Um…

Well… it is a weak acid so it could possibly react with chemicals that are either alkaline in nature or are just prone to breaking down in acid.  But those “chemicals” are rather high up in altitude, and aside from that obvious problem, one might think that if the chemicals were potent enough to be dangerous even after drifting down and surviving the harsh conditions of the upper atmosphere than vinegar probably would not do much.

Really, do I need to explain the flaws in the logic here?

Apparently so.

There are actually a lot more videos about this on Youtube. I did not have time to look at them all, so some may be even more lame.

If chemtrail conspiracy theorists are to believed, then large jet aircraft, possibly the same aircraft that carry passengers are being used to spray unknown quantities of chemicals of some type at high altitude.  While it’s rather difficult to judge the altitude of an aircraft by sight alone, based on what has been claimed to be chemtrails it’s fairly clear that the aircraft were flying at normal jet altitudes, well above tropospheric weather.   If they were indeed passenger aircraft then the altitude is generally above thirty thousand feet.

Some commonly claimed materials:

Jet Fuel or other hydrocarbons – This is actually done on occasion, as passenger jets do occasionally have to preform fuel dumps.   These are not done as a matter of routine but rather happen when a plane is heavily loaded with fuel for a long flight but has to land shortly after takeoff due to an emergency such as a mechanical failure or a passenger medical emergency.  The fuel disperses rapidly.  Studies have been done on exactly what happens to fuel dumped at altitude and have concluded that at least 98% of it evaporates before it ever reaches ground level. If any does reach the ground (which it usually does not) it is a very minute amount which is spread over an enormous geographic area.   The quantity is basically unnoticeable and will itself evaporate relatively quickly.

The fuel vapors will not last long in the atmosphere.  Hydrocarbons tend to photodegrade and generally decompose in the atmosphere and will eventually oxidize entirely.   In the short term, these vapors may contribute, at least locally to smog, but they would  makeup a relatively small proportion of human generated air pollution.

Aluminum – Atomized aluminum or some aluminum compound like aluminum oxide would disperse quite a bit before any amount reached the ground.  It would basically behave as atmospheric dust, some remaining suspended for some time in the high winds at altitude but most eventually falling from suspension.  Aluminum is one of the most common elements in the crust of the earth and therefore one of the primary components of atmospheric dust.  Adding a little more aluminum would have little effect on the total amount in the earth’s atmospheric dust and any that settled to the ground would join the enormous amounts of aluminum present in most soil.

Aluminum is generally regarded as being non-toxic and in all but the most extreme circumstances presents no substantial health danger.

Mercury – If ejected from aircraft, mercury would either evaporate or form very small droplets which would remain suspended at least initially.   Due to the high weight of mercury it would not stay in the atmosphere for a very long time but would precipitate out.   By the time the mercury reached the ground, it would be extremely dispersed and would not reach toxic levels in any given location.  However, it would accumulate in water especially in the worlds oceans.

Spraying mercury out of aircraft wouldn’t do a whole lot to increase the atmospheric mercury levels or the oceanic mercury levels, however.  Unfortunately, we already spew many many tons of mercury into the atmosphere and it has resulted in increased atmospheric and oceanic mercury levels and occasionally can be shown to bioacumulate in some species.   This happens because of the burning of coal which is a very effective way of ejecting mercury into the atmosphere.   In areas directly downwind from coal plants, mercury levels are elevated, especially after the coal burner has operated for a many years or decades.

Dumping mercury from an aircraft would at least result in more dilution before it reached the ground and thus would not expose a given area to as acute a level of mercury.   All in all, it would do what coal burners already do, although to a much smaller extent.

Barium – One of the most commonly claimed components of chemtrails is barium.  However, chemtrail conspiracy theorists don’t seem to have much idea what form it is supposedly being discharged in.  Barium is an alkaline earth metal, but in its elemental form it is highly reactive especially to oxygen.  If barium were discharged into the air in an atomized form, it would react violently to form barium oxide and barium peroxide.  Both of these compounds are also reactive and are powerful oxidizers.  While it is unlikely that either would reach the ground in significant concentrations, if they did, they would react readily with most organic material.

If barium compounds were released in the atmosphere, it’s more realistic to expect that they would be m0re stable barium salts.   The most common of these is barium sulfate.   Barium sulfate is non-toxic and not reactive.   It is so safe that it is a very common radiocontrast agent that is often swallowed to allow x-ray examination of the digestive tract.   It is also fairly common in the surface geology of earth, so adding a tiny bit more would not change very much.

Other barium salts vary in toxicity and reactivity from very low to very high.  Most soluble barium compounds are fairly toxic.  Barium carbonate, for example, has been used as a rat poison.   These barium compounds are also found in nature, in soil, water and atmospheric dust and are generally not of concern as long as the concentrations are fairly low.  According to the CDC, respiratory precautions become necessary when the concentrations of soluble barium compounds in the air exceed .5 miligrams per cubic meter.

Such high concentrations are would not result from dumping barium into the air at altitude.   By the time the compound reached the ground, it would be dispersed over a minimum of dozens of square kilometers.  Some chemtrail theorists cite measurements of soluble barium compounds in air samples that have been as high as 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter.   This is a tiny amount, and orders of magnitude bellow what is considered the safe exposure level.  It is entirely consistent with the levels expected to exist from soil kicked up by wind and other sources of atmospheric dust.   Atmospheric barium is also produced by some human activities, such as flares and fireworks, where barium compounds are used to produce a green color.   The levels produced by such activities have been subject to study and while they do cause a very modest localized increase in detectable barium compounds, the levels are nowhere near what would be considered hazardous.

Sulfur Dioxide – Aircraft do already release tiny amounts of sulfur dioxide, because sulfur is present in hydrocarbon fuels. Aviation fuel tends to be relatively highly refined and conform to standards for low sulfur levels. In the case of Jet-A fuel, the maximum allowable sulfur concentration is less than .3% by weight. This results in a small but significant amount of sulfur dioxide in the engine exhaust.

It has been suggested that aircraft could spray sulfur dioxide as a means of reducing global warming.  Indeed, sulfur dioxide does reflect sunlight, but it also causes acid rain, so intentionally depositing it into the atmosphere seems to be a rather flawed idea.  Still, there is quite a bit of the stuff in the atmosphere, both as a result of natural sources like volcanos as well as man-made sources.  The largest, by far, is coal burning, which releases hundreds of thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

It would take an enormous effort by a huge number of aircraft to increase the total emitted noticeably, and although it would deposit the gas at a higher altitude (at least initially) than coal exhaust, it wouldn’t change atmospheric distribution much in the long run.  In any event, the total amount that could be placed in the upper atmosphere by thousands of aircraft would be less than can be produced by a single large volcanic eruption, as happens every so often.

Cloud Seeding Chemicals - Cloud seeding is typically accomplished by using hydroscpic materials, such as salts, by using cold materials like liquid propane or dry ice or by using silver iodine, a chemical which has a structure similar to ice and can be used to induce the formation of ice crystals.  These chemicals are sometimes delivered by aircraft but are also commonly delivered by rockets or by ground-based misters and flares.

The best evidence indicates that these chemicals can indeed have some localized effect on cloud structure and precipitation.   Adding large amounts of seed material to saturated, supercooled clouds increases the rate of ice and water droplet formation and can temporarily increase the altitude of the cloud, causing additional cooling and resulting in precipitation.   The effect, however, is entirely temporary and will only affect the cloud formation which is seeded and not the overall weather of a region.

While cloud seeding is sometimes practiced, it is done in a manner that does not even remotely resemble the so-called “chemtrail” reports.  For one, cloud seeding is only effective when the chemicals are applied to clouds that are already fairly saturated and contain at least some supercooled water droplets.   If cloud seeding chemicals are applied to a “dry” sky or to areas that do not have dense, cold clouds, they will have no effect at all.  If the proported chem trails really did contain seeding material, it would be extremely wasteful as these aircraft normally are reported in relatively clear skies.

