🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul25.195246.6135@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>Please rebut all the Scientific American articles that people have
>>been refering to.
>
>     Sure, if you'll rebut every argument made in AEC-NRC documents over
>     the last 40 years.

Dale, I haven't been taking part in that argument at all. My only
participation has been to point out that you've been making many
claims, without any facts, that contradict the literature, namely the
9-90 Scientific American issue and an additional Scientific American
article on the merits and drawbacks of general use of hydrogen as
fuel. I have made no claims or arguments other than that. I don't see
why I should feel obligated to rebut documents that have nothing to do
with what I've been talking about.

If you like, I could give you a copy of the Scientific American issue
in question. But I'm not holding my breath.

>     However, feel free to present in this forum what you think valid 
>     arguments against what I have said, or for some position you think
>     plausible, and I will be sure to consider a response.

Valid arguments against many things you have said may be found in the
literature, mainly the 9-90 issue of Scientific American. Please read
it. This is my last post on the topic, we're now going in circles
(repeatedly).