I have been sending out some emails to scientists with some of my findings and hypothesis. I need a place to store them and easily go back and reference them. And when they are put in here, they will be available as "proof" via the wayback machine, of when I posed the question, sent the email, when they were made aware of additional facts and ideas.
stock out
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following theory is my own, it accounts for much of the
UME’s in the Pacific, as well as the “Blob” of hot water
Bottom line is the bio-magnification of radioactive
chemicals by Chitin, which may also be a magnet for other pollutants you may
have detected.
Krill being a bio-magnifier and important in the food chain,
other phtyo and zoo-plankton are also effected.
I am the author.
Here is one of my earliest theories on how death of plankton
could result in ocean heating.
This one has existing scientific basis to fall back on—Plankton
actually make clouds so they don’t get baked.
Your thoughts appreciated.
stock (used real name)
MSME University of Michigan, Materials Science, 1987
They are laughing behind your back. You wont be taken seriously until you publish in a refereed journal. Im not trying to be cruel or mean. Im just telling you the scientific community communicates through a refereed journal process. Its the way things become legitimate. Why are you afraid to publish? Ramanujan wasnt formally schooled in mathematics but he published. He also became a Cambridge Fellow. His contributions to mathematics is widely documented in the movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity" with Jeremy Irons.
ReplyDeleteLet them laugh, this shall be a record of when and what they were notified of. And then shame will be on them should they laugh it off. And perhaps some Nuremberg trials, for those who were paid to look the other way, or rail against the truth.
DeleteI have done the heavy intuitive lifting, now I want other to do the "scientific lifting" whilst I get on with my life. Got it?
I dont see a Nuerenberg trial analogy because frankly, its not been proven that there was a direct and more importantly, a deliberate act of malfeasance. At the end of the day, the Nazis were following orders, yet there was also very compelling and direct evidence - bodies and human remains for more than 6 million people. Only less than 100 can be attributed to radiation. Stochastic or long term effects havent been procen. Atom bonb victims as children have lived 70 years. Now as they reach their 80s and 90s you hardly can say their lives were cut short. Unless they expected to live past 100.
DeleteYou say you have done the heavy lifting however, if its not documented and communicated, its not done. The real heavy lifting is publishing. You dont have to be in academia to publish. It doesnt have to be an epistle. Einstein published four short papers in one year. One was on the photoelectric effect. Another was on relativity. Both won Nobel Prizes. They started as intuitive thought experiments.
DeleteWhere would you recommend publishing on, best organizations to try first?
DeleteThe level of radiation necessary for adverse effects in chitin is in the kiloGrays by the data you posted. Thats on the order what Chernobyl responders received. Its too low a dose from Fukushima to really have any negative effect to ocean organisms.
ReplyDeleteThats stupid, those levels are for quick industrial processing to intentionally and quickly break Chitin down. And its for an external dose. It is a whole different matter to bioaccumulate and be radiated over time, by very close and targeted, and repeated radiation blasts.
DeleteSorry, leave your banana at home next time.
No its not stupid. Why do you think cockroaches will outsurvive humans during an all out nuclear war. You put too much "stock" on your own hypotheses. Why not run some radiation effects modeling and validate it with some simple experiments. Youll need a little more than a spreadsheet.
DeleteAre you saying a 1.46 MeV gamma is ok? How many 1.46 MeV gammas impinging on your organs is safe?
What I'm about to say and I really mean this, you two should collaborate on something. I personally enjoy your arguments, not so much the bashing but the times you show support. Too much drama today in the world, we need some new tools. I wonder what you guys could come up with? How about this, a new science 'the balance' we're in this together.
ReplyDeleteFrom both of your experiences this could be the theory; 'Understanding what you Thought you Knew'
Loose Stock (Ah come on, don't band me from the site)
Thats not a bad idea. That San Diego brewery sold for a billion dollars. Give people something good, the money will follow.
DeleteTheres a guy in Australia that combined a hamburger with a hot dog, or hamdog. What will be thought of next?
There is a tgought process that can be adapted to accelerate the decay of radioactive isotopes. It just hasnt been applied. Many great physical inventions have biological analogs.
