Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as
well with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general
mess that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty,
its dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth,
although if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is
that that is where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your
world warm, anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at
its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?

Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason.
Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying
whether we use it in reactors or not.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission reactors
have existed naturally (without actually making china) in the past.

http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#


for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it refuted
your other arguments.

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place. Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics. And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.