Jump to content
Heather Mills - Amputee Forum
theroyprocess

THE ROY PROCESS

Recommended Posts

Dear Friends,

After some 19 years trying to get the status quo to accept

and use the Roy Process invention to denature and eliminate

forever...plutonium for atom bombs...high level nuclear waste

including so-called 'dirt bomb' elements...I am invited to the

below landmark symposium coming in January. The dream

might come true yet!

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Dennis could I ask you to pass this very important notice on to

your list and friends, and can you come?

Many thanks,

Helen Caldicott

The Nuclear Policy Research Institute invites you to a ground-breaking

symposium.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/EventArticle....=32&Menu=Events

Three Minutes to Midnight:

NPRI Symposium on the Impending Threat of Nuclear War

The Cold War is Over.

The Nuclear Threat is Not.

January 25-27, 2004

Washington, DC

Omni Shoreham Hotel

Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each

maintain 2500 nuclear bombs on tenuous hair trigger alert. This chilling

reality and other critical nuclear issues will be examined in-depth at the

Nuclear Policy Research Institute's groundbreaking symposium.

Join scientists, policy-makers, military and medical experts from around the

world for three days of analysis, insight and strategy

Covered in Depth:

At this landmark symposium, nuclear abolitionists, weapons designers and

supporters of nuclear weapons as a deterrent will come together for the

first time ever to discuss and debate the role of nuclear weapons in the

21st century.

Terrorist threats to U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles

Accidental nuclear exchanges

Terrorist and hacker intrusions into U.S. and Russian early warning systems

Stockpile Stewardship Program

The roles of business, science and the military in the proliferation of

nuclear weapons

Nuclear planning and targeting after the end of the Cold War

Regional nuclear dangers: Korea, India/Pakistan and Israel

Re-examination of Nuclear Winter data in light of new targeting and climate

information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Heather and friends,

Landmines are a terrible inhumane cause of losing limbs by design.

It is hard to believe the history of wars even today. Life is hard

enough...if we can't help each other...at least do no harm.

Now...because of the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons

in Kosovo, Iraq and others...we have a much more pernicious

and multi-generational cause of limb loss....genetic damage.

Here are some graphic pictures...not for the faint of heart.

The DU-caused deformities is not a matter of controversy

anyway, be it for kids of G.I.'s who were exposed to it...

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

or even less so for the kids whose mothers were living near

contaminated areas..

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm

and this is the most "viewable" web page, another one (exhibitpicturs.html)

shows that deformities are similar to the ones near Chernobyl

after the (in)famous plant blew up, pour mémoire sampled here:

http://lille.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11 (mirror)

http://membres.lycos.fr/mat66/special_tcherno.html

The late Dr. Roy forsaw this genetic threat and left us new science

to denature radioactive isotopes, nuclear waste, plutonium warheads

and so-called dirty bomb elements....and generate electric power as

a by-product of transmutation. Safe and secure 'burial' of nuclear

waste for 500,000 years...20 half lives of Pu 239...is a scientific

impossibility.

I hope the US politicians wake up and recognize this new genetic

terrorism and stop it.

The Roy Process URL: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original 1979 news story for your information.

Dr. Roy released his Roy Process to the press in 1979.

Scientists of a large company saw the Patent application under non-

disclosure agreements and said the Roy Process was "entirely feasible".

Dr. Roy was offered millions of dollars for the patent rights.

NOT to develop it...but to shelve it. Dr. Roy refused. Then Ronald Reagan signed

the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which made "geologic isolation" (burial)

of nuclear waste, federal policy, putting viable alternatives in scientific limbo.

Now after wasting hundreds of billions of tax payers money on junk science,

nuclear waste has leaked into our precious ground water.

They tried to buy the Roy Process....then they tried to steal it. When that failed

Dr. Roy got death threats and was harassed. There should be a Nuke-gate

Congressional investigation. Since the nuke industry gives millions in political

action money to Congress...the Juggernaut goes unchecked.

To continue this cash cow....the nuclear industry is proposing vitrification

(solidifying) nuclear waste...a failed technology they already know will not

safely and securely contain high level nuclear waste for 500,000 years,

20 half lives of plutonium 239.

