Search Members

[kowalskil]

Quote (t8 @ April 25 2012,08:16)

I think we are. But they are not big enough for us to notice. …

That is true. Attraction between two massive spheres has actually been measured, first by Cavendish.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[kowalskil]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 13 2011,01:38)

… Can something come from nothing? …

To answer this question, in a debate, we must agree on the meaning of the term “come from.” Likewise we must agree what “something” and “nothing” stand for, in each of our two worlds, material and spiritual.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[kowalskil]

Quote (kowalskil @ Sep. 07 2011,08:41)

Quote (kowalskil @ Sep. 07 2011,08:25) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2011,20:12) Quote (kowalskil @ Aug. 31 2011,08:34) Bacteria destroy radioactivity A totally unexpected discovery: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel. Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) . Why didn't they determine the remaining Cs-137 (as Cs) by mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy? Why does the graph in the paper not show the data for the mixture with iron sulfate, phosphorus and magnesium sulfate? This is the nuclear physics version of creationism, isn't it.  Select the data that appears to support your argument, and don't even mention that which does not.  It's almost certainly pseudoscientific claptrap. I notice you have to buy their book to find out their proposed mechanisms. Stuart I think that their claim–bacteria destroying radioactivity–should be independently confirmed before it can be taken seriously. Philosophical speculations can wait. What they describe conflicts with everything I know in nuclear physics, which is my profession. But this does not prevent me from being open-minded. Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). P.S. Stu also asked “Why didn't they determine the remaining Cs-137 (as Cs) by mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy?” Because detecting Cs-137 by its radioactivity (it's gamma rays peak at the energy of 660 keV) is orders of magnitude more efficient than by mass spectroscopy. By the way, several years after Chernoble someone brought me dry mushrooms from Poland. I had no trouble in detecting presence of Cs-137 gamma rays, using a common laboratory detector–it was the NaI crystal. That amount would not be detectable by using a mass spectrometer. Thank you for asking good questions. .

P.P.S.
Another qualification (of general interest). The dry mushroom mentioned in the previous post were collected in Poland, about 600 miles west from Chernoble (in the USSR, where a terrible nuclear accident took place). After discovering the Cs-137 in Polish mushrooms I examined dry mushrooms collected in New Jersey, where I live. They also contained a lot of Cs-137, about 1/3 as much as those from Poland (per gram).

The whole world was contaminated with Cs-137 (and other fission products) during 1960, when super-bombs were tested in the atmosphere. The half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years. It will be around for very long times. But do not worry, the level of radiation is much lower than from the sun, of from banana we eat.
.

[kowalskil]

Quote (kowalskil @ Sep. 07 2011,08:25)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2011,20:12) Quote (kowalskil @ Aug. 31 2011,08:34) Bacteria destroy radioactivity A totally unexpected discovery: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel. Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) . Why didn't they determine the remaining Cs-137 (as Cs) by mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy? Why does the graph in the paper not show the data for the mixture with iron sulfate, phosphorus and magnesium sulfate? This is the nuclear physics version of creationism, isn't it.  Select the data that appears to support your argument, and don't even mention that which does not.  It's almost certainly pseudoscientific claptrap. I notice you have to buy their book to find out their proposed mechanisms. Stuart I think that their claim–bacteria destroying radioactivity–should be independently confirmed before it can be taken seriously. Philosophical speculations can wait. What they describe conflicts with everything I know in nuclear physics, which is my profession. But this does not prevent me from being open-minded. Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).

P.S.

Stu also asked “Why didn't they determine the remaining Cs-137 (as Cs) by mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy?”

Because detecting Cs-137 by its radioactivity (it's gamma rays peak at the energy of 660 keV) is orders of magnitude more efficient than by mass spectroscopy.

By the way, several years after Chernoble someone brought me dry mushrooms from Poland. I had no trouble in detecting presence of Cs-137 gamma rays, using a common laboratory detector–it was the NaI crystal. That amount would not be detectable by using a mass spectrometer.

Thank you for asking good questions.
.

[kowalskil]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2011,20:12)

Quote (kowalskil @ Aug. 31 2011,08:34) Bacteria destroy radioactivity A totally unexpected discovery: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel. Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) . Why didn't they determine the remaining Cs-137 (as Cs) by mass spectrometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy? Why does the graph in the paper not show the data for the mixture with iron sulfate, phosphorus and magnesium sulfate? This is the nuclear physics version of creationism, isn't it.  Select the data that appears to support your argument, and don't even mention that which does not.  It's almost certainly pseudoscientific claptrap. I notice you have to buy their book to find out their proposed mechanisms. Stuart

I think that their claim–bacteria destroying radioactivity–should be independently confirmed before it can be taken seriously. Philosophical speculations can wait. What they describe conflicts with everything I know in nuclear physics, which is my profession. But this does not prevent me from being open-minded.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).

[kowalskil]

Quote (Wispring @ April 05 2011,16:26)

Hi Ludwik,   Shalom. If you do not interact with people on the thread you created the thread will not continue. I realize you are looking for information and view-points to postulate a working solution. Are you using a type of “sampling” method to derive usable concepts to present your own solution. Is this the rational scientific method you are utilizing to gather “data”? Kind of like professional marketers? What is your objective or desired outcome?                                                With Love and Respect,                                                         Wispring

My goal is to gain knowledge, and to promote a discussion. My tentative ideas were identified by the LK initials. The topic is interesting and important.

Ludwik
.

[kowalskil]

Stu,April wrote:

[/quote]
Stuart wrote

Quote

Something has befallen you which causes you to hold a sincere belief in an Imaginary Friend, the existence of which is supported by no unambiguous evidence whatever.  Why should you not be considered a candidate for treatment by mental health professionals?  Maybe your functioning is high enough and your crazy celestial conspiracy theory sufficiently irrelevant on a day-to-day basis that this delusion does not put the rest of us in any peril at your hands, but nevertheless, it is you who appears to believe in things that are apparently not really there. Would you say my tendency to have you incarcerated in a mental asylum the first time you call someone a “sinner” or anything equally socially backward is unreasonable? Why? I'm not convinced you are entering into the spirit of things on this forum.  You have posted only 6 times here (as at 4 April 2011) and four of those times were when you started a new thread.  In none of those new threads have you engaged in any kind of correspondence: your opening post was your only appearance, you cut and ran.   Are we supposed to be your research subjects?  Do you have ethics committee permission to experiment on us? Please engage!  I would really like to see how you defend your belief system, a religion that I consider immoral. Stuart

I do not think that my religion is immoral.

Ludwik
.
.

[Author]

Posts