Stephen Kaplan's Letter to President Clinton
Portland, OR 97217
President Bill Clinton
The White House
Dear President Clinton:
You have expressed great cdncern about global warming and the long-term impact of the burning of fossil fuels on the environment. A growing body of evidence indicates that low-energy nuclear processes could become a source of abundant, non~polluting energy. Yet you are not receiving accurate advice about this possibility from your energy advisors. In particular I am referring to the Department of Energy and at least one of the scientists on your energy advisory panel.
Let me begin by saying that the Department of Energy is providing erroneous information to public officials about research on low-temperature nuclear reaction processes (popularly but perhaps misleadingly known as "cold fusion"). In a recent letter to Congresswoman
Elizabeth Furse, the Department claims that the reports of "anomalous excess energy and "anomalous nuclear effects" in cold fusion experiments have not been verified and that there is "no scientific evidence... that would suggest transmutation of radioactive materials can be achieved through low-temperature nuclear processes."
This position reflects the stand the Department took in 1989 when one of its panels recommended that no government flinding should be provided for research in this field. When that judgment was made, not all the evidence was in. Now that many years have passed, during which substantial research has been done in this field worldwide it is cleat that the Department's conclusion was seriously inaccurate even in 1989, and it is even more so today.
There is a growing body of experimental evidence that indicates anamalous excess heat and transformation of elements are regular occurences in cold fusion experiments. This was confirmed at the 7th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-7) that was held in Vancouver, BC April 19-24, 1998. At that conference, Dr. Les Case shared his path-breaking research on a cold fusion cell that dependably produces excess energy. Subsequent tests of that process by scientists at Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. verify his claims.
Not only has there been tremendous progress in basic research, but several companies in the United States are working hard to bring to market commercial units (see enclosed list). Moreover, there is also evidence that indicates that low-energy nuclear processes can transmute radioactive elements into non-radioactive substances. Two companies - CETI and the Cincinnati Group - have sold demonstration transmutation devices to other scientists. The CETI power cell was highlighted on ABC's Good Morning America and Nightline. Moreover, the transmutation of radioactive elements by both of these devices has been independently confirmed by other laboratories.
You have another energy advisor who is misinformed about the true status of cold fusion research. I am referring to Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, a distinguished scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1969 for his discovery of the quark, a sub-atomic particle. He is a brilliant man, but like so many in the scientific establishment, he has a real blind spot concerning the subject of cold fusion.
Recently, Dr. Gell-Mann gave a lecture at Portland State University (Portland, Oregon). At the end of that lecture, someone asked him about his views concerning cold fusion. His reply: "It's a bunch of baloney. Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists."
In response, Dr. John Dash, a metallurgist who is a member of the Portland State University physics faculty, announced that he had been engaged in cold fusion research since 1989 and had found much empirical evidence that the phenomenon is real. Dr. Gell-Mann expressed no interest in learning about Dr. Dash's research findings.
After his talk I met with Dr. Gell-Mann and asked him to consider the evidence for the reality of low energy nuclear reactions with a more open mind, and I left with him the enclosed list of studies in the field. A week later I sent him a letter inviting him to take a look at additional evidence, starting with information that could be provided by Dr. John Dash and also by Dr. Tom Claytor of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Since Dr. Gell-Mann declined to answer my letter (and a follow-up letter) and did not consult with either Dr. Dash or Dr. Claytor, perhaps he is uninterested in considering new evidence concerning the reality of cold fusion.
Is this the kind of scientist you want to advise you on energy matters? At the very least you might want to balance his judgment by those provided by more more open-minded scientists. Only in this way will you be assured you are getting good guidance on a matter of critical importance to our energy future.
You may want to consult several scientists who have been involved in this field while working for the government: (1) Dr. Tom Claytor of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose experiments indicate that tritium can be produced by low-energy nuclear reaction processes; (2) Dr. Melvin Miles, a scientist on the staff of the Navy's China Lake facility, who has also found transmutation of elements in his research; (3) Dr. David Nagel, head of the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory, who prepared the enclosed judicious appraisal of the status of cold fusion research; (4) the scientists at the U.S Army who decided to fund Dr: John Dash's research on cold fusion at Portland State University (Portland, Oregon); (5) Dr. Edmund Storms, formerly with Los Alamos National Laboratory, who published the excellent enclosed discussion of the cold fusion controversy.
Although the evidence for the reality of low-energy nuclear processes is being ignored by your scientific advisors, it has not escaped the attention of scientists advising foreign governments. For example, among the scientists in attendance at the latest International Conference on Cold Fusion was George Longchampt, member of the French Atomic Energy Commission. At an earlier international conference, reported he had successfully replicated the original cold usion experiment of Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. At his urging, the French Atomic Energy Commission is now funding cold fusion research.
Also in attendance at ICCF-7 were prominent scientists from Japan, China, Russia, Italy, Germany and other countries. Among the Chinese scientists were representatives from the high- level Institute of Modern Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Many years ago, the U.S. government ignored the scientific claims of Robert Goddard, the inventor of the rocket. Germany did not ignore his research with devastating and almost disastrous results for the world. Will a mistake like that be repeated today?
Unless you reach out widely and get scientific advice from a wide variety of advisors, you will not be able to devleop a rational energy policy for future. If your official advisors are so wrong regarding cold fusion research, what other information vital to national security and well-being might they be keeping from you? May I respectfully suggest that this question deserves high priority attention.