It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear Remediation

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:08 AM
The intended subject of this thread is nuclear remediation. Half-life modification. I created a thread in the Japan forum about an article that I found awhile back. I also found a whopping ONE thread here on ATS in my search. What I would like to do with this thread is to create a repository of potential methods of nuclear remediation. I haven't found much information or many sources of information on this topic in my brief study of it, but my understanding of nuclear physics tells me it is possible. Someone please correct me if I'm butchering the terminology. Here are my initial submissions. I shall link my thread on the article as well as linking it directly, to try and cover all that I have seen on the board so far.

Clean It Up! 27 Methods Of Neutralizing or Disposing Of Radioactive Waste-ATS Thread

Any Way To Accelerate Nuclear Contamination Away?-ATS Thread

27 Methods of Neutralizing or Disposing of Radioactive Waste

It seems safe to claim that there are at least two dozen different proposed methods of neutralizing or disposing of radioactive waste. Note that the credibility, practicality, safety and accessibility of these methods vary. If only about five actually work, it seems likely that at least one would be significantly safer and way, way cheaper than the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

1. Theory of an anti-proton source and/or anti-neutron source; Gordon Ziegler.

2. Reversal of the order to disorder arrow in the second law of thermodynamics; Gordon Ziegler (Both of Ziegler’s methods require large, high-energy linear accelerator facilities. For 50 million dollars all aging, disease, and decay processes could be reversed in a one-mile radius)

3. Patent on special large containers that have fins. These are put on container ships and sunk 200 feet into the mud at the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches; Dr. M.

4. $50,000 grant from the Canadian Gov. to neutralize radioactive waste using an esoteric technology; Dr. Andrew Michrowski.

5. Patent that describes a relatively inexpensive way of getting rid of radioactive material (or anything, for that matter) forever; Purdue University professor.

6. The Hawkings’ generator uses simple car battery-powered apparatus to generate a 6 to 8-inch long white spark of cold electricity 4 inches in diameter between two brass balls. Substances inserted in the spark reportedly have been observed to sometimes transmute to heavier elements; Ken Hawkings.

7. Collective ion acceleration method has been designed and developed to the point of bench testing in the laboratory. The collective ion accelerator is completely documented, has been submitted to the Department of Energy, and is ready for full laboratory testing, prototype construction and testing. Development phases II and III each needs $2.5 million. Phase IV would involve on-site field testing of a transportable system suitable for remediation of radioactive emissions in both liquid and solid wastes; Salt Lake City, Utah research group led by Chinese plasma physicist Dr. Shang Xian Jin.

8. Simple deep underground burial inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada with an estimated life-cycle cost of $150,000,000,000; U.S. Government.

The list goes on. Yes, Searle is on the list; so is Yucca Mountain. Thoughts? Contributions?
edit on 19-4-2015 by engineercutout because: to make a correction

edit on 19-4-2015 by engineercutout because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: engineercutout

I think gaseous reactors are a solution which has the capability of consuming the greatest portion of material thus minimizing the production of new waste. The arguable first step to the remediation of waste going forward, fusion being the second.
edit on 19-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 10:41 AM
From what I understand, altering half-life is certainly possible. The problem is that how much you can vary the rate of decay isn't particularly useful, for say, cleaning up radioactive waste. Also the amount of energy needed is pretty high and when scaled up to a Fukushima-daiichi sized disaster, and just not practical. Reminds me of transmuting a common metal into gold; it's been done but the cost and energy requirements border on the absurd, several orders of magnitude more than just mining the stuff. Just my take.

posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 11:04 AM
alpha particles are attracted to a negatively charged plate.
This confirms that they must be positively charged as unlike charges attract.
Alpha particles are helium nuclei; they contain 2 protons which gives them their positive charge.

beta particles are attracted to a positively charged plate.
This confirms that they are negatively charged. Beta particles are fast moving electrons with a very
low mass and so have a high charge to mass density. They are deflected much more than the heavier alpha particles

Gamma rays are unaffected by an electric field. This shows gamma rays are uncharged.
Gamma rays are highly energetic waves with no charge associated with them


posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 09:02 PM
I have studied stimulated alpha decay with high voltage electronegative energy. They had an incident where the NRL locked down an enrichment facility because the proportion of fissile material was off in an arc furnace facility. They discovered that the negative electrode altered the nuclear material and caused a release of helium. After the investigation the classified report indicated a loss of fissile material due to a stimulated alpha decay and a cascade of branch decays winding up changing the molten metals composition.

posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 06:58 AM

originally posted by: FatherStacks
From what I understand, altering half-life is certainly possible.
I don't know if it is or if it isn't, however when the sources saying it's possible read like this, you have to wonder:

Nuclear Half-life Modification Technology

Many renowned scientists may find this half-life modification statement beyond all reason. This I have been told many times by many PhDs over the past 40 years.
Reading that article by Larry Geer should set off many skeptical alarm bells because he doesn't really cite any papers to support his claims. It reads more like storytelling.

It's possible that 40 years of denials by PhDs are all wrong, but it's even more possible they are right. Where is the peer-reviewed paper on any definitive experiment showing it's possible, and how did you get the understanding that you have?

edit on 20-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 07:42 AM
Theres a certain plant that absorbs it out of soil, making it easier to transport i guess.

I think we need to allocate more money toward solving this crisis in the making. My guess is some sort of nanotechnology might be able to solve this... work at it from the molecular level, ya know?

I think somewhere, someone has "the cure", just like the cure for cancer and aids exists, but none of it will be released unless it becomes more profitable than what they're already doing... Or, it might already be profitable, but their analysts tell them they can increase the profit exponentially if they wait or if they create more demand for the product, by creating a disaster or series of disasters, for example...

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 05:38 PM
Thought I'd pop in and post a few more links.

Ted Thread

Texas A and M Physicist...

rexresearch article

edit on 2-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:28 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Reading that article by Larry Geer should set off many skeptical alarm bells because he doesn't really cite any papers to support his claims. It reads more like storytelling.

It's possible that 40 years of denials by PhDs are all wrong, but it's even more possible they are right. Where is the peer-reviewed paper on any definitive experiment showing it's possible, and how did you get the understanding that you have?

Agreed, Arbitrageur, in that the initial submission was somewhat murky as I had warned.

Yes, Searle is on the list; so is Yucca Mountain.

For instance, these two methods included in the article that I referenced in my warning. Neither are truly adequate, though one is defenitely questionable and the other is mainstream science. That article was one of the first I came across in my search, so it seemed the best place to start this thread. Besides, I am only using that article as a starting point: I never intended to just take Mr. Geer's word for it...

As for the understanding I have...The concept of the half-life of a particular sample of material is the measure of time for half of the radioactive isotopes of a particular element present in that sample to decay, leaving only half the amount of radioactive isotopes of that element present in the sample. This is generally thought of as a fixed measurement; but that does not mean that there is not a method or methods that could cause decay to occur more quickly, nor does it disallow other potential nuclear transmutations. I will not discount the possibility simply because it isn't mainstream science yet. PhD's are wrong about things from time to time.

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:33 PM
I started taking a closer look at some of the theories contained in the original article, here's the first one I'd like to flesh out a little.

From the OP article:

The Photoremediation process of the American Dr. Paul Brown is essentially conventional physics, albeit applied in a new and novel way. The process involves the use of a high-energy electron beam impinged on a target which in turn produces a monochromatic gamma radiation that is tuned to induce photofission and photoneutron reactions in the target material causing rapid neutralization of radioactive isotopes. The efficiency claimed exceeds 500% due to the high cross-section reactions in the giant dipole resonance region. The 10 million electron-volt (MeV) electron beam produces typical fission reactions in the 200 MeV range effectively turning high-level solid wastes such as spent fuel into an energy source. The process is apparently intended for on-site treatment with some waste-partitioning required, an aspect which may not be desirable in certain countries.

While this idea is similar in topology to a system being developed by Los Alamos National Labs, Dr. Paul Brown’s approach offers several advantages: no need for extensive chemical pre-processing and the energy required to effect transmutation is greatly reduced. No new technology needs to be developed, yet the engineering of such a photon reactor must be completed and it could itself become a practical method for generating power.

