Nitty Gritty on Cold Fusion

Nitty Gritty on Cold Fusion

An interview with Dr. Michael McKubre
Director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International, Menlo Park, California

Dr. McKubre has an extensive background in electrochemistry, surface and membrane chemistry, battery systems, and corrosion science. McKubre's team has been one of the few commercial laboratories in the U.S. to have received (at times) adequate funding for cold fusion research. The SRI work performed for the Electric Power Research Institute is among the best of the cold fusion research studies. — Steven B. Krivit ICopyright 2003 New Energy TimesTM

When critics argue that nuclear reactions cannot occur at room temperature, They're not so much arguing the fact that excess energy is released but that the process is highly unlikely. Is this correct? The argument was basically "it's not our experience that fusion can occur in this way." We didn't violate any fundamental principles, we were violating their experience of hot fusion. It was Julian Schwinger who put it best, he said, "The defense of cold fusion is simple, the circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion." The fact that it occurs in a lattice means that new pathways are possible, new reaction rates and new reaction products become possible. This is something that the high energy physicists ignored. Some of them ignored it because they're ignorant and some of them ignored it cynically. They understood that this statement of Schwinger was in fact true and it wasn't a comfortable reality for them. Please tell me more about "the lattice." The lattice is the bulk. It's a three-dimensional network. It's a thing that conveys the properties of hardness. This is what makes a diamond a diamond. All of its atoms are connected by equivalent bonds. It permits a condition called "coherence." By coherence, we mean that every participant species, in this case, the atoms in the crystalline lattice, behave in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time. The ensemble of atoms has the special property which is significant, and that is of "coherence." They all know and experience the happenings of all the other members of this coherent system. How does hot fusion differ from this work involving the lattice? The hot fusion experience is "billiard-ball" physics. You take two round solitary balls and impinge them upon each other with high relative velocities in order to overcome their Coulombic repulsion. The problem is you only have two "billiard balls." Each of these are deuterium nuclei with a neutron and a proton. So when your composite state is achieved -- when you finally direct one "billiard ball" at the other fast enough to overcome the repulsion and have them unite, you have only four particles to convey the energy you produced in this reaction. Four particles are not enough to hold 24 million electron-volts (MeV) worth of energy, which is the amount released when two deuterium atoms fuse and create Helium-4. What happens is, instead of the reaction proceeding to its logical thermodynamic final state, which is Helium-4, the reaction particles and potential products fly apart well before they reach their thermodynamic equilibrium.  In hot fusion, one of two reactions will occur. Either you will get Helium-3 and a neutron, which is highly energetic and flies out and does enormous amounts of damage on the containing environment. Or the other result is tritium and a proton. Tritium is not so energetic but it's still radioactive so you wind up with two undesirable products. But reacting deuterium plus deuterium to produce neutrons and tritium is like reacting carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to produce high-octane gasoline. It's a highly unlikely product. It's thermodynamically possible but it's highly illogical and it occurs in hot fusion only because there is no surrounding medium able to contain the energy of the pair wise interaction. Is it true that "Hot fusion" scientists have been trying to make fusion work for 50 years? I think the hot fusion guys earnestly tried to create a useful energy product for maybe a decade, then they realized it was not possible. They are using a Tokamak because of the neutron problem - we have no materials able to withstand the neutron flux. So they then used the rest of the 40 years to explore plasmas and high energy physics. I think that currently no hot fusion scientist who knows anything about materials has any illusion that hot fusion via Tokamaks is likely to produce a useful energy product. Does it matter what the cold fusion critics say anymore? The critics still play an important role, but there basically aren't any more. They've either retired or died, or become so discredited themselves that their words are not harmful. I've never taken aboard any substantive criticism. I've lectured numerous times all around the world and have never been heckled or had any substantive critical questions or comments raised. These guys basically did it in private. They're part of the establishment. Aren't the cold fusion researchers advancing in age also?  Sure many of them are of advanced age but that's primarily because a person looking for tenure or attempting to make his reputation can't afford to work in anything so controversial. You need a person of reasonable stature, confidence and experience in order to work in the field. They have to have the confidence and experience to trust their own observations.  How were you so fortunate to have the opportunity and freedom to pursue this controversial field?  I don't know. I guess my path, or footsteps were pre-destined, though I didn't know it. I did my post-doctoral work in Southhampton. At that stage, Martin Fleischmann was the pre-eminent electrochemist in the world. The reason I went to Southampton was because it was the number one school of electrochemistry in the world and it was the number one school because Martin [Fleischmann] was there.  You had already been working on some parallel experimental work that served as a foundation for your work in cold fusion. Please talk about that. I was familiar with the deuterium-palladium system, I was familiar with the means of loading hydrogen and deuterium into palladium. I was familiar with the technique which ultimately came to dominate the measurement of the loading rate which is resistance measurements. My expertise is in resistance and impedance measurements and I was working with the electrochemical kinetic analysis tools that were needed to understand how to load hydrogen or deuterium into palladium to high levels.  The only things different that we did in the early days were firstly, we were quiet about what we were doing and secondly, we established a hypothesis that there will be no interesting new effects unless you operate outside the regime that's been well studied. If the fuel is deuterium, then presumably that regime is the high-loading regime. It seems obvious in retrospect, but having lived through it I can tell you that not a single person working in the field, either on the pro or con side, had any concept of measuring loading and correlating the loading with the effect.  I can tell you that the 1989 ERAB report was based entirely upon people who were gambling that somehow with clumsy electrochemistry in some cases, able electrochemistry in others, they were able to achieve the high loading condition. But they didn't know how to measure loading and they didn't know what conditions were necessary to obtain high loading. Fleischmann and Pons knew and understood because a) they're better electrochemists than 99.99% of everybody else that tried and b) they'd been working on it for three years already.  What is your particular area of research relative to Cold Fusion? I'm a traditional electrochemist. My specific contribution,-- and its not mine, its the 20 people that have worked with me over this time.. is electrochemical kinetics which is studying the rate of electrochemical reactions and understanding what you needed to do to obtain high loading of deuterium into palladium. [It relates to] the ability to measure loadings in situ, inside your experiment, in real-time.  So we have an internal diagnostic as to whether we've obtained the conditions we believed were necessary. And calorimetry which is the measurement of heat. And honestly, in 1989 when this all started, I didn't know anything about calorimetry. The only thing I knew about it was that it was something I never wanted to do. It was old-fashioned and clumsy, except that if you want to measure heat, it is what you had to do.  So we trained ourselves with some help from some good people here at SRI and Stanford University, and we developed a first-principles mass-flow calorimeter, and in doing so brought calorimetry into the 20th century. We were the first people to computerize and automate mass-flow calorimetry and reduce the uncertainties to the levels needed to study this new effect. We increased the accuracy, computerized measurements for long-term operations, so that we could maintain good calorimetric control for the periods of months that were necessary to do these experiments. This had never been done before. Despite our laboratory successes, we had a hard time publishing papers. The critics made editors scrutinize submissions with much greater diligence and also consider the reviewers' comments with higher weight than the authors'. We published a few, but it just wasn't worth the effort. Besides, we have the International Conference. People who are actually interested in learning and the people who need to be taught, attend the conference so we can share information there. I remember reading that when you saw the nuclear evidence first hand, you felt a responsibility to pursue the research. Why was that? Well that's interesting. At the time, it seemed to me that there was nothing more useful I could apply my talents to. It's almost as if I'd been pre-destined to run these experiments. I came armed with the skills and had a group of people around me who were armed with the skills that I didn't have. We were able to pursue this field, we were well-positioned. We had achieved a positive result in a controversial environment. The time of decision for me came with the explosion that killed Andy Riley. So we had at that point a perfect opportunity to say "its too dangerous, its too risky." We had perfect time to bail out and say, "This is not for us." When did this occur? January 2, 1992. It was a shock to us all and a terrible tragedy. And that was the result of a cold fusion experiment? Right. At the time, we were struggling with critics, we were struggling with the experiments. But we had a moral duty to continue. A scientist is really given his training. I didn't pay for my training, I've been trained at other people's expense, at society's expense. Society deserves something in return in exchange from me, what can I do most usefully in exchange? "Do something good for society. What does society need? A non-polluting energy source."  