Dr. Roy was right. There IS only one way to totally eliminate high level

nuclear waste and that is to transmute and denature it for good.

Dennis F. Nester

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC

Sunday, November 4, 1979

Process may kill radiation threat

By CLARENCE W. BAILEY

Copyright, 1979. The Arizona Republic

TEMPE -- An internationally recognized Arizona State University physicist disclosed Saturday that he has discovered a method for treating nuclear reac­tor and other highly dangerous radioactive wastes so they will be harmless.

The procedure was conceived by Dr. Radha R. Roy professor of nuclear physics who is the designer and former director of nuclear-physics research fa­cilities at the University of Brussels In Belgium. and at Pennsylvania State Uni­versity.

Roy said the process “very roughly can be described in part as a reversal of phenomena that occur during a nuclear fission chain reactions.

The scientist said the process is the culmination of many years research

“Theoretical analysis and mathematical calculations confirm the process is highly effective and that any level of radio activity, from weak to strong. Can be reduced to harmless state in a short period of time,” Roy said.

The thing that is so encouraging is that the method can cancel radioactivity rapidly enough for it to be of r real practical value in disposing of dangerous wastes in storage and as they are being produced, Roy said.

One treatment-plant design which Roy has devised could reduce the radioac­tivity of even the most dangerous wastes with half-lives or 15,000 to 40,000 years to a level where they would be essentially harmless in about 20 days.

A half-life is the time required for a quantity of radioactive material to lose one half of its radioactive strength.

Roy, who left his native Calcutta, India. to do advanced nuclear- physics re­search at the University of London during World War II, said all the necessary theoretical and quantum electrodynamical work on the process has been completed.

“There remains perhaps as much as a years work in calculating parameters and preparing data that will he needed for the engineering design of a pilot radio­active waste-treatment plant’ he said.

Roy is known internationally among scientists for his many advanced research contributions in the field of nuclear fission fragments and as the author of de­finitive graduate and post-doctoral textbooks used in universities all over the world. “During the 37 years since the first fission chain reaction there has been no progress whatever toward the development of a method of deactivating radioactive waste or even for storing it safely,” he said.

“The collections of dangerous nuclear wastes in this country alone have now reached a total of at least 75 million gallons, and it is growing daily.”

He estimated an operational nuclear waste-treatment plant could cost $40 mil­lion or more. By contrast, he noted, Congress last summer appropriated $80 million just to build more concrete storage bunkers to hold only a part of the growing accumulation of nuclear wastes.

“Since it is so very dangerous to ship strongly radioactive materials it would certainly be sensible to build a treatment plant for each reactor so radioactivity could be killed out before the waste is transported anywhere" the scientist said.

Roy said that the national danger from nuclear waste is "extremely serious" and urged the federal government to build treatment plants near established nuclear waste storage areas. Other treatment plants should be constructed to kill out the radioactivity in the wastes from the nation's weapons programs and from its educational, industrial, medical and experimental research facilities he said.

Roy warned that waste containing plutonium 239 is "critically dangerous" because of its extremely high radioactivity and also because it is the essential ingredient in an atomic bomb.

The treatment process not only will render plutonium 239 harmless in a remarkably short time, he said, but also will keep deactivated plutonium from ever being reprocessed to make an illegal atomic weapon.

Roy further warned that the United States not only is exporting nuclear energy when it sells reactor technology to foreign nations, but also is sending overseas the potential for making illegal bombs out of plutonium from reprocessed nuclear wastes.

The treatment method will guarantee to foreign countries that use nuclear fission energy that they can maintain an environment free from radioactivity, and it also could guarantee to the world that there will be no reuse of plutonium in an unauthorized weapon, he said. Careful theoretical and mathematical analysis have assured him that the nuclear waste- treatment process will function reliably and with rapidity and high efficiency, he said.