The altitudes of the aircraft are also entirely wrong for cloud seeding.  While it can be difficult to judge the exact altitude of an aircraft, most “chemtrail” reports cite jet aircraft that appear to be flying at normal altitude.  The type of clouds that can be most effectively seeded are at relatively low altitudes.   Jet aircraft typically fly at altitudes far above tropospheric weather and thus, even if the appropriate cloud formations did exist, they would be too high to directly seed them.  Therefore, any attempt to seed clouds from these aircraft would be entirely ineffective.

Bacteria - If sprayed out the back of an aircraft at altitude, bacteria would be introduced to a very harsh environment.   The spraying itself would eject the bacteria into air currents moving at near supersonic speeds and into extremely low temperatures.   Many forms of bacteria are capable of surviving freezing and rethawing, but the tolerance for being frozen varies depending on the type of bacteria and the circumstances of the freezing.   Being frozen after being ejected from an aircraft is an especially rapid and violent form of freezing.  The bacteria would be subjected to an extreme temperature change and being tumbled with tiny ice crystals.   It would be expected that most of the bacteria would be destroyed if ejected in a liquid form in this manner.

The only bacteria that might be candidates for being ejected from an aircraft would be those that form tough endospores.   They also count not be ejected as a liquid, mixed with water, but would have to be dried and preserved in a powder-like form.   Ejecting the powdered bacteria presents other problems.   Atomized solids tend to accumulate static charges which cause them to clump and not properly disperse.  However, the problem is not insurmountable, assuming enough effort were put into electrostatic control and dispersal equipment.

There are very few bacteria that really fit the bill for being tough enough to be dispersed into the air in the endospore phase and have a good chance of surviving for any period of time.   One reason that anthrax has been the focus of much biological warfare research is that it is one of the very few pathogenic bacteria that can be spread by air and is tough enough to reliably survive rapid dispersal.  It also can be cultured in large quantities relatively easily.

Even a bacteria like anthrax would have difficulty in the especially rough conditions of being sprayed out of the back of a jet aircraft. If the bacteria were to come into contact with droplets of liquid water as it fell, it could come out of the endospore phase and thus become far more fragile.

An even greater danger would be ultraviolet light. UV light is an effective way of destroying bacteria and at high altitudes they would be above most of the atmosphere and much of the ozone layer. At these altitudes, UV light is especially intense. The bacteria would likely remain aloft for some time, due to their small size and the high speed winds at altitude. This would give them ample time to be exposed to intense ultraviolet light.

Ultimately some of the bacteria may well survive and eventually they would find their way to the ground.  Just like other forms of atmospheric dust, the bacteria would either reach low levels on their own or be brought down by precipitation.   By the time they reached the ground, the bacteria would be extremely dispersed, with a relatively small amount of bacterial dispersed over as much as hundreds of miles.

This would be of little concern.   The world is not sterile as is and the soil is already full of bacteria, including potentially pathogenic bacteria (for this reason, licking random things outdoors is not recommended).  The bacteria would join a huge population of bacteria of every type that lives in the soil and air of the earth.  Even anthrax can be found in soil in many locations.  Inhaling an few bacteria is not likely to cause infection, it would have to be a fairly large amount.  That would never happen.

To date, there are no known biological warfare programs that ever considered spreading bacteria by spraying it out the back of high altitude jet aircraft.  All credible biological warfare research and testing as focused on more direct methods of exposing populations or enemy forces to bacteria, such as contaminating water supplies or using small ground-level aerosol producing bomblets.

Viruses – Many of the rules that apply to bacteria also apply to viruses, although viruses are vastly varied in their tolerance for various environments.  Many viruses are extremely fragile when outside of their host organism.  Viruses also are much more difficult to produce in large quantities since they cannot be cultured on their own – they require another organism’s cells to replicate.

Assuming a virus could be found that could be produced in large quantities and was able to survive the temperature extremes, ultraviolet light and other factors associated with being sprayed from a high altitude aircraft, it would still be a too dispersed to be likely to cause much harm and  would be, at best, a highly inefficient way of dosing people on the ground.

Antibiotics – Because antibiotics are complex organic compounds, it could be expected that some portion of those discharged into the upper atmosphere would decompose or otherwise be destroyed by ultraviolet light or oxidation before ever reaching the ground.  Since the antibiotics would be greatly dispersed, it’s unlikely that there would be much in the way of noticeable effects on the microorganisms in the region.  Antibiotics have to be present in fairly high concentrations for them to be effective in killing or inhibiting the reproduction of microbes.

Discharging even fairly large amounts of antibiotics into the environment in such a low density manner would not do very much to alter the concentrations in the region.  It is important to remember that antibiotics have been common in the biosphere for at least millions of years.   Most antibiotic compounds are derived directly from compounds produced by fungi, bacteria and other microbes.  For example, the antibiotic Gentamicin is composed of compounds produced by widely found in soil and water and Penicillin is produced by a common fungus that is responsible for bread mold. There are some fully synthetic antibiotics, but they are not inherently more powerful than the naturally occurring variety.

Antibiotics are selective and only toxic to certain microbes. These compounds are not toxic to humans or animals and would not have any noticeable effects on such organisms, especially in the concentrations that might reach ground level from high altitude discharges. Since these compounds are present in minute amounts in the environment, humans are always being exposed to very low concentrations of antibiotic compounds and always have been.

Human Blood – This is an especially ridiculous claim, given the amount of blood that would be needed to create a reasonably sized trail of blood in the air. It would take all the blood in the bodies of more than 24,000 full grown humans to fill the tanks of a KC-135.   That assumes all the bodies were drained.  More than three times as many would be needed for live donors of the blood.

Not only that, but spraying blood would be a huge problem for the nozzles, pumps and other equipment.   At the very least, the blood would have to have a lot of anticoagulants added.

The blood would disperse quite and the cells and fluid would probably begin to separate.  It would tend to freeze very rapidly and this would destroy most of the cells, as blood cannot be frozen without the addition of protectionists.  The ice crystals formed tend to break apart the cell walls of blood cells.  Any biological material that did eventually reach the ground would biodegrade pretty quickly.

Any pathogens present in the blood would not be harmful in the concentrations that may survive reaching ground level.

Defoliants or Herbicides  - There is a good deal of historical data for the  dispersal of defoliants and herbicides from aircraft.  Aircraft have been used for dispersing such agents in agricultural contexts and as a means of reducing foliage where enemy forces could take cover during military conflicts.

During the Vietnam War, the United States undertook an extensive program to disperse defoliants as a means of reducing the area where enemy forces could hide.  This included the application of so-called “rainbow herbicides,” so called because each were assigned a color code to distinguish the type of chemical.   The best known of these was Agent Orange, a mixture which was generally safe for humans if formulated correctly, but which was widely contaminated by dioxin compounds due to poor quality control by manufacturers, resulting in detrimental effects on humans who were exposed.

Application of the compounds from too high an altitude would have been ineffective.  The material would have dispersed widely, resulting in an uncontrolled dispersal pattern of very low concentrations.  The compounds would have remained suspended in the air for some period of time, with much of the material breaking down, and when it finally did reach the ground, concentrations would be far too low to have any noticeable effects on vegetation.  In Vietnam, aircraft dispersing herbicides flew at the  extremely low altitude of about 150 feet.   Dispersing the herbicide also required that the wind speed be low or the chemicals would get scattered.

This low altitude spraying is also what caused the concentrations of dioxin to be high enough at ground level to cause human health issues, as well as the fact that many thousands of tons were used over a relatively small area.  If large enough quantities of dioxins were dumped at high altitude, it would increase the regional concentrations, at least slightly, but it would be an extremely inefficient way of doing so if that were the goal.