Here's a rexresearch page on it:
Paul Brown Rex Page
From the page:

Company Literature: Peripheral Systems

A radioisotope electric power system developed by inventor Paul Brown is a scientific breakthrough in nuclear power. The battery utilizes the energy given off by decaying radioactive material, converting it directly into a continuous AC electrical current. Unlike conventional nuclear generating devices, the power cell does not rely on a nuclear reaction or chemical process and does not produce radioactive waste products.

Brown's first prototype power cell produced 100,000 times as much energy per gram of strontium-90 (the energy source) than the most powerful thermal nuclear battery yet in existence. The Nucell battery yielded 7500 watts per gram of strontium-90. Compare this to an advanced device recently developed by the US Dept. of Energy Byproducts Utilization Program. Their state-of-the-art thermal nuclear battery produced 0.063 watts per gram of strontium-90.

The key to the Nucell battery is Brown's discovery of a method to harness the magnetic energy given off by the alpha and beta particles inherent in nuclear material. Alpha and beta particles are produced by the radioactive decay of certain naturally occurring and man-made nuclear material (radionuclides).

The electric charges of the alpha and beta particles have been captured and converted to electricity for existing nuclear batteries, but the amount of power generated from such batteries has been very small. Alpha and beta particles also possess kinetic energy by successive collisions of the particles with air molecules or other molecules. The bulk of the R&D of nuclear batteries in the past has been concerned with this heat energy which is readily observable and measurable.

The magnetic energy given off by alpha and beta particles is several orders of magnitude greater than either the kinetic energy or the direct electric energy produced by these same particles. However, the myriads of tiny magnetic fields existing at any tie cannot be individually recognized or measured. This energy is not captured locally in nature to produce heat or mechanical effects, but instead the energy escapes undetected. Brown has invented a way to "organize" these magnetic fields so the great amounts of otherwise unobservable energy could be harnessed.

The weight of the strontium-90 used to generate 75 watts of power in the Nucell prototype is approximately the same as the weight of 2 millimeters of wire cut off the end of a small paper clip. Projected sizes of the Nucell battery will range from the size of a soup can to the size of a small barrel or waste can for a 50 kilowatt model.

The alpha and beta particles utilized in the Nucell battery have a limited ability to penetrate matter; alpha particles can be contained by a piece of paper; beta particles require 0.03" of aluminum. The Nucell battery is housed in a stainless steel, high-vacuum container, making it a safe, impermeable source of power.

More in the next post...
edit on 13-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:59 PM
I also came across this memorial page to Dr. Paul M. Brown:
Paul Brown memorial page by T. Valone
A scary little sidenote to this line of research is this excerpt from a letter written by Dr. Brown reprinted on the eulogy page:

"I have been involved with alternate energy since 1978, while still a college student. Over the years I have heard many nightmare stories about people who developed something significant only to be persecuted, harassed, persecuted, and even killed. I was sure that these stories were exaggerated or possibly the result of the inventor's own paranoia or such. Further, I met several inventors whom I felt were their own worst enemies (via fabrications of their imaginations) which confirmed my beliefs.

As time went on, in about 1982, I became involved in work of some significance and received some minor criticism and skepticism that I found to be beneficial as well as practical, but no death threats of any of the other forms of persecution. I built experimental devices, learned things unavailable from books, filed for patents and in general felt very satisfied with my life, society and the scientific system.

However, things began to change, slowly and alarmingly. The more success I had in my endeavors -- the more I began to attract dishonest and greedy people (I know this now but was unaware of it then). My life became more uncomfortable as time went on but I was not sure of the problem.

In 1987 we decided it was time to let the world know what we were working on and the results we were getting. It was a proud time for me. I thought we were doing the right thing. But this was the real beginning of the worst. Since that February 1987, I or my company have been persecuted by the State Dept. of Health; then the Idaho Dept. of Finance filed a complaint against the company and myself; my license for handling radioactive materials was then suspended for 6 months; I began to receive threats (i.e. ‘we will bulldoze your home with your family in it’); then the investigation by the Oregon Dept. of Finance; then the tax man; then the Securities and Exchange Commission; my wife was assaulted; I lost control of my company; my home has been robbed three times and vandalized on four other occasions; twice now I have been accused of drug manufacturing; I lost my home; most recently my mother’s car was pipe bombed. With each hardship I strive harder toward successful development of the technologies under my endeavor. But it only seems to get worse.

