Canada plans to bury Nuclear Waste Near Lake Huron

[Bob]

Insanity it appears is not just limited to the US.

The town of Kincardine in Canada's Ontario is among several small communities hugging the shoreline in southern Ontario’s Bruce County, which has miles of sandy beaches popular with tourists – particularly from Toronto, about three hours southwest. The downtowns are lined with shops, restaurants, parks, museums and woodsy footpaths. It is a beautiful place.

BUT

A publicly owned Canadian power company wants to entomb waste from its nuclear plants 680 metres below the surface near Lake Huron.

The loudest objections are coming from elsewhere in Canada and the US – particularly Michigan, which shares the Lake Huron shoreline with Ontario.

“Neither the US nor Canada can afford the risk of polluting the Great Lakes with toxic nuclear waste,” US Reps. Dan Kildee, Sander Levin, John Dingell and Gary Peters of Michigan said in a letter to a panel that is expected to make a recommendation next spring to Canada’s federal government, which has the final say.

Some of the strongest support comes from Kincardine and other communities near the would-be disposal site at the Bruce Power complex, the world’s largest nuclear power station, which produces one-fourth of all electricity generated in Canada’s most heavily populated province. Nuclear is a way of life here, and many residents have jobs connected to the industry.

It is a billion dollar project. How about that. Risk the environment, the water across two Countries, mess with our children's children's future for thousands of years to come.

Stupidity obviously can cross borders with the greatest of ease.

So go figure.. Pollute the water for 100,000 years and keep jobs in the nuclear industry. Eh?

ref: http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...0q27W6x08yM2vx

ref: http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/dgr/ Ontario Power Generation

[soleil]

i live (t)here.....****....

[avid]

We have the same problem in West Cumbria, as Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant is there - taking on the worlds waste in the most beautiful (but geologically unsound) place in the UK. The County Council democratically rejected proposals to bury very deep in the area - due to unsound geology. Government moved the goalposts to local councils only - promoting jobs et al (utter rubbish), so this is supposedly a NATIONAL issue - it's being focussed by the government to local as Sellafield plant is near and handy. We have to transport the waste wherever necessary, regardless. Cumbria Lake District National Park is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It's not viable geologically, economically to the locale, so why are they forcing us into a 'done deal' when there are sounder areas (who of course are NIMBY), but not as sensitive to tourism/travel/economy as our struggling area.
https://www.facebook.com/3WeeksToSaveTheLakes

Actually - the national geological survey suggested one of the safest places was under the Houses of Parliament - go rods - go!!!!

[Carmody]

Brown's gas breaks down radioactive waste. See the video listed on this forum and see the formula of how it is done.

My experience in these matters: firsthand, personal. personally performed the same experiment as the Canadian government did, which is who is in the video.

If one disbelieves, they can find out if it is true and transmutation is true, for about $6000.

Which is a very small fee to pay, to find the truth and to save the world from nuclear waste.

$6000 is for a brown's gas generator, one that can do the work, as in easily transmute a few pounds or more of radioactive waste per day.

(Google 'eagle research' Brown's gas generators)

Thus, the fact that Canada wants to hide nuke waste when their Chalk River Research center* knows very well that this whole thing can be stopped by getting rid of the waste directly, and simply.

Forever, with no risk, and no loss. For pennies on the dollar.

(#Canada's version of 'Los Alamo nuclear labs')

The Chalk River Research people..... are the people in the video!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, Bye the bye..Los Alamos is also well aware of this technology. so they don't have a waste problem but they also refuse to use the technology. even though this mess with fukushima exists and we are seemingly trying to have the same thing happen in the USA.

My information source regarding their knowing:

PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE.

So, in essence exactly ~WHO~ is blocking this information and technology from getting out and being used to end this 'nuclear terror'?

the government offices of Nuclear research in Japan are also very well aware of all of this.

Again, exactly ~WHO~ and ~WHAT~ is blocking this from happening?

[Carmody]

@avid:

Oh yes. Brown's gas breaks down the vast majority of complex chemical waste as well.

Brings it down to a complete zero value. Harmless. and, not one bit of effluent of any kind during the process of breakdown. Hell, you could breathe the air coming off the exhaust pipe.

[Carmody]

. bump.

[Hervé]

Posted by Carmody (here)
[...]

So, in essence exactly ~WHO~ is blocking this information and technology from getting out and being used to end this 'nuclear terror'?

[...]

Rephrase the question into an answer...

... "terror" it is... to be entertained, maintained... ALL over the place!

Some school of thoughts calls 'em "Merchants of Chaos" or "Merchants of Fear"... and "Nuclear Waste" has a very deep, profound impact on the human psyche on Earth.

This post (<---) might give some kind of inkling as to why this is so?

[Flash]

We are the ones to decide if we are continuing with the mafia behavior running this world.

It is the same as mafia on a grand scale. So the question is WHO want to keep it running with fear and WHY (other than money)? AND, DO WE ACCEPT IT?

Up to us really.

Carmody, how do you move the 100 IQ average from their sitting as ses? Makes me weep too.

[avid]

I sent all the past PA's links - Brown's Gas et al via pm - to https://www.facebook.com/3WeeksToSaveTheLakes. Apparently they are in contact with Canada and the USA. Hopefully we have been helpful. However:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...m-8967535.html

A radical plan to dispose of Britain's huge store of civil plutonium - the biggest in the world - by "burning" it in a new type of fast reactor is now officially one of three "credible options" being considered by the Government, The Independent understands.

However, further delays have hit attempts to make a final decision on what to do with the growing plutonium stockpile which has been a recurring headache for successive governments over the past three decades.

The stock of plutonium, one of the most dangerous radioactive substances and the element of nuclear bombs, has already exceeded 100 tonnes and is likely to grow to as much as 140 tonnes by 2020, bolstered by a recent decision to include foreign plutonium from imported nuclear waste.

Ministers had pledged to resolve the plutonium problem in a public consultation but are sitting on a secret report by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) which is believed to confirm that there are now three "credible options" for dealing with the plutonium stored at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria.

more on link - and more idiocy!!!!

The other main source of info into what the people of Cumbria are doing is the recently instigated https://www.facebook.com/CumbriaTrus...ocation=stream which was put in place to ensure all legalities are being monitored. Invaluable in the discourse with the Government-instilled bodies who 'strong-arm' decisions - despite the apparent pretence to have proper discourse NATIONALLY. The bias towards forcing the burying of nuclear waste near Sellafield needs no reading between the lines - it's blatant. The Cumbria Trust are advising and helping us, but the legalese is horrendous. So sad - so unnecessary....

[Bob]

Some websites reporting on the Ontario Power Generation company's waste burying plans..

http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/ "Would you bury poison beside your well? Ontario Power Generation is planning to bury radioactive nuclear waste beside Lake Huron"

PRESS RELEASE
City of Toronto Joins Call to Stop Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump beside the Great Lakes
TORONTO, ONTARIO November 14, 2013—A growing number of communities, organizations and citizens are opposing Ontario Power Generation's plan to build an underground nuclear waste dump (a Deep Geological Repository) approximately 1km from the shore of Lake Huron. Public hearings on the matter were closed on October 30, 2013 by a Joint Review Panel and a Federal government decision is expected in 2014.

"Today the City of Toronto unanimously passed Councillor Mike Layton's motion for a resolution opposing OPG's proposed nuclear waste repository. Toronto joins Mississauga, Oakville, London, Hamilton and many others organizations, citizens and communities in Ontario, Michigan and Ohio in formally opposing OPG's plan."

[sigma6]

Dumping waste in Huron, if it contaminated it would flow through all the other lakes, what a bunch of morons to choose that location. That entire area of Canada is completely waterlogged, at least bury it in solid land mass.

[Bob]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Dumping waste in Huron, if it contaminated it would flow through all the other lakes, what a bunch of morons to choose that location. That entire area of Canada is completely waterlogged, at least bury it in solid land mass.

Hi Sigma and the Group -

The power company's Bruce Nuclear Generating Station that has been creating the wastes had earlier in the year decided it was going to "recycle" its radioactive old steam boilers by shipping them through the Great Lakes and off to a company in Sweden who has the capabilities of "safely" melting them down, extracting the radioactives and disposing of them safely..

Guess Ontario Power didn't want to try to bury these 16 contaminated generators in the same place they want to bury the other waste off Lake Huron.

Here is what they look like:

The officials at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station have been in "discussion" with the People of First Nation who are along the shipping path of that current batch of radioactive wastes.

It seems to me then First Nation holds a very strong say in what happens in the shipping of radioactive wastes.

Possibly someone in the forum knows who can be talked with about the current plans of Ontario Power to bury radioactive waste along the Nation's water sources?

