chrismb wrote:I think the list will go on for dozens of regular items.
Probably the majority of regular items can be considered as a spin off of something that in the past was considered a military technology. But also the other way around is true.
The issue is not in the item, but in the use you make of it.
Unfortunately very few people are enough smart to understand this.
More new cold fusion reactor claims although very short on details. Axil may be interested in the fact that this approach reportedly uses an oxide of Zirconium rather than Ni:
But, there's no arguing with urban legend, especially where 'nukes' are concerned.
IIRC, my home city unilaterally declared itself a 'nuclear free zone'. The expensive signs were barely up before local hospitals' nuclear medicine departments objected. As did the heavy-construction workshops that used cobalt sources to scan deep welds. The Uni reported that their science undergrad courses included a dose of 'nuclear and radio chemistry'. (Half Lives ! Seeded precipitations !) And, yes, the Fire & Rescue folk mentioned that many 'ionising' smoke detectors had a speck of 'hot' Technetium or related isotope there-in...
Figs ad apricots contains twice and three times the K-40 content of bananas.
Let's declare all manufacturers terrorists and proceed to a holy war for the safety of our children.
Giorgio wrote:Figs ad apricots contains twice and three times the K-40 content of bananas.
Let's declare all manufacturers terrorists and proceed to a holy war for the safety of our children.
Giorgio wrote:This is the first time in my life that I see data coming from "many blogs in the Internet " as a data source to try to prove a scientific theory....