"But the existence of this promising nuclear waste-treatment procedure should not be construed in any sense to mean that nuclear fission power reactors are safe" Roy said. The contractor who built Three Mile Island's reactor-like those who built the other 71 reactors now operational in the United States -- expected that plant to function normally for 30 years in total safety without event .But the fact is that it went out of control and nearly created a meltdown which could have destroyed a large part of the human habitat of east-central Pennsylvania,'' Roy said.

----------------------------------------

Neutralize & Eliminate Nuclear Waste For Good

The Roy Process Brief Description

from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.

Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.

In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.

What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.

How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.

It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.

To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.

From the Patent application claim: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/addit...royprocess.html

###

Atomic Age Timeline Animation:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention.

http://fredtalk.fredericksburg.com/showfla...b=5&o=2&fpart=1

Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste

As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in 1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen all the time.

As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIRTY WAR - HBO Special Film - January 24, 2005

Rated TVMA:

http://www.hbo.com/films/index.html?ntrack_para1=topnav6

Running Time: 90 minutes

Genre: Drama, Suspense

In a post-9/11 world, how do you prepare for the unthinkable? This alarming HBO Films thriller chronicles the hypothetical story of how a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack might be planned and executed in London despite the best efforts of law enforcement--as well as how devastating such a strike would be. Warned of the possibility of a radioactive-weapons attack, members of Scotland Yard--including an Islamic undercover detective and several high-ranking terrorism experts--desperately try to find the perpetrators before they can construct and detonate their dirty work. But when the worst happens in the financial heart of London, the city's inadequate emergency-services are put to an immediate test...with disturbing results. Louise Delamere, William El-Gardi, Alastair Galbrait

Actors: KOEL PURI, MARTIN SARGE

Director(s): DANIEL PERCIVAL

--------------------------------------------

FYI

60 Minutes CBS TV

Regarding "DIRTY BOMBS WAITING TO HAPPEN".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/14/...ble660982.shtml

Here is a method to denature dirty bomb elements

and eliminate them for good.

Nuclear waste, including plutonium 239 can be denatured

into non-radioactive elements using existing infrastructure.

http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?6115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:o THE ROY PROCESS.

The tragedy in London illustrates the value of the Roy Process. Despite what the

main stream scientists "say". The Roy Process is REAL.

Guest Article: Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful

Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm

Opinion: Guest Opinion

A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful

By Dennis F. Nester,

special for NuclearNo.com,

Originally published 20 June 2003

- Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements

- There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process

It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology.

Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below).

The Roy Process Brief Description

from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.

Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.

In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.

What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.

How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.

It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.

To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.

The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained from Phase II.

Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million. For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium - under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years."

If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below.

A final note

To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer, shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens?

"There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution." Radha Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus

"Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process. They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus

The below includes the Patent application claim.....describing other uses for the Roy Process transmutation method

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/addit...royprocess.html

*************

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS

Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA (602) 494-9361 theroyprocess@cox.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roy Process was ready in 1979. Dr. Roy estimated three years to construct

the pilot plant.

=========

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC

Sunday, November 4, 1979

Process may kill radiation threat

By CLARENCE W. BAILEY

Copyright, 1979. The Arizona Republic

TEMPE -- An internationally recognized Arizona State University physicist disclosed Saturday that he has discovered a method for treating nuclear reac­tor and other highly dangerous radioactive wastes so they will be harmless.

The procedure was conceived by Dr. Radha R. Roy professor of nuclear physics who is the designer and former director of nuclear-physics research fa­cilities at the University of Brussels In Belgium. and at Pennsylvania State Uni­versity.

Roy said the process “very roughly can be described in part as a reversal of phenomena that occur during a nuclear fission chain reactions.

The scientist said the process is the culmination of many years research

“Theoretical analysis and mathematical calculations confirm the process is highly effective and that any level of radio activity, from weak to strong. Can be reduced to harmless state in a short period of time,” Roy said.

The thing that is so encouraging is that the method can cancel radioactivity rapidly enough for it to be of r real practical value in disposing of dangerous wastes in storage and as they are being produced, Roy said.

One treatment-plant design which Roy has devised could reduce the radioac­tivity of even the most dangerous wastes with half-lives or 15,000 to 40,000 years to a level where they would be essentially harmless in about 20 days.

