copied below, they found other bio-markers showing evidence of a negative biological effect:


    http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-314/aflb314m514.pdf

    "The number of nucleated cells in the bone marrow counted for the control group of C57B1/6 mice amounted to 38.6 + 1.6 mln/femur (Fig. 1).


    In spite of the fact that exposure to “strange” radiation of experimental


    group B1 on the 19th of April, 2004, and of experimental group B2 on


    the 19th and 20th of April, 2004, brought about a certain increase in this


    value up to 42.3 + 1.9 and 42.4 + 2.1, respectively, these changes, however, did not reach statistical significance. Exposure of the experimental


    animals to ten explosions carried out within 3 days led to a further increase in this value. In this group the number of nucleated cells in the


    bone marrow was 45.1 + 1.7 mln/femur which exceeded significantly (by


    17%) the respective values obtained for the control group (tStudent’s =


    2.79, P = 0.008)







    Thus, it has been shown by our experiment that exposure of animals


    comprising group B3 to explosions of Ti foils in water and aqueous solutions results in an increased number of nucleated cells in the bone marrow


    of C57B1/6 mice. Such changes were accompanied by an increase in the


    percentage and count of dividing cells in bone marrow.


    It can be assumed that these changes are induced by the following


    mechanisms: stimulation of stem cell division in the bone marrow, accel-







    467
    erated division of cells in a proliferating cell population within an organ,
    delayed maturation, decreased cell cycle time, decreased frequency of
    apoptotic cell loss, disturbances of cell migration from the bone marrow
    to the blood, or by a combination of two or several of the above-listed
    mechanisms."
  • Do your own homework.

    I will if I so deem it necessary. However, when one makes a claim and offers no support, that is just an assertion and needs not be considered valid. Your choice as to how your suggestions are taken. For my part, I usually try to back up what I say with references (such as the prior one to Wikipedia for those who don't know what 'hypering' is) or I state that my statement is unsupported or a 'belief'.

  • Now, you started this one. If you want to continue on with it, take it here Mizuno's bucket of water


    Actually Jed did by repeating, once again, something that he has been corrected on multiple times here and elsewhere. Further, it has nothing to do with Mizuno's bucket anecdote. But it's a moot issue anyway as I doubt I will continue responding to JR as I know him to be unteachable by those he does not call his heroes. If others need clarification I will respond however.

  • https://www.researchgate.net/p…uterium_Containing_Oxygen


    I first found this on LENR-CANR, could not link it, so got it off the net instead. By Storms/Scanlon. The report mentions "energetic" many times, so I would assume that direct, prolonged exposure to the energetic, anomalous (strange) radiation, would not be conducive to good health? Here is their conclusion:


    "Energetic emissions are produced during gas discharge that cannot be detected outside of the

    apparatus. Nevertheless, their energy is so large that they can only result from nuclear reactions.

    If conditions are appropriate, the emissions are easily reproduced and imply a reaction rate at the

    cathode in excess of 109 reactions/sec, limited only by the design of the apparatus. Consequently,

    these energetic emissions are completely anomalous, are produced at high rates that can be

    increased to the rates associated with anomalous heat production, and are not difficult to

    generate. The observations show that energetic electrons make up part of this emission and

    energetic particles that might be protons and/or alpha particles add to the radiation, depending on

    the chemical composition of the cathode and gas. The type of radiation, its energy, and the rate

    are all sensitive to the presence of certain elements in the environment."

  • I will if I so deem it necessary.

    Good. Google is your friend. I installed a site-only version at LENR-CANR.org to make it easy.


    However, when one makes a claim and offers no support, that is just an assertion and needs not be considered valid.

    I could give you a references to peer-reviewed papers from the best labs in the world, but you would deny I gave you anything. You would continue to claim that I have made an assertion without evidence. That's how you roll.

  • Ummm...what do you think makes up the bubbles? Solids?

    The film does not come in contact with bubbles because it is protected. It is intraoral, meaning it is designed to be inserted into your mouth, which is wet. It does not come in contact with solids, either. Other x-ray detectors are also protected, and have been used, as I mentioned.