So to stop working on something you know to be true and know to have potential, something of that sort, it would be a largely immoral act. But we had an excuse at the time of the explosion. We could have said "it's too dangerous. I've lost a friend." We're going to stop and go back to our regular research which was profitable and also useful, not to the same degree, but it was still useful research. And I asked my group and close friends, "What should we do?" Every one of them said "we have to continue". The next year was a huge struggle. We had an accident investigation going on, our time was very stretched, emotions were strained, basically we did no work for a year. We floundered, we were just chasing our tails, yet not a single person said we should stop this, everybody wanted to continue. What are your hopes and expectations for the field? We're in a financial crunch in the moment. In the 1990's we ran a group effort which varied between five and ten people. We had physicists, material scientists, electrochemists, calorimetrists, the sorts of people that we needed in order to make progress, and we made good progress. But the funding takes a long time, 14 years is a long time to fund a research project.  We need to find a commercial object, something which will inspire re-investment in the fundamental issues because of its commercial and practical significance. So I do believe that commercial interests have to step in, and we're looking for such investments. I think government has done a lot. It's not fair to criticize the investment that the U.S. Government has made.  [The U.S. Department of Energy] has been conspicuously absent from funding this field so far. But [the Department of Energy] has a huge commitment to hot fusion. So it doesn't surprise me that the US Navy and DARPA have both continued to provide funding in the area, at reasonable levels of funding. Not the levels which we need to push forward such a multi-disciplinary topic, but they have continued to provide funding.  Is the challenge for funding by the private sector due to the fact that the commercial application of this work seems to be so far away? Yes, the event horizon is long. On the other hand, the payback is enormous. These two factors balance each other out. With what we know now, and the clear vision we have now of a commercial object, if we had this on the other side of the bubble, when everybody was feeling rich, we would have had no difficulty getting investments. The problem is that people feel poor now. They're not poor, but they believe themselves to be poor. Are they resistant because the underlying science of this technology is not clear enough yet, or because they won't be able to sufficiently secure the intellectual property rights? No, they believe the science in every case and they believe that we have a pathway to the intellectual property. The timeline, the first foreseeable payback being five years or more down the road, gives them pause for concern. But again, this is a strange animal for a venture capitalist.  Are you surprised that large corporate interests are not eager to collaborate with you? Machiavelli most accurately described it: "You can't go to a member of the establishment to seek assistance to overturn the establishment." The people in the energy industry, for example, have no interest in a new technology. Innovation is a threat, its not a benefit to them. Would this be considered a disruptive technology? Yes, very disruptive. I've seen a wide range of experimenters with varying skills and backgrounds who are attempting cold fusion. How is the world to assess the reports once they start popping up from everywhere, including "garage tinkerers?"  I think it would be useful somewhere to set up a template of how to judge an experiment's success or otherwise, particularly if the claim is heat. What is the accuracy of the measurements? What are the sorts of systematic errors that might be introduced into the measurements? Undoubtedly one of the big problems in the whole cold fusion field is that not everything that has been reported has been correct. So filtering the evidence is very difficult. It’s very complex. I don't know if another's experiment is producing something out of the ordinary or not, and I wouldn't know from simply looking at it and I couldn't know from a cursory inspection. The only way to know is to either have the experiment here and subject it to our own discipline, or spend a lot of time on site with the experiment and experimentalist to come to understand it well. It's not a trivial thing, it involves an investment of considerable amounts of labor and time. Even though one might see a lot of light, bubbling and perhaps flashy sparkles, is it fair to say that such visual observations are of little significance? One of the early mistakes made in reporting this field is a good example of that. There was an experiment being run in a famous calorimetrist's laboratory in Texas and the media came and you saw on television this picture of a flashing light that looked so awesome, like something pulsing. It turned out it was just a light bulb that was being used to control the temperature of the water bath but as far as you could tell from the reporting and what you saw on TV, the light was the product and it was very spectacular. A real-time photograph of an experiment is never going to be definitive.  At SRI we worked for three months on our first experiment. Actually we designed it for three months, we operated it for one month, at the end of that time we had a result. And all the result encouraged us to do was to go back and do the experiment better. So after four months of effort, we still didn't know what we had. All we knew was that it was encouraging enough to spend some more time on it. Our focus is no longer on the heat. That has been clearly demonstrated. There's no doubt in my mind that under certain rather well-defined conditions more heat comes out of the deuterium-palladium system than you can account for by known chemistry. We've seen this effect on more than 50 occasions, sometimes lasting as long as a week. The effect is not small, it's not fleeting, it happens only with deuterium and only if you have high levels of deuterium. In our experiments, it doesn't happen with hydrogen. There IS a heat effect. What is it due to? Since we know it's not a chemical reaction, it must be a nuclear effect. We spent six years pursuing what the nuclear product was. And the product, in the large part, is Helium-4. We also see Helium-3, which is mostly or perhaps entirely the result of tritium decay. So we're producing tritium and we're producing helium-4. The diagnostic for these is mass spectrometry. Most of what we're doing now is operating cells making measurements of helium-4 in the presence of deuterium. It requires scrupulous focus, a rather expensive instrument, careful and painstaking measurements and it is extremely painstaking. But I'm not an expert in mass spectrometry so it would not even be appropriate for me to try. Some things you need experts for, and my colleague Fran Tanzella, co-author who has worked with me now for over 15 years, is a very capable guy who makes the measurements. But it's extraordinarily boring.  We've done everything we need to do. We have a clear demonstration of a heat effect. We have a measurement at confidence level of 90 sigma, that's 90 times the experimental measurement uncertainty. We've published it, we've repeated it, it's clearly there. We've established the conditions under which it occurs. And we've established the nuclear product. What more must we do? It sounds to me that in your research, you don't even try to prove that cold fusion is real anymore. Is your current focus to figure out why it works and how to make it more effective? We have, in conjunction with Peter Hagelstein at MIT, figured that out too. He's developed a theory which is by this point, essentially predictive. We know what we need to do to convert a laboratory oddity into a commercial reality. We have a very clear trajectory toward that. We have taken steps to lock up the intellectual property and we're in an unbelievably strong position with respect to the science. Yet, we still can't get anybody to fund it. And the question is...What else do we have to do? What else can I do?  Patent it outside of the US, I suppose. Well, to take it offshore is an answer. There's an interesting dichotomy here. We are actually allowed to do what we do because the US government, specifically DOE, doesn't believe that it happens. We make tritium. It is not legal to make tritium in this country without a DOE license. We make it! We have even published papers saying we have manufactured it. We are able to continue because we are not believed.  If they were to admit that they believed you, might they be in a bind considering their 1989 ERAB report? Partly, yes, but also, they'd have to start investing in it and they'd have to start taking that investment from the people who have criticized us in the past. Academic freedom has been trampled in the cold fusion field. John Bockris, a very dear friend of mine at Texas A&M, was subject to a threat that they were going to withdraw his tenured and senior professor status, which is just outrageous. But to Texas A&M's credit, they understood that it was an issue of academic freedom and they did not allow this to go through. There was bad press attention and the fact that this recall effort of Bockris was unsuccessful was never publicized, only the fact that the allegations occurred was publicized. There is strong inertia in support of the status quo, and harsh punishment meted out to those who seek to disrupt it. Is there a strong cooperative spirit among those in the cold fusion field? That's actually one of the delightful things about working in this field and probably one of the things that has kept me buoyant over the years. Being a despised minority is actually a strength. There is a sense of camaraderie in the case of cold fusion. Its a feeling of teamwork, warmth and acceptance which has very rarely occurred for me in my academic career. I've worked with batteries and fuel cells which is a field inhabited by people who are very bitter, sort of nasty back-biting folks. Everybody's critical of each other, they each have a battery which is better than everyone else's battery, there's very little sense of being in it together for the betterment of mankind. Do you expect the current camaraderie will continue once the pre-commercialization research and development phase passes? Well the cracks in this camaraderie have already occurred several times, always when one of the members believe that they are on the cusp of commercial or academic success. If there's a Nobel prize to be awarded, a major commercial arrangement to be made, people become secretive, protective. At one stage, I'm certain, half a dozen groups around the world were all protecting the same secret. This is not useful or constructive. The breaks in the camaraderie have all been the results of imagined, imminent success, all of which was an illusion of course. The success was never that close, its not that close now. Its still three to five years away. The joke of course is that the payoff, intellectually, academically and economically is so large that it could easily be shared between all of the good people who are working in the field and nobody would be shortchanged. When it does happen, it will be because a team of people have worked studiously, diligently for a very long period of time contributing rare talent in order to produce the commercial object. It's been a tremendously enjoyable journey. It doesn't seem like 14 years. It seems like yesterday I was huddling around in the laboratory trying to figure out what we needed to do in order to check out this crazy idea of Martin's. Its been an extraordinarily enjoyable journey with a few sad points on the way but by and large, its been a great trip, and I have worked with the best people I ever met in my life. Thank you Martin. Interviewed by Steven Krivit, August 8, 2003, Menlo Park, California From New Energy Times @ http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/McKubre.shtml