A half-life is the time required for a quantity of radioactive material to lose one half of its radioactive strength.

Roy, who left his native Calcutta, India. to do advanced nuclear- physics re­search at the University of London during World War II, said all the necessary theoretical and quantum electrodynamical work on the process has been completed.

“There remains perhaps as much as a years work in calculating parameters and preparing data that will he needed for the engineering design of a pilot radio­active waste-treatment plant’ he said.

Roy is known internationally among scientists for his many advanced research contributions in the field of nuclear fission fragments and as the author of de­finitive graduate and post-doctoral textbooks used in universities all over the world. “During the 37 years since the first fission chain reaction there has been no progress whatever toward the development of a method of deactivating radioactive waste or even for storing it safely,” he said.

“The collections of dangerous nuclear wastes in this country alone have now reached a total of at least 75 million gallons, and it is growing daily.”

He estimated an operational nuclear waste-treatment plant could cost $40 mil­lion or more. By contrast, he noted, Congress last summer appropriated $80 million just to build more concrete storage bunkers to hold only a part of the growing accumulation of nuclear wastes.

“Since it is so very dangerous to ship strongly radioactive materials it would certainly be sensible to build a treatment plant for each reactor so radioactivity could be killed out before the waste is transported anywhere" the scientist said.

Roy said that the national danger from nuclear waste is "extremely serious" and urged the federal government to build treatment plants near established nuclear waste storage areas. Other treatment plants should be constructed to kill out the radioactivity in the wastes from the nation's weapons programs and from its educational, industrial, medical and experimental research facilities he said.

Roy warned that waste containing plutonium 239 is "critically dangerous" because of its extremely high radioactivity and also because it is the essential ingredient in an atomic bomb.

The treatment process not only will render plutonium 239 harmless in a remarkably short time, he said, but also will keep deactivated plutonium from ever being reprocessed to make an illegal atomic weapon.

Roy further warned that the United States not only is exporting nuclear energy when it sells reactor technology to foreign nations, but also is sending overseas the potential for making illegal bombs out of plutonium from reprocessed nuclear wastes.

The treatment method will guarantee to foreign countries that use nuclear fission energy that they can maintain an environment free from radioactivity, and it also could guarantee to the world that there will be no reuse of plutonium in an unauthorized weapon, he said. Careful theoretical and mathematical analysis have assured him that the nuclear waste- treatment process will function reliably and with rapidity and high efficiency, he said.

"But the existence of this promising nuclear waste-treatment procedure should not be construed in any sense to mean that nuclear fission power reactors are safe" Roy said. The contractor who built Three Mile Island's reactor-like those who built the other 71 reactors now operational in the United States -- expected that plant to function normally for 30 years in total safety without event .But the fact is that it went out of control and nearly created a meltdown which could have destroyed a large part of the human habitat of east-central Pennsylvania,'' Roy said .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

Regardless of what main stream scientist's say!

Nuclear power plants are unnecessary. Those

who trivialize ionizing radiation, are fools.

http://www.radiation.org/reading/index.html

"Too Cheap to meter" the PR slogan used to sell

nuclear power to the public. Nuclear power plants

were devised to make electric rate payers,

pay the high cost of producing atom bomb elements.

There is no rational reason, economic or environmental,

to build new nuclear reactors. We already have all

the plutonium we will ever need to destroy the world

many times over.

========

Nuclear Power Used Up More Energy

Than It Delivered To Society !

"At the end

of forty years of the US nuclear power program

by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs -delivered to

society is still less than the gross cumulative

energy invested in nuclear plant construction and

maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs! "

Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles

By R. Ashok Kumar,

B.E,M.E(Power),Negentropist,Flat 1/13, Telec

Officers' CHS.,Ltd.,Plot 30, Sector 17, Vashi,

Navi Mumbai-400705. Tel:7896209.

===========

'Clean' nuclear power?

