Do you have a better resource or recommendations? I'd be happy to remove this from the internet. I feel that most other articles on the topic would be severely self-censored because of the small amount of research and the risk you mention, or just not interested in low-cost alternative treatments without a "medical" stamp on it. Research and reporting on low-cost treatment methods is probably underfunded.
So I am not a professional blogger, nor am I a lawyer but I would suggest providing references to not give the illusion that you came up with these ideas. You do have some references but I think you are missing some important ones and probably should drop one. There are researchers that get into some of the topics you mention and it may be worth referencing those researchers to reduce the risk from yourself and to give people a reference for something this significant and outside of standard of care. So basically just reference where you found the information.
I would entirely drop anything that involves potentially fatal treatments such as poisons (cyanide, mistletoe). I am aware of how it theoretically works but it is unlikely the average person will get this right and they only have to get it wrong once. In that they can literally only get it wrong once. I know chemo is also a poison but it is not self prescribed and the legal system accepts it as part of standard of care.
There are many YouTube videos with doctors talking about some of the alternative methods you mentioned such as FenBen I keep several bottles around just in case, the human version of Ivermectin but I would link to those videos by doctors and let them risk their license rather than you risking being sued by families. There are also doctors and nutritionists that talk about augmenting standard of care with fasting and specific diets and what results they have obtained with empirical data and observational or anecdotal data. Put the heat on them by referencing them and adding disclaimers on your site that you are not a doctor and this is not meant to be taken as medical advice. As a side note you may wish to research a bit more on what feeds cancer cells as it is a bit more nuanced and different than you describe. There are doctors and scientists that discuss this and the mitochondria metabolic issues and methyl shifts that lead to cancer but I will leave that research to you.
As one that rarely offers references it may seem hypocritical to suggest these things but in this case these tips can have a positive or negative impact on someone and if a person is lost to cancer their family will be looking for people to go after even if your advice is not really at fault. I would let medical groups handle that fallout as they have a lot of money and lawyers.
Other than those things I like the format and style of your blog as well as the intent. People should indeed have more options especially when the medical system gives up.
I worked on this and host it on my site as well where it's not parceled up into bits and pieces. Have to thank Bartosz Ciechanowski. Learned a lot from his code and approach.
nah you can just create little holes in the sphere to illuminate the planets. negligible power loss. Earth and all the planets live on the sun's crumbs, no the (crumbs of the cumbs)^12
Good point. Since all our planets surround the sun more or less in the same plane, the dyson sphere could cover the remaining 95% of the sphere without affecting the planets too much. Remains the issue that you'd probably need the material of those planets to build the dyson sphere.
I like the railgun analogy. I think you can stock up on other fusion cost arguments through my article, Engineering and Economic Challenges of Fusion: https://lvenneri.com/blog/ConFusion
My own partisan comments on the pebble bed class of reactors (https://lvenneri.com/blog/pebble-bed-nukegumball) for those interested in a deeper yet still qualitative comparison of pebble beds and prismatic cores - the main types high temperature reactor. Long story short : pebbles offer significant disadvantages compared to prismatic geometries, summarized by this donald duck clip: https://youtu.be/shvwSBGDmE0.
I'm not sure who the intended audience is. Your arguments are technical enough that whoever is able to follow them will be extremely unimpressed by the linked Donald Duck cartoon. The fact that you do include it and think it improves your case demonstrates that you attempt to target the emotional side of your reader. I'll be honest and admit this is an uncharitable view. The charitable view is simply that you found this video and couldn't resist linking to it. But it's not good.
They will have two types of reactors. First, large centralized reactors for DD fusion to make He3. These will be more expensive and challenging because of the neutron bombardment. The other for D-He3 fusion which will be for smaller sites and produces less neutron damage.
They will make the He-3 using D-D fusion reactors (which is not aneutronic) and waiting for collected tritium to decay into He-3 (12 years). In each shot, they have to remove the he3 and T to prevent them from reacting.
In the D-he3 reactors, they cannot fully prevent the side reactions of DD and DT. But they can minimize them by controlling the mixture of he3 and D in each shot and constantly extracting the T byproduct of D-he3. Basically, they will have high ratio of he3 to D ions so that all the D ions are likely to be used in D-he3 reactions. Removing and collecting the T in each shot removes the opportunity for D-T. It will probably work to an extent, but there will still be side reactions. The overall neutronicity will likely be in the 2-5 range in the D-He3 reactors.
Doesn't matter if the heat is coming from burning more fossils or nuclear fuels or intercepting more solar light - the effect on Earth's temeperature is negligible for now. You can do simple heat balance with Stefan Boltzman Law to show that the temperature of the Earth would increase by less than a tenth of a degree even if we burned 10x more fossil or nuclear fuels. The idea is that all the energy received and and generated on Earth must be reraridated at the Earth's blackbody temperature, and it only changes as the power to the 1/4th - so very small compared to the absolute temperature of the Earth ~300K, and the changes (e.g. seasons).
Main problem is the rock melting temperature ~ 1500 to 2000 °C. Even the best performing nuclear fuels can only reach 1600°C in the fuel (TRISO Particle or FCM fuel) for limited periods of time, meaning 1000°C of heat delivered due to major limitations in the steels and heat transfer. They realized this early on in the Subterrene project at Los Alamos, and transitioned to electrically heated electrodes like graphite and tungsten. They even did field tests near Bandelier National Monument, digging a large diameter door sized hole using 100s of small diameter holes to form the perimeter. Even then, there are material degradation problems especially in the presence of air and water, that make rock melting pretty challenging. More recently, an MIT spinoff (Quaize or Quarkz or something like that) is using microwave emitters to vaporize the rock - which reduces material and mechanical challenges. But it's not ideal for large diameter holes - mostly for geothermal, fossil, or utility boring.
It's not clear to me that melting is less energy intensive than digging (and all it's related machinery and material movement).
I think it's pretty clear from an energy perspective that melting/vaporizing or even pulverizing the rock is waaaaay more energy intensive as the force to shear rock is orders of magnitude less than melting it.
One way to think of this is to just imagine the chemical bonds holding the rock together. Tricone drills and TBMs both just sheer the rock, the latter on a massive scale, which is only has to expend that localized bond energy, whereas melting all of it is massively inefficient even with good heat recovery.
One thing I've wondered is if a focused energy beam could just locally break the bonds in a way that'd produce pieces optimized (size, shape, etc.) for transport back through the tunnel. In this way the minimum of energy needs to be expended by reducing the linear distance of cutting.
However, energy beams still have to heat up the rock a lot to vaporize it, so this would still locally be less efficient than cold sheering that current methods use, so when you think about it, TBMs, etc. are actually doing pretty good.
Could you use a nuclear element to directly create pressure waves against the material? Something like: nuclear fuel, graphene drum head, water injectors to drive the drum expansion.
I think this problem may be one if the classic solid state is not actually better than the old-school mechanical solution.
As an experiment, it would be fun to architect 2 designs. One that has a fancy microwave or thermal rock melting setup, one that has a traditional rock drilling approach, both powered by a nuclear power source. Add up the cost of ownership for both, and I'd bet the mechanical solution comes out on top.
With current technology. But the point of this is to get a starting point for solid state and improve afterwards. Very much like how jet engines came to be better than propellers.