Xtra Images - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Cold_fusion_electrolysis.svg/220px-Cold_fusion_electrolysis.svg.png

http://www.freespiritproductions.com/pdatom.jpg

http://cdn.energy-dimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cold-fusion-1.jpg

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/images/physical/reactor.jpg

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

 http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559  

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com

Crop Circle Soil Analysis Reveals Unusual Anomalies

Crop Circle Soil Analysis Reveals Unusual Anomalies

The Discovery of Thirteen Short-Lived Radionuclides in Soil Samples from an English Crop Circle 

 

In this paper we report the discovery of thirteen short-lived radionuclides (radioactive isotopes) in soil samples taken from an English crop circle. We will explain the significance of this discovery, rule out several mundane explanations for it (including hoax), and propose that the radionuclides were created by bombardment of the soil with deuterium nuclei (also called "deuterons.") We will also consider whether the radionuclides present a health hazard and conclude that they probably do not.
A note on terminology: we shall use the terms "isotope", "radioactive isotope", and "radionuclide" more or less interchangeably. Not all isotopes are radioactive, of course, but the ones we are discussing are. The term "radionuclide" simply means an atom whose nucleus is unstable and thus radioactive.

I. The Experimental Results

The oval-shaped crop circle was formed the night of July 31 / August 1, 1991, near the town of Beckhampton. [1] On August 5th, we gathered two soil samples inside it and took a control several dozen feet away. Their emissions of alpha and beta particles were measured with a Tennelec/Nucleus LB4000-8 gas flow counter on August 18th. Their emissions proved to be markedly elevated, compared to the control. One sample (1A) yielded alpha emissions 198% above the control, and beta emissions 48% above the control. The other sample (1B) yielded alpha emissions 45% above the control, and beta emissions 57% above the control. [2]
We hypothesized that these anomalies were too large to ascribe to normal soil variation. This was supported by the fact that two controls from another formation in the area (formed August 9/10, SU 076 679) yielded alpha and beta counts within 2% and 4% of each other. By contrast, the two samples from within the formation yielded alpha and beta counts 22% to 45% higher than the averaged controls. In light of our subsequent discovery of short-lived radionuclides in the Beckhampton oval, we think it reasonable to believe that the samples' emissions were not due to normal soil variation.
Our next step was to identify the specific radioactive isotopes responsible for the elevated emissions. Thus we sent the samples to another lab for gamma spectroscopy, which was performed on August 26th. Analysis of the output revealed the presence of thirteen unusual and short-lived radionuclides in the samples. Two were found in all three samples. Eleven were in either 1A or 1B but not in the control. We list these eleven radionuclides in Table 1.
(An explanatory note: the number following each isotope's name indicates its atomic weight, i.e. the combined number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. It is necessary to specify the atomic weight to distinguish different isotopes of the same element from each other. For example, uranium-235 and uranium-238 are different isotopes of uranium, and have different nuclear properties, though they remain chemically identical. Most elements have many isotopes, some of which are common and long-lived, some of which are rare and short-lived. The ones listed in Table 1 fall in the latter category.)

