Why do you think that Garwin, Huizenga, and Schiffer, along with the rest of the ERAB panel, were so unwilling or unable to consider the BARC neutrons and Bockris (and others) tritium results?
I'm looking for detailed, substantiated explanations, so please refrain from responding with arbitrary speculation.
I have trouble buying into the notion that hot fusion proponents had something to lose by cold fusion succeeding. I see no reason that the hot fusion crowd could not have simply switched gears and begun applying their skills to develop LENR-based systems.
Further, the tritium results should have been incentive for the hot fusion crowd, since their reactors need tritium for fuel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have my own theory, but I'd like more data points. Personally, I think Huizenga and Garwin truly believed that cold fusion must be pathological science, and I don't believe they were acting maliciously, but if anyone here can provide evidence to the contrary, I'd very much like to know about it. From what little I know about Seaborg, it seems he never gave it much thought from the outset, he seems to have drawn a very early conclusion based on a flawed and overly simplified description of the F&P claims.