P. 1
Free Energy Suppression

Free Energy Suppression


|Views: 4,798|Likes:
Published by spencerarts
A document from Gary Vesperman
Chief Operating Officer and Director of Research
Blue Energy Corporation. It details cases of Free Energy suppression.
A document from Gary Vesperman
Chief Operating Officer and Director of Research
Blue Energy Corporation. It details cases of Free Energy suppression.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: spencerarts on Oct 23, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





From: David G. Yurth [mailto:davidyurth@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 5:27 PM
To: 'STetreault@stephensmedia.com'
Subject: Remediating Nuclear Waste Materials - UNLV
Dear Mr. Tetreault: After reading your article in the Las Vegas Review Journal entitled “Nuclear
Project Draws Interest,” I thought it may be of interest to you to know that the DOE has played this game
with university and privately funded laboratories for many years. Perhaps the most comprehensive review
of this subject ever undertaken was prepared by Mr. Richard Shamp, President of Nuclear Remediation
Technologies, headquartered in Hyattsville, Maryland (301) 559-5057.
Beginning in 1997, NRT and its chief scientist S-X Jin [once the highest ranked particle physicist in
the People’s Republic of China, until he escaped to the US in 1994 while addressing the Institute of New
Energy symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah] have been submitting critical laboratory documents to DOE,
demonstrating the effectiveness of known technologies used to remediate radioactive emissions generated
by nuclear fuel waste materials in both solid and liquid form.
After being finessed into providing all the definitive laboratory data to Dr. Frank Goldner of DOE’s
nuclear remediation division, then-Secretary of DOE Spencer Abraham attempted to confiscate, classify
and impound NRT’s technology while at the same time pretending to be considering providing grant
money to support its continued development.

Energy Invention Suppression Cases 91 September 3, 2007

The fact that the technology in question had already been awarded six patents [K. Shoulders et al]
was the only thing that prevented him from succeeding. Instead of providing grant funding, Dr. Goldner
was instructed to put an end to NRT’s pursuit of DOE funding for the development and deployment of its
technologies. And that is precisely what he did.
During a conference call held on November 15, 2003, I was informed by Goldner that not only did
DOE not intend to ever provide any funding to anyone for the purpose of remediating radioactive
emissions in spent nuclear fuels, he insisted that it is and will continue to be DOE’s policy for the next 40
years to encapsulate and bury every ounce of high-grade nuclear waste material stored in the US under
ground at Yucca Mountain.

Further, he told us that any attempt to obtain any high-level nuclear waste materials for testing by
anyone, including government funded laboratories, would be arrested and jailed without access to legal
counsel under the Export Administration Act. I still don’t know what the EAA has to do with remediating
radioactive emissions, but that is what he said.
In 1999, while Elliott Richardson was Secretary of DOE, NRT was awarded a discretionary grant of
$2,000,000 for the purpose of advancing its test schedule. The work was to have been undertaken in
concert with Dr. George Miley, physicist in residence at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana –
Dr. Miley’s laboratory at the Champaign-Urbana campus was level 2 accredited by DOE, and was
therefore acceptable as a test and development site. However, within less than 90 days after the
announcement of the grant had been published, pressure from within the Department rose to such
extraordinary levels that Secretary Richardson was forced to withdraw the grant, albeit grudgingly.
The only similar technology ever contemporaneously developed in the US for the remediation of
radioactive emissions in high-grade nuclear waste materials was developed in the late 1990’s by Dr. Paul
Brown and his colleagues at World Atomics in Colorado Springs, Colorado. After being granted several
patents for the ‘Nuclear Spallation Device’ he designed, Brown contracted with several Japanese
contractors to build three successively powerful prototype versions of his device.
He had them built in Japan because DOE actively intervened more than a dozen times to prevent US
companies from building it. The problem with Brown’s device was that it was little more than a small,
semi-controlled nuclear fission-powered device designed to continuously bombard nuclear waste material
targets with a highly charged gamma ray field. Because it was so dangerous to operate, Brown was never
able to obtain the necessary State Department or UN transport clearances to have it shipped across
international waters into the US for further testing and development.
As you may recall, Dr. Brown was killed shortly thereafter under the most questionable of
circumstances, just as the utility of his nuclear spallation technique was about to be publicly demonstrated
in Japan.

(Only a month before he died, Dr. Brown met with me, Gary Vesperman, and a few of my business
and science associates in Henderson, Nevada to present his method of neutralizing radioactive waste. His
method is No. 13 in my list of methods of neutralizing or disposing of radioactive waste in
http://iiic.de/docs/GVComparison.htm. A few weeks after Brown’s suspicious fatal car accident, Art
Rosenblum also died in a car accident. Rosenblum had been enthusiastically promoting Randall Mills'
Blacklight Power Inc.’s energy source.)
We have known how to safely remediate radioactive emissions from spent nuclear fuels, both liquid
and solid, for nearly a decade. We have the test data and prototype apparatus to prove it. That data,
including all the protocols, policies, procedures and experimental design criteria associated with our work
have been submitted to DOE many times over – Dick Shamp can tell you all about it if you want to go to
the trouble to ask him – with the net result that DOE will not allow the US Postal Service to deliver our
proposals any longer. If you want to see what is really going on with nuclear remediation, this is a very
good place to begin.

Thanks for writing your article – you’re about to find out how big Pandora’s box really is.

David G. Yurth, Ph.D.
Director Science and Technology
Nuclear Remediation Technologies, Inc.

Energy Invention Suppression Cases 92 September 3, 2007

(Yurth’s letter to Tetreault has not been published in any Las Vegas publication. Why? Maybe to
protect the profitable contracts to be generated by the DOE-estimated $150 billion lifecycle cost of the
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository? Gary Vesperman)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->