The aircraft used were typically prop-driven, slow moving aircraft that could spray the herbicide at such low levels and at low speeds.   Helicopters were also used.  Modern application of herbicides, insecticides and other such material by crop dusters also occurs at low levels, even lower in many circumstances.

Insecticides, Herbicides, Fertilizers – As mentioned above, agricultural chemicals are sometimes delivered by air.  It is an efficient method of providing large scale coverage when only low volumes of chemicals are required.  Crop dusting is most commonly done to deliver insecticides.  The practice may be used outside of the agricultural sector to combat mosquito and other pest insects.

As with herbicides, accomplishing this requires the aircraft to fly at extreme low altitudes.  Crop dusters may fly as ten feet above the fields being dusted.  Helicopters have increasingly been used for this.  Fixed wing airplanes used for crop dusting are designed for slow speeds and high maneuverability at low altitudes.  In fact, the altitudes at which crop dusters operate are so low, they have actually been known to collide with trucks and other objects on the ground.

If applied at higher altitudes, chemicals would be scattered and dispersed to a level where they would not be effective. Insecticides and other complex organic chemicals would at least partially break down before reaching ground levels.  Phosphates, nitrates and other nutrients would just be scattered into the atmospheric dust, which already contains such compounds.

Chaff - This is material that the military occasionally discharges into the atmosphere during combat and training excises. Chaff is intended to distract or obscure radar by providing false returns from reflective material.  Traditionally, chaff has been composed primarily of strips of metallic foil, but more modern chaff is often composed of thin fibers with a metallic coating.  Chaff may be dropped in large amounts over a wide area to obscure aircraft movements or may be deployed in bursts by an aircraft attempting to evade radar-based defenses such as surface to air missiles.

When deployed, chafe tends to remain in the air for a relatively short period of time.  It is therefore necessary that the material be dropped repeatedly over the same area.  However, the exact period of time it is aloft depends on altitude and wind patterns.   A common way of dispersing chaff is to have it packed into small containers with a explosive charge that blows it out in a burst.  An aircraft could be equipped with several of these containers for use in evading radar-based defenses.  It may also be dispersed by flares which aid in evading infrared-seeking missiles while dispersing chaff to confound radar.

Chaff does eventually make its way to the ground and is fairly harmless once it does, although it has caused problems when it has been blown into substations or other electrical infrastructure.  During its time in the air, chaff does occasionally show up on weather radar or other radar systems.  The image to the right shows chaff returns from a military training exercise on a regional weather radar screen.

The length of the fibers or strips used depends on the frequency of the radar which is being targeted.  On the battlefield, a variety of lengths are used to help obscure a wide range of possible radar frequencies.  However, the chaff used during training over inhabited areas is restricted to sizes that minimize the possible effects on air traffic control radar.

Conclusion:
There have been biological warfare programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying biological agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been chemical warfare programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying chemical agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been weather modification programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying weather modification agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been aircraft-based herbicide and insecticide programs, but none ever used high altitude jet aircraft.

In all cases, this would be a poor way of getting significant concentrations of the materials to ground levels or would not have any significant effects on weather.

You may notice that there’s something a bit off here.   Claims that vaccines are a dangerous conspiracy purported by horrible pharmaceutical companies are usually associated more with the Loony Left of the political spectrum, while Bachman is decidedly on the Loony Right side of the isle.  It’s interesting to note that different ridiculous beliefs tend to come from different sides of the isle.   Vaccine conspiracy theories tend to center on mistrust of corporations and capitalism in general and are often part and parcel of theories of how the military and big corporations are killing us with fluoride, chemtrails and depleted uranium, which means we all need to embrace the “natural way” and move back to mud huts where we can practice free love and drop acid.

You’ll notice, however, that Backmann is not opposed to vaccinations in general, but is singling out one vaccine which apparently has a nearly magical power to steal the innocence of sweet lovely little twelve year old and make them retarded.   The reason that conservatives are so opposed to the HPV vaccine is that it’s seen as somehow encouraging sex or that requiring it is somehow offering a government endorsement of premarital sex.   It’s an extremely warped view when one considers that they’re effectively saying that they are so opposed to what they consider to be offensive forms of sex that it’s worth avoiding a vaccine that could wipe out most cervical cancer.

Her sentiment seems to have been touched off in part by the state of Texas adding the HPV vaccine to the required immunizations for school admission for girls.   This was done by another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry.   Some have accused Perry of taking pharmaceutical money for this policy, it really does not change the fact that it’s a good idea to have girls vaccinated.   If he did do so because he was paid off, then all he can be accused of is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

About HPV:

HPV or the Human papillomavirus is a human-specific virus that can infect the mouth, respiratory system or skin. However, it is most problematic when it effects the genitals. Genital infection of HPV also tends to be quite contagious. Different strains of HPV tend to be more prone to infecting one area of the body than another, so while it is remotely possible that a strain of HPV associated with genital and oral infections could also result in an infection elsewhere, it’s unlikely that this would happen, except perhaps in an immune-compromised individual or in circumstances where there was an unusual level of exposure.

Most HPV infections are asymptomatic. The most common acute symptom of HPV infection is warts. HPV causes all varieties of warts, ranging from genital warts to plantar warts and common skin warts. There’s no cure for HPV, but the local infection is typically treated by removing the warts. Warts can be removed any number of means including cutting or freezing the warts off. Removing warts does not assure that they will not return, as the virus still exists in the region of the body. However, since the wart itself contains the highest concentration of the virus, removal of warts can help the body in clearing the infection. Ultimately, most HPV infections do clear the body due to the action of the immune system, but it can take months or more.

While warts are an unsightly, embarrassing and uncomfortable problem, the real danger from HPV is cancer. HPV is most strongly associated with cervical cancer. Indeed, more than 70% of cases of cervical cancer can be directly attributed on HPV. The strains of the virus that have the strongest association with cancer are not prone to causing warts. The greatest danger occurs in individuals who have the virus in their system for a long period of time. While most HPV infections clear the body in less than a year, 5-10% may last years. These long-lasting infections pose the greatest risk of cervical cancer. HPV is the reason it is recommended that women receive regular pap smears. Since the cancer-causing infection is usually asymptomatic, it is the only way of assuring early detection.

While HPV has the strongest association with cervical cancer, it is certainly not the only cancer that is caused by HPV. The same strains responsible for most cervical cancers are also responsible for at least 25% of anal cancers, a large percentage of oral cancers, cancers of the upper respiratory system, penil cancer and other types of cancer. More than 5% of new cancers detected are attributed to HPV, a whopping half a million cases per year, resulting in innumerable deaths. HPV may soon exceed tobacco usage as the single largest cause of oral cancers.

Overall, the risks of HPV are considerably greater for women than men, but it should not be considered an exclusively female problem. Men rarely get genital warts from the infection and male genital cancers from HPV are far more rare than in females, but they certainly can and do happen.

Transmission and Prevention:

HPV is extremely common. By some estimates, more than 75% of sexually active individuals will contract at least one strain of HPV at some point in their life. The prevalence of the virus varies by age, with sexually active women in their early 20’s having the highest rate of HPV infection – upwards of 40%, although most of these infections are considered “low risk” and will probably clear the body without ever causing any complications. Most infections are asymptomatic, so the majority of individuals are never aware of their exposure to HPV.

Sexual contact is the most common way in which HPV is spread and is the cause of nearly all genital tract infections with HPV. While it’s remotely possible that the infection could be spread by contact with some intermittent surface or object, such cases are rare to the point of being nearly unheard of.   There are no documented cases of HPV being spread by a toilet seat, and evidence indicates the risk of this happening is approximate zero.

The risk of spreading HPV from one partner to another can be reduced by the use of a condom, but condom use is far from completely effective. Fluid transfer is not necessary to spread HPV, only skin contact is needed. Therefore, condoms offer, at best, very limited protection. Intercourse is not required either. Simply engaging in activities that involve touching of the genitals can spread the infection.

