Brown’s Gas: 30-Year-Old Nuclear Decontamination Technology
I first learned about Brown’s gas from an interview on Radio Out There with Nexus magazine publisher Duncan Roads. He talked about the magazine’s 200th edition, which features their top 20 top news stories (over 36 years). Roads refers to a 2017 article on Brown’s gas.[1] Although the article itself focuses solely on its health benefits, in the interview Roads also mentions its use in nuclear waste decontamination.
Owing to my involvement in a nearly 40-year campaign to clean up up the Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington, I was gobsmacked to learn that Brown’s gas, also known as HHO, oxyhydrogen, hydroxy gas and Knallgas (in Germany and Scandinavia) is but one of nine peer reviewed low cost processes for decontaminating nuclear waste.
The use of hydrolysis to produce “oxyhydrogen,” the first gaseous mixture to be used for welding, was first discovered by British chemist and inventor William Nicholson in 1800.
In 1974, Bulgarian-born electrical engineer Yull Brown obtained new patents for what came to be known as “Brown’s gas” generators, designed to split water into charged hydrogen and oxygen molecules and hydroxyl (OH) radicals via alkaline electrolysis.
Having moved to Australia in 1954, it was there he developed and manufactured the first applications for his generators. At the request of the Chinese government, in the 1990s he transferred production to the People’s Republic of China in the 1990s.[2] This would inspire Chinese manufacturers to adopt Brown’s gas, in preference to acetylene, in their welding torches. Other early Chinese applications, besides welding and brazing, included water desalination, toxic waste management and destruction, pharmaceutical production and materials hardening. In 1996, the Chinese re-invited Yull Brown to build a Brown’s gas system for deployment in automobiles.
Presently most Brown’s gas generators are produced in China, mainly for welding, brazing, health indications and improved vehicle fuel efficiency. Made in China offers 3,535 models of Brown’s gas generators online from 65 different suppliers. Prices (in US dollars) range from $78 to $42,000.
In 1992 at the request of Congressman Berkeley Bedell, US Department of Energy officials observed a demonstration in Ontario California in which a Brown’s gas torch reduced the radioactivity of Cobalt 60 by 96% in a few minutes.
In the US and other Western countries, the use of oxyhydrogen or Brown’s gas for purposes other than welding is still viewed as “fringe” science by Wikipedia, Nature and Popular Mechanics. Not so in China and South Korea, where major research into Brown’s gas is ongoing, mostly for medical indications, for use in fossil fuel vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and reduce particulate pollution and for (toxic and nuclear) waste management.
Use of Brown’s Gas to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Reduce Particulate Pollution
Among numerous peer reviewed Chinese studies incorporating Brown’s gas generators in diesel and gasoline engines to improve combustion (and fuel) efficiency are one from 2015 in Journal of Jiangsu University and from 2016 in Energy Technology.
There are also two from Jordan in 2010 and 2011 and one from Pakistan in 2020.
Owing to particulate pollution (smog) reaching dangerous levels in numerous Chinese cities, several researchers have examined the dual role of Brown’s gas generators in simultaneously reducing exhaust particulates (due to more efficient combustion) and improving fuel efficiency. These include one from India in 2014, two in 2022 in Journal of Cleaner Production and MDPI, and six between 2021-2023 in the Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Use of Brown’ Gas to Manage Waste (Including Toxic Waste)
Korean studies from 2004 and 2005 also look at the use of Brown’s gas in the vitrification of solid waste. One from 2008 looks at the use of Brown’s gas to safely vitrify asbestos and one from 2012 studies the use of a Brown gas for non-polluting waste incineration.
Health Uses
Most Brown’s gas generators, in China and elsewhere, are manufactured and sold for health indications. Based on multi-center clinical trials, China’s National Medical Administration for Respiratory Diseases authorizes Brown’s gas inhalation to treat Covid pneumonia. A 2021 paper in Emergency Medicine Journal explains the theoretical basis for its effectiveness.
There’s also 2021 Chinese study Brown’s gas treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and a 2020 paper from the University of Salzburg reviewing Brown’s gas treatment in various chronic illnesses.
Brown’s Gas in Nuclear Waste Decontamination
Although most peer-reviewed research into the role if Brown’s gas in nuclear waste decontamination is limited to theoretical explanations of its role in transmutation, it clearly justifies further investigation of this technology. On August 24, 1991, Baotou’s Nuclear Institute # 202 reported on an experiment in which treatment with Brown’s gas reduced the radioactivity of a Cobalt 60 sample by more than 50%. [3] Although there are anecdotal reports (some from Brown himself) of more recent Chinese research into the role of Brown’s gas in neutralizing radioactive nucleotides, the Chinese government has declined to release them.
In 1999 Mark Porringa, chief engineer at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, conducted an experiment using Yull Brown’s proprietary protocol on a uCi sample of Am 241, a weak alpha emitter with a half-life of 461 years. Radiation levels were reduced from over 70,000 cpm down to less than 6,000 cpm in less than a minute.
In a paper presented to 2018 Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear, Dr Andrew Michrowski PhD and Mark Porringa make a strong case for transmutation (a process altering the nuclei of atoms to produce new, non-radioactive isotopes) being the mechanism by which Brown’s reduces radioactivity.
In 1999 in the Journal of Processing Technology and in 2001 in the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment O-Heung Guk offers a potential mechanism (involving the production of π-rays) for the transmutations triggered by exposure to Brown’s gas.
In 2019, Slobodan Stankovic of Swiss Oxyhydrogen Energy, supported this view when he presented experimental findings to the 22nd annual conference of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science about the role of oxyhydrogen in the apparent synthesis of new elements (ie transmutation).