True that, we live in an imperfect world at best but we've made advancements (hamdog want to try one) and corrected many errors already. Like my comment above the word band should be spelled ban or your typo which is a key error. We can see our faults and can adjust for correction. Stock does offer good research, seeking tools for correction where other authors in theory offer no fix and only adding to the drama, there's not many like him. It would be way cool if some of his theories would make the grade. How does one of man's theories go on creation; the Earth was created in 6 days on the 7th day the creator rested. I've added to this theory, on the 8th day he got complaints so on the 9th day he created maintenance.
DeleteHis research is flawed because he doesnt consider the real nature of nuclear processes. He says uranium aerosoled in the air yet fails to provide a reason there is no uranium gamma signature. He says F3 went prompt ceitical but fails to provide the necessary evidence e.g 1e18-1e19 neutrons in a millisecond. He fails to show why his hypothesis is correct when evidence is to the contrary. As a trained nuclear engineer with 4 degrees and a phd, i can easily refute his claims. I work in the science and tech on a professional level, am widely published and review many technical papers for international refereed journals. In nuclear r&d, for almost 4 decades, i know the goods. Im the goods. Im not paid for posting.
DeleteWe all have a claim to fame, what makes a person better than another is when the person accounts for all scenarios that goes outside our own existence. We'll never have this on the midway of Bozo Circus with cotton candy in one hand and a pinwheel in the other. My meaning is, what is it we protect when we have damage control? Listen very carefully, when it comes time to make the decision, it is your decision alone. Jumping is dangerous, however everything that you know that becomes from that jump, it must uphold to all scrutinizes not just yours. Nuclear is a hell of a way of boiling water.
DeleteSorry Lucey, until you show me that "forensic evidence" proving no prompt critical, ALL other evidence clearly points to prompt critical.
DeleteThe hardest part of getting the pHD is when they scoop out your commonsense. Arrogant Nukist
There is no evidence for a prompt criticality. Thats what you are missing. You think this is some scaled up Borax? Gundersen fed you a line. Usually the person making the claim, thats you, has to provide the proof. Youve provided nothing. Im the expert in this matter, not Gundersen. You know where to find me. Ball in your court.
DeleteThats the thing. No one can account for 100% of all possible scenarios. In safety engineering, a design basis is defined to constrain the real of scenarios to the most likely and realistic. You think the Wright brothers envisioned 911? If we designed to the impossible, nothing would get built or made. Its not like map making, where there is more certainty. The GG Bridge held 350,000 pedestrians and almost collapsed on uts 75th anniversary. It surely wasnt designed for that. Engineering is a discipline where constraints must be chosen. These constraints are driven by realistic yet conservative application of design principles. If buildings were designed to 1.0 gs (Richter Scale not applicable) then nothing would get built. Draw an xy plot. On the x axis is likelihood, constrained from 0 to 1, on the y axis is consequences constrained to 0 and a very large number. The area under the curve, the product of x and y, is called "risk". The curve is asympotically approaching zero as likelihood approaches 1. Thats because consequences tend to zero. On the other hand, as likelihood goes to zero, consequenses shoot way up. You see, neither x or y really get to 0. In this life at least. This likelihood consequenses relationship applies to anything. Understanding this, and normalizing everything, the intelligent observer understands nuclear on comparison with everything, has much lower risk than many other forms of power generation. By improperly focusing on consequences alone, rather than the product of likihood and consequences together, then "risk aversion" results. Then peoples inagination runs wild. I read Nasim Talebs "Black Swan". Just because black swans like Fukushima happened, doesnt mean we should give up on nuclear. Or anything for that matter. Humans arent quitters. Thats why Fukushima brings resolve. Nuclear engineering enrollments are up. Why? Probably the same reason I didnt change majors after TMI. People like me want a better world, and nuclear tech figures prominent in that better world. The "Mutually Assured Destruction" mentality that frightens antinukes doesnt frighten me, or anyone else that knows trillions of tons of CO2 have been thwarted, and billions of lives saved the past 60 years.