The current window for the shipping permits has "expired", but Bruce officials have said candidly, that they DO intend to ship their 16,000 tonnes of waste after discussions are completed..

However, “Our position hasn’t changed,” says Chief Clinton Phillips, who holds the environment portfolio for the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. “The Mohawks will continue to stand in solidarity with the overwhelming majority of people, Native and non-Native alike, who live along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. We are greatly disturbed that the Canadian government, under C-38, could conceivably sweep environmental issues under the rug with little or no opportunity for public input. This is irresponsible, insidious and, most of all, it sets a very dangerous precedent.”

The more these uranium reactor companies feel impunity operating dirty reactors and easily disposing of the wastes that they are creating, the more waste will be building up, somewhere.

It is and has been insane to run a dirty uranium reactor. Until these companies switch to clean virtually waste free thorium reactors, this uranium waste issue will continue to build, and these companies will continually try to look for PRECEDENTS having been previously set.

A precedent being "set" creates an arguable point that can be used to justify WHY they can do what they want to do again.. If you let them do it once, you have let them potentially do it forever.

ref: http://www.torontolife.com/informer/...%80%94for-now/

ref: First Nation info - http://canadians.org/media/water/2012/23-Aug-12.html

[Bob]

Posted by Carmody (here)
@avid:

Oh yes. Brown's gas breaks down the vast majority of complex chemical waste as well.

Brings it down to a complete zero value. Harmless. and, not one bit of effluent of any kind during the process of breakdown. Hell, you could breathe the air coming off the exhaust pipe.

Carmody hi - I'd like if you could do a very brief over-view of the Brown's gas solution as applied to the 16,000 tons of waste that Ontario Power has and wants to ship through the Great Lakes for recycling..

Posted by Carmody (here)
[...]
Brown's gas breaks down radioactive waste.
See the video listed on this forum and see the formula of how it is done.

My experience (ed:"Carmody") in these matters: firsthand, personal.

personally performed the same experiment as the Canadian government did, which is who is in the video.

If one disbelieves, they can find out if it is true and transmutation is true, for about $6000.

Which is a very small fee to pay, to find the truth and to save the world from nuclear waste.

$6000 is for a brown's gas generator, one that can do the work, as in easily transmute a few pounds or more of radioactive waste per day.

(Google 'eagle research' Brown's gas generators)

[...]

How long would it take to remove the radioactivity (I assume you are talking transmutation) of those 16,000 tons, and where does the extra energy go when a heavy uranic or transuranic element or isotope has to be dealt with?

What is the end stable "non-radioactive" element or elements [produced by the "Browns Gas + Thermite + Radioactive Waste"? The claim is radioactivity is gone.. and something transmuted, it to what?

I agree with you very much, without a solution, Uranium reactors will continue to create massive quantities of waste and it will need to "go" somewhere.

I know existing CLEAN disposal technology for radioactive uranium fuel is to put it into a thorium-uranium breeder reactor.. that disposes of the plutonium over time, but those reactors are not anywhere near where the dirty simple uranium reactors exist.

Therefore there are massive quantities of wastes being generated and putting wastes anywhere near a water supply is not only insane - it is a crime against humanity and all life.

Bruce Power Station

New waste dump proposed location

PS - Carmody, I went to google and researched the link you wanted us to look for - Eagle and Browns Gas (BG) and looked at the guy's recipe he explains on that page,

which he says is add equal mix of iron (oxide?) plus aluminum dust to and an equal amount of radioactive waste and heat in a neutral browns gas flame (torch) until the mixture explodes... er, eh? explodes? He says the "explosion" in the thermite mixture induces the transmutation.. (er...) I have a lot of disbelief on that transmutation statement..

the link: http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/node/456

Would you care to explain all that to people in plain English how it could be possible and why one would spend 6000$, the amount you mentioned in your post, at first to prove this out?

Where does the energy go from the stepdown reaction?
Freeing up binding energy is kinda like "going nuclear"..
Where does the "explosion components, ie gas" go from the reaction?

here is the "quote" source material from his page:

Thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3 (iron oxide (rust) plus aluminum (dust) equals free iron plus aluminum oxide

The browns gas reactive substance is H-O-H (hydroxy) -

How does that evoke inducing transmuation?

Uranium equals U and Plutonium equals Pu and Zicronium cladding for fuel rods equal Zr, and there would be a whole host of other transuranics.. and Carbon Boron etc.

