So if I understand your argument correctly, even though the detected energy flux of high energy photons/particles has been minuscule compared to the total energy measured from LENR experiments, it is still enough to account for substantial biological disruption at the scales of metabolic energy necessary for life.
As you say, it will be interesting to see the arithmetic for this laid out more precisely when LENR research is widely funded. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms runs > counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not saying most > thought about LENR energy is right, you understand -- I'm just saying that > if we explain away this "miracle" by that means, we should certainly > question such claims of "harmlessness" of LENR radiation. > > > LENR produces radiation. This is the only way the energy can be > dissipated. The only unknown is the energy of the radiation and, therefore, > how much can escape from the apparatus to be detected. Many measurements > have detected a small fraction of the radiation, so we know it exists. We > know that radiation is harmful to life, depending on its energy, because it > disrupts the DNA. The facts are in place to provide an explanation. The > only question is whether the facts will be used. > > > As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in > response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments) then we > have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous evolutionary cost > to such radiation hardening that kept it from spreading throughout life? > Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that cost barrier to get the benefit > of the BNAE? > > > Good question. Obviously that barrier is not easy to cross. Nevertheless, > many organisms are known to be immune to radiation. I offered > the cockroach as a well-know example. Perhaps experience with LENR will > now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear products, which is > not presently done. > > Ed > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy >> to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. >> Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way >> to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. >> Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. >> I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation >> as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments >> inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not >> available. >> >> In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be >> causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, >> which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this >> idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. >> >> You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did >> evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from >> radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? >> >> Ed >> >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: >> >> The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR "Miracle": Evolution >>> Didn't Find It' >>> >>> If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be >>> exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear >>> active environment)? If you say "It did." then you have to explain why the >>> manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it >>> to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of >>> their analysis of metabolism. >>> >> >> > >