From Mr John Busby

February 22, 2005 UK Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1494615,00.html

Sir, Papers delivered to the World Nuclear Association’s

annual symposiums show an industry in crisis in that primary

supplies of uranium provide only 55 per cent of the current

demand, the balance coming from the so-called secondary

sources of ex-weapons material, inventories and reworked

mine tailings. The papers indicate that the secondary

sources are running down.

The 36 reactors under construction (letter, February 17) can

only be supplied by the scheduled closing of many of the 430

existing reactors, whose life is in some cases being

extended by ignoring the safety implications associated with

the deterioration in the materials of their construction as

a result of irradiation.

Even if nuclear power is “carbon dioxide clean”, which it is

not, the contribution it makes to global energy supplies is

a mere 2½ per cent. Using the lower grades of uranium ore as

the higher grades are depleted leads to even more carbon

dioxide being released from the less efficient mining,

milling and enrichment involved.

Nuclear power offers neither sustainability nor a “clean”

overall fuel cycle and cannot contribute to an alleviation

of global warming. There is no “nuclear option”.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN BUSBY,

Oakwood,

Melford Road, Lawshall,

Bury St Edmunds IP29 4PY.

February 17.

Posted for educational and research purposes only,

~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention

http://fredtalk.fredericksburg.com/showfla...b=5&o=2&fpart=1

Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste

As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in 1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen all the time.

As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.

Atomic Age Timeline Animation:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

===========

One non-toxic, renewable, cost effective alternative to

nuclear power. Wavemill technology can be configured

to produce hydrogen fuel cells for worldwide distribution

for automobiles, remote generators etc.

Wavemill Technology

http://www.wavemill.com/technology.htm

The Wavemill® is a new, highly efficient technology that harnesses the immense, renewable energy contained in ocean waves. Its unique ability to extract and convert energy from both the rising and falling waves, as well as from surge forces - all without trade-offs - represents a technological breakthrough.

The Wavemill® is the first practical, high-efficiency wave energy converter capable of being factory produced as a cost-effective, off-the-shelf unit, rather than having to be built on site.

View Image

Significantly Higher Output Than Wind and Solar Technologies

Ocean wave energy is highly concentrated compared to other renewable sources, often offering 15-20 times more available energy per square meter than wind or solar. Because wave energy is highly concentrated wind energy, and because water density is much higher than that of air, the available energy from ocean waves is known to be many times greater than that of wind. For example, along the California coast, yearly averages show wave power as having a 17 times advantage in available energy per square metre. This advantage, at similar ratios, also holds true in the case of photovoltaic energy converters, more commonly known as solar panels.

==============

See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *

(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

There are many thing's that I would like to discuss. But I thought this site was for thing's about Amputee's.I know these other topic's are essential but do we have to have them on this site ?.

Regards Pat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I cause offence but I find it pretty sick that you are using the attacks on London as a marketing ploy for your "miracle process". If your process has been ready since 1979 i'm fairly sure that anyone interested in it will have already had the opportunity to find out all about it without you having to resort to this...

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can bet you're ass that the bad guys won't be getting rid of their uranium stocks even if we do adopt this miracle process so it won't have any impact on the material available to terrorists. So no real point in mentioning it in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A decision must be made. Is it life.......or death. You decide? I can't think of a better

topic for (accomplishments) than the Roy Process. Nothing else matters. You don't like

it. Do you knock Heather for her work clearing mine fields?

CEO debunks nuclear theology.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1154.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her views are her own and as far as I'm aware are not actually posted on the forum. If anyone is interested they can be viewed elsewhere on the site. If they were here I might criticise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

To all,

Hard science IS or IS NOT. Dr. Roy asked me

on his death bed to keep trying and promote his

Roy Process for photon transmutation of spent

fuel (nuclear waste). He said, "Someday they will

see, this is the best way to do it" (cost effective

elimination of nuclear waste from fuel rods).

Dr. Roy hated waste of any kind. He wouldn't have

bothered me to carry on unless the Roy Process

is real.

It is available to a company capable of realization

who contracts with us.