[Hervé]

Until Carmody shows up:

Posted by Carmody (here)
"Rhode's gas, Brown's gas, Yule Brown, George Wiesman, Eagle Research, Dennis Lee" as search parameters on the web.

See this forum and the Wade Frasier Thread. That thread and it's links would get people up to speed on what goes on with such technologies.

... and:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Following up on my post above about Brown's gas:

Is Browns Gas practical?

People have developed generators, welding torches, and even car engines. One person drove around in a car for two years now using only water and a couple of batteries.

• "When we run out of fuel (water), we go into the gas station and grab the hose and fill it up again. No money is ever paid for gasoline! We are now good for another 1,000 miles".

You can use implosion technology to decay radiation. Yull has a way, using Browns Gas to disintegrate radio active products and decreases their toxic decay "half life" process from millions of years to only seconds!!! - Why are scientists not using these principles to eliminate toxic radiation waist? "I don't know..." says Brown.

Yull discusses how the energy tycoons are only interested in getting money.

"Taking care of the world is secondary to them, money is first". The politician turns a blind eye, and continues to bury this poisonous toxic radiation from the nuclear generations plants. A machine that could eliminate radiation waste is only $100,000 (as compared to millions to just seal it and bury it). Where are their minds?

From: http://nottaughtinschools.com/Yull-B...Interview.html




10) Directing the flame at Cobalt-60 radiation was reduced by 70% in the sample.
11) Directing the flame at Americium the radiation was reduced 96%.

For more information on these test results contact: The Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.100 Bronson Ave, suite 1001Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8Canada(613) 236-6265 fax: (613) 235-5876

From: http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb9.html

Here is one avenue on how it could be done that's more along your field of interest (from what I gathered, but I could be mistaken):

Posted by Christine (here)
[...]

Thanks to Dr. Deagle for sending this out:

"We have the capability of generating scalar radiation...you can compare radiation to what's called ion cyclotron resonance...and if you have the resonant frequency of say a specific ion like calcium, magnesium, sodium, and you set it up to the non-radioactive ion resonance of an element that's in the same periodic table as the radioactive element, it shatters off the radioactive and then increases the rate of decay of that element. In other words, it can actually speeds up the decay so that it can become non-radioactive. In other words, we can take an isotope that might take 200 years to be gone, and you actually can setup a satellite over that area blasting a scalar radiation signal down for the normal non-radioactive isotope so it doesn't affect nature adversely, but if there's a radioactive isotope, it'll increase it's decay, so instead of it's T1 half being, let's say, 40 years or 60 years, it might be 20 days..."
-- Dr. Bill Deagle

[Carmody]

brown's gas in an electrical arc/flame/plasma. it is the ion cloud of atomic re-combination. from a higher level, down to a lower. Tthe mixture (in situ test subject or dut) has to be totally liquified so it can happen on the quantum level. (brown's gas as a lever/fulcrum/crowbar)

The electrical function is like that of a spinning top, a complex multi-axis vortex flow, that is of the same atomic electric charge level/shape/vibration of that of hydrogen-oxygen, I'm not sure which element is the dominant condition here. Evidence seems to point to the hydrogen being the culprit. Thus.. we have the spin off of the exact signature of electron stripping of electrons from hydrogen to that of being a ionized plasma.

Since it is a primary or 'original' complex angular component, right at the highest electrical potential bonding levels, not just in value but position, like a 'primary resonance' that all elements cascade down from..then it can be used.

It's not just an electron, as no such thing exists, the electrons are 'shot out of' a specific condition and state, in their moment of separation. It depends on where they came from, what they were separated from. In this case, hydrogen that has been, at the individual quantum level, bonded to oxygen atoms. The 'freed' electrons come from, or are cast out from, a specific complex angular vortex oriented or polarized state.

When the correct conditions are reached, it is a cascaded function, the gentle 'pop' of the overall radioactive mass, down to a lower state. Not an explosion, but that of a firecracker. See David Hudson's works on ORME's to get a second angle and look at what is going on. (the 2011 video, he gets technical)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0IgYp4Noz90

Then, it is modified, by a suitable 'landing pad, or destination filter' (modifying complex angular component), for the high level energies that have been added to the uranium. This 'specifically tailored condition'....is the addition of the quantum level mix of aluminum and iron. They are integral to the quantum atomic cascade, in this situation.