Table 1. Radionuclides in Samples 1A and 1B But Not In The Control

Radionuclide	Abbrev.	Present in 1A	Present in 1B	Half-life
Lead-203	Pb-203	Probably*	No	12.17 days
Europium- 146	Eu-146	Yes	No	14.6 days
Tellurium-119m	Te-119m	Yes	No	4.7 days
Iodine-126	I-126	Yes	No	13.02 days
Bismuth-205	Bi-205	Yes	No	15.31 days
Vanadium-48	V- 48	Probably	No	16.1 days
Protactinium- 230	Pa-230	Yes	Yes	17.4 days
Ytterbium-169	Yb-169	Yes	No	32 days
Yttrium-88	Y-88	Yes	Probably	106.6 days
Rhodium-102	Rh- 102	Yes	No	2.9 days
Rhodium- 102m	Rh-102m**	Probably	No	207 days

* "Probably" indicates identification somewhat short of certainty, due to low activity.
** "m" means "metastable." Rh-102m has the same number of protons and neutrons as Rh-102, but its nucleus has a different physical configuration. The two isotopes have different half- lives but, for our practical purposes, the same ancestors and decay products. We thus treat them as a single isotope.

It is of crucial importance that none of the radionuclides in Table 1 appeared to be in the control, since it helps rule out many mundane explanations. The control did have long-lived, naturally occurring radionuclides such as uranium-238 and radium-226, and long-lived artificial radionuclides from Chernobyl such as cesium-137. But all three samples contained these radionuclides, unsurprisingly.
But the presence of the short-lived radionuclides is surprising. To understand why, the reader should consider their halflives (see Table 1.) "Half-life" refers to the amount of time it takes for half of a given amount of an element to decay into some other substance. For example, it would take 17.4 days for half of a given amount of protactinium-230 to decay. After twice that time, only 25% of the original amount would be left, and so on. Therefore, any amount of protactinium-230 will diminish to undetectable levels in a matter of weeks. By contrast, naturally occurring uranium-238 has a half-life of over four and a half billion years. It thus can be naturally occurring whereas Pa-230 cannot be. Should scientists want to study short-lived isotopes, they must synthesize them in cyclotrons or experimental nuclear reactors; they can't just refine them from soil or ores. Finding them in apparently ordinary soil from rural England is almost as surprising as finding cut diamonds would be. It is radically out of line with normal expectations.
Before going on with our discussion, we want to reassure readers that the presence of the short-lived isotopes does not appear to present any health threat. Even though the samples emitted higher percentages of radiation than the control, their total emissions were far below the danger threshold. This is because the radionuclides were present in such low concentrations that they could only be detected by exquisitely sensitive equipment. The absolute quantities of the radionuclides were so low that one would probably be exposed to more radioactivity by eating a banana (which contains the natural radionuclide potassium-40) than by spending 24 hours in a fairly new crop circle.
Readers should also consider the fact that none of the leading researchers of the phenomenon have contracted cancer or other radiation-induced illnesses, despite having spent many hundreds of hours in crop circles over a decade of study. Not only that, it is far from clear that radiation anomalies are a general property of crop circles. Of the six we examined for elevated alpha/beta emissions, only two exhibited significant increases. Two others exhibited apparently significantly lower emissions, and the last two exhibited no significant differences. [3] Research in 1992 could reveal that only a certain percentage of apparently genuine crop circles exhibit radiation anomalies at all. This would further reduce cause for concern.
To return to our discussion, where could the radionuclides have come from? Let us first consider (and reject) eight mundane explanations. Actually, the absence of the radionuclides in the controls automatically rules out most of these explanations, but for thoroughness's sake, we will consider them anyway.

1.    We have already established that they cannot be naturally occurring radionuclides, due to their short half-lives.

2.    Contamination from the sample vials is unlikely. We used washed-out plastic pharmaceutical jars. These could have caused some small degree of chemical contamination, but not radioactive contamination.

3.    Technologically unsophisticated hoaxers are out of the question, since no amount of foot-stomping will form radioactive isotopes in soil. It is not energetic enough by many orders of magnitude; it would be like trying to compress coal into diamonds by jumping on it.

4.    Atomic tests and Chernobyl are untenable as sources, since these events happened years, not days, ago. But to be absolutely sure, we checked Table 1 against inventories of the emissions from Chernobyl, atomic bomb tests, and nuclear installations. None of the radionuclides in Table 1 were found in any of the inventories. Furthermore, we compared Table 1 to the decay products of each radionuclide in the inventories, and found no matches. We therefore feel reasonably confident that human-made radionuclides are not responsible for the anomalies. [4]

5.    Likewise, we have ruled out radionuclides which are the products of bombardment by cosmic rays. We checked an inventory of cosmogenic radionuclides, and none of them were or could have decayed into anything in Table 1. [5]

6.    Since the soil samples traveled by air, we felt it necessary to consider the effect of airport bomb detectors. The sample set under discussion was airmailed. The other (the one with two controls) was packed in a carry-on bag. But we can rule out bomb detectors simply because any detector would have affected the controls as well. In any case, airmail is not screened, and X-ray machines are not energetic enough to create those isotopes. They can't even fog ordinary film.