Someone once said, 'Paranoia is only a heightened sense of awareness.' He was right! It is hard for the average guy to comprehend these disasters happening to select people. I am here to tell you it is not coincidence. I now understand why some inventors drop out from society.

My advice to you is keep a low profile until you have completed your endeavor; be selective in choosing your business partners; protect yourself and your family; know that the nightmare stories are true.

God speed, Good Luck in your endeavors, and never lose The Faith.


Paul Brown

I don't intend for the topic of this thread to be suppression of technology. The topic of the thread is Nuclear Remediation. I created the thread to gather information on that topic. Having encountered this story in my research, though, I thought it was important to note that Dr. Brown definitely claimed supression of his work before his untimely passing at the age of 43 in an auto accident. It is also interesting to note that the company's original url's are no longer active. I found his research, but one of the original pages is under construction it says, and the other takes me to a company that sells helicopter parts.

I wonder what happened to them. Junk science? What do you think, ATS? Those of you with scientific minds, I want technical arguments. We can always rehash it into layman's terms later.

Also, here is the only ATS reference that I could find to Dr. Brown:
Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
edit on 13-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 09:24 AM
My next submissions are the ZIPP Fusion and RIPPLE Fission processes. This is quoted from Porringa's list, but this time I will link to the Foundation For Gaia's page where his list was also reprinted.

ZIPP Fusion and Fission:

The ZIPP fusion and fission process, identified by Mark Porringa, induces a wide variety of low energy induced fusion and cold fission reactions, resulting from the radial compression of individual atoms, diatomic elements and other simple molecules dissolved or suspended in a light water, carbon arc electrolysis cell. Numerous other cell configurations are also envisioned.

The process appears to produce only stable isotopes, which should therefore make it capable of stabilizing a wide variety of radioactive waste materials. The theory on the process draws from Condensed Charge phenomena, Brown’s Gas implosion, cavitation bubble collapse and sonoluminesence - all variations of the Casimir effect - which is believed to cohere the Zero-point energy of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. In effect the process constitutes a form of Passive Inertial Confinement Fusion resulting in the coherence of an absolute radiation pressure believed to exceed 1018 kPa during the final phase of fusion. Conversely, heavy unstable metals frequently experience cold fission reactions resulting in lighter elements without radiation with the excess neutrons apparently prompt converted to protons via quenched beta emissions.

A major implication of this process is that the Strong force of the nucleus is understood to be an ultra close range Casimir effect which literally holds the nucleus together from the outside by virtue of the continuous impelling radiation pressure of the quantum vacuum fluctuations according to the new Lattice Nested Hydreno atomic model. Oakridge Nuclear Labs in the US, in conjunction with several international collaborators, have just recently announced a deuterium cold fusion process based on the essential elements of the ZIPP Fusion process first reported in 1998. The process is very simple and inexpensive to develop. Transmutations using variations of this basic process may be applicable to a wide variety of nuclear wastes and appears capable of operating with an efficiency exceeding 100%.

RIPPLE Fission:

The RIPPLE Fission process proposed by Mark Porringa is an adaptation of an existing fuel processing technology utilizing a supersonic, ionized gas-to-aerosol, counter flow heat exchanger, that envelopes the radioactive waste aerosol in a vacuum induced, pulsed plasma vortex, which appears to disrupt the matter stabilizing influence of the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, resulting in “gentle” low recoil fission reactions which produce only stable fission products, with excess neutrons again being prompt converted to protons via quenched Beta emissions. The process is apparently proven with conventional non-radioactive wastes and is believed applicable to the entire spectrum of radwaste without the need for waste partitioning. It would likely be most effective against heavy metals such as Americium and Plutonium. This process is also operates with a readily apparent over-unity efficiency. In a companion process, referred to tentatively as Plasma Arc Implosion, an electrical arc is used to produce implosive ball lightning, that is injected with an aerosol of radwaste causing a variety of nuclear stabilization reactions in a manner similar to that proposed for both ZIPP and RIPPLE Fission.