Also look at the works of Dr. Joe Champion, regarding transmutation. He originally used a thermite-ish technique, to enact an electrochemical transmutation sequence/cascade... and and has now moved almost wholly to an electrical technique.

~~~
Then we come to the statement about aluminum slowing dark matter energy by a factor of approximately 2x, as stated (verified through large amounts of experimentation and proofing) by Kozyrev.

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/b...-dr-na-kozyrev

Also that dark matter detectors, in cutting edge physics... are constituted of Aluminum and Tungsten.

A technique used by the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) detector at the Soudan Mine relies on multiple very cold germanium and silicon crystals. The crystals (each about the size of a hockey puck) are cooled to about 50 mK. A layer of metal (aluminium and tungsten) at the surfaces is used to detect a WIMP passing through the crystal. This design hopes to detect vibrations in the crystal matrix generated by an atom being "kicked" by a WIMP. The tungsten transition edge sensors (TES) are held at the critical temperature so they are in the superconducting state. Large crystal vibrations will generate heat in the metal and are detectable because of a change in resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_...sive_particles

In the Brown's gas technique of radioactivity reduction, we see a clear correlation and combination of all these techniques. something we used to call 'transmutation'. Alchemy.

When really.. it is just simple quantum sciences. There's no mystery here.

[Carmody]

Oh yes.

In the given atomic equation, we need a great equalizer. A great equals sign, in order to grease the situation, or equation. a moment of equivalence.

Brown's gas, due to the high electron energy of the HHO mix, when it cascades down into original states, and sheds the electron that is at the high hydrogen bonding state/level, brings EVERY element or combination thereof, to a state of conductivity, and no more.

In the case of simpler (pure)elements, it brings them to a fluid state, which is a QUANTUM FLUID STATE, so their electron orbitals are free flowing, compared to their solidus state (no polarized lattice locking-they are broken free). They are bought to the liquid state, and no more. Thus, copper, gold, iron, silver, aluminum, no matter what it is, silicon, whatever...when mixed together in a browns gas flame EACH INDIVIDUAL ATOM of each type, will freely mix at their EXACT individual liquidus temperature no matter HOW different they are.

Thus, if it was osmium and aluminum, each would be in a single combined fluid mix, where the Osmium atoms are at 3,027 °C, and the aluminum atoms are at 660.3 °C. All at the same time, in the same spot, right next to one another. this is not a flame, brown's gas, it is a hydrogen originated energy level, of electron flow, it is an electron arc of specific orientation and type.

Read that again, if you did not get it, folks.

[Carmody]

Why no explosion?

well, you are bumping and exchanging states, not 'breaking them completely open' which is what a nuke weapon is all about.

In this case, you get a 'pop' of change. Not a boom.

However, until it is more well understood, I'd say do a small bit at a time. it might be possible to process a hundred pounds a week, with a small set up, costing no more than a few hundred thousand dollars, even with unions involved and whatnot..

Processing a hundred pounds a week,and then enlarging on that, could neutralize quite a lot of radioactive waste, in a fairly short period of time.

The extra take-away from this is that transmutation is EASY..and thus, no possibility of 'reptilians wanting us for the gold and the mining' is possible, when you can make just abut any element from any other, if you apply the basic science. That story dies a death of sorts and then we can move beyond it.

Scientifically, ramifications wise, for an unaware and un-advanced society (dynamite monkeys) this is a very dangerous area. But we are up against a very serious problem set that needs to be resolved, in multiple ways.

We cannot allow elitist high functioning sociopath killers, and their appointed minions and controls... to dictate the breadth and scope of human function and existence. Thus this stuff finally has to be thrown out into the street, regardless of their desires and directions. Those who are attempting to control and steer humanity have shown themselves to be a bigger problem for humanity than humanity is to itself. There is a difference between intelligence as a means to help humanity and intelligence used to steer humanity in a crude and violent way that is self serving.

This is a very messy time for humanity and we'd best wake up and get our realities on straight.

[Bob]

What would be good to see in a standard controlled test is to perform standard simple weight measurements for verifying mass changes. A volume of material "going someplace" means the information for quantity of radioactivity "present" or not present is no longer accurate as the starting point volume and ending point volume is no longer the same.

That is a first level procedure used to look at the starting points - any chemist knows weights and volume measurements have to be done. Not doing that is sloppy science.

