Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GreenWin

(3 posts)
21. What is the Alternative??
Sat May 5, 2012, 02:08 PM
May 2012

With Fukushima confirming the extreme dangers of using nuclear fission as a base load energy source in the future - where do we go from here? One place is to the latest developments in nuclear fusion now called Low Energy Nuclear reactions. The past 23 years has produced some 1400 papers and peer reviewed articles on the Pons Fleishmann effect. Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT, Dr. Rob Duncan of University Missouri, three divisions of NASA including Langley Research under Dr. Dennis Bushnell all confirm the viability of this new source of energy to relieve the burden on fission.

But there are problems. In particular the resistance of old school nuclear science to anything new or disruptive. That arrives in the form of interference in the scientific method - recently explained by Dr. Hagelstein as follows:

"I recently had the experience of working with a large company in the U.S. who’s interested in pursuing experiments in this area and helping out. So we put in, we discussed with the technical people at this company of the possibility that they might put in some money for the support of the replication of the Piantelli experiment. So they got the agreement, they got the money, they got it to MIT, and we thought: good, now we can make some progress.

However, a very famous physicist at MIT who is involved in the energy program found out what we were trying to do, and he cancelled the program and he called up the vice president of the company and said some things that weren’t very polite about the research. And not only did the funding not come and the experiments didn’t happen, but my colleagues at the company were very worried about where the’re going to work next. As you know, there’re unemployment issues currently in our bad economy, so there’s a fundamental difficulty with respect to getting support for the experiments, and what that means is that the science can be expected to go very slowly for these reasons, until a solution is found to this problem.” May 4, 2012 Dr. Peter Hagelstein Prof. MIT Engineering speaking to Atom Unexplored Conference in Torino, Italy

In effect Dr. Hagelstein has blown the whistle on blatant, potentially illegal, intervention in the scientific method at MIT. As Pekka noted – in his country this would cause an immediate investigation and action in court. The United States cannot expect to excel in this critical technology unless political corruption of this caliber is apprehended and prosecuted.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Nuclear waste has to be contained for a million years bananas May 2012 #1
Good post! nt ladjf May 2012 #2
Thanks, ladjif RobertEarl May 2012 #15
Another good post. ladjf May 2012 #32
Reprocess/Recycle for short lived waste PamW May 2012 #3
THE MYTHOLOGY AND MESSY REALITY OF NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING kristopher May 2012 #4
BALONEY!!! PamW May 2012 #5
I'm not going to argue with someone that has no regard for the truth kristopher May 2012 #6
FAILED UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN!!! PamW May 2012 #7
OK RobertEarl May 2012 #8
Answers... PamW May 2012 #9
Nope kristopher May 2012 #10
FAILED AGAIN!!!! PamW May 2012 #11
I know the difference between bullshit propaganda on the internet kristopher May 2012 #12
STRIKE THREE - YOU'RE OUT!!! PamW May 2012 #13
Arjun proved NOTHING!! PamW May 2012 #19
The determination that it increases waste is not made by Dr. Makhijani kristopher May 2012 #25
NOT FALSE PamW May 2012 #26
That was just two answers RobertEarl May 2012 #14
Whose fault is that? PamW May 2012 #17
You are so right RobertEarl May 2012 #18
That's for the Japanese to call... PamW May 2012 #20
That is your answer? RobertEarl May 2012 #22
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW May 2012 #27
What real scientists say about reprocess/recycle: It's a "goofy idea". bananas May 2012 #16
What is the Alternative?? GreenWin May 2012 #21
Renewable energy sources are more than capable of meeting modern society's needs. kristopher May 2012 #23
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW May 2012 #29
Wrong way Pam/Gregory strikes again... kristopher May 2012 #30
Accusing other people of being sockpuppets and calling other people liars XemaSab May 2012 #31
WRONG AS ALWAYS!! PamW May 2012 #33
Yes, you were. Thank you for repeating my correction of your error kristopher May 2012 #34
FOUL!!! PamW May 2012 #35
A hero!! RobertEarl May 2012 #24
BS- that it is "illegal" PamW May 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Future of America's Nucle...»Reply #21