Sincerely Yours,

Dennis F. Nester

Phoenix, Arizona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

As an engineering student, I'm all for great new things for changing/saving/feeding/helping the world etc., but I'd just like to know:

What in God's name are you, a person trying to promote an unresearched (not unproven, just unresearched) expensive project on Nuclear Waste Disposal, doing here, in a section of a support website for amputees (not investors, unless someone here has really amazingly good insurance or won a compensation case with really good lawyers!) that deals with the accomplishments of these people? I myself consider going into a career making prosthetic limbs or assistive technologies. I still feel, however, I haven't a right to post here, since I have no limb deficiencies, and until I become more involved with Prosthetics, I have no questions to ask of these people. If you are truly interested in this subject, I suggest you study to become one of these "Main-stream scientists", and learn to understand their logic. However, be unafraid to question, and put your own theories forward, as this is how science is brought forward in general, by some crack-pot who tries something new, then proves he's right. I beleive this looks to be an interesting Post-grad for anyone who'd do it (but then again, nuclear physics isn't my bag)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c jay,

Forgive me, I just got out of the hospital. I have West Nile Virus. I hope you

don't get it. Watch out for mosquitos!

The aim of nuclear power...is to make spent fuel (nuclear waste) from which atom

bombs are fabricated. Pu 239. Or even easier, dirty bombs, from Cs 137 or Sr 90.

What ever they tell you, weapons are made. That is why 40 Soverign Countries have nuclear power. It is steam from the heat that makes electricity and we can make electricity from wave power, wind power etc.

Dr. Roy had the answer to photon transmute nuclear waste in 1979. He was a

REAL scientist. Nobody to knock, compared to physicist today who just want to

squeeze every Nickel out of nuclear power! Let it die a natural death!

What else matters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

marcus,

Blood tests confirm West Nile Virus two weeks ago! I just got out of the Mayo

Clinic yesterday. The County nurse called and wrote to confirm it. The news

papers have West Nile Virus storys on the front page! I hope you are immune to it!

Regards.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 human cases in Arizona reported as of yesterday, Marcus...13 in Maricopa County as of 8/9. Doesn't seem likely in a desert, but you don't need much water for mosquitoes...think fishponds or watered yards and the like. It's out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons

In 1962 the Department of the Air Force produced Air Force Pamphlet No. 136-1-3, by order of the Secretary of the Air Force Curtis E. LeMay. Titled The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, it was published by the United States Atomic Energy Commission in April of that year and was a revision of the 1957 edition of the same title. In the forward by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Glenn T. Seaborg, we are told, "There is a need for widespread public understanding of the best information available on the effects of nuclear weapons. The purpose of this book is to present as accurately as possible, within the limits of national security, a comprehensive summary of this information."

In other words, fiction wherever they thought it necessary.

However, there are several interesting statements to readers:

----- FROM "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" ----

From Paragraph 11.197: "...in the great majority of cases, mutations have deleterious effects of some kind."

Paragraph 11.218: "Hemorrhage is a common phenomenon after radiation exposure because the megakaryocytes, from which the blood platelets necessary for clotting are formed, are destroyed and the platelets are not replenished. If hemorrhage occurs in vital centers, death can result. Often the hemorrhages are so widespread that severe anemia and death are the consequences."

Paragraph 11.219: "The loss of the epithelial coverings of tissues, together with the loss of white cells and antibodies, lowers the resistance of the body to bacterial and viral invasion. if death does not take place in the first few days after a large dose of radiation, bacterial invasion of the blood stream usually occurs and the patient dies of infection. Often such infections are caused by bacteria which, under normal circumstances, are harmless."

U. S. Government photos:

Cover of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1962, U.S. Gov't Printing Office

First Thermonuclear Explosion, November 1st, 1952, Eniwetok Proving Grounds (color photograph)

Title Page from The Effects of Nuclear Weapons

Page 49: Figure 2.49: Late stage of the condensation cloud in an air burst over water

Page 105: Figure 3.06: Variation of pressure with time at a fixed location and effect of a blast wave passing over a structure. (Note position of dog in each frame.)

Page 568: Figure 11.51: The patient's skin is burned in a pattern corresponding to the dark portions of a kimono worn at the time of the explosion.