Observation for their hypothesis - If there is no transmutation (no different non-radioactive elements were formed), but the "radioactivity" just stops, and there is no weight loss (from the stuff being vaporized, or blown away) that the starting and ending weight remained constant, that would be something to be impressed with -

BUT

Without controls for ensuring that weight is not accidentally or inadvertently changed (by being blown away or boiled away by the torch) any data about quantitative radioactivity changes (decreases) is suspect especially with microgram amounts of starting substance. If quantity changes have happened, meaning the starting substance total volumetric radioactive charge changed, that is simple physics, no magic there. The stuff boiled, sublimed (into a gaseous residue and evaporated), or was absorbed into the container.

(Americium) has a Melting Point: 994.0 °C (1267.15 K, 1821.2 °F)
Boiling Point: 2607.0 °C (2880.15 K, 4724.6 °F).
Am-241 half life 432.7 years

A Hydrogen-Oxygen torch flame temperature there abouts is: 2500°C or 4532°F or higher depending on the Oxygen (is it more ozone-like or is it more ionically stable) So getting a solid temperature cannot just be assumed without using an optical pyrometer looking at the torch tip and sample temperature.

So, was an optical pyrometer used on the sample and torch tip during the "experiment" to determine the flame tip temperature on the contact point with the Element? Taking a temperature reading is again good science. It would also show if we are seeing subliming (evaporation from solid to gas), or boiling, or absorbing into the container containing the Americium.

What was the starting microgram amount of such atomic radioactive element? Where did it come from, a Smoke Detector? A smoke detector may contain perhaps 1/5000th of a gram. That is pretty darned small. How was it handled? One smoke detector or many? if that was the source of the Americium?

Americium is not uranium nor is it plutonium, and it has nothing to do with what a FUEL ROD waste is. The weight of a spent fuel rod is thousands and thousands of time greater.

What was the ending microgram weight amount of such?

This is a VERY simple test to see if the stuff was boiled away, or blown away from the torch flame, or melted into the crucible or container used to contain it.

Telling me that the total count (either with a geiger counter or scintillator) changed could simply be material boiled off. Where was the torch application? Was there a crucible of some sort to contain the Americium? Was the Americium absorbed by the crucible? Again, no data on that.

What detector was used?

What weight scale was used?

How was the gas that "boiled off" contained, captured and weighed?

What was the error of the experiment?

What chemistry was used to see if transmutation happened?

Everything that was "disclosed" in the "test results" presented leads me to believe it was boiled or the microgram sample physically blown away, up the fume hood, transferred to the walls or otherwise lost due to a procedure which allowed for "lack of precision" handling of microgram amounts. The comment about "swipe from the walls" leads me to believe inadequate containment.

Unless all the starting weight and ending weight can be totally accurately accounted for, and the resultant treated "residue" chemically or isotopically spectrally analyzed for a different elemental product there is no transmutation proof, and that result claimed of radioactivity substantially diminished is most likely bogus due to inadequate containment and accounting of the heated radioactive substance. Not accounting for weight change from boil-off, blow off, or sublimation and assuming a same weight saying lower radioactivity is therefore inaccurate.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXYnAQQ_bE4‎
Extracting Americium from a Smoke Detector chamber (most likely this is where the radioactive substance was obtained from). The amount is micrograms, typically 200 micrograms. It is easy to loose that amount of material with sublimation, boiling, or blowing it away with the physical flow of a torch.

Practicality - basically zero is the likelihood that even if that browns gas (BG) "treatment" did work computing the amount of time with reasonable amounts of energy needed would preclude practical treatment.

But let's for evaluation purposes give the benefit of doubt that actual transmutation has happened, that radioactivity has been reduced substantially, and just use their experimental data..

Canada NOW needs 16,000 tons of radioactive waste to be treated and the radioactive removed. That is the real world issue that needs to be addressed, black and white.

If we look at the "experiment" that was performed as "proof" and 10 seconds was needed of torch exposure to reduce 1/5000 th of a gram. How many 1/5000th's intervals are there in 16,000 tons? Dividing that up - 1 ounce is equal to 28.3 grams, 16 ounces in a pound, and 2000 pounds per ton, then 32,000 pounds of waste need to be addressed.

1/5000ths of a gram is 0.0002 grams or 200 micrograms and 10 seconds of treatment time is needed according to the "experiment".

How many .0002 grams chunks are there to make up just 1 ounce? 28.3grams divided by .0002 equals 141,500 chunks.