Other Low Energy Decontamination Technologies
Although none have been as extensively studied as Brown’s gas, the Planetary Association for Clean Energy (PACE) in Ottawa has put forward nine additional transmutation-based technologies for nuclear waste decontamination.[5] Brown’s gas is only effective in decontaminating homogeneous solid state materials (such as metals), and most nuclear waste presents as slag or in liquid form. Because the isolation process can be the most expensive step, the use of Brown’s gas needs to be considered in conjunction with other low energy transmutation technologies.
Of the nine, the most promising (in terms of peer reviewed research) are
- AmoTerra: Confined explosions using proprietary mixtures reduce radioactivity to near-background levels gradually over 1 to 4 days. This technique has been confirmed by the Italian ENEA and supported by the French CEA scientists as a serious candidate for treatment of waste stockpiles. The Canadian technology was granted an “Approval” (license) from the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia to show that this process can be used to deplete low-level radioactive waste on a commercial scale. Based on original research by Dr John O’Malley Bockris at Texas A&M, the process has been independently monitored since 2002 by a number of distinguished scientists, including (among others) the late Dr. John Coleman, Senior Research Scientist, MIT, retired Dr. Philippe Duport, as Director, Low-Dose Radiation, University of Ottawa and retired Dr. John Johnson, PhD, formerly Senior Scientist, Hanford. Using their proprietary laser technique, AmoTerra can treat radioactive hard surface materials clean of contamination in about three minutes. In 2016, they signed an agreement with the Hungarian government to install an integrated waste management program to include mixed and radioactive waste.
- LENTEC (Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Electrolytic Cells): induces a variety of transmutation reactions using various electrolysis cells designed to produce condensed charge clusters, which with special electrodes can penetrate the nuclei of larger atoms in solution and transmute these atoms into stable elements. The reported conversion of thorium to stable titanium and copper by the Cincinnati Group and by the Salt Lake City group is one of the most dramatic examples of this type of treatment process.
- Kevran Reactions: (Bionuclear Waste Remediation) The very compelling evidence compiled by French Nobel candidate Dr. Louis Kevran has identified a wide range of nuclear transmutations in biological systems. Highly radiation resistant microorganisms have been found thriving in the core of nuclear reactors, suggesting some inherent ability to transmute bio- active nuclear wastes.
- Higher Group Symmetry Electrodynamics: Extremely weak, non-classical, higher group symmetry electromagnetic fields were found during a 1991 experiment by PACE team member Glen Rein to significantly alter the radioactivity level of contaminated environments. The technology is extremely simple and could be applied with minimum logistics for treating massive outdoor areas in-toto, for example the region surrounding the Chernobyl disaster.
Nuclear Waste Disposal: Storage Isn’t the Answer
The issue of nuclear waste disposal poses a serious dilemma for all countries involved in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production – as well as Pacific Rim countries threatened by Japan’s imminent plans to dump radioactive Fukushima cooling water into the Pacific Ocean.
In the US, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants (mainly consisting of spent fuel rods) is stored in dry cask vaults at a growing number of nuclear power plant sites, and at an interim facility located at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls.
Nuclear waste from former US nuclear weapons facilities is more problematic. According to Chemical and Engineering News, more than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near current and former weapons production facilities. The waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in future (presently non-operational) underground vaults. With nowhere to go, the hazardous materials and their containers are beginning to leak as they age.
In the case of Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington, about a third of the buried containers of liquid radioactive waste are leaking hexavalent chromium and strontium-90 into local groundwater, which, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, is flowing freely into the Columbia River. The latter is a major water source for crop irrigation, as well as a recreational fishing site.
The Chemical and Engineering News also reports the Hanford site is gearing up to vitrify its waste in a multi billion-dollar Department of Energy (DOE) vitrification facility. Under construction since 2002, the DOE promises “some” vitrification operations will begin this year. Given the operation’s past history of delays and cost overruns, this looks doubtful.
The plan at Hanford, for example, calls for entombing nuclear waste in borosilicate glass and encasing the glass in stainless-steel canisters. Yet despite the billions of dollars spent on Hanford’s vitrification plant, the exact formulation of the glass, or glasses, is still under investigation. Important questions remain unanswered (eg what glass compositions lead to the highest uptake of nuclear waste, how suited are they to vitrification, and how long will they resist corrosion in a repository environment?)
The Choice to Store Nuclear Waste is Political
The body of peer reviewed research justifying storage (which hasn’t actually happened yet) as the technology of choice for nuclear waste management is even more limited than that supporting transmutation technologies. In other words, the choice to “store” nuclear waste, rather than “decontaminate” it, is political rather than scientific.
Although much more research is needed before Brown’s gas and similar transmutation technologies could be effectively implemented, the political nature of the decision to “store” nuclear waste has made it extremely difficult to elicit research funding for novel decontamination technologies from either the nuclear lobby or government regulatory agencies.
Despite its label as a “fringe” technology, the evidence suggests the real objection to Brown’s gas is that it’s a non-Western technology, with America’s major economic competitor (and recent political enemy) owning most of the intellectual property related to its applications.
In any case, the refusal of Western governments to acknowledge the numerous peer reviewed technologies available for cheap and efficient nuclear waste decontamination is a major tragedy for civilian populations facing the ever growing risk of life threatening exposure to mismanaged nuclear waste.
Notes
[1] Extraordinary Healing Power of Brown’s Gas, Nexus Magazine, Nov 2017.
2] Michrowski, Andrew, Water as a Fuel – Brown’s Gas, Proceedings International Hydrogen Energy Congress and Exhibition, Istanbul 13-15 July 2005.
[3] Baotou Nuclear Institute #202, The results of experiments to dispose of radiation materials by Brown’s Gas.
FILE PHOTO: A dump track unloads grain in a granary in the village of Zgurovka, Ukraine, August 9, 2022 © AP / Efrem Lukatsky