7.    What about thermal neutron activators? These are experimental devices being tested in several English airports. They bombard checked luggage with neutrons from californium-252 in order to activate and detect the nitrogen in plastic explosives. But many of the radionuclides, such as Y-88, Bi- 205, and V-48, cannot be made by neutron activation. Thus even a TNA device could not have made all of the radionuclides, even if by some miracle the samples had gone through one. [6]

8.    We believe we can rule out deliberate "planting" of radionuclides in crop circles by determined hoaxers using hospital low-level radioactive waste. First, hospital waste simply does not consist of such radionuclides. Hospitals typically use extremely short-lived isotopes like technetium-99m (half-life: six hours) to minimize their patients' exposure to radiation. They are generated from somewhat longer-lived long-lived radionuclides like molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 2.9 days. (Hospitals typically receive lead- encased shipments of molybdenum-99 three times a week.) In hospital parlance, the longer-lived isotopes function as "cows" producing short-lived radionuclides which are "milked" when needed. Hospital "cows" include none of, and produce none of, the radionuclides in Table 1. [7] Second, we think it unlikely that hoaxers would have been able to pour or spray any contaminated solution over the many thousands of square feet inside a large crop circle. Third, most of Table 1's radionuclides are very difficult and expensive to obtain. One must usually get a license from the government to buy them, which takes months, then commission a cyclotron to manufacture them, which costs a great deal of money. Fourth and finally, any such heroic effort for any given formation would almost certainly be wasted, since only a handful have been tested for radiation.

Thus we have ruled out natural radionuclides, cosmogenic radionuclides, sample jar contamination, atmospheric nuclear tests, Chernobyl, airport X-ray detectors, TNA detectors, and contamination with hospital waste by hoaxers. We must now consider some less mundane possibilities.

II. The Origin of the Radionuclides

Broadly speaking, there are two ways the radionuclides could have got into the ground. One way is contamination, which would consist of pouring or spraying a solution or dust containing the radionuclides onto the ground. We think contamination unlikely for the same reasons a hoax is unlikely: the difficulty of making the radionuclides prior to placing them in the area, and the almost equal difficulty of applying the contaminated material over a large but sharply delimited area.
The other way is activation. Activation is the process of bombarding atomic nuclei with energetic subatomic particles. The nuclei capture the particles and are thus transformed into different nuclei. If the number of neutrons in the nuclei change, they become different isotopes of the same element. If the number of protons change, they become different elements altogether. For example, it is theoretically possible to change lead into gold by activating it with the right mixture of particles. The only obstacle, aside from its difficulty, is the fact that it would cost more than an ounce of gold to produce an ounce of gold.
There are many different kinds of activation: activation by alpha particles, activation by protons, activation by deuterons, and so on. Each kind will have different effects on a given atomic nucleus. But despite this complexity, activation enables us to produce an elegant hypothesis about what happened to the soil. We have discovered that the radionuclides in Table 1 have one and only one common denominator, and that is activation of naturally occurring elements with deuterium nuclei (deuterons.) In a moment we shall undertake to prove this, but first it may be helpful to explain just what deuterium nuclei are and what they can do.
Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen. Its nucleus is composed of a proton and a neutron. (The rest of the atom consists of an electron, which is easily stripped off to leave the ionized, bare nucleus.) Since ordinary hydrogen's nucleus contains only a proton, deuterium's extra neutron entitles it to be called "heavy hydrogen." Deuterium is not a particularly rare isotope, since it exists in small quantities in ordinary water. It is a useful one, however, since it is used to control neutron emissions in fission reactors, and constitutes much of the fuel in fusion reactors. Of course, knowing these basic facts still tells us nothing about where these deuterium nuclei (we shall henceforth use the term "deuterons") came from. They could have come from any number of sources, including ones not yet known. At the moment, we think it more useful simply to assert that they existed than to speculate about their origin.
In any case, the deuterons we hypothesize are remarkable not because they are rare, for they are not, but because they are highly energetic. Most deuterium particles found in nature are relatively unenergetic, such as the ones in ordinary water. An unenergetic, that is, a slow-moving, deuteron cannot penetrate and alter atomic nuclei, just as a bullet casually tossed at a television set will not penetrate it. An energetic deuteron is a different story. A deuteron accelerated to high speeds can penetrate an atomic nucleus and "activate" it, i.e. convert it into a different isotope or even a different element. Like a bullet fired from a gun, it can radically alter the objects it strikes. But the energies would have to be large. We think that to activate atomic nuclei, deuterons would have to possess energies exceeding one mega-electron-volt (MeV). That means, roughly speaking, that each deuteron would have to be accelerated by an electrical field possessing a total potential of not less than one million volts, which is a considerable amount of energy.
In this paper, we make no real attempt to figure out what could have generated energies of that scale, nor do we analyze whether such energies could arise naturally on planetary surfaces. For the moment, our goal is only to convince readers that the energies existed. To do that, we need to show that deuteron activation is indeed the most plausible route of production of the radionuclides in Table 1. For if deuterons that energetic existed, then so did the energies. We will do this by accounting for each radionuclide in terms of deuteron activation. The following discussion will be fairly long and technical, but we think it necessary to defend our thesis in some detail, since it is so unusual and surprising. The nontechnical reader can skim the discussion without trying to understand all of its details; the important thing to understand is that we are showing that all the radionuclides very likely came from a common source. To put it another way, we are showing that there is considerable internal consistency to the data. If we can do this, it will help prove that we have discovered something significant about the actual physical mechanism which created this particular crop circle. To be specific, it appears to have emitted quantities of deuterons, which converted stable isotopes in the soil into unstable, radioactive ones.
We shall forthwith account for each radionuclide in terms of deuteron activation. Let us start with the easiest four to explain, protactinium-230, iodine-126, rhodium-102, and rhodium-102m. These four radionuclides have one thing in common: they can only be made by activation. (To say the same thing another way, none are ever generated by radioactive decay.) What atoms could have been activated to make them, then? There are several possibilities for each radionuclide (see Table 2.) The nontechnical reader should not be intimidated by this table. It simply lists each radionuclide in the first column, and each of its possible atomic parents in the second column, along with what would have had to activate them in parentheses. For example, protactinium-230 can be formed by three different activation reactions: a proton impacting a thorium-232 nucleus, a deuteron impacting a thorium-232 nucleus, or a deuteron impacting a thorium-230 nucleus. [8]

Table 2. Radionuclides Which Are Not Decay Products, And Possible Activation Parents For Them

Radionuclide	Possible Activation Parents (activating particle in parentheses)
Pa-230	Th- 232(proton)	Th-232(deuteron)	Th-230(deuteron)
Rh-102	Ru-101(deuteron)	Ru-102(proton)	Ru- 102(deuteron)
Rh-102m	Pd- 104(deuteron)	Rh-103(neutron)	Rh-103(deuteron)	Rh- 103(gamma)
I-126	Sb-123(alpha)	Te- 125(deuteron)	Te-126(deuteron)	I-127(gamma)

Note that all four radionuclides have one, and only one, common denominator: deuteron activation. While this does not rule out the other kinds of activation, it does allow the hypothesis that only one kind was involved. Let us therefore focus on the parents which can be deuteron-activated. Table 3 is Table 2 with the non-deuteronactivated parents left out. It also asks an important question: are the remaining possible parents naturally occurring? In fact all of them are, which significantly enhances our hypothesis.