SO to treat one ounce of actual radioactive waste based on using the browns gas experimental data "results", we need an energy exposure of 141,500 times over 10 seconds. That comes to 14,150 chunk-seconds treatment time to deal with ONE OUNCE. How many minutes is that?

For one ounce treatment that is 14,150 chunk-seconds divided by 60 (amount of seconds in an hour) = 235.84 hours lets work that into days. 24 hours in a day, so how many days in 235.84 hours or 9.83 days per ounce of continual exposure to the torch flame.

Running the treatment equation then on a real amount of waste needed to be addressed for the Canadian waste problem...

9.83 days per ounce for "treatment", how many ounces in 32,000 pounds (16 ounces in a pound) so converting all those pounds to the ounce equivalent to determine total time needed, 512,000 ounces are present needing treatment, then 512,000 times 9.83 days gives us 5,032,960 days of running the browns gas torch on the real life waste to render it inert..

How many years is that? 5,032,960 days divided by 365

13,788.93 years running the browns gas torch on the waste to render it inert..

ref - torches, gas temperatures - http://superieur.deboeck.com/resourc...rie_interC.pdf

From the quote above asking why isn't browns gas being used to reduce the actual quantities of waste?

Gee.. lemme look at my calendar and compute the cost of energy for almost 14,000 years..

I think I see why they are not using this - it must be it is not efficient (even if it were proved to actually work).

You can use implosion technology to decay radiation. Yull has a way, using Browns Gas to disintegrate radio active products and decreases their toxic decay "half life" process from millions of years to only seconds!!! - Why are scientists not using these principles to eliminate toxic radiation waist? "I don't know..." says Brown.

That claim that Browns gas can be used for Decommissioning fuel cores - real small cores weigh from 28 kilograms to 254 kilograms for some of the larger Chinese reactors. 8959.59 ounces for the big core and 9.83 days per ounce for "treatment". That comes to 88,072.7697 days to deal with one big core. (241 years)

ref: cores, reactors - http://www.ne.titech.ac.jp/jinzai-hi...ing_method.pdf

[Carmody]

Bob, you are coming from your science background.

At this point, this methodology and knowledge base of yours.... has no experience in the field, in this area.

It really is that simple.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

- Albert Einstein.

I'm trying to engage in debate, but that felt more like attack.

Do you have a solution? No?

Then don't slam a potential answer that has been offered...instead.. move toward expanding it, not tearing not down. if that requires proofing, then step into it, but don't substitute what looks like derision covered up in er...myopia on the single data point..

When one has only a single position of knowledge to work form, the trick it to turn the chessboard around and move toward proofing and expanding something as opposed to attacking it. The scientific method as it has been taught is a bunch of pretentious egoistic horse****, and it hobbles itself from the get go.

And that, my friend, is the difference between genius and a plodder. To move the self to the new location, so the thing can be seen from multiple angles, and it's truths can be discovered. To not wait for providence, but to inject the conditions required for extrapolation, into the equation. This requires a change in the self. The essence of alchemy is exactly that.

[Bob]

Posted by Carmody (here)
Why no explosion?

well, you are bumping and exchanging states, not 'breaking them completely open' which is what a nuke weapon is all about.

In this case, you get a 'pop' of change. Not a boom.[...]

Processing a hundred pounds a week,and then enlarging on that, could neutralize quite a lot of radioactive waste, in a fairly short period of time.
[...]

There is a difference between intelligence as a means to help humanity and intelligence used to steer humanity in a crude and violent way that is self serving.

This is a very messy time for humanity and we'd best wake up and get our realities on straight.

Thanks for the explanation. I did tho run the mass to "treatment" numbers. According to the fact sheet repository for Chem Bio Warfare, http://www.cbwinfo.com/Radiological/radmat/am241.shtml
the amount of Americium in a typical smoke detector, " The average modern smoke detector for use in the home contains about 1 microCurie of Am-241 (about 0.000 000 29 grams) although detectors for certain industrial and commercial application contain more (as much as 50 microCuries)."

If that is the case my numbers were really giving the benefit of doubt by about 689 times LESS time, instead of 14,000 years to process the current waste that Canada has to deal with, it would be more like 9,655,172.41 years - totally irrational to assume browns gas can work according to the "experimental" procedure shown: http://www.svpvril.com/BGtest.jpeg
in the link above: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post766200

A solid experiment, monitoring temperature, weights and accurate total radioactivity per unit volume, and a final chemical analysis on the residue should show one way or another. As-IS I feel there is insufficient standard procedure data based on what has been shown or "explained".