Page 591: Table 11.111: Summary of clinical effects of acute ionizing radiation. (NOTE: this page misrepresents the dangers!)

Page 630: Figure 12.08: Idealized ranges for effects of air burst with the heights of burst optimized to give the maximum range for each individual effect.

===============

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net

* (Posted for educational and research purposes only,

in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lessons from Hiroshima, 60 Years Later

by Walter Cronkite, August 6, 2005 Antiwar.com

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cronkite.php?articleid=6892

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago were

stunning and sobering events. They brought World War II to

an end, and everyone was thankful for that. Not too many of

us stopped to think about the full implications of those

bombs for our future. We were too busy celebrating the end

of that terrible war.

One of the people who had it absolutely right at the very

beginning about the meaning of Hiroshima was the great

French writer Albert Camus. He wrote in a French resistance

newspaper: "Our technological civilization has just reached

its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in

the more or less near future, between collective suicide and

the intelligent use of our scientific conquests." We are

still facing that choice.

Both the US and the USSR tested nuclear weapons in the

atmosphere until the early 1960s, while they continued to

create more efficient weapons. It didn't take either country

long to get those weapons on intercontinental ballistic

missiles and then submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

They created a situation in which the world could be

destroyed in a matter of minutes. This threat of a massive

nuclear exchange was thought to provide an ad hoc policy to

prevent nuclear war. It was called the policy of Mutually

Assured Destruction, for which the acronym was MAD. Never

was an acronym more accurately descriptive.

We came very close to a nuclear exchange between Washington

and Moscow in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a

very frightening time, and we can all be thankful that

sanity managed to prevail. There were high-ranking US

officials at the time who were pressing for bombing Cuba,

which would have meant a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

That was one of many close calls during the Cold War.

With the end of the Cold War, there seemed to be a real

chance again to put nuclear dangers behind us, and once

again the opportunity was largely missed. Today, in the 60th

year of the Nuclear Age, we still have some 30,000 nuclear

weapons in the world, and some 4,000 of these are on

hair-trigger alert. You have to wonder about a species that

seems so incapable of eliminating the greatest danger to its

own survival. Not so incidentally, the United States has

more nuclear weapons in its arsenal than any other nation.

There has been much emphasis in the news about the dangers

of nuclear proliferation in such countries as North Korea.

All countries should abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Few Americans are aware, however, that the treaty also

provides that the US and other nuclear-weapons states must

reduce their numbers of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately,

disarmament by nuclear-weapons states receives limited

attention in news reporting, at least within the United

States. I think this might be because the continuing

existence of our own vast arsenal doesn't seem to Americans,

even if they are aware of it, to be nearly as dangerous as

the threat of new nations acquiring the ghastly weapons.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – the hibakusha –

have continually warned, "Nuclear weapons and human beings

cannot coexist." In the end, I believe this is the most

important lesson of Hiroshima. We must eliminate nuclear

weapons before they eliminate us.

The best security, perhaps the only security, against

nuclear weapons being used again, or getting into the hands

of terrorists, is to eliminate them. Most of the people of

the world already know this. Now it is up to the world's

people to impress the urgency of this situation upon their

governments. We must act now. The future depends upon us.

Anything less would be to abandon our responsibility to

future generations.

==============

Posted for educational and research purposes only,

~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

marcus,

First of all...it is Dr. Roy's good work I am carring on from his death in 1994. Since

then apples havn't been falling up...have they. Why are you so interested? Makes

me think you are invested in pro-nuke stocks if nothing more.

Like I keep saying. Nothing else matters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, Dennis, I have been following this thread. As much as it is interesting, you aren't giving us any 'human touch'. Anyone can copy-and-paste MILES of information, and that's exactly what you are doing here.

And I would have continued to follow this, had you not shot yourself in the bloody foot by saying to Marcus "why are you so interested" (wasn't that your mission here?), and "nothing else matters" (man that is SO self indulgent, especially in this forum!).

Sorry dude, minus 10 brownie points. You have lost me as someone who may have become interested.

Ally

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×