Table 3. Hypothesized Activation Parents Of Pa-230, Rh-102, Rh-102m, and I-126, Assuming Deuteron Activation

Radionuclide	Hypothesized Activation Parents	Naturally Occurring? (% of All Naturally Occurring Element
Pa-230	Th-232	Yes (100%)
	Th-230	Yes (decay product of U-234; extremely rare)
Rh- 102	Ru-101	Yes (17.1%)
Rh-102m	Ru- 102	Yes (31.6%)
	Pd-104	Yes (11.0%)
	Rh-103	(100.0%)
I-126	Te- 125	Yes (7.0%)
	Te-126	Yes (18.7%)

The percentages denote how much of that element is constituted by that particular isotope. Most naturally elements are composed of more than one isotope of that element.
Now let us consider another two radionuclides from Table 1, yttrium-88 and europium-146. These are more complicated cases because they could have been made by decay or activation. Let us first consider the possibility of decay. Yttrium- 88 has one decay parent, zirconium-88. Zirconium-88 has a half-life of 83.4 days, which means that some of it should have been left in the sample if it was the source of the yttrium-88. However, the gamma spectroscope detected no zirconium-88; we can thus rule out decay. Something must have been activated, then, and there is only one candidate: strontium-88 (82.6% of all naturally occurring strontium.) Strontium-88 can be made into yttrium-88 either by deuteron or proton activation. We infer the common denominator of deuteron activation.
The europium-146 presents a case like yttrium-88's. One of its decay parents, gadolinum-146 (half-life: 4.6 days) was not found in the sample. Its other decay parent is terbium-150, but since only .05% of it decays into europium-146, a fairly large amount of this rare element would have had to be present in order to be converted into detectable quantities of Eu-146. Activation is again the more likely possibility. It turns out that europium-146 can be made by proton activation of samarium-147 (15.1% of all naturally occurring samarium), or by deuteron activation of samarium-144 (3.1%.) [9] Our reasoning is summed up in Table 4:

Table 4. Radionuclides with Parents Not Present, And Activation Possibilities

Radionuclide	Decay Parents	Activation Parents	Deuteron-Activated Parents Naturally
Y-88	Zr-88 (none)	Sr-88(proton) Sr- 88(deuteron	Yes (82.6%)
Eu-146	Gd-146 (none) Tb-150 (only 0.05% decays into Eu-146, hence unlikely)	Sm-147(proton) Sm-144(deuteron	Yes (3.1%)

Let us move on to consider five more of Table 1's radionuclides, namely bismuth-205, vanadium-48, tellurium-119m, ytterbium-169, and lead-203. These have more than one possible decay parent. None of these possible decay parents were detected, however. There are two reasons for this. One is that most of the decay parents have such short half-lives that they would not have been detectable by the time the samples were counted. The other is that there probably were never any of those decay ancestors in the sample to begin with, for all of the radionuclides can be much more easily accounted for by activation.
Consider the bismuth-205 first. It has two possible decay parents, astatine-209 (half-life: 5.41 hours) and polonium-205 (half-life: 1.8 hours.) Since 99.86% of polonium-205 decays into bismuth-205 whereas only 4.1% of astatine-209 does, the polonium is the more probable decay parent. But polonium-205 is still not a very probable parent, partly because it cannot be made by deuteron activation, and partly because its parents can only be made by activation methods which are far more exotic than the kinds we have been discussing. On the other hand, bismuth-205 can be made by deuteron activation of lead-206, which constitutes 25% of all naturally occurring lead. Thus deuteron bombardment of the soil almost certainly would have produced some bismuth-205.
Take the vanadium-48 next. Its only decay parent is chromium-48 (half-life: 21.56 hours), but it cannot be made by deuteron activation. On the other hand, vanadium-48 can be made by deuteron activation of titanium-48 or chromium-50. The former constitutes 73.7% of all naturally occurring titanium, and the latter constitutes 4.35% of all naturally occurring chromium.
To keep this paper from growing too tedious, we will not discuss the tellurium-119m, the ytterbium-169, and the lead-203. However, our reasoning for them is similar to the two radionuclides just discussed above, and is summed up along with them in Table 5.

Table 5. Radionuclides with Short-Lived (And Not Present) Decay Parents, And Activation Possibilities

(NPDA="not producible by deuteron activation")

Radionuclide	Decay Parents	Activation Parents	Deuteron-Activated Parents Naturally Occurring?
Bi-205	Po-205(NPDA)	Pb-206(deuteron)	Yes (25%)
	At-209(NPDA)
V-48	Cr-48(NPDA)	Ti-48(deuteron)	Yes (73.7%)
		Cr-50(deuteron)	Yes (4.35%)
		Sc-45(alpha)
		Ti-48(proton)
Te-119m	I-119(NPDA)	Sb-121(deuteron)	Yes (57.3%)
		Sb-121(proton)
		Sn-116(alpha)
Yb-169	Lu-169(NPDA)	Tm-169(deuteron)	Yes (100%)
		Yb-168(neutron)
Pb-203	Bi-203(NPDA)	Tl-203(deuteron)	Yes (29.5%)

This concludes our discussion of the 11 radionuclides of Table 1. We sum up our analysis in Table 6, which shows how we accounted for the radionuclides as producible by deuteron activation of naturally occurring stable elements in the soil.

Table 6. Summary. Most Likely Parents of the Radionuclides in Table 1 (Assuming Deuteron Activation)

Radionuclide	Present in Control?	Believed Activation Parent(s)	Are Activation Parent(s) Naturally Occurring?
Lead-203	No	Tl- 203	Yes
Europium-146	No	Sm- 144	Yes
Tellurium-119m	No	Sb-121	Yes
Iodine-126	No	Te-125, Te- 126	Yes
Bismuth-205	No	Pb-206	Yes
Vanadium-48	No	Ti-48, Cr- 50	Yes
Protactinium-230	No	Th-230, Th-232	Yes
Ytterbium-169	No	Tm-169	Yes
Yttrium-88	No	Sr-88	Yes
Rhodium-102	No	Ru-101, Ru-102	Yes
Rhodium-102m		Probably	Yes

Our analysis was not quite exhaustive. We cut through a maze of isotopic parents in the belief that the simplest solution was the most likely to be correct. We could be wrong: some of these radionuclides could theoretically be end-products of a cascade of decayings of extremely exotic and short-lived isotopes. Or proton activation could have produced some of the radionuclides while deuteron activation produced the others. But we think these possibilities unlikely. The former requires much greater complexity to arrive at the same result; the latter would probably have produced radionuclides which could only be made by proton activation, yet we have found none.