There are really only two methods of effectively reducing transmission of genital HPV. The most obvious would be complete abstinence from all sexual contact. Obviously, one who never comes in contact with the genital region of anyone else is not likely to acquire the infection. Needless to say, this is not something that is likely to have very broad appeal as a method of reducing transmission.

The second, generally more effective and realistic method is the use of the HPV vaccine, which is highly effective at preventing infection by the most high risk strains of the virus.

The vaccine:

There are currently two vaccines for HPV. Both vaccines are relatively new. Gardasil, developed by Merck was approved by the US government in 2006 and within the next year gained approval in the European Union, Australia and elsewhere. A similar vaccine, Cervarix, was developed by by GlaxoSmithKline. Cervarix was first approved in Australia in 2007 and later that year by the European Union. It won final approval in the US in 2009. The vaccines have now been approved in nearly all industrial countries.

While hundreds of strains of HPV are known to exist, the vaccine targets four strains that are known to cause the overwhelming majority of both cancers and genital warts. The vaccine has been shown to reduce the probability of cervical cancer by 70%, the risk of genital warts by over 90% and significantly reduce the risk of HP V-related cancers in other areas of the body. Of course, the vaccine does not only protect the individual who receives it, but also stops the infection from being transmitted to others.

To be most effective, the vaccine should be used prior to an individual becoming sexually active. When used as such, it avoids that individual ever acquiring the highest risk HPV strains. The effectiveness of the vaccine in individuals who have already been infected by one or more strains of HPV is not established. Most sexually active adults don’t know whether they’ve ever had an HPV infection and certainly would not know what strain. Therefore, it is considered optimal for the vaccine to be given at a relatively young age. It is not specifically approved for those older than their mid-20’s, although older individuals can be vaccinated, it’s not entirely clear what level of protection they will receive, if they already have been exposed to HPV.

The HPV vaccine has primarily been marketed for use in females, but it can be used in either gender and has increasingly been suggested for males. Use of the vaccine in both males and females can deny the HPV virus a host. Ultimately, wide deployment of the vaccine can wipe out the most dangerous strains of the virus and avoid at least 70% of cervical cancers. If everyone was vaccinated against HPV, hundreds of thousands of cancers would be avoided each year.

On a personal note:

I have had the HPV vaccine. This despite the fact that I’m a male and that I was technically above the cutoff age. I don’t know if I’ve ever had an HPV infection. There’s a very good chance that I have and a very good chance that I haven’t. If I have had an HPV infection, it was asymptomatic and there’s a very good chance that it was not one of the strains that is of concern and that the vaccine protects against.

Since I don’t know, I thought it was worth the cost of the vaccine to at least reduce the probability that I’d host the HPV virus. If I have not had any of the strains the vaccine protects against, I should be completely protected. If I have had one, I should be protected against at least the other three, but the effectiveness against the one I’ve already had is unknown. It may help or it may not. It’s also possible that I already have a naturally acquired immunity to that infection.

More importantly, I got the vaccine because I thought it was the responsible thing to do. I believe everyone should get it, even if there’s a good chance they’ve had exposure to one or more HPV strains before. The recommendation is more based on economics than safety, recommending the vaccine for those who most benefit. I want to protect humanity and when I say that the vaccine is safe I want to be able to back that up by saying that I was willing to put it into my own body. That was worth the couple hundred dollars I had to pay for it.

And no… it’s not because I’m some kind of playa’ or man-whore.

The Controversy:

There is really no debate over the safety or effectiveness of the HPV vaccine, but you might not know that based on what a lot of socially conservative and Christian groups have to say. In fact, they are not opposed to the vaccine because of any legitimate concerns over the possible side effects or medical validity of the vaccine, but simply because, in their minds, it somehow interferes with the message that all sex is wrong unless it is within the confines of a religiously-sanctioned marriage between and man and a woman.

One could go so far as to say that, if everyone practiced sex as most fundamentalist Christians demand, it would mean that genital infections with HPV would not be a problem.   If every person maintained absolute sexual abstinence, never engaging in sexual intercourse or any other sexual contact with anyone until the day they were married and thereafter had sex with only their partner, then HPV would have a very hard time spreading very far within the population.   Therefore, in the minds of some, HPV is associated with sinning and the vaccine is only helping the dirty, sinful people who would do such a thing.

For most, it might not be so direct as saying those who have sex deserve to get cancer, but some of the arguments include the following:

• Giving a young girl the HPV vaccine effectively conveys the message that you expect she’ll have sex at some point in her life with someone other than her virginal husband and that it’s okay for her to do so.
• Protecting young girls from a sexually transmitted disease will make them go out and have sex.
• If the vaccine is paid for in any way by the government or insurance then we’re all subsidizing protection of the segment of the population that engages in sinful behavior.
• The vaccine would be unnecessary if everyone practiced the christian ideal of sex.  We should focus efforts on just getting people to stop having sex.

If you do not believe me, here are some quotes on the subject:
Bridget Maher, Family Research Council:

Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV… Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President:

Because HPV infection is caused by sexual activity, it is not transmitted by casual contact and therefore is not in the same class as other diseases like polio for which mandatory, school-based vaccination is a public-health imperative

David Bereit, American Life League

Gov. Perry has turned his back on the pro-life and pro-family people who elected him and is now playing into the agenda of Planned Parenthood, a group which regularly opposes parents’ rights and which praised his action as ‘a great day for women and for future generations of Texas women and families
…
Gardasil is a vaccination against a sexually transmitted virus, and parents should be the ones to decide whether their young daughters should receive these shots – not Planned Parenthood, and not the governor of any state. American Life League strongly opposes such a mandatory vaccine because it completely removes parents from these important medical decisions and makes children the innocent victims
…
Planned Parenthood’s own internal documents show that the organization makes most of its income from sexually active, young, single women . Not only does Planned Parenthood stand to profit by selling these expensive HPV vaccines, but it also will profit enormously from the aftermath of the sexual promiscuity that will surely follow when young girls are led to believe they can be sexually carefree without consequence once they receive these shots.

Steven W. Mosher, Population Research Institute

I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge” drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating pre-pubescent—and not sexually active—girls against one form of STD, then it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.

After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.

Human Life International (A Christian Pro-Life Group):

Excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease spread only by penetrating vaginal intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children as well as on the rights of the children to attend school. In addition, this vaccine prevents a disease which is exclusively sexually transmitted; mandating it as early as 9 years of age places the medical provider in an ethical dilemma.

The Pro-Family Law Center:

The Pro-Family Law Center opposes this proposed legislation on the grounds that it infringes on parental rights, unequally protects female students over male students from HPV, and disturbs a natural incentive for teenage students to abstain from sexual intercourse to avoid the contraction of certain sexually transmitted infections.

Jacob Puliyel, St Stephens Hospital in Delhi:

The underlying assumption here is that adolescent girls in India may all become promiscuous

Leslie Unruh, the National Abstinence Clearinghouse

I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior

Gene Rudd, Christian Medical and Dental Associations:

I’ve talked to some who have said, This is going to sabotage our abstinence message

Conclusion (yes it should be mandated):

Requiring vaccination as a condition of entry into school is nothing new.  It’s a well established health policy that has resulted in numerous diseases being wiped out.  Since the vaccine is an unavoidable requirement, health insurers have to cover it.  For those who do not have insurance, required vaccines are usually available through state programs.  Wide distribution of such vaccines can reduce the individual cost.  Of course, the vaccines will eventually reduce healthcare costs dramatically due to less need for cancer treatment, although in this case, the majority of those savings will take some time to be realized – although reduction in genital wart treatment will occur much sooner.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of girls will eventually have sexual contact with more than one person.   Most will not wait until they are married to do so and even for the few who do, they usually will not be marrying a man who has likewise been completely sexually sequestered.    Providing the maximum protection requires that they receive the vaccine early in life, before they have had any chance to be exposed to the virus.   For those who might not be exposed, such as those who plan on going into the convent and becoming nuns, getting the vaccine still does them no harm.