Clean Energy Sciences
Porringa's website:
Some pdf's I found on the topic:
There was little information that I could find in my searches. I did not find any articles or pages debunking the science. It does venture into the cold fusion/zero point/casimir effect/quantum vacuum realm, so don't say I didn't warn you. I thought the papers were interesting for sure, and Porringa does reference these concepts on his site, so he does not seem to have abandoned these theories at this time.
edit on 16-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 09:32 AM
Next is the LENTEC Process, again quoting Porringa's list:

The LENTEC Processes:

The Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Electrolytic Cells of the Cincinnati Group produce a variety of transmutation reactions using exotic electrolysis cell designs that generally produce condensed charge clusters composed primarily of up to 1011 electrons each. Electron charge clusters can accelerate lighter positive ions to very high energies at relatively low voltage potentials, which then penetrate the nuclei of larger atoms in solution and on the electrodes transmuting such atoms into stable elements. The range of design and operating protocols and potential applications are potentially numerous provided the waste can be efficiently dispersed in the electrolyte or deposited on the electrodes. The reported transmutation of thorium to stable titanium and copper by the Cincinnati Group and by another team based in Salt Lake City is one of the most dramatic examples of this type of treatment process. Application to other high-level transuranic fissionable wastes such as surplus Plutonium seems likely. The glaring absence of normal fission yield energies is perplexing within existing atomic theory, but quite explicable according to the Lattice Nested Hydreno model, as yet another form of low recoil fission reaction.

All I could find on this one was this late nineties Infinite Energy article pdf:
edit on 16-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 09:40 AM
I shall also post the PIT process today. From Porringa's list again:

The PIT Processes:

Plasma Induced/Injected Transmutation is in many respects similar to the LENTEC PITT processes include the cold plasma transmutations first reported by Oshawa-Kushi dating back to 1964 and more recent work involving High-density Charge Clusters (HDCC). A patented process for producing HDCC was first discovered by Kenneth Shoulders and extensively studied by Harold E. Puthoff. The late Stan Gleeson also discovered charge cluster production in proprietary solutions exposed to electrical discharge. More recently, Alexander Ilyanok of Belarus and Vasiliy Baraboskin in Russia also made independent discoveries of HDCC phenomena. Charge clusters also apparently occur widely in nature in various electrical discharge phenomena, including for instance lightning.The production of charge clusters and various plasma glow discharge phenomena in a variety of gaseous atmospheres is again implicated in connection with the coherence of Zero-point energy from the energetic vacuum. Desk-top high energy particle accelerators have also been envisioned, based on the “piggy back” principle, in which the charge clusters permit acceleration of bound heavier +ions to extremely high energies, capable of causing fusion and transmutations in target materials including those in solution and the materials of which the electrodes are composed. Brown’s Gas implosion and cavitation bubble collapse reactions may also occur in these types of cells due to the nucleate bubbles formed during electrolysis. A high-density charge cluster technology was developed and used by Stan Gleeson to stabilize radioactive liquid wastes and has been developed further in the last 4 years by a group led by S. Jin and Hal Fox. Best results for radioactive liquids have been demonstrated in the processing of thorium for a 30-minute period and achieving a reduction of radioactivity of about 90% from a liquid sample.

There seems to be quite a bit of information out there regarding this process. Here's a link to a paper written by some of the scientists mentioned in the above paragraph: Fox, Bass, and Jin.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:10 AM
The ZIPP, RIPPLE, LENTEC, and PIT processes each seem to have the High Density Charge Cluster as part of its theory. Electron Validum or Strong Electron. Junk science? I don't know. I will have to do more research on this topic before I can weigh in on it. It mostly seems to be lumped into the cold fusion sites, but there does seem to be some theoretical and experimental data circulating on the web about it, and nuclear transmutation is postulated and supported by that data. What do you think? Anywho, here are a few links on High Density Charge Clusters:
US Pantent 5,018,180

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:49 AM
Now let's have a look at the Monti Process. Again, from Porringa's list:

The Monti Process:

The Italian Roberto A. Monti’s process involves confined explosions involving proprietary mixtures of materials that include radioactive waste. Ignition of such mixtures causes nuclear transmutations and accelerated decay resulting in radioactivity reductions approaching background levels gradually over 1 to 4 days. Theory on the process draws on the Alpha Extended model of the atom, first proposed by William Harkin, a contemporary of Bohr, and more recently embellished by Monti. This technique has been confirmed by the Italian ENEA and is supported by the French CEA scientists as a serious candidate for treatment of waste stockpiles. The system, as currently designed, requires the waste to be inserted into a chamber that also provides scrubbing of the off gases. Another Chemo-nuclear method referred to as the Keller Catalytic process is similar in many respects to the Monti process with the addition of a proprietary nuclear reaction catalyst that apparently promotes nuclear reactions at relatively low firing temperatures.