III. Loose Ends

No item of exploratory scientific research can answer all questions and settle all difficulties. Ours is no exception. Let us discuss what loose ends need to be cleared up with further research. (Nontechnical readers may wish to skip this section, since it is not central to our analysis.) The first loose end is the existence of two unusual radionuclides in all three samples, including the control. They are listed in Table 7.

Table 7. Radionuclides Present in 1A, 1B, And The Control

Radionuclide	Present in 1A?.	Present in 1B?	Present in Control?	Half-life
Gold-194	Yes	Yes	Yes	1.65 Days
Thallium-202	Yes	Yes	Yes	12.2 Days

The gold-194 is puzzling, since it has such a short half-life - less than two days. Either enormous quantities of it were initially present when the samples were collected, in which case the field would have been extremely radioactive, or something long-lived is continuously generating it by decay. The latter seems the likelier case. Gold-194 can be generated by the decay of mercury-194, which has a half-life of 520 years. The mercury-194 could have been created by a two-step activation process, whereupon the deuterons activated platinum-194 (32.9% of all natural platinum) to create gold-194, which was itself activated to make the mercury-194. The deuteron stream would have to last long enough, and be intense enough, to activate isotopes which had just been created by that same stream.
Assuming this is plausible, how do we explain the presence of the gold-194 in the control? Consider the fact that the mercury-194 has a half-life of 520 years. If the field had had crop circles in earlier years, the mercury-194 could have been spread around the field by wind, erosion, and plowing.
There are other possibilities, of course: the Chernobyl tables could be incomplete, or a nearby reactor might have emitted some mercury-194. Further research is needed to clear up the question.

Our analysis is similar for the other radionuclide, thallium-202.

• It does not appear to be a product of Chernobyl or atomic tests. Its only decay parent is lead- 202, which has a half-life of 53,000 years.
•  
• Lead-202 can be made by deuteron activation of thallium-203 (29.5% of all naturally occurring thallium.) Thus the thallium-202 could also be a remnant from earlier crop circles in the area, or an unlisted product of nuclear reactors.

The second loose end is why none of the hypothesized parents are abundant elements. If trace elements like titanium and samarium were activated, it seems that abundant elements like silicon and oxygen should have been also. To answer this question, we took each element which composes more than 1% of the earth's crust and found its most likely deuteron-activation products. It turns out that they are either stable, in which case they would not have been detected by our instruments, or they have such short half- lives that they would have decayed off before testing, as Table 8 shows.

Table 8. Most Likely Deuteron Activation Products of Elements Which Compose More Than 1% Of The Earth's Crust

Element	Abundance in Crust	Most Likely Product	Product's Half-Life
Oxygen-16	46.6%	Flourine-17	1.075 minutes
Silicon-28	27.72%	Phosphorus-29	2.5 minutes
Aluminum-27	8.13%	Silicon-29	Stable
Iron-56	5%	Cobalt-58	9.15 hours
Calcium-40	3.63%	Scandium-42	1.027 minutes
Sodium-23	2.83%	Magnesium-25	Stable
Potassium-39	2.59%	Calcium-41	Stable*
Magnesium-24	2.09%	Aluminum-26	6.3 seconds

* Calcium-41 has a half-life of 1.03 x 10 to the 5th years. It is thus not truly stable. But it does not emit gamma rays, so it would not have been detected by our instruments.
The iron-56 deserves further scrutiny. Deuteron activation of iron-56 can also produce the radionuclides manganese-54 (half-life: 312 days) and cobalt-57 (half-life: 72 days.) But these would require levels of energy perhaps higher than required to generate most of the observed radionuclides. Our data did show peaks in the region of manganese-54, but not at sufficient resolution to permit positive identification. Clearly, in 1992 we will have to look carefully for activation products of the soil's abundant elements. Prompt testing will greatly facilitate the search.
Table 8 shows something else: the soil could well be dangerously radioactive for a short time after the formation is made. Since elements like silicon and oxygen (which exists as oxides bound up in the soil) are so abundant, their activation products would also be abundant. They would emit a large aggregate quantity of radiation, albeit for only a few minutes or hours. Out of simple prudence, then, fulltime researchers who enter a crop circle the morning after it is made should carry a sensitive survey meter (a Geiger counter is one kind of survey meter, though we would use other kinds) or an electrostatic film badge. Given the low amounts of radiation we think we are dealing with, these tools will have to be highly sensitive, and their users will have to be well trained; anything less would risk yielding nothing but false negatives. These instruments should reveal no cause for alarm, but if they do, we shall adopt more cautious sampling procedures.
Additional loose ends derive from the fact that the size of our sample set is too small to show that short- lived radionuclides are part and parcel of the crop circle phenomenon. However, we think our findings are so suggestive that further research is emphatically warranted. If one takes a single bucket of rock from a mine and finds gold in it, one is well justified in doing further digging.
We also need to take more controls in 1992. For this paper, two or three would have been better than one. Even so, the radionuclides are so unusual that finding them anywhere is cause for interest. The difference between our samples and single control is qualitative in an absolute, not a statistical, sense. The case would warrant further investigation even without a control.
In addition, our interpretation of the data from the gamma spectrometer needs to be confirmed by similar findings from independent laboratories. Spectroscopic data is extremely complex, and its interpretation is inevitably a matter of judgment. But our interpretation of the data has convinced several of our associates in Oak Ridge. We believe it will stand; and we would be glad to show the raw data to those who wish to examine it for themselves.