The idea that parents should decide whether their girl “needs it” is ridiculous.  It’s totally unreasonable to expect that a girl is going to go to her parents and reveal that she is thinking she might engage in some sexual activity and therefore, it’s about time she gets that vaccine.   It’s also completely absurd to expect that parents are somehow completely aware of their kid’s sexual experimentation.   It’s one thing to be open with your children, but lets be reasonable here!   If nothing else, the mandate allows for girls to receive the vaccine without having to go through the uncomfortable process of requesting it.  It gives them an “out” to simply say “I need it for school” and not “I might someday have sex.”  (Even though they generally will.)

It won’t turn innocent little girls into whores or even encourage sex.   It’s not as though risks like sexually transmitted diseases have ever been that much of a deterrent anyway, and eliminating one of the less high risk ones is not going to make anyone suddenly feel liberated to go screw the entire town.   The whole ideas is as absurd as thinking that getting a tetanus shot encourages anyone to go play with dirty, rusty nails.

There is one thing, however, that is missing from most of the requirements:  it only applies to half of the population.   We already know that the HPV vaccine protects boys from genital warts and a variety of cancers.   Overall, the chances that HPV will cause harm to a male are far less than those for females, but that’s not the entire issue.  If the vaccine were given to both boys and girls, it would deny the virus hosts and eventually the most harmful strains would be driven to extinction.

Going onto property that does not belong to you and blatantly destroying it is not protest.   It’s vandalism, trespassing and theft.  Except in rare circumstances where a group is denied the right to express themselves otherwise and is actively oppressed, such measures are simply not justified and intolerable.

It is even more intolerable when the action comes as a result of the fact that the group is sore about the fact that they tried to stop something legitimate from happening and failed.

This is what happened in England, Belgium and elsewhere by groups which still thinks they are persecuted and can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that it’s the job of the police to stop them from doing this.   Perhaps I should show them how this works if the tables are turned.  Since I disagree with these people maybe I should assert my right to burn down their houses in “protest” of their view?

This is also a classic example of fear and ignorance driven action. These people can’t understand what these crops are even all about and only know that their leaders told them to be afraid of them and destroy them before it’s too late. The developers of these crops must be evil and the crops themselves are horrible entities which must be destroyed. It’s sad but even as religion fades in much of Europe, the exact same kind of demonic thinking seems to have been applied elsewhere.

The potatoes in question are a variety that is now being tested after years of research and development. They are modified to make them resistant to damage by fungus, commonly known as blight. This is the fungus that decimated potato crops in the 1800s and lead to the Great Irish Potato Famine. Today blight no longer threatens populations with starvation but is still a major problem for potatoes, especially in Europe. Selective breeding has given potatoes some resistance to the fungus and every year huge amounts of fungicide are used to keep it in check. Still many tens of millions of Euros are lost annually.

Via Biofortified:

French anti-science vandals invade a Belgium farm and destroy crops

Phytophthora infestans causes ‘late blight’ in potatoes. In regions of potato cultivation with a temperate climate, like Belgium, this is the single most dangerous disease. The disease costs farmers in Belgium about 55 million euros annually, and controlling it causes significant environmental pressure. However, in the last few years a number of resistant varieties based on conventional plant breeding techniques were introduced to the market, and work is being done on developing genetically modified Phytophthora-resistant lines.
These GM plant are environmentally much more friendly than some existing methods of treating fungus attack on plants such as the commonly used toxic copper sulphate.
But the GM potatoes will not be used if the anti-GM fanatics have their way.
A research field trial of these blight-resistant potatoes has just been destroyed in Belgium.

Jo Bury, the director of the VIB science research institute that planted the potatoes, said around 100 scientists had tried to talk the actists out of vandalism.
“We are deeply shocked about the violent actions by the activists of the Field Liberation Movement. The field trial with blight resistant potatoes was almost entirely destroyed. Our hearts are with the scientists whose hard work was destroyed today.”
“Althought his is a dark day for science as a whole, we want to thank all 350 scientists and farmers who came out and supported Save Our Science. It was a strong message to the world that we believe that science has an important role to play in the development of environmental friendly agriculture” Geert Angenon, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Geert De Jaeger, UGent, Rony Swennen, K.U.Leuven, Jeroen Crappé.

Thought I doubt they will be, I hope these people are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. More importantly, I hope that eventually populations will wake up to the fact that these stunts are not honorable or admirable in any way. They’re criminal acts of ignorant, frightened fools and their greedy leaders.

Via Yahoo News (includes video clip of Daily Show Interview)

New book says USSR was behind Roswell UFO
By Claudine Zap

Is truth stranger than conspiracy-theory fiction? A new book on Area 51 that’s already generating a ton of buzz says there was no alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Instead, Stalin did it–maybe.

According to Annie Jacobsen, the reporter who authored “Area 51,” the spaceship was actually a Soviet spy plane that came down during a storm. Jacobsen claims it was filled with bizarre-looking, genetically engineered child-sized pilots. Then-Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was hoping, Jacobsen alleges, that the news would cause widespread panic in the U.S.

The story gets even stranger: The leader of the USSR had apparently been inspired by the 1938 radio adaptation of the HG Wells story “War of the Worlds,” produced by Orson Welles. The broadcast triggered panic in some listeners who tuned in and mistook it for a real-life alien invasion. (Though later students of the episode claim that the media of Welles’ day vastly exaggerated the scale of public alarm over the broadcast.)

And those ET-looking aviators? They were scientific experiments created by the “Angel of Death,” Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, for the USSR after the war. The flight was piloted remotely, according to accounts in the book, and was filled with a crew of “alien-like children.”

According to Jacobsen’s source, a retired engineer who was put on the project in 1978, the look of the human experiments could explain the alien conspiracy theories: “They were grotesquely deformed, but each in the same manner as the others. They had unusually large heads and abnormally shaped oversize eyes.”

Is any of this true? There’s no way to prove it. Documents surrounding the Roswell incident are still classified–as is virtually all information related to the mystery spot.

Still, lack of proof hasn’t exactly stopped the book from sparking speculation on the media circuit and on the Web. In the last day, Yahoo! searches skyrocketed 3,000 percent for “area 51 book.” And the tome is penned not by a crackpot conspirator, but a respected journalist.

Even the New York Times gives her credence, writing in its review: “Although this connect-the-dots UFO thesis is only a hasty-sounding addendum to an otherwise straightforward investigative book about aviation and military history, it makes an indelible impression. ‘Area 51′ is liable to become best known for sci-fi provocation.”

The claim is a bit convoluted and difficult to really take apart. Apparently it’s claimed that an aircraft of Soviet origin, which was either based on German technology or captured directly from the Germans crashed in Roswell, either accidentally or intentionally, for the purpose of creating a panic. This aircraft was either a spy plane or simply designed to create a panic or do both. It carried some kind of freaky children, either as pilots or just to scare people because they looked freaky.

