Boy Scout Proof Of Claim: Fill & Download for Free

Not a prototype, more like a proof of principle experiment. Think ITER, but on a Boy Scout scale.(ITER)He collected americium from many, many smoke detectors. Thorium from many, many gas light mantles.He mixed the americium with beryllium producing a neutron source. The alpha from the americium reacts with the beryllium and yields carbon and a neutron.Then his “reactor” had carbon for a moderator to slow down the neutrons. The thorium he included absorbed some of the neutrons producing Th233.[1][1][1][1] After a couple of decays this becomes U233. U233 is fissile - a perfectly good bomb material.I’m pretty certain that he generated a fission or two. As a few of his neutrons found the few atoms of U233 that he created. He claimed that the radioactivity of his pile increased with time. This is plausible. He also claimed that he could detect the radiation five houses away. This seems implausible to me … I doubt his equipment was that good.What he lacked was scale and time. The definition of a nuclear reactor is that it produces a self sustaining chain reaction. He had gram or less quantities of material and needed tons. He was generating U233 at a tiny rate, he would have need millennia.David Hahn, RIP.Footnotes[1] FACT CHECK: Did a 17-Year-Old Eagle Scout Build a Nuclear Reactor in His Mom’s Backyard?[1] FACT CHECK: Did a 17-Year-Old Eagle Scout Build a Nuclear Reactor in His Mom’s Backyard?[1] FACT CHECK: Did a 17-Year-Old Eagle Scout Build a Nuclear Reactor in His Mom’s Backyard?[1] FACT CHECK: Did a 17-Year-Old Eagle Scout Build a Nuclear Reactor in His Mom’s Backyard?

A crazed, 6 month-pregnant woman was holding up a photo I took. It was of my bed. In my bed were my two children, asleep, on their tummies, covered in blankets to their shoulders. Faces turned away from the camera. Also in my bed was a 100 pound yellow lab, in his fur coat, also sprawled out and snoozing. The caption on the photo was something like, “This is why Momma doesn’t get any sleep. No real estate for mom.”I have a social media account. I had posted the photo about a year earlier. It was there with pics of vacations and family weekends.The 6 foot tall, 250 pound pregnant lady holding the photo was my ex-husband’s new wife. We were all in co-parent counseling. I had asked the court to compel them to attend, and the judge agreed.This woman found the photo highly offensive and was “concerned for the safety of the children.” Her claim was that I was using this photo of my children to lure men to pay me…for my career in porn!Sooooo…in addition to being a single mother, working full time as an accountant, running my own real estate business on the side, and volunteering with hospice patients each week, taking my kids to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and two different soccer leagues…I had a thriving side hustle as a porn actress/model. And this photo of my sleeping family was proof…and highly offensive to a second-trimester-parenting-expert.Apparently she thinks I’m super woman…and she finds short, chubby, middle-aged soccer moms to be …hot…I took her offense to be more of a personal statement about her own thoughts and desires….OR…guess I have could have just been under estimated myself. Seems like a stretch.

Science has nothing to do with dismissing folly and myth.Scientific method is the road map of studying and eventually explaining observable phenomena on our planet and beyond it.Of course science hasn't given efforts to refute god:That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.The burden of proof is on the party making a positive claim:In religious mythology: "There is a god, it happens to be the one MY countrymen believe in, and here is a list of rules he made".In Criminal Law: "This man is a serial killer who murdered 76 boy scouts and ate them".In Venture Capital: "Our startup is going to change the way people live their daily lives, and make trillions".In conspiracy: "Aliens HAVE landed on earth, kidnapped a cow, and anal probed it".A reasonable response to all would be: "Got evidence? No? Then come back when you do, till then there are people trying to actually learn and research something here".Yes - Critical thought applies everywhere.On this basis I assert there is no god.Hold it, I've done this a few times before, so I have a good guess for what's next:"You don't KNOW that for sure!"Here's a question for you:Do you believe in Leprechauns? Genies? Dragons?Right.And even though you haven't scouted the entirety of the observable universe you regard them as children stories, not meriting a second thought.Exactly - no difference from god.Same amount of evidence - Zero.Same fictional type of source - Imagination.So I don't see why we should discriminate Leprechauns in favor of "god".Any of the 3,700 made up versions.