Message-ID: <41FADD5C.6090807@ungregarious.org> From: Erik Naggum Organization: Ungregarious News User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, nb, no, da, sv, de-de, de, fr-fr, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SKEPSIS:; Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F8dt_kvikks=F8lv?= References: <5.2.1.1.0.20050128093605.02293210@online.no> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20050128093605.02293210@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Sender: diskusjon-admin@lists.skepsis.no Errors-To: diskusjon-admin@lists.skepsis.no X-BeenThere: diskusjon@lists.skepsis.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Skepsis generelle diskusjonsliste List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:48:28 +0000 * Martin Ystenes @2005-01-28 08:43 > Jeg gjorde en viss undersøkelse av dette for en tid siden, og en > kilde som så ut til å ha gått rett på limpinnen her var faktisk New > Scientist som til og med tok det opp på lederplass. Hmm. Det er bare ett treff på «red mercury» på New Scientists webside: Only fools still hunt for elusive red mercury Willam Bown /New Scientist/ 1992-06-06, no 1824 p 10 When *red mercury* first appeared on the international black market 15 years ago, the supposedly top secret nuclear material was 'red' because it came from Russia. When it resurfaced last year in the formerly communist states of Eastern Europe it had unaccountably acquired a red colour. But then, as a report from the US Department of Energy reveals, mysterious transformations are *red mercury's* stock in trade. [...] The DOE has come to the conclusion that *red mercury* does not exist. However, offers of *red mercury* have been accompanied by offers of enriched uranium, small quantities of plutonium and a conventional warhead from an SS-19 missile - which is reason enough for officials from the department to carry on monitoring traffic in *red mercury*. Jeg er litt nysgjerrig på hvordan du rettferdiggjør påstanden om at New Scientist gikk rett på limpinnen hvis det er denne artikkelen du mener. Jeg lette litt rundt etter «red mercury» og fant veldig lite, men Science har én artikkel: News Focus: Nuclear Proliferation Susan Ladika /Science/ 2001-06-01, vol 292 no 5522 p 1634 doi:10.1126/science.292.5522.1634 KARLSRUHE, GERMANY--When German police raided the home of Alfred Jäckle in May 1994, they were looking for counterfeiting material, but they found something far more disturbing: a vial containing a reddish radioactive powder. The police knew whom to call: the European Commission's Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU) in this city near the French border. Nuclear sleuths at ITU discovered that the powder was *red mercury*, a Soviet-made plutonium-laced amalgam that analysts believe was designed to reduce the amount of plutonium necessary for a fission reaction. Although police seized only 6 grams of plutonium in Jäckle's home--far too little for a bomb--the incident provided a chilling reminder that the former Soviet nuclear legacy is far from secure. [...] Er det denne du mener? Jeg synes ikke /de/ går på noen limpinne, heller. Ellers har jeg bare funnet relevante artikler i Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, hvor det er helt tydelig at dette er en hoax som forskjellige «bad guys» har gått på. Google Scholar gir et lite antall treff på både «new scientist» og «red mercury», men ingen relevante. Hvis det /faktisk/ var New Scientist som gikk på limpinnen, har du beholdt en referanse til den alvorlige tabben deres? Erik Naggum @2005-029 -- Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder; act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder. In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none; in a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief. _______________________________________________ diskusjon mailing list diskusjon@lists.skepsis.no http://lists.skepsis.no/mailman/listinfo/diskusjon