IV. Where Might The Deuterons Have Come From?

So far, our hypothesis of a stream of deuterons suggests a possible physical concomitant of whatever flattens the plants, but it provides almost no clues as to the actual cause of the phenomenon.
We can only speculate on several possibilities.
One possible cause is the naturally occurring "plasma vortex" hypothesized by some meteorologists. [10] The question is: is this hypothetical (and never experimentally detected) plasma vortex theoretically capable of generating the requisite number and density of deuterons? Obviously, this is a question requiring very detailed analysis, which we lack the expertise to perform. While we doubt that the lower atmosphere can naturally generate deuterons with energies sufficient to activate atomic nuclei, the possibility cannot be ignored.
If our research in 1992 demonstrates the presence of short-lived radionuclides in many crop circles, the meteorologists will have the burden of proving that their hypothesized plasma vortex can produce them. Also, since the radionuclides have appeared in at least one complex formation, the meteorologists would have the additional burden of proving that their plasma vortices can produce such shapes. So far, they have proven neither assertion. In fact, they have given up on the latter one. For example, Terence Meaden has recently asserted, "It is obvious that most, perhaps all, complex sets of circles seen in Britain in recent years have been made byhoaxers." [11] Our data suggests otherwise.
The only other cause we can think of is a deliberately directed stream of deuterons. It would be worthwhile to calculate the energy required for such a stream, given the radionuclides observed, their concentration, and the size of the area in which they are found. The ballpark figures might help us evaluate theories of intentional manufacture.
However, hypothesizing a stream of deuterons still does not explain how the plants are actually flattened. The deuterons could not exert enough force to press the plants to the ground, for if they did, the plants would also be burned to a crisp. However, perhaps they heat the plants to some extent. Since it appears from W.C. Levengood's observations of plant cells that the plants are strongly but briefly heated, it might be possible to compare calculations of the heat experienced by the plants with the heat theoretically generated by the deuteron stream. [12] Perhaps the deuterons heat the plants just enough to make them pliable, while some other force bends them to the ground in the intricate patterns often observed. [13] Or perhaps the deuterons are not directly necessary to the flattening process at all, but are merely a concomitant of the overall physical process.

V. Conclusion

Our results point suggestively toward some radioactive source which exposes the soil to a stream of energetic deuterium nuclei. To test this hypothesis, we hope to perform these same tests on multiple crop circles next summer. 1992's radiological research program should include the following aspects:

• 
  
• Locating of financing for research, both from American and English sources
• Use of survey meters and film badges to test for health hazards and possibly to identify formations most deserving of detailed analysis
• Harvesting of multiple samples and controls from each crop circle
• Harvesting of samples across circle-less fields, to assess soil homogeneity
• Enlistment of U.K. labs with radiological equipment or, failing that, transportation of equipment from the U.S., or mailing samples overnight back to the U.S.
• Obtaining permits where needed for soil and plant importation
• Coordination with daily aerial surveillance, in order to sample crop circles promptly after they are made
• Regularization of sampling techniques
• Training, where needed, in the methods of analysis; and
• Improvement of the network for exchanging information.
• The trail has grown hot, literally as well as figuratively. We must follow it wherever it may lead.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following people for their help and advice: Kevin Folta, Tsahi Gozani, Conrad Knight, Jurgen Kronig, W.C. Levengood, David Chioni Moore, Chris Rutkowski, Dennis Stacy, and George Wingfield. The secondary author's fieldwork in England was supported by a grant from the Fund for UFO Research.
Captions (Photo not included in file)
Photo 1. The "fish" or "long oval" formation near Beckhampton. According to John F. Langrish, it was formed on July 31 / August 1, 1991, at SU 0865 6810. Photo courtesy of Jurgen Kronig.

Notes

[1] According to John Langrish, the Beckhampton oval's location was SU 0865 6810. (Eight-figure Ordnance survey references are accurate to 10 meters.) The date given in the text differs from the one given in a preproduction version of Michael Chorost's report, The Summer 1991 Crop Circles (Fund for UFO Research, in press.) The change was made due to more authoritative data supplied by Langrish.
[2] Variations above 10% were considered significant. The data and statistics may be obtained from the secondary author at North American Circle, P.O. Box 61144, Durham, North Carolina, 27715-1144 USA.
[3] The six cases are discussed at length in The Summer 1991 Crop Circles: The Data Emerges (Fund for UFO Research, Mt. Rainier, MD, in press.) A condensed version of the report was printed in the Mufon UFO Journal, October 1991, pp. 3-15.
[4] The inventory of Chernobyl emissions is in "Cleanup of Large Areas Contaminated As A Result Of A Nuclear Accident," Technical Reports Series no. 300, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1989, p. 104. The inventory of widely distributed human-made radonuclides is in Environmental Radiation Measurements, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report no. 50, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 12-14.
[5] "Environmental Radiation Measurements" (see note 4), 11.
[6] We checked these facts with the primary designer of the device, Dr. Tsahi Gozani of SAIC in California.
[7] We checked these facts with Conrad Knight, a Radiation Safety officer at Duke University Medical Center.
[8] All of the decay/activation parents and products cited were obtained from Edgardo Browne and Richard B. Firestone's "Table of Radioactive Isotopes." New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.
[9] The Browne and Firestone reference does not show a deuteron activation which yields Eu-146, but another reference, the Gerhard Erdtmann one, does. We believe that one is accurate, because Eu-146 should be producible from a Sm-144 (d, nothing) reaction. Again, we infer deuteron activation. (Gerhard Erdtmann, "The Gamma Rays of the Radonuclides: Tables for Applied Gamma-Ray Spectrometry." New York: Verlag Chemie, 1979.)
[10] See, for example, "Circles From the Sky", ed. Terence Meaden. Souvenir Press, 1991.
[11] "Analysis and Interpretation of the Luminous-Tube Phenomenon." Terence Meaden. Journal of Meteorology v. 16 no. 162 (October 1991): 276-278.
[12] See Chorost, The Summer 1991 Crop Circles, Section IIIB (see note 3.)
[13] See, for example, Stanley Morcom's "Field Work: The Pictogram at East/West Kennett Long Barrows." The Circular vol 2 no. 1 (March 1991): 10-13. Also Circular Evidence (Delgado and Andrews, Bloomsbury, 1989), pp. 121-131, and Circles From The Sky, pp. 46, 153-158.
By Marshall Dudley, Tennelec/Nucleus, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
and Michael Chorost, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
North American Circle
Box 61144
Durham, North Carolina, 27715-1144, USA
Paper completed December 31, 1991

From http://execonn.com/cropcircles/isotopes.html

Images - http://www.eso-garden.com/images/uploads_bilder/baffling_crop_circles_equal_pi_2.jpg

http://www.oneness4all.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cropcircle3.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/8C9JB4PT5-QD2T2KLcavJM4GM3PqNlaJXOzYI5EZ-C1g4vwM72mgnLxuzF0SfX3PabONgMc42h*2k2UpXXbJ2OzXioxWcZRr/cropcircles.jpg

http://felfire.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/crop-circle-windmillhill.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u244/30k-2007/cropcircles.jpg

http://img.designswan.com/2009/photo/cropCircle/13.jpg

http://brightcloudyday.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/crabwood2002-15b15d.jpg

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

 http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559  

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com