Ambient office = 59 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 127 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 63 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 4 Parts
       Researchers at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division have begun a project to study what are referred to now as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs). LENRs are largely unexplained phenomena that are at the core of theories about “cold fusion.” Five different government-funded laboratories under the control of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and National Institutes of Standards and Technology will carry out experiments in order to settle the debate about this poorly understood and highly controversial subject. In spite of the controversy and even stigma associated with LENR, many experts in the U.S. military believe that there is sound science behind LENR. If actual working technologies can be developed, it could have major impact on military operations.
     LENRs are a theory that makes an attempt to explain some of results that some scientists have observed over the past several decades. These results seem to indicate that there is a unique type of anomalous energy production that arises from a particular class of non-fusion nuclear reactions which have been shown to occur at room temperatures. Interest in LENRs and “cold fusion” date back to the early Twentieth century. These results were never satisfactorily explained in terms of recognized scientific principles.
      One of the greatest controversies in the LENR field occurred in 1989 when chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced that they had been able to reach a “sustained nuclear fusion reaction” at room temperature. They said that their experiment had produced an anomalous amount of heat which could only have come from nuclear processes. They also reported that they had been able to measure a small amount of nuclear reaction byproducts, including tritium and neutrons. Their small tabletop experiment involved the electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of electrodes made of palladium. There was a huge reaction in the mainstream media to their announcement which raised hopes of a new cheap and abundant source of energy.

      Scientists around the world began reviewing the Pons-Fleishmann data and not all of them agreed with the conclusions of Pons and Fleishmann. Some of these other scientists believed that low-temperature fusion reactions were taking place while others believed that some type of poorly understood chemical reaction was occurring. Still other scientists thought that the two chemists had observed some new type of phenomena. One scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) even went so far as to publicly accuse Pons and Fleishmann of deliberate fraud. No other laboratory was able to replicate the results and Pons and Fleishman eventually retracted their conclusions admitting that they had not actually measured any nuclear reaction byproducts as they had claimed.
     By late 1989, most of the global scientific community had decided that the claims for cold fusion were dead. Cold fusion was eventually labeled as pathological science. In that year, the DoE decided that the reported results involving excess heat were not convincing evidence of a useful energy source and they were against the allocation of any funding for cold fusion research.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 64 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 148 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 144 nanosieverts per hour

Scallion from Central Market = 125 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 88 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Asparagus from Central Market = 72 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 101 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Garlic from Central Market = 72 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 101 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole – Caught in USA = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Part 5 of 5 Parts (Please read Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 first)
Z-pinch
     There are other approaches to inertial confinement besides laser implosion. One of these is known as the Z-pinch. Instead of using complex and powerful external magnets to compress and confine plasma, a Z-pinch reactor uses electromagnetic fields that are generated within the plasma itself. Since the 1950s, Z-pinch has been considered somewhat of a dark horse in fusion research because it has promised but not delivered a much simpler configuration than tokamaks or stellarators. However, like those other inertial confinement fusion reactor types, Z-pinch is prone to serious instabilities in the plasma which escapes from the magnetic field lines and forms problematic bulges.
     The name “Z-pinch” refers to the direction of the current in the fusion reactor on a three-dimensional graph. There are many different devices that employ such a directed current. They are used for many applications. The original version of an experimental Z-pinch fusion reactor used a donut-shaped reaction vessel with the current running down the inside of the donut. Now Z-pinch fusion reactors are usually cylinders.
     The Z-pinch makes use of a principle called the Lorentz force which causes current carrying wired to pull together. In the case of the Z-pinch, there is a plasma instead of a set of physical wires. The current causes the particles to attract each other. The magnetic field induced into the plasma must be varying. The current in these devices is provided by a big bank of capacitors and triggered by a spark gap called a Marx generator.
     Z-pinch fusion reactors were some of the earliest attempts to produce nuclear fusion. Research began just after World War II. But development did not really take off until the 1950s. All of these early reactors had problems with instability in the plasma referred to as the “kink instability.” By 1953, the Z-pinch reactors had managed to solve the problem of instabilities. External magnets were added to the design which converted the current path into a helix that stabilized the plasma.
     In 1954, researchers in the U.K. began the construction of the Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly (ZETA). This project stimulated an explosion of Z-pinch research projects. By 1957, Z-pinch reactors were generating neutrons. However, further studies showed that the neutron readings were misleading and none of the devices were anywhere near producing fusion reactions. Interest waned and researchers turned to other approaches to fusion. Z-pinch machines such as ZETA continued to serve as experimental devices for many years.
     In 2019, researchers at the University of Washington managed to find a way to smooth out the plasma bulges by modifying the fluid dynamics of the plasma. In a twenty-inch X-pinch column, the U of W team was able to maintain flowing plasma five thousand times longer than previous static plasma designs. They observed energetic neutrons that they say is a sign of nuclear fusion. Like the HB11 laser approach, Z-pinch reactors are pulsed devices, and the challenge is to convert them to continuous operation. Matthew Hole is a nuclear fusion expert and research fellow at Australian National University. He said, “The Z-pinch is an intrinsically pulsed, they implode a set of wires. It’s not going to be intrinsically steady state.”