DeleteThere is no evidence for a prompt criticality. Thats what you are missing. You think this is some scaled up Borax? Gundersen fed you a line. Usually the person making the claim, thats you, has to provide the proof. Youve provided nothing. Im the expert in this matter, not Gundersen. You know where to find me. Ball in your court.
DeleteIncorrect, all the evidence points to prompt critical. YOU CLAIM to have forensic evidence to prove no prompt, yet you fail to ever provide it.
Deletehmmmmmm, methinks the nukist protests too much
What evidence exactly? 1w18 fissions isnt even a kg TNT equivalent. Gace it, your argument fizzled. The forensic evidence is a very large spike radiation which wasnt there. Thus no prompt crit. The corium was hundreds of dollars subcrit. There is no positive reactivity inserion to overcome that shutdown margin. Borax was a deliberate test. The reactivity addition was well calibrated. Heterogenous reactors are optimal geometries, not blobs of LEU. Difficylt to go crit without coolant to moderate neutrons
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo evidence points to prompt crit. No neutrons, no activation of steel by a high fluence. No one going to the hospital, no reason for positive reactivity addition when deeply subcritical. There are no signs. Just because there was an explosion doesnt mean a pc. Its not a Borax. The critical configuration of a regular core is more reactive than a blob of corium. I havent seen one calculation from your end. Using core density conversion, the kinfinite is < 1, which means it could never go crit.
DeleteForensic evidence is applied to an event not to prove its absence. I never said a non event had forensic evidence. However, a prompt crit has very specific signs, which you have not put forth. Dont trudge our Borax. Its apples and oranges.
DeleteThe onus is on you to prove, which you havent.
I think you know it wasnt. You just like to disagree with an international expert in this subject just to get your rocks off.
Thats pathetic.
No evidence points to prompt crit. No neutrons, no activation of steel by a high fluence. No one going to the hospital, no reason for positive reactivity addition when deeply subcritical. There are no signs. Just because there was an explosion doesnt mean a pc. Its not a Borax. The critical configuration of a regular core is more reactive than a blob of corium. I havent seen one calculation from your end. Using core density conversion, the kinfinite is < 1, which means it could never go crit.
DeleteBut you said there was forensic evidence showing that the PMC never happened. But you have failed to provide any evidence much less even any hints as to source.
DeleteSo you know you are lying. To protect the cartel.
This is a wonderful article, Given so much info in it, These type of articles keeps the users interest in the website, and keep on sharing more ... good luck.
ReplyDeleteLiquid Level Switch
Its an article that plays into those that are terrified of nuclear tech. For those of us who are not terrified, but really knowledgeable, its an example of grasping at straws, and antinuclear propaganda. We wgo are knowledgeable in this subject cant be manipulated by alternate hypothesis that have yet to be proven.
DeleteNuclear is just a heat source, nothing more, nothing less. It has the highest power density in terms of kW/m^3 than any other process known to man. It can be used for good and evil, like anythibg elsr. After 911, there wasnt a world wide ban on flying. At the end of the day its about people, not tech. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite to help move mountains. He did not invent it for war. I saw Einsteins letter to FDR in the Smithsonian. Its not a harbinger of doom. Its a glimpse into the future. The Manhattan project was started by FDR and Einsteins letter didnt tell him to bury gis head in the sand. The world changed because of Einstein. Its a little disingenuous to quote him, then say he was againdt the peaceful application of the atom. Rhe nuclear age was nade possible by him, and others. Im sure you can trudge out tired slogans like "too cheap to meter" yet on the other hand, 2015 came and where are our flying cars? You can work to make this world a better place, or you can complain about stuff you dont understand. Ive chosen a life of knowledge discovery and to apply it for the greater good. Its the comprehension that matters. Thats why working nuclear technologists like myself seek to inform, unlike the information here and at orher sites, that disinforms, even though they dont know they disinform. Cognizant dissonance 101. Its not personal. When you know what I know then you will understand, its a rouse by those that want to manipulate your feelings about this world.
DeleteThe nukists got so little game he is responding to spam. shame shame
Delete