Problems with this whole story:

• The Soviet Union was not flying spy planes over the US in 1947.   Indeed, the Soviet Union never had a high altitude reconnaissance program to the extent that the US had, but in 1947 they certainly did not have the ability to mount spy flights over the US.   Piston-engined aircraft would never have been sitting ducks for aerial defenses of the day and would have been easily detectable and limited in altitude.   Jet powered aircraft would have been able to attain higher altitudes and speeds, potentially making them more survivable (although jets in 1947 were still not capable of the speeds or altitudes necessary to evade ground-based air defenses or interceptor aircraft), but the jet engines of 1947 were gas-guzzlers, making it unlikely that a jet aircraft could have made it to the continental United States from the Soviet Union.  In-flight refueling was still experimental and the Soviets lacked friendly territory significantly closer to the US to base aircraft.
• Remote-control of an aircraft over the continental United States from the Soviet Union would have been effectively impossible in 1947.  The curvature of the earth prevents VHF or UHF radio signals from reaching the aircraft and communications satellites, which are used to pilot modern drones, did not exist.   The only radio communications that could reach over the horizon would have been in the HF region.   HF radio would have been a very poor choice for remote control of an aircraft.  It lacks the bandwidth to transmit much data and is prone to noise and distortion.   It would be difficult to transmit instrument data and commands and impossible to transmit television pictures.
• If a spy plane were to be sent to the United States, it would have carried a payload consisting of survey cameras and possibly equipment like radio receivers, tape recorders and radar systems.  It would certainly not have genetically modified humans sitting in it, especially if it were remotely controlled, in which case there’s no point in having any crew at all.
• In 1947, genetic engineering as we know it simply did not exist.   At the time, not even the basic structure of DNA had yet been established.  The only methods available for modifying organisms were basic breeding techniques.   It would have been impossible to create a genetically modified organism as complex as a mammal, much less one that was fully viable and capable of functioning at a high enough level to fly an airplane.
• Joseph Mengele’s experiments were hideous, inhumane and also generally unsuccessful.  There’s no evidence that Mengele ever managed to produce any kind of amazing breakthrough in genetics.   Most of his experiments were very crude.
• Mengele’s experiments were carried out primarily at Auchwitz, which was captured by the Soviet Union in early 1945.  By July 1947, barely two years had passed.  Thus, even if the Soviet Union began using his work to create modified humans immediately upon capturing the information, there would not be enough time.   With a nine month gestation period, they could not have produced even children by the time of the Roswell Incident – they would still be infants.   The brunt of Mengele’s experiments began in 1943, so even if he had previously begun a crash program to genetically modify humans, by 1947 the oldest would be toddlers.
• You don’t trust children, certainly not toddlers, even the regular, non-deformed kind with a secret spy plane.   Even if the plane was remote controlled, it would still be risky.   For one thing, you don’t know what information they might divulge should they survive the crash.  Young children are unpredictable.
• If the incident really were caused by a secret Soviet aircraft carrying hideously deformed genetically modified children, there’s no reason to believe the US would have kept it secret.  The Cold War was as much about propaganda and making the other side look bad as it was about secrecy.  When the Soviet Union shot down a US spy plane in 1960, the incident was immediately made public, with the Soviets claiming the US was illegally invading their territorial airspace and conducting spying operations.   If the claims of the Roswell incident were true, there are few things that would be a better PR event for the US, to show the horrific extent of Soviet human experiments and prove they were actively spying on the US.
• The idea that the plane was intentionally crashed to create panic is absolutely absurd on numerous levels.   First, the 1938 War Of the Worlds broadcast didn’t actually cause a national panic, just a few minor incidents.  Secondly, if you actually did crash a plane containing deformed children, presumably that would be figured out pretty quickly once it was analyzed by authorities.  Even if some people did believe it was extra-terrestrial, the fact that it crashed does not, in and of itself, imply that you are being attacked by aliens and therefore would likely cause interest but not panic.  Finally, if this were the aim, you would want to crash it somewhere other than the remote desert.

This whole story is wacky on so many levels it’s amazing it got any media attention at all… but it did.

The truth is that what is being developed is not quite that cool, but it’s still pretty dam cool.  Right now it’s almost assured that the US is developing advanced aircraft, some of which are prototypical and intended to demonstrate technology while others are intended for eventual combat deployment.   The aircraft being developed don’t violate the laws of physics, but likely use the latest advancements in materials sciences, jet engines, computer control and stealth technology.  Some of these may not even be fully known to the mainstream.

Every once in a great while one of these projects becomes public.  Eventually they all have to.  You can keep an aircraft secret during development, but you can’t deploy a secret weapon in combat and expect it to remain secret – although some of the design features may remain secret, its existence certainly can’t be kept secret.

The raid that killed Bin Laden is one example of a previously unknown project being revealed to the public.  It seems that the raid was of a high enough value that military officials decided it was worth blowing the cover on a project that had been kept under lids for some time.

During the raid at least two (and possibly more) helicopters were used to enter the compound.  Reports initially are that they were the venerable UH-60 Black Hawk midsized utility helicopter that has been a mainstay of the US military for many years.  This makes sense, as they are about the right size and capacity for such an operation.  One of the helicopters apparently made a very hard landing during the raid and sustained damage that prevented it from taking off again.  Conflicting reports indicate that some of the commandos involved may have blown up the helicopter to avoid its capture or photographing of the aircraft as a whole.

Such measures would be unusual for a standard issue black hawk, but eyewitness reports and photographs of the debris have indicated that this was not a normal UH-60.  Official statements have been sparse, but it now seems that the military is admitting that the aircraft was actually a new type of helicopter, based on the basic design of the existing Black Hawk but incorporating new and advanced stealth features.

A photograph of what appears to be the tail rotor confirms that this was not an ordinary Black Hawk.   The tail rotor has clearly been modified.  The traditional four-bladed prop has been replaced with a propeller with more blades and a large hub.   Such a rotor may be intended to be quieter.  The surfaces also appear to be more faceted, as is often the case with stealth aircraft.  The material also appears to be different and may be some kind of radar absorbing compost.   The vertical stabilizers also appear to have a different geometry than those of a standard UH-60, likely to reduce the radar cross-section of the aircraft.   There are likely other changes that have been made to the engine exhaust, main rotor and other parts of the helicopter, but what they may be is still not clear.

It is known that the US had previously been working on developing an advanced stealth helicopter, the RAH-66 Comanche.   The multimillion dollar project was canceled in 2004 after two prototypes were built but before the final combat version of the Comanche was completed.   The new stealth Blackhawk almost certainly uses some of the technology developed for the Comanche.   It represents a renewed focus on advanced helicopters with greater emphasis on acoustic concerns and utility, as such helicopters would likely be used in Afghanistan and other areas where combat would be against ground forces that lacked radar or advanced surface to air missiles.

The stealth Black Hawk also may have been built on an existing platform as a compromise in order to keep down costs and get the aircraft into combat sooner than it would if it were designed from scratch.  It is also considerably easier to keep a project like this secret when the period of time is shorter and less original development is necessary.   Many of those who built components of the new helicopter probably never even realized that they were not building parts of a secret aircraft.

An artists impression of what such an aircraft may look like (as compared to a conventional Black Hawk) has been making the rounds online.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, we can expect to learn more about this aircraft in the years to come.   Eventually you may even be able to check one out at an airshow. The technology used in this helicopter will also eventually make its way into the civilian market.   Noise has long been a major complaint about helicopters, and reducing the noise of helicopters used in urban areas is something designers have been interested in for some time.   The radar-evading technology will not be as directly applicable to non-military helicopters, although some of the fabrication techniques likely will.

There are certainly other such projects being developed, many may be at the Groom Lake facility, since that’s a pretty good place to test such aircraft in private.  What they may be is anyone’s guess.   They’re not flying saucers though, as round aircraft have horrible stability and no real advantages.

Since others have asked for examples of such shows, and because of the general lack of programing in this nitche, I’ve started to compile a list of the few TV programs that actually do provide good rational, reality-based debunking and informing on superstition and other unfounded claims.

I will add more as I find them, so please feel free to contribute any ideas. I live in the US so this list may be skewed toward American programing, since that’s what I happen to be personally familiar with. If you know of any good additions please let me know!

Note that there are plenty of good science documentaries, so I’ve tried to keep this toward ones that focus on myths, unfounded beliefs and other areas where skepticism should be applied, as opposed to just general science-related content.

Series and Mini-Series:

Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: A Personal Voyage – PBS, 1980

Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World – ITV, 1980
Arthur C. Clarke’s World of Strange Powers – ITV, 1985
Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious Universe – ITV, 1994-1995

James Randi: Psychic Investigator – ITV, 1991

Is it Real? – National Geographic TV, 2005-2007

Mythbusters – Discovery Communications, 2003 – Present

Penn and Teller’s Bullshit – Showtime TV, 2003- Present

Naked Science – National Geographic Television, 2004-Present

Best Evidence – Discovery Communications, 2007-Present

Single Event Shows, Documentaries:

The Search for the Loch Ness Monster – BBC Television, 2003

The Kennedy Assassination – Beyond Conspiracy – ABC News, 2004

9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Fact or Fiction? – A&E Television (the History Channel), 2007

Peter Jennings Reporting – UFOs: Seeing is Believing – ABC News, 2007

Conspiracy Moon Landing – National Geographic TV, 2007

The Enemies of Reason – Channel 4 Television Corp, 2007

Via “Extraordinary Medicine”

The skeptical movement is an offshoot of the Communist Party. (Really: see the top two links below.) Its top organizers were hired by pharmaceutical company and medical industry representatives to recruit malcontents in bars to spread hate propaganda against non-conventional medical systems. One of the first such skeptic groups referred to itself as “Skeptics in the Pub”. Not surprisingly, their rants against Homeopathy sound like the drunken cacophony of soccer hooligans.

A “who’s who” tour would not be complete if we neglected to mention Sense about Science. This group features a prominent spokesperson who is an advertising “consultant” to pharmaceutical and oil companies. It’s been scrubbed from their website as of this writing, but they get large donations from Big Pharma.

It’s impossible not to encounter ties to the prevailing medical industry among any of the individuals or groups who currently identify themselves with the skeptic moniker. The mainstream media, which depend on advertising revenues from pharmaceutical companies and are always in search of a scandal are often co-opted by business interests that have little regard for the welfare of the average individual.

Sir, I am not and have never been associated with the Communist Party!

Seriously, I’m not a communist. Not that I feel the need to defend myself against such a ridiculous allegation, but I’m just not.  I’m a member of multiple skeptic organizations, but I’m not a communist.

Most skeptics I know are also not communists. In fact, skeptics come from just about all political persuasions. There are certainly many libertarian skeptics, and many who would be considered to be social progressives, modern fiscal conservatives or something else. There are some who are legitimately supporters of socialism, and a few who are unabashedly pro-communism. I have not met any self-described skeptics who are supporters to hardcore, rigidly-enforced Marxism, but I can’t say that they don’t exist.

Whatever the case, the notion that the skeptic movement is at all related to communism is preposterous.

But there’s something even stupider here, which you may have caught.   In the same breath as claiming skepticism is rooted in communism, the idiot who wrote this then turns around and accuses those involved of being shills for the big corporations of the pharmaceutical and oil industries.   Does this guy even know what “communism” means?   Communists are by definition opposed to large corporate entities and are against capital-driven markets.   Many socialist and communist groups use the profits and power of large corporations as an argument in favor of the socialist state.

Also, Skeptics in the Pub is not one of the first skeptic organizations, nor is it really one of the largest or most influential.   Actually, it’s not even its own single organization, but rather it’s an offshoot of the UK Skeptics.   Skeptics in the Pub organizes meetings in pubs and bars which are intentionally informal and primarily social events.  The intention is partially to expand the skeptic movement into less traditional venues, but also just to hang out for fun.  In other words, it’s a kind of social club where skeptics can meet for a pint.

As for “Sense About Science” (which incidentally is an excellent resource for media-related science information), yes some of the contributors do have ties to big companies like pharmaceutical companies.  So what?   Who the hell do you think employs medical scientists?

This is a similar argument to the classic “health physicists and radiation safety technicians are  employed by the nuclear industry.”   Well, yeah, who the hell else would need their services?

Such claims tend to ignore some big problems with the whole idea of a conspiracy to keep down a technology. For one thing, companies and industries have tried to stop the proliferation of competing technologies before and have failed. At best, expensive lawsuits and lobbying have managed to stifle adoption for a short time, but have never kept a truly revolutionary technology from seeing the light of day. It’s impossible to keep information about something big and beneficial contained, especially these days and once it gets out, the incentive to implement it will always exceed the incentive to keep it under wraps.

Above all else, despite the fact that there are companies and industries which would suffer losses, there are others that would reap enormous rewards. Many of these companies and sectors are extremely powerful in their own right, and taken together represent a very powerful force whose own self-interest offers motivation to oppose the suppression of such technologies.

Does anyone really think that Walmart Corporation would continue to happily pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year to fuel their delivery trucks if they could just as easily be fueled by water? Would the massive corporations continue to happily pay billions and billions in worker health plans and lost productivity knowing that homeopathy was capable of solving every health problem known to man?

Lets consider a few common claims and who exactly stands to gain or lose if they were really true.

If it were possible to burn water as fuel or pass water through some kind of converter that would produce hydrogen without input energy greater than that of the hydrogen produced:

Losers:

• Oil companies
• Independent gas station owners
• Pipeline operators
• Natural gas companies
• OPEC member nations and other major petroleum exporters

Winners:

• Shipping and Delivery companies (UPS, FedEx, etc)
• Major Retailers (Walmart etc)
• Any and all companies with large vehicle fleets (service companies, construction, taxis, buses)
• Airlines – fuel is a major expense
• Railroads
• Marine shipping and passenger lines
• The military – fuel is the single biggest logistical headache
• Auto makers – no more mileage concerns when selling large, high profit vehicles
• The chemical industry - hydrogen is an important feedstock for numerous products
• Agriculture - plentiful hydrogen would make for extremely cheap fertilizers
• Energy intensive industries (aluminum smelting, cement processing, data centers, heavy industry)

If a cheap “natural” cure existed that could replace most major pharmaceutical products

Losers:

• The pharmaceutical industry

Winners:

• Health insurance companies
• Life insurance companies
• National and state-subsidized health care programs
• Employers (major losses to production occur because of disease)
• Banks and lenders (health issues often cause bankruptcy or credit defaultment)

If a readily available, highly effective cure for cancer existed

Losers:

• Some segments of the pharmaceutical industry
• The nuclear medicine industry
• Some segments of the health care industry

Winners:

• Health insurance companies
• Life insurance companies
• National and state-subsidized health care programs
• Retirement communities/nursing homes – cancer cure results in longer average lifespan
• Big tobacco - Cancer is the biggest health objection to smoking, but if it’s easily curable, who cares?
• Any company that would otherwise lose a valuable corporate or creative leader to cancer
• Segments of the pharmaceutical industry – Longer average lifespan means more older customers who can be sold highly lucrative products such as blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, erectile dysfunction drugs, other very high profit drugs heavily used by the elderly.

Real world examples of rich and powerful companies and industries losing out because of new technology, despite failed efforts to stop it:

The Movie Studios – Extremely powerful in the first half of the 20th century, they lost out bigtime due to television. Studios eventually managed to remake their business model to include television rights and later home video distribution and were able to maintain a profitable business, but still do not have the monopoly on moving image entertainment they once had. Some studios fought tooth and nail stop the popularity of television – they lost.

The Telegraphic Date Industry (Western Union, CN Telegram, Telex) – The companies responsible for telegrams and teletype data were once some of the most important and largest corporations in the world. Vital and lucrative services included personal and business messaging as well as financing data and money transfers, stock market prices and sales, news wires, government and military communications, weather reports and other critical real-time data communications. Companies like Western Union even launched their own fleet of communications satellites.

Companies like Western Union, American Telephone And Telegraph, CPR Telegram, the Commercial Cable Company, International Telephone and Telegraph and others were once  so powerful and influential in worldwide communications and commerce that they were sometimes considered to pose a threat of corporate tyranny.

Telegraphic data remained of high importance and extremely lucrative into the 1970’s, but quickly began to falter due to the development of other communications technologies. In the 1970’s, fax machines became available and quality rapidly improved as transmission time was reduced. Telegraphic data companies offered wire transmission of images, but telephone-based facsimile was cheaper and generally made such services obsolete. Major businesses and government began adopting computerized data systems around the same time, with systems linked by leased lines and later the internet, making transmission of text and other data easy and cheap. Modems made it possible to transmit large amounts of text for the cost of a short telephone call. Eventually e-mail and internet messaging completely overtook telegraphic data. Today even the mighty Western Union is a only money order company.

Attempts were made to keep competing technologies from being adopted. AT&T, which had a huge stake in the Telex network and other text communications maintained iron-fisted control of telephone lines and forbid the connection of data devices that could be used to utilize PTSN bandwidth for data transmission. Companies attempted to gain near-monopoly control of trunk data lines. Such measures failed.

The Recording Industry – The recording and music industry has been notorious for attempting to stop the spread of technology they deemed harmful to the bottom line.   The RIAA especially has used extreme legal and political maneuvering in an attempt to keep new technologies from being adopted or to heavily restrict their usage.

As early as the 1960’s, record companies attempted to prevent the production of low-cost consumer reel-to-reel tape recorders which could be used to easily record and copy audio.   In the 1970’s, the recording industry saw compact cassette tapes as a threat and attempted to implement legal or technical prevention of home dubbing of tapes.  A slew of lawsuits were filed against cassette makers.   In the UK, the infamous “Home Taping Is Killing Music” campaign was launched.  Despite degraded quality, the fact that music could be recorded from radio broadcasts was seen as a major threat to profits by the recording industry.    More recently, recording industry groups have been fighting a similar threat believe exists from digital terrestrial radio and satellite radio, which can be recorded at much higher quality.

In the mid-1980’s, the recording industry once again reacted to technical developments with panic, as inexpensive digital recording mediums became available.   The rise of Digital Audio Tape lead to another round of lobbying and lawsuits, which had some success in making the format a flop in the consumer market.   In some markets, Serial Copy Management Systems were required on DAT recorders and taxes were levied on media.  Strongarm tactics were also used in an attempt to stop Digital Compact Cassette and MiniDisc formats from reaching the mass market.

Finally, in the 1990’s, the recording industry reacted with even greater panic at the emergence of computer-based audio recording, including the rise of MP3 audio, file sharing and portable audio players.  In 1998, the Rio PMP300 was launched as the first portable mass-market consumer Mp3 player, resulting in an assault of lawsuits from the recording industry.  Other companies quickly joined in the production of portable digital audio players.   At the same time, peer to peer file exchange began to become popular, leading to move lobbying and lawsuits.   Eventually some file sharing, such as Napster, networks were shut down, but others were started, many designed with decentralized systems that could not be easily stopped.

In the end, all attempts to stop the proliferation of new technologies by the recording industry failed miserably.   Nearly all DRM measures were circumvented, usually quickly and easily.  Today, these technologies may cut in to the profits of record companies to some extent, but they also have become part of the music distribution business.  More audio tracks are now sold in downloadable digital formats than on hard media.   This despite the fact that the recording industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the acceptance of downloadable audio.

The Great Ocean Liner and Steamship Companies – Once considered some of the mightiest companies in the world, saw rapid decline in the 1950’s due to the growth of air travel.  Various attempts were made to maintain the viability of ocean liners as a means of international transit, including reducing prices and increasing the reliance on “fast” liners that cut down the transit across the North Atlantic Ocean to as little as four days.

Compared to jet aircraft, which could make the trip in just a few hours, these measures did little to save the industry.  The cost of air travel began to drop significantly after the introduction of jet airliners like the 707 and DC-8.  Ocean liner companies faced high fixed costs, including the crewing of large ships and providing passengers with food and accommodations for the multi-day passage.   Both the cost and speed of air travel were insurmountable obsticals to passenger ship lines.

Today only a handful of true ocean liners remain in service and their business is entirely dependent on leisure cruising.  Ocean liners are also no longer used to transport high priory mail or package shipments.   This has also been taken over by aircraft.

Other examples:

• Home videography, digital photography and digital image printing resulted in a huge loss to companies in the field of chemical photography and film, including Polaroid, Eastman-Kodak, Fuji Film and Bell and Howell.
• The introduction of low-cost microcomputers lead to the decline of companies heavily invested in large, centralized mainframe computers.   Some, such as IBM, adapted to the changes and embraced new technologies, but the mighty Remington Rand, maker of the UNIVAC line of computers all but collapsed and today exists only as a division of Spectrum Brands, manufacturing personal care products.
• The invention of electrostatic copying machines had a huge impact on the printing industry, resulting in a near complete collapse of the low-volume printing business.   It also brought an end to the business of ink-based small batch print machines such as the Mineograph and spirit duplicator.   At one time, products like mimeograph machines were a major part of the business and educational services sector.  Some of the once highly profitable companies that produced such machines, such as the A.B. Dick Company have since gone bankrupt.
• Broadcast television stations have lost a large percentage of market-share due to the rise of cable and satellite television and, more recently, internet video.  Broadcasters have had some success in gaining favorable legislation, such as requiring most North American cable companies to carry local television stations and receiving favorable treatment under new rebanding and digital transition programs, but this has done little to change the fact that they no longer enjoy the same viewership the once did.

Of course, there was no Apollo-20. There would have been, but the program was cut short early on to include only missions up to Apollo-19.   Then, further cuts resulted in Apollo 18 and 19 being axed, although some of their mission objectives were rolled into Apollo 15, 16 and 17.

The launch of a Saturn-V is pretty hard to hide.   The only facilities equipped to handle and launch the rocket were at Cape Canaveral, Florida, which is not far from populated areas that can easily observe the launch.   The flights were fairly easy to track into orbit and even beyond, even with amateur telescopes and radio receivers.   Not only that, but all the hardware from Apollo was accounted for.   All rockets were either used for the Skylab program or left as museum pieces.

Problems:

Some major technical problems with the video (other than it looks like the thing is made of paper mache)

1. “Roger Beeps” – These are those familiar whistling sounds that come at the end of a voice transmission to indicate the end of the statement.   They ONLY come after voice transmissions.  They are not just produced randomly, unless perhaps a microphone is accidentally activated.  They seem to be added here just to make the video seem more Apollo-like.
2. Constant whistling sound – Probably added for no other reason than it sounds very eerie and is the kind of thing one might associate with a distant radio transmission.   In fact, this is the sound of “whistlers” which are often heard on AM radio, but would not be present in multiplexed FM voice over microwave that was used by the Apollo spacecraft.
3. Color Banding and Hallows – This is a pretty clear attempt to replicate the visual artifacts sometime seen color television transmission during the Apollo project, a result of the field sequential color system used by the video cameras of the day.  However, in this case, it’s off the mark.   The color banding should not have as constant a footprint and just does not look like it did on Apollo TV broadcasts.
4. No Talking – If you’ve ever watched a real video from an Apollo Spacecraft, you’ll note that the crew was in nearly constant communication with mission control.  In part this was because they could not see how the video was being received on earth and were constantly asking and receiving information on whether the feed needed to be adjusted.   Mission control also directed the astronauts as to where to point the camera and what they wanted to get images of.
5. Wrong Kind of Interference – Apollo-era video transmissions did indeed suffer from occasional noise, but it looked nothing like what is seen in this video.   There’s no apparent random static noise but rather there are translucent horizontal lines shown over the image.  These were very clearly overlayed on the video.
6. The Video is Too Dark – Notice that the quality of the video is very poor in part because it is very shadowy and therefore details are difficult to see.   In reality, the television cameras used for the Apollo missions were the absolute state of the art for their day and had the highest dynamic range and best gain control available.  These cameras were purpose-built to provide excellent images even in situations where the lighting was imperfect.   By the final Apollo missions, the RCA J-Series camera was being used.  It had excellent light sensitivity and range.  Presumably an “Apollo 20″ mission would have used these cameras, if not even better ones.

Yes, people actually believe this is real!