One of my best-known columns is "How to Build a Gentle Hydrogen Bomb."

This column is a comical description of a combustion experiment in which I, as a cram school instructor, worked with elementary school children on hydrogen combustion generated by the electrolysis of brine solution.

Mere chemical reactions are described, and fusion reaction is not mentioned.

I first posted this column on the Web in 1996, 27 years ago.

-- I didn't think I'd get an order to delete it from the police authorities now.

-- But then, I didn't expect the provider to declare, 'If you don't comply with the order, we will suspend your service.

-----

This infringes my right to publish this column (right to post on the Web).

In the first place, it is also clear that this is not what the police have to say about the matter.

Furthermore, even if there were problems with the content, if the statements were made before the law was enacted, the order itself would be charged with illegal acts, given the "principle of non-retroactivity of the law" to the contrary.

However, I was curious about the "Explosives Control Penalties" listed in this police order and looked into it.

It seems that the basis of the law is an old law called "Dajokan Houmu No. 32 (Explosives Control Penal Provisions) of 1884" (in this case, the "principle of non-retroactivity of law" cannot be used as a defense).

It wasn't easy to read the article because it was written in Katakana. Still, I do not fall under Article 1, "Persons who use explosives to disturb public order or harm human life or property, and persons who use explosives to harm human life or property." Hence, the application of this law itself is not correct.

However, the Supreme Court's decision on this article, i interpreted as follows,

"An object in which chemicals and other materials are combined in an unstable equilibrium state that causes physical and chemical explosive phenomena, and the explosive action itself has sufficient destructive power to endanger public safety or damage human bodies and property" (June 27, 1956, Penal Code, Vol. 10, No. 6, p. 921).

Well, I think the usual requirement of intent or negligence would be necessary, but even if that were the case, it goes without saying that the law would cover the "manufacturer."

In other words, it can be inferred that the police authorities thought I was a layman in the law and gave me this warning.

-----

I thought, 'Why don't I battle with the authorities about this and write a series of blog posts about it? But, to be honest, I thought

"That's a pain in the ass."

And there was always the fear that 'children might easily copy this experiment.

That is why I have described the dangers of this experiment so much in my column, but children are "doers when they do it."

And I would hate for this to cause an accident and for my name to be known all over the country unexpectedly.

-----

After much consideration, I have decided to respond to the removal of the content.

"Ebata waited and saw and was assigned against the authorities (power)."

And please blow it up a lot -- I mean, it's a little late for that, but I (Ebata) have always waited and saw.

Not only for power but also as a research teams reader in my company