Not much data available on this topic either. I did find this page on it by Ludwik Kowalski:

From Kowalski's page:

A series of experimental tests made from 1993 to the present have shown that this is indeed the case. Unstable isotopes can be transmuted into stable isotopes. In 1993 R.A. Monti informed the Italian National Research Council about the possibility to get rid of nuclear waste but they rejected the idea. From 1994 to the present, ongoing research has been funded by a group of Canadian companies which ultimately led to the formation of Monti America Corporation in 1998. A proprietary formula for transmuting Lead and Mercury into silver was used as a driver for the transmutation of radioactive elements. R.A. Monti observed that Thorium . . . can be transmuted into stable elements with 80% success rate, based on total input weight in the right season of the year. [Does the “right season of the year” phrase refer to temperature, humidity, winds, etc. or to factors linked with astronomy?]

During 1995 and 1996 over 50 experiments were conducted . . . The years from 1997 to 2004 have been used to conduct validation tests at independent research facilities and to demonstrate the process internationally. Monti America Corporation is currently working on constructing a pilot plant to prove the commercial viability of the process.

The experimental results of the tests made from 1992 to 1996 were so astonishing that they were by and large rejected out of hand by the scientific community. As a matter of fact the papers . . . do not appear in the Proceedings of these [Cold Fusion] Conferences (rejected by Ikegami, Passell, McKubre, Fleischmann ) . . . In 2000 (ICCF8, Lerici, Italy) the paper . . . was rejected by Scaramuzzi (13). Finally, the paper was published in 2004 by Hal Fox (6).” My attempt to obtain a general explanation of the proprietary process from Monti, who was present at the conference, produced nothing more than a statement that the process is “pyrolytic.” I remember that this term was used by Bockris, a recognized authority in electrochemistry who was the first to report cold fusion transformations.

By the way, I was not aware that Monti’s claims were rejected by leading cold fusion researchers. This fact , however, did not prevent a company from investing heavily in Monti’s technology. I talked with Mrs. Anderson and with the president of Monti America Corporation. They are not scientists. But they are totally convinced that their large investment will soon become profitable. To begin with, the company plans to concentrate on low level radioactive waste from petroleum products, and from other industrial operations. They plan to move to highly radioactive waste later. I said that I would like to come and observe the pyrolytic device in operation. They said that they would invite me, probably in several weeks. I hope this will happen; I would be happy to write a unit on the first industrial application of what is, according to Monti, a cold fusion transmutation process. Will they allow me to make some measurements? This remains to be seen. Will they be able to destroy the waste ready to be stored under Yucca mountain? Probably not.

I am convinced that destroying highly radioactive waste by neutrons (from a very strong spallation source) is scientifically possible and practically desirable. This, however, has nothing to do with approaches based on microbial activities or on a pyrolytic process. My advice to potential investors is to wait until such processes are confirmed by recognized experts. Biological experiments with radioactive substances are very recent and scientists performing them are not promising anything useful, as far as I know. The technology developed by Monti, on the other hand, is a promise of something useful. But that promise, as indicated above, is not taken seriously by recognized experts, even within the cold fusion community. That situation would certainly change if Monti America Corporation suceeded in destroing (rather than dispersing) even on radioactive isotope.

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 10:29 AM
Before moving on to highlight another of the proposed methods for nuclear remediation in existence I thought I should look around for a little more info on the Monti Process. A search of "Monti America Corporation" allowed me to locate Dr. Monti's website:
Links to some of his work can be found there. This statement is also printed in the news section of the site:

Monti America Corporation died for lack of funds.
Consequently we (R. A. Monti and G. Cesarano) prepared a new version of our web site to inform our readers that we shall go on as free researchers, looking for new sponsors. The situation of Modern Physics is very bad. A bunch of idiots has occupied official science and make very difficult to let new ideas and experiments come out. This is why it is so important keep alive new ideas and information about physical science with this web site.
Dr. Monti sounds somewhat disillusioned. Curious, but let's leave it at that for now.

top topics


log in