Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Agreed that more transparently is needed.

I know a little about a lot of things, and only an expert on a few things, and having been around and still around many experts can at least give me a good initital grasp on situations, what might work, what might not. I can spot quality when its in front of me, and spot when someone isn't doing their job as they should be, whilst they are fooling everyone else, they ain't fooling me. And I'm the first to ask any experts what this or that means, or their idea on this or that approach and then add it to my knowledge base.

But yes, I'm saying the second thing too.

No the discovered waste wasn't cleaned up, it was sealed away and people told to forget about it.

One finds many documents detailing coverups when you work with classified stuff, most of it is really boring, but occasionally you come across things which make you sleep uneasy at night and give you a greater insight into what happens behind the scenes.

Sadly we are getting more and more scaremongering over various industries, like the ship recycling one, but then, thats also based on peoples experiences of lack of care taken in such areas, so you can understand them somewhat.

Again, the recycling industry, or waste management side of things also need to get their act together and stop burying their waste behind peoples backs, and yes I have seen and reported such things as asbestos being buried by the truck load in a farmers field. When you trace such things back you find someone took a backhander/bribe to make a quick buck and not care what really happened to the waste.

It would be unwise for me to mention which particular airport, the UK government is not beyond people having accidents to silence them, and I don't think my friend would welcome early retirement from his life.

And recently; ... toria.html

Oh I love a consipiracy me, I just don't believe most of them, but I do hold an open mind, as I said, having a family who worked in that field, listened to their stories, and worked in that field myself and read the reports (I can speak about the declassified ones, or to some degree ones told to me outside my job by just ordinary friends.) I can tell you there are things covered up, buried and generally wished they would go away.

The buried reactor in the UK is mentioned declassified papers, but not indexed, so one would litterly have to stumble across it for proof, but it is talked about in some circles. I forget where its mentions where is just too much to remember all of these little details, as I try and focus on just concepts these days, with the finer points often looked up online, or you just ask someone, rather than filling my head with useless information I might not need that often. When I bump into someone I konw who knows about I'll try and remember to get back to this threat to mention where, it would also be interesting to see what mention online there is, but a quick google search for 'reactor buried uk' doesn't bring up anything terribly exciting.

My argument is from what I can see, the same as yours!

We both want fusion to work, and if it doesn't, we want cleaner fission, we don't want accidents, and if and when they do happen, we want them cleaned up and not buried, forgotten about and wished away.

My argument is only that there is things going on behind the scenes we don't get to hear about much, the reasoning behind the publics views of nuclear power and what we might do so that with fusion, we don't make the same mistakes at least.

The only difference between us that I can see if my experiences have taught me to be much more disbeleaving of what experts tell me, not just because they might not be real experts, but because when things are implimented, often its a whole different ball game and good intentions go out of the window, and you end up with a watered down effort thats nothing like what people really wanted to have, and things do not end up going according to plan, people end up suffering at the expense of someone else profiting.

Lets try and design in early on, ways to keep the hazardious parts to a minumn, lets insist that whoever takes up the technology does so with safety in mind, and not to squeese every cent of profit from the endeavour and put safety on the back seat.

Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Postby Zixinus » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:07 pm

You know what? I rest my case.

The arguments of both of you gentleman, are political ones, not to the actual technology.

From what I see Nanos, all you would have to do to solve this many "cover-ups" is to fund the UK's regulatory commission more, as should the UN. When the world will switch either to fusion or fission (whether people like it or not), that will have to happen anyway.

Again, I reccomend everyone to study this site:

There may be something learned from it that may be used for Polywell as well. Like the safety systems you never imagined that were there.


Also, take a look here, regarding safety:

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests