It’s a rundown of some of the more interesting incidents of mass hysteria, where numerous people began to manifest symptoms based entirely on their belief that something existed when it didn’t. It’s actually more common than one might think. History is littered with examples of whole populations erupting in uncontrollable laughter, people believing they could not breathe and thus passing out, men panicking that their penises were retracting into their bodies or the female equivalent, where women believe their reproductive tracts are closing up. In some cases, individuals have injured themselves in an attempt to stop the fictional condition from progressing.

Never put 100% trust in anyone, not even yourself!

A number of studies have been conducted on the use of various SSRI drugs during various stages of pregnancy and breast feeding. The majority of the studies done have not found any harmful effects of the use of SSRI’s on developing fetuses or infants who breastfeed. While these drugs do pass through the placenta, the concentration of exposure is at least two thirds less for the developing fetus than for the mother.

However, one study, done in 2007, did find a slight increase in a few birth defects in mothers who received relatively high doses of certain SSRI medications during the first trimester of their pregnancy. The study did not find any significant increase in overall odds of most birth defects, but did find an increase in a few birth defects, such as certain cardiac defects. Still, the total risk remains tiny with or without SSRI’s, and while the increase was greater than the statistical error of the study, confounding factors cannot be ruled out, such as the possibility that depressed mothers might have less healthy babies for a variety of reasons.

You can read the entire study here.

The reception of the study in the medical community was generally more one of reassurance than concern. While it indicated that there was at least a possibility that a few narrow birth defects might possibly be associated with SSRI’s, the overall risk is very low. Interestingly, the study did not find that these risks increased for all types of SSRI drugs. Zoloft and Paxil did appear to produce slight increases in some birth defects, but Prozac, Lexapro and other antidepressants did not produce any detectable increase in any birth defects.

Given that the risks are not completely proven and appear to be extremely low, the Mayo Clinic says the following about the use of antidepressants during pregnancy:

Overall, the risk of birth defects and other problems for babies of mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is low. Still, few medications have been proved safe without question during pregnancy and some types of antidepressants have been associated with health problems in babies.

It should also be noted that these slight increases in risk have been speculated about since before the 2007 study, and most women who received the drugs during pregnancy would have been told (or should have been told) by their doctor that the possibility existed that there could be a small increase in some birth defects.

Now enter the lawyers. Lets say, you happen to have had a child with a common and minor birth defect, like a cleft lip or a club foot, both of which are fairly common and correctable. You might have just put your child’s foot in a brace or taken them for minor plastic surgery and then thought nothing of it. Well, if you happen to have been taking an anti-depressent, there are lawyers out there who want to be sure you don’t just go on with your life without giving them a crack at the drug companies. And they’re paying for advertising to make sure you know.

Also, to be clear: Most of the conditions listed in the above ad have never been associated with Paxil or Zoloft, and it’s pure speculation that they would have any effect on those conditions simply because they MAY have effects on other conditions. Also, most of the drugs listed have, despite extensive study, never been linked to ANY birth defect. They are in the same class as the drugs Paxil and Zoloft, but it is pure speculation to think that because they have a similar mechanism of action that they MIGHT have an effect, even despite the fact that all studies to date have shown they do not and that the drugs that they are related to have not been linked to the conditions listed.

Worse still, there are several ads now running (sorry I could not find a video) that are saying the same thing about autistic children, despite there being not a shred of evidence that SSRI’s during pregnancy would have an impact on the probability of a child developing autism. It seems to be some kind of assumption that if some do possibly increase the risk of some birth defects then they must all cause autism.

Go figure…

Sorry, to say “I hate lawyers” is a rather rash and harsh statement, but this stuff really makes me sick.

Now there has been a turn toward trying to blockade ports.   I’m not sure what the reasoning is.  Perhaps it’s a hatred of imports or a belief that blocking trade will somehow undermine the big businesses.  Regardless of their goals, it seems that some of the tactics have gone far beyond just getting in the way to the point of absolutely astounding danger.

Here is an amazing example of how bad it has gotten.

Faith in humanity? Okay, that’s fine. I really don’t think that any train driver wants to blow through a crowd or run over a toddler. I’ll even go so far as to say that the majority of the evil corporate executives at a railroad or transportation company would be horrified by the idea of a young child being torn apart under the wheels of a massive locomotive. I’m sure that the train driver, upon realizing that there is a child in the track will do everything possible to avoid running them over, which, unfortunately, is not much.

Perhaps this is just evidence that the educational system is failing, because in addition to humanity, there are some things you should always count on because they always work.

Inertia – It’s the property of an object to resist any change in its motion. It’s directly proportional to mass. In other words, heavy objects are more difficult to get moving that light objects. Makes sense, right? Well, conversely, once you get them moving, they’re also hard to stop.

Ever try pushing a car because it wouldn’t start? It’s hard to get it going but once you do it’s also hard to stop, which is why you need someone inside it to push the brake when it needs to. A two ton car has too much inertia for a human to easily stop it, even when it’s moving quite slow.

Trains have a lot more. A locomotive can weigh over one hundred tons. Fully loaded, each of the additional cars weighs anywhere from fifty to one hundred or more tons. So even a small freight train weighs thousands of tons. The ones that are used for transporting containers to and from ports are not small, however, and weigh a real real lot. They have a lot of inertia. When they get going, even at slow speed, it’s not easy to stop them.

Friction – It’s the property of two solid surfaces to resist motion against each other.  With wheels, it’s often considered to be synonymous with traction, the ability of the wheels to “grip” a surface and provide control and acceleration or stopping ability.   When you hit the brakes in a car, it’s the friction of a surface that keeps the car from just sliding away forever.

Not all surfaces have the same friction.  You will notice this if you are driving in different conditions.   Dry asphalt against rubber has quite a lot of friction, so if you hit the brakes on an asphalt road, you’ll stop pretty fast.   You may skid a bit, but it won’t be that much because the road provides plenty of friction against your wheels.   Now if you do the same on a wet road, which has less friction, you’re going to skid a lot farther.  Do it on an icy road and you’ll skid further still.  If you hit your brakes on a patch of smooth ice you will keep going almost like you didn’t hit them at all, although your car may also spin out.   One thing that will not happen on ice is a nice sudden stop, because there’s not enough friction.

You know what else doesn’t have a lot of friction?   Smooth steel rails against steel wheels.

And this is why, regardless of the humanity of a train driver, the train is not going to stop unless it has a good mile or so of warning that you’ve put your kid on the track.  It will keep going and kill you and your child.

For those interested in what actually happened: The original story can be read here. While it’s pretty clear from the video that the idiots were in the track right in front of a train, there are no reports of any deaths. Either the train was already coming to a stop and was light enough to not kill them all, or they realized it was not going to stop before it ran them over. Note that they are on the tracks but not chained to the tracks.

Just the same, this is one of the worst parents I have ever seen. It makes not vaccinating your children seem rather mild.

Ionization detectors use a tiny amount of radioactive material, usually amercium-241, to ionize air in a small chamber in the detector.  When smoke particles from a fire enter the detector, they interrupt the ion potential of the air in the chamber, thus tripping the detector.

Photoelectric detectors work by using a tiny light emitting diode, usually infrared and a light detector.  A small gap between the light and the detector allows air to pass between the two.  When smoke particles enter the detector, they obscure the light beam and this triggers the detector.

Recent Opposition to Ionization Detectors:

In recent years there have been some groups that have sprung up claiming that ionization detectors are entirely unreliable and that the use of ionization detectors puts lives in danger due to their failure to adequately detect and warn of fire.   This is often accompanied with claims of some kind of conspiracy between authorities and smoke detector manufacturers to keep this information from the public.   The issue of radioactivity and claims of corruption by the nuclear industry as also been a fixture in the argument.

It may not be that surprising, in the end.  Given the rampant radiophobia that has gripped the world, even the humble smoke detector had to eventually become the subject of fear.

These arguments were used as the basis for an Australian documentary and advocacy project with the absurdly dramatic name “Stop the Children Burning.”

Here is a clip from the film:

In reality, there’s no danger posed by the tiny amount of Am-241 in smoke detectors.  Am-241 produces some low energy gamma rays, but is primarily an alpha emitter.  The material is present in microscopic quantities and is in a form that is non-soluble, chemically stable and not easily absorbed.  It can resist all but the most extreme temperatures, and if the temperature was that high, you’d have worse things to worry about than inhaling a tiny amount of Americium liberated from the detector.  In most cases, the Am-241 is in the form of an oxide or ceramic and is embedded in gold foil that is affixed to a steel disk, usually recessed.   It is specifically designed to make release of the material unlikely.

There is no requirement for special disposal of smoke detectors nor do they require a license to own or sell.  The total radiation exposure during normal operations is negligible and even in the most extreme cases of a release of the embedded material would still be too small for much concern. It has not been “declared fifteen times more dangerous than plutonium.” It is technically about fifteen times more radioactive per unit of mass because the half-life is shorter, but that also means a much smaller amount is needed to produce the same ionization effect than would be needed if plutonium were used.

So which is better?

First, it’s important to realize that neither technology is perfect and in both cases, there will be examples of smoke detectors that did not promptly detect the smoke from a fire, either the convection patterns did not carry enough smoke to the sensor, because the sensor had become blocked by dust or debris or because the level and type of particulates in the smoke was not enough to trigger the alarm.  Both can suffer from a defect or malfunction or neglect to keep working batteries in the unit.   The best way to reduce the likelihood of a failure, with both kinds of detectors is to have multiple detectors in varying locations, each regularly tested and equipped with working batteries.

Advantages of ionization smoke detectors:

• Usually Cheaper - This is not simply insensitive “profits over people.”  Since ionization detectors tend to be cheaper, it’s easier to get more people to buy and install more of them, and programs to distribute them can get more units on a fixed budget and give them to more people than could be done with photoelectric.  Therefore, it is a consideration.
• Batteries tend to last longer – Since the ionization detector does not need to power an internal LED, it uses that much less power and therefore, all things being equal, will have a longer battery life.  This is an important feature, because many smoke detectors have dead batteries, and longer battery life reduces the liklihood that the battery will go dead before the owner thinks to replace it.   There are some ionization smoke detectors avaliable that are sealed, with a perminantly-installed battery and a ten year life.   You won’t find that in a photoelectric detector.
• Much better at detecting fires that do not produce thick visible smoke – When it comes to fast-moving fires and open flames, the ionization smoke detector wins over the photoelectric detector hands down.   These kind of fires don’t produce the thick visible smoke that smouldering flames produce.  Rather they produce small particulates that are easily detected by ionization smoke detectors and not easily detected by photoelectric smoke detectors.  If you set something on fire and it burns with full, fast-moving flames, the ionization smoke detector will almost always give you a faster warning than the photoelectric, although both will usually detect it once high enough concentrations are reached.

Advantages of photoelectric smoke detectors:

• Fewer False Alarms – Photoelectric detectors are less likely to be triggered by things like steam clouds, which might be produced by a shower or a kettle or the kind of smoke produced by cooking.  This is an important consideration, especially when the detector is placed somewhere where such events are common, such as near a kitchen or outside the door of a bathroom.  Frequent false-alarms as a result of something like steam can lead to the smoke detector being disconnected or disabled by annoyed residents and thus providing no protection.
• Better at detecting fires that produce a lot of thick visible smoke - While the ionization detector preforms better in detecting the smoke of open, fast-moving flames, the photoelectric detector tends to be more sensitive to the kind of thick, sooty smoke that would be produced by a smouldering fire.   Many home fires start off this way before progressing to a large rapidly-moving flame.   For example, if someone left a cigarette on a sofa or bed and it started a slowly burning, smouldering fire that produced a lot of thick smoke, the photoelectric detector would tend to detect it before the ionization detector. This could not only be life-saving but also property-saving, since many large fires start off as relatively small smoldering fires, which, if caught before they erupt in flames, could be put out relatively easily.
• Less affected by high air flow - In areas where there is high air flow, such as if a detector were installed inside a duct, photoelectric detectors tend to work better than ionization detectors, even for fires that would normally be detected faster by ionization detectors.  The rapid flow of air can prevent the particles from interrupting the potential in the chamber of an ionization detector, but won’t do much to reduce the sensitivity of a photoelectric detector.

Which you should get:

If I had to choose one or the other, I think I would tend to lean toward the ionization detector, because it seems to be the one that is the fastest to detect the fires that have the least time to escape and which produce the kind of smoke you are less prone to notice on your own anyway. However, all things considered, there are certainly circumstances where one could make the case for the photoelectric detector being the better of the two.

Both detector types work adequately well in most situations and conform to all standards for fire protection. If you have only ionization detectors or only photoelectric detectors, you would generally be judged to be in compliance with good fire protection practices, although you could do a bit better.

The national fire protection association along with most other major fire safety bodies recommends the use of both types of detectors for maximum protection.

Really, you should have both. There’s no need to choose one or the other. Both are quite affordable and easily available. Today there are many units which have dual sensors, detecting smoke by the use of both ionization and photoelectric effects. Since each detector type is undoubtedly better at detecting certain kinds of fires, the type which work in both ways are going to have the highest likelihood of providing ample warning, regardless of the fire type. The only time that a detector with only one sensor type might be preferable is in locations prone to false alarms. For example, if you are going to install a detector in your kitchen, near the stove, a detector that only has a photoelectric sensor might be preferable.

There are other considerations, of course, that go into achieving good fire safety. Smoke detectors should be installed on every level of a home, including the basement. Placement is also important. Detectors should be installed in relatively open areas, away from interior corners or sheltered areas that might not get good air flow. They should not be installed near ceiling fans or ducts. Smoke detectors are best installed on ceilings or can be on the upper surface of a wall, near the ceiling.

It is recommended that detectors be installed near bedrooms. Multiple detectors should be used if the bedrooms are far apart. Good central areas for installation include the hallways near bedrooms, at the top and bottom of stairs and in large rooms. It is also a good idea to have smoke detectors located in utility closets or rooms and around equipment like water heaters, furnaces, electrical boxes or anywhere else where a system failure could cause fire.

Ideally, smoke detectors should be wired together so that if one detects smoke, a whole-house alarm is triggered. This may even be required for new construction in some areas. Unfortunately, while this is the most ideal solution, it’s usually not practical for per-existing structures. In the later case, it’s important to assure the alarms are loud enough to be easily heard, even from another part of the house and through closed doors.

Batteries should be checked regularly and replaced when necessary.  Most detectors have a feature which allows for them to be tested to assure that the battery is not dead and that the audible alarm works.  However, this does not verify that the detector itself is working properly and is not blocked by dust or otherwise has lost sensitivity.  There are products available that can be used to test the ability of the detector to respond to smoke.  One of these simulated smoke products is shown to the right.

Some smoke detectors have a feature that causes them to beep intermittently when the battery begins to reach the end of its life.  It can be a little annoying, but it does assure you won’t forget about the batteries.  However, if you take one down to stop the annoying periodic beep, be sure to actually replace the battery and put it back up.   The best way of powering smoke detectors is to use central wiring with the battery being primarily a backup, in case the power goes out or the fire damages the home’s wiring.   Unfortunately, as with centrally wired detectors, this option is not usually viable for per-existing construction.

It’s also a good idea to have a carbon monoxide detector, which often is combined with a smoke detector.  Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that can easily kill without warning.  Carbon monoxide is produced by combustion and can enter a house due to malfunctions of hot water heaters, heating systems or if a car is started in an attached garage with the doors closed, as can happen if a remote car starter is triggered accidentally.  At least 170 people die of carbon monoxide poisoning every year in the US alone.

Conclusion:

Both types of detectors work, although each works better in different circumstances.  You’re best off having both and they should always be properly installed and checked.  However, both types may fail to give adequate warning in all circumstances and therefore they should not be considered a substitute for basic vigilance and fire safety measures, like proper electrical wiring, and keeping potential fuel sources away from potential sources of ignition.

Ionization detectors are not inherently unsafe or flawed in any way.  The greatest danger in terms of detector failure comes from improper installation or maintenance of the detector, not because it happens to be an ionization type detector.

Chickenpox is a pretty nasty disease to have.  Like most adults, I went through it when I was a child because there was no vaccine at the time.  It was pretty misserable, but I was lucky, because despite missing more than a week of school and being covered with an  itchy, painful rash, I didn’t have any lasting effects.   Some are not so lucky.  It’s fairly common to be left with disfiguring scars, especially on the face, from chickenpox (I know a few people with such marks on their cheeks or forehead).   It’s less common, though not unheard of to have more severe and lingering effects and occasionally even death.

The virus tends to be less severe in children than adults, there was once a custom of intentionally infecting children with the disease.   So-called “pox parties” were held where children intentionally came into contact with others with chickenpox to get the disease when young.  Whether exposing children to the disease intentionally was ever a justifiable idea is debatable (most medical experts think it was always a bad idea), but it certainly is not any more.   These days, there is a vaccine for chickenpox that is highly effective and avoids the discomfort, suffering, dangers and possible disfigurement of the disease.   The vaccine is now part of the normal vaccine schedule and most children receive it.  Chickenpox is therefore far less common than it once was.

But what to do if you’re a vaccine fearing idiot?  Since the antivax crowd seems to think that getting infections is a good thing and boosts the immune system, a pox party seems like it would be right up their ally.  The only problem is that the vaccine has reduced the number of cases of chickenpox enough to make it difficult to find a good pathogen host to infect your kid with.   So what to do?   Why not use social networking to find other like-minded morons around the world and swap spit by mail with them.

The most popular and widely reported on Facebook group for doing this appears to have been recently shut down, but that’s unlikely to actually stop anyone in the long run.

I’m not even kidding…

Via the Los Angeles Times:

‘Pox parties’: Coming to a mailbox near you?
This week, press reports emerged that some parents, hoping to avoid giving their kids the chickenpox vaccine, were arranging through Facebook to pay strangers to send them “[licked] lollipops, spit or other items” from kids with the illness.

The idea is to expose the kids to the virus to build immunity without having to get a shot.

It’s a lousy strategy, doctors say.

Dr. Wilbert Mason, a professor of clinical pediatrics at USC’s Keck School of Medicine and an infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said he was “dumbfounded” by the news. “I’m speechless, which will make for a very bad interview,” he told Booster Shots. “How could people be so stupid?”

For starters, he said, sending chicken poxthrough the mail probably won’t work, because the varicella virus needs cells to live in, and there probably would be very few cells in spit or on a used lollipop. “It’s unlikely the virus would survive long enough,” he said.

But more resilient types of infections — dangerous ones — could make it, including hepatitis B, group A strep, and staph germs.

Getting chickenpox “naturally” provides immunity that may be more long-lasting than immunity from the vaccinebut can cause complications. It’s rare, but children with varicella can die if they develop pneumonia or encephalitis, Mason said.

Also, chickenpox blisters often get infected, and if they get infected with invasive group A strep, “it can kill [a child] in hours,” he added.

“The most important risk factor for a child getting that infection is varicella,” he said. “Since we’ve had the varicella vaccine, we’ve seen a decrease in children with invasive group A strep. For me, that’s the most compelling reason to get it.”

Thirty years ago, it was common for parents to bring their kids over to a sick friend’s house to get exposed to chickenpox — maybe that’s why today’s “pox parties” seem like a good option to parents put off by vaccines. Mason likened the practice to playing roulette. “It was not a good idea then, and it’s still not a good idea,” he said.

A few are actually flaunting how stupid they are by telling fellow anti-vaxers about their activities.

Via WNEM, CBS 5:

The Facebook group is called “Find a Pox Party in Your Area.” According to the group’s page, it is geared toward “parents who want their children to obtain natural immunity for the chicken pox.”

On the page, parents post where they live and ask if anyone with a child who has the chicken pox would be willing to send saliva, infected lollipops or clothing through the mail.

Parents also use the page to set up play dates with children who currently have chicken pox.

Medical experts say the most troubling part of this is parents are taking pathogens from complete strangers and deliberately infecting their children.

One concern is that they are sending the virus through the mail.

A Facebook post reads, “I got a Pox Package in mail just moments ago. I have two lollipops and a wet rag and spit.” Another woman warns, “This is a federal offense to intentionally mail a contagion.”

Another woman answers, “Tuck it inside a zip lock baggy and then put the baggy in the envelope Don’t put anything identifying it as pox.”

The video on the CBS-5 Website is definitely also worth watching.  It includes an interview with one of the parents who is shipping out the spit.

The chickenpox virus may or may not survive being mailed. In most cases, it probably won’t. Still, for those who might not realize this: it is generally considered to be a bad idea to intentionally ingest the bodily fluids of random people you don’t know and meet on the internet. (Granted some people do this for fun, but at least that involves some other benefits.) It’s certainly not a good idea to do it with someone who is infected with a disease and may be carrying other infections. And if they do have any bacteria infections, putting the biological material on a sugary item and placing it in a warm envelope is not going to do anything to prevent that bacteria from multiplying.

In other words: what the hell are these people thinking???

Thankfully, the law seems to be on the side of reason on this issue. It is generally illegal to intentionally send infectious diseases by mail, except under special circumstances, such as properly isolated and prepared laboratory samples, shipped with appropriate bio-hazardous safeguards. Federal prosecutors have made it clear that they are willing to charge those who violate the law.

Via Third Age:

Chickenpox Lollipops By Mail? Illegal, Prosecutor Warns

Parents receiving chickenpox-infected lollipops through the mail are breaking the law, a federal prosecutor tells the Associated Press.

Spurred by reports aired in the past week about parents turning to Facebook to procure items said to be infected with chickenpox, U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin hopes to make it clear that trafficking in infectious diseases is illegal — as well as unsafe.

“If you are engaged in this type of behavior, you’re not only potentially exposing innocent people to dangerous viruses and illnesses and diseases, you’re also exposing yourself potentially to federal criminal prosecution,” Martin told The Associated Press.

According to Martin, it is a federal crime to send diseases or viruses across state lines, whether through the U.S. Postal Service or private services like FedEx or UPS. The same laws that prohibit, say, the mailing the of anthrax also apply to infectious diseases: Offenders, if convicted, could face up to 20 years in prison.

The hubbub comes in the wake of the growing popularity of so-called chickenpox parties, organized by parents in order to expose their children to chickenpox and thereby strengthen their immune systems. As WSMV-TV in Nashville reported Thursday, parents without entree to such events are increasingly turning to internet dealers purporting to sell lollipops, among other items, infected with the chickenpox virus.

I fully expect to hear a lot of whining about how this is more proof that the government and judicial system are firmly in the pocket of the big evil corporations and how they are stopping parents from exercising their rights to do things the “natural” way. The antivaccine groups always seem to have had a persecution complex. Still, I hope that this warning will be enough to stop most from engaging in this illegal, dangerous and disgusting practice, though I’m sure it won’t stop them all.

I suppose the next thing will be swapping contaminated feces to infect children with polio in order to get a “natural” immunity.

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.

The AC Gilbert set was certainly the most elaborate and complete atomic energy set sold, but it was not the only one. The American Basic Science Club produced a similar lab set around 1960, and Chemcraft produced a lab set in the late 1940’s to early 1950’s. In the 1950’s, some Chemcraft chemistry sets also included radioactive materials and experiments that could be done with radiation.

I have always thought that these sets were an incredibly good idea and a really excellent way to acquaint young people with the basics of radioactivity and, importantly, demonstrate that radiation is common and not something to be feared. These lab sets were extremely safe. The amount of radioactive materials present in the experimental sources was microscopic and not at all dangerous. The uranium ore or uranium compounds included are not a radiological hazard and are only a toxicity hazard if they are ground up and snorted or otherwise inhaled, and even then, are less toxic than an equivalent quantity of something like lead.

There’s really no better way to get a kid acquainted with science than to actually do some hands-on activities. They improve understanding and retention and allow them to participate directly in making exciting observations. Anyone lucky enough to have had one of these labs as a child probably grew up with a healthy understanding (and not fear) of radioactivity.

Sadly, the world has changed since the early 1950’s, and today most people seem to run around with rampant radiophobia. If something is “radioactive” (which nearly everything is) then it’s seen as being of the highest danger. Nothing is believed to be more environmentally destructive, more dangerous to health, more disastrous, more hazardous and more terrifying than radiation. The idea that at one time children were allowed to learn with materials that produce radiation significantly above background levels fills some with horror and others laugh at just how stupid everyone must have been fifty years ago.

Here’s some of the things that have been said about the AC Gilbert Atomic Lab:

From the Daily Grind:

World’s Most Dangerous Toys: Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab
If you thought choking hazards in toys were bad then spare a thought for American kids in the early 50′s.

Introducing the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory. This toy lab set was produced by Alfred Carlton Gilbert between 1950 and 1951 and sold for $49.50US (which is equivalent to about $380 – $400US dollars today). So if you were lucky enough to have well off parents back in the day you may well have been ‘lucky’ enough to get your hands on this radioactive fun set.

From Liveleak:

Very bad toys: Atomic Energy Lab usa ca. 1960
t’s unclear what effects the Uranium-bearing ores might have had on those few lucky children who received the set, but exposure to the same isotope
U-238 has been linked to Gulf War syndrome, cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma, among other serious ailments. Even more uncertain is the longterm impact of being raised by the kind of nerds who would give their kid an Atomic Energy Lab.

From Cracked

The 8 Most Wildly Irresponsible Vintage Toys
#1. Atomic Energy Lab

As a kid, did you ever swallow or at least put in your mouth a small piece of a toy or play set? Did you grow an extra arm because of it? No? Then you probably didn’t have the Atomic Energy Lab.

You see, there was a different approach to nuclear power in the ’50s and early ’60s — atomic energy was our friend and the way of the future, and it would never do anything to hurt us. However, it’s still hard to believe that anyone would entrust kids with radioactive material (even in small doses).

Yet, the Atomic Energy Lab kit produced by the American Basic Science Club came with real samples of uranium (which is radioactive) and radium (which is a million times more radioactive than uranium). Since the mere presence of radioactive material in a children’s product clearly wasn’t insane enough, some of the experiments detailed in the manual also required kids to handle blocks of dry ice. Dry ice, by the way, has a temperature of minus 109.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and it’s recommended that it only be handled while wearing gloves (none were included).

Okay, they’ve got a point about the dry ice, although it’s reasonably safe to handle with basic precautions. Still, I’m downright offended by the way that people completely ignorant of what radiation is or the dangers can sit there and smugly dismiss the idea of a radiation experiment set as being insane. It’s often ranked the most dangerous toy of all time, but in fact, it’s not dangerous at all for any normal 12 year old to learn from a microscopic amount of a radioisotope or a little bit of uranium ore, which they may well have sitting in their backyard anyway.

I’ll go one further:  Not only do I think this was a great idea and a very positive learning experience, I also think that there has never been a better time for something like a radiation and nuclear energy lab set!  Having a set that had a good variety of experiments would be fairly expensive but not unaffordable.  It would be targeted at ages 12 to adult and could also be something science departments at schools might be interested in.

I’m seriously considering doing it!  I’ll take the flack for selling kids a horrible cancer-causing evil material if I have to, because somebody has got to do it, and if I get enough interest I may very well start putting some kits together.

Things to include:

1. A Geiger counter - this is undoubtedly the most important part of the lab, but also one of the most problematic.  The cost could easily drive the price of the set way too high if a high quality Geiger counter is used. Detecting alpha particles would be great as a way of teaching of the different types of radiation but most inexpensive Geiger-Muller tubes can only detect gamma and high energy beta. Detecting alpha particles requires a very thin window, usually made of mica. That tends to drive the price up, so alpha detection may need to be omitted. Ideally the Geiger counter should connect to a computer to expand the types of experiments possible and allow data logging. This may drive the price up too high, however.
2. A set of shielding materials – One of the most fundamental lessons is understanding the nature of shielding, so a series of materials would be provided.  These would include Mylar, thin plastic, thicker plastic, metal sheets and lead foil, possibly coated in plastic to relieve fears of lead poisoning.
3. A spinthescope or scintillation screen material – This would provide one alternative for detecting alpha particles that the geiger counter can’t.  It also is a fun and interesting experiment to view the radiation-created flashes of light in a darkened room.
4. A cloud chamber - An absolute must for any basic nuclear energy lab kit.   Simple cloud chamber kits are already available
5. An electroscope – To demonstrate the ionizing effects of radiation and the earliest types of detectors
6. High power rare earth magnets - to demonstrate that particle radiation can be effected by magnetic fields.
7. A guide to identifying radioactive minerals – basically a book with types of uranium and thorium ore shown with their geographic distribution and general characteristics shown.
8. An experiment guidebook – A list of the different experiments possible

Included radioactive sources:

1. A sample or multiple samples of uranium ore
2. Uranium marbles - They’re cheap and easy enough to obtain and provide a safe base level for some experiments
3. License Exempt Sealed Sources – The company Spectrum Techniques manufactures samples of various radioactive substances, including thalium-204, strontium-90, cesium-137, lead-210 and polonium-210 that are available in either needle sources (used primarily for cloud chambers) or sealed in plastic discs.   The sources are approved for sale and possession without a license because the actual amount of material is tiny.   They run from about fifty to eighty US dollars each.  Since Po-210 has a very short halflife, including it with a cloud chamber or other product presents a problem, so Spectrum Techniques offers a coupon that can be included with such products and then mailed in to receive the sample once the consumer gets the product.

Possible Experiments:

1. Measuring radiation – Basic measurements with the Geiger counter, measuring various sources.
2. Measuring radiation in your environment – Use the Geiger counter to measure the baseline background in various areas and record how it changes by time of day.  Look for radioactive items.   What common items emit radiation and how much?    Go on a hunt in an antique store, your kitchen or somewhere else and see what you can find.
3. Prospecting - Using the Geiger counter and the guide to minerals, what types of ore can you find?
4. Shielding Experiment – Observe how various types of radiation can be shielded and attenuated.  Use the shielding to help determine the type of radiation being measured.
5. Cloud Chamber Experiments – Observe particle paths in the cloud chamber using various sources.  Also see how magnets can alter the paths of particles.
6. Spinthescope Experiments – Observe alpha radiation with the spinthescope and also use it to help determine what kind of radiation is being measured.
7. Find a hidden source – Have a friend hide one of the radioactive sources in a room and use the Geiger counter to find it.

Of course these experiments would have more descriptions and some of them might even be designed to dispel myths, for example, those who live near a nuclear power plant would be encouraged to measure radiation at various distances and plot the levels.  Also, cell phones could be on the list of items to examine to show they do not give off ionizing radiation.

Cost:

I’d like to keep the kit affordable, ideally, about 300 US dollars as the top end of what it should cost, but realistically, it may turn out to be more.  I’d consider 500 USD to be the absolute maximum that could be charged without making the set far too expensive for most people to afford.    I’m more than happy to put such a kit together at almost no profit.   To be perfectly fair, I think it’s reasonable that I would make a small amount of money (perhaps $25 or so) over the cost of the materials, because I’m going to incur other miscellaneous expenses like printer toner, paper, phone calls and my time spent putting such a kit together.   However, my primary goal is not to make money off of this so much as to produce an educational experiment kit. Most of the items included would not cost much.

The marbles, ore and shielding material could be acquired for under $50 and the cloud chamber for not much more.   United Nuclear sells a spinthariscope for $35.  It would probably be possible to get it a bit cheaper if such an item was purchased in bulk. Other expenses would include the packaging and instructions.   The cost before the sealed sources and Geiger counter is therefore going to be about $100.

The sealed sources are going to be the first big expense.   A complete set that includes a beta emitter, a gamma emitter and an alpha emitter is going to cost about $150.   I’m a little split on whether to include Po-210.  On one hand it’s the only exclusive alpha emitter that could be included, but on the other, it’s rather short lived.   The alternative would be to include lead-210 in equilibrium with polonium-210, which would produce both beta and alpha particles.   Adding another gamma emitter to demonstrate the differences in energy levels would be great too, but for a real complete set of radioisotopes, it starts to look more like $175-$200.  It’s possible it could be less if they are bought in bulk. Therefore, the kit is already reaching the $300 mark before the most important component, the Geiger counter is added.

Choosing exactly what Geiger counter to include will be a challenge.   I can definitely acquire Geiger counters that fit all the necessary criteria and are inexpensive, but generally those are units I’d get surplus or second hand, and thus are each different.   That won’t work here.  What is needed is a standard Geiger counter that will be the same for each Set.

The Russian Company Quartex makes a series of Geiger-Muller detectors that are fairly cheap and very simple to use.  Unfortunately, these units have some major drawbacks.  For one thing, they only measure gamma radiation and hard beta radiation.  That might be acceptable if not for the fact that they also only give readings in dose equivalent, not in counts per minute.  Since the point of the set is understanding how radiation is detected and measured, the more basic unit of CPM is preferable.

Still, it is a complete radiation detector in a nice, small and simple handheld unit.   It may be worth talking to the company to find out if it would be possible to make the one small modification of adding a counts per minute or counts per second reading.

Another option would be to build a GM detector-counter.  The Electronics Goldmine has a Geiger-Muller driver kit, which includes the high voltage supply and and detection circuitry for $30.  That price would be tough to beat by acquiring the components individually, and it has the big advantage of having a per-fabricated circuit board, which would be expensive to have manufactured and time consuming to fabricate individually.   The unit still needs an enclosure, battery holder and switch, but that should be obtainable for about ten US dollars.  The kit does not include a meter movement, so that will need to be added too.  An analog meter would need to have some kind of range switch (to allow for ranges such as 0-100 cpm, 0-1000 etc), which would complicate construction a bit.   There is a digital meter adapter available for about $60, which would work nicely and also adds the ability to hook the unit up to a PC.   The most expensive part of the counter will be the tube.  A suitable, although very small tube could be bought for about $60 each.   This tube would be sensitive to alpha, but given the small size, it would not work very well for general survey work.    All in all, the cost of this geiger counter, including shipping and expenses like solder and wire looks to be about $175, resulting in a total cost of the set of close to $500.

Another option would be to use the venerable CDV-700 as the basis for the detector.   The CDV-700 is a Geiger counter manufactured for the US government during the Cold War.  It was standard issue for fallout shelters. Tens of thousands were manufactured.   Production ended in the 1970’s and since then, many have been sold off as surplus.   It’s about the cheapest Geiger counter that can be purchased, often available for about $50 from a surplus dealer and sometimes less if bought in bulk.  It comes with a small check-source mounted on the side.   This is often depleted uranium but occasionally may be a sealed radium source.  It would definitely be a nice bonus to have an extra source included.

Unfortunately, the CDV-700 has a number of major drawbacks.   For one thing, it will be important to find the right version of the unit.  It was produced by a number of manufacturers and went through a few design changes over the course of its production.   Some early models use high voltage batteries, so these should be avoided as the batteries are no longer widely available.  Another problem is that many CDV-700’s sold surplus do not work, as they have spent years in storage in damp bomb shelters and were not maintained.   Repair is usually fairly easy, as long as they are in good physical shape and not rusted out or otherwise physically damaged.

Assuming the counter is in good condition, it will still need a few modifications.   For one, the headphone connector is a rather obscure fitting known as a “Single button microphone plug.”  These are not found on many devices anymore and would only allow the original headphones to be used.   Replacing it with a more modern 1/8 or 1/4 inch plug will both allow for modern headphones to be used and allow the unit to be easily hooked up to the sound card on a computer so that it can be calibrated and data logged using available Geiger counter software.   It would also be worthwhile to replace some of the more failure-prone electronics with modern versions that are also more efficient and produce less RF noise.   Finally, a reasonably easy addition would be to add a small amplified speaker so that headphones would not be required for listening.  A speaker with a switch or knob would require drilling in the case, but would not be terribly expensive.  Since the meter would need to be taken apart anyway, it would be worthwhile to paint it to make it look more like a scientific instrument and less like a piece of emergency equipment. All in all, about fifty dollars invested in the internals would produce a very reasonable meter.

That does still leave one problem, however: the probe.   The CDV-700 comes with a Geiger-Muller tube that was originally intended for use after a nuclear war.  It only detects gamma radiation and relatively high energy beta particles.  Even as a gamma detector, it’s not terribly sensitive and thus leaves some to be desired for surveying relatively low background levels.  The probe on the CDV-700 is permanently attached to the unit, but that is relatively easily solved by disconnecting it and adding a BNC connector to the meter and to the end of the probe attachment, thus allowing the original probe or another probe to be used.

The next problem is finding a suitable alpha-sensitive probe to include.   This site has a surplus alpha-sensitive end window tube for only 37.95 plus shipping.  It would be fairly easy to make a probe out of it by using a small piece of PVC pipe with one end open to hold the probe and a BNC connector and cable to connect it to the modified CDV-700.   The only question is whether the tube is available in large enough quantity to make a reasonable number of lab sets.  If not, there may be other probes that can be acquired as surplus.

This approach seems to end up being the most favorable, as it would provide two probes for different types of use and would also give the option to add more probes in the future, possibly even including scintillation probes or other types of detectors.

In the end, the CDV-700 option with modifications and an additional probe seems to be the best one.

So while the $300 price tag seems unrealistic, it appears that a $500 price should be possible for a very well equipped set with an excellent Geiger counter, expandability, a good assortment of sources and a wide range of possible experiments.

Other considerations:

Many of the readers of this blog are from outside the United States.  Unfortunately that could present some problems for shipping radioactive sources, even those small enough not to require a license.   Simply being of very low quantity is not enough to make the sources legal – they generally must also be inspected and approved by the local regulatory body for radioactive substances, although this varies from country to country.   I’m told that shipping to Canada should be just fine and some countries in Europe are probably okay, although each would have to be individually verified.

Other countries may allow the sources but have restrictions on just who can import and sell them.  Spectrum Techniques has a worldwide network of affiliates and distributors.  In some cases, it may be necessary to sell the set without the actual sources and instead have them shipped separately from a domestic distributor in the country of the purchaser.

Interested? It’s expensive, admittedly. Perhaps I could come up with a partial lab or one that could be bought in pieces. I’m still looking into the possibilities. I’m not going to say that I’m definitely going to go for it, but I might. If I get enough interest I may go for it and start putting some of these lab sets together.

First, some background on the lobotomy:

The lobotomy may well be the most notorious and misunderstood medical procedure ever to have been developed.   It’s the butt of many jokes and is portrayed widely in the media as a savage operation preformed on those who were unruly as a means of turning them into dribbling vegetables, incapable of resisting and placid in all respects.  This is partially true, but is an overly simplistic portrayal of what the lobotomy really was and how it was used.

To understand the use of the lobotomy one must first realize the environment it was developed in.  Prior to the mid 20th century, there was very little that could be done for the severely mentally ill. Psychotherapy existed and was useful in helping those with problems like anxiety, phobias and depression better manage their symptoms, but this could do little for the truly insane. For those who suffered from severe delusions, violent episodes, severe depression with suicidal tendencies, extreme bipolarism, there was no effective therapy.

Such individuals were placed in mental institutions, where they were often forced to live the entirety of their lives.   Often miserable places, institutions provided little more than warehousing for many individuals.   Mental institutions were enormous, becoming huge communities onto themselves.  Attempts were made to make life more pleasant by providing  classes and recreation, but the enormous expense of caring for the populations made that difficult to do on a large scale.   The worst cases were often left restrained or locked in padded cells.  With so many completely crippled by mental disease, conditions could easily degrade to the point where wards became filthy and filled with the screams of insane patients.

The origins of psycosurgury can be traced back to the 1880’s, when Gottlieb Burckhardt, a Swiss neurosurgeon began to experiment with operations on the brains of the most severely insane. Small sections of brain were removed in the hope that it might calm the continual mania of the patients operated on. The results were not encouraging, but research continued into the 20th century. It was known that traumatic brain injury, brain tumors or their removal could alter a person’s personality, but only the most basic understanding of the regions of the brain associated with various aspects of thought and emotion existed.

The lobotomy was developed in 1935 by Portuguese doctor António Egas Moniz, who intitially called the procedure the leukotomy. Moniz had become aware of experiments carried out on apes in which portions of the brain were intentionally removed or disconnected. Operations that removed the frontal lobes had a major effect on the learning capacity of the animals, but also made them more placid and less prone to expressions of frustration and emotional outbursts. He believed that doing so on humans might allow those with the most violent psychiatric episodes to lead more normal lives, or at least be more manageable. Early experiments involved injecting alcohol into the nerves that connected the frontal lobes to the rest of the brain. This was later replaced by simply cutting the connections.

The belief at the time was that mental illness was caused by areas of the brain becoming too active or the brain being overstimulated and going haywire with out of control signals. It was thought that there was simply too much emotional activity that that cutting away the overly active portions of the brain would relieve this. While this belief is not always entirely false, it’s overly simplistic and does not apply to most cases of mental illness.  While there are portions of the brain that are associated with certain functions or aspects of personality, it is far too complex for a single region to be defined as the source of something like delusions, violent episodes or depression.

Still, the procedure did appear to have some validity. Many of those who received the operation did indeed become calmer and more easy to manage. Contrary to popular belief, it did not necessarily render the individual incapable of speech or basic function, although this did sometimes happen. It seems that overall, the results were highly variable. This is likely attributable to the simplicity and crudeness of the surgery. It involved drilling holes in the head of patients and cutting the pathways by inserting instruments. Exactly what kind of effects this had on the brain could vary quite a bit, especially since the individuals it was preformed on had all manner of conditions to begin with.

Early observations considered the outcome of the procedure to be result in a 33% to 33% to 33% success rate. In other words, roughly one third of patients could be considered to have improved from the operation. One third could be considered to be worse than before the operation and one third were roughly the same. This is hardly a stellar success rate, but given the lack of options for the worst cases of mental disease, it may have seemed worth the risk. There certainly were a few cases of individuals who seemed to gain extensive relief with few complications, but these were relatively rare.

A few individuals died during the procedure.  Others were left completely incapacitated and severely disabled.  Many, however, did retain their basic abilities to communicate and do simple tasks.   Some lost the ability to walk or talk but subsequently relearned it.   A number of reports indicated that the patients became very child-like and lost the ability to comprehend complex concepts.  Lack of emotional responses or social capacity was also reported.   Another effect was the loss of inhibitions.  Many seemed to have no fear or anxiety, even in circumstances where it would be appropriate.  Apathy and social disconnection were common.  Many patients began to overeat and put on large amounts of weight.  Some developed complications ranging from incontinence to lack of balance to sleep disorders.

The psychiatric community accepted the procedure with varying levels of enthusiasm. It gained rapid acceptance across the world, but many remained uneasy about the implications and ethical considerations. It was used primarily on the worst of the worst cases, at least initially. Directors of mental hospitals welcomed anything that could make it easier to manage their overcrowded wards, resulting in an expansion of use that raised questions about whether it was really being used as a last resort. Overall, the procedure was never without controversy, but given the lack of alternatives, it often was considered about the only thing that could be done to at least try to relieve severe mental illness.

Walter Freeman, the great lobotomist

Nobody did more to advance the expansion of lobotomy than Dr. Walter Freeman. Freeman was an American neurologist who, in the early 1930’s, became interested psycosurgury as a means of relieving the epidemic of mental illness he witnessed in state-run asylums. In 1935, he heard of the leucotomy procedure and became immediately interested in its potential. Freeman learned about the technique from Moniz, who became something of a mentor to Freeman. Yet his enthusiasm would far surpass that of even Moniz.

In 1936, Freeman brought the procedure to the United States, when he preformed his first lobotomy on Alice Hood Hammatt of Kansas. Freeman believed the leucotomy was the answer to nearly all mental illness. He claimed the procedure showed marked improvement in at least sixty percent of cases, although this finding is very much in doubt given the reports of others. In the next few years he preformed hundreds of the operations, assisted by his assistant James Watt. With the help of Watts, Freeman modified the procedure to remove even more of the white matter connecting the frontal lobes to the rest of the brain. He renamed the procedure the lobotomy and began his long career in promoting lobotomy across the United States and world.

While Freeman was fairly successful in selling his procedure to mental hospital administrators and in getting patients to undergo the surgery, he recognized that the complexity and expense of brain surgery was a major barrier. Drilling into the head of a patient and cutting portions of the brain required a skilled surgeon, a sterile operating room and properly administered anesthesia. To make the procedure truly commonplace, Freeman would need to make it much simpler and faster. Ideally, he wanted to find a way to make the lobotomy possible as an outpatient procedure preformed in a doctor’s office.

So was born the “transorbital lobotomy,” an especially crude procedure that Freeman would champion for the remainder of his medical career. Freeman preformed the first of these operations in 1946. The transorbital lobotomy was preformed through the eyesockets and left the patient with no outward signs of the surgery except for severely black eyes. The instrument used was likened to an icepick, which was inserted along the top of the eyeball and then broken through the thin bone on the top of the eyesocket with a hammer. It was then moved back and forth to sever the connection with the frontal lobes. The whole procedure could be done in minutes. Freeman took an additional shortcut by omitting standard anesthesia in favor of electroshock. A few shocks of electricity to the head of the patient would send them into spasms and then into a brief period of unconsciousness. This was more than enough time to preform the lobotomy.

Freeman toured the United States promoting the lobotomy, and especially the transorbital lobotomy at hospitals and medical meetings. He preformed a total of 3,400 lobotomies and suggested the procedure for everything from depression to migraine headaches. He toured in a car he dubbed the lobotomobile. Freeman took photographs of nearly all his procedures, he produced instructional films on the benefits and techniques of lobotomy. He held workshops to teach doctors how to preform his procedure. Yet his showmanship and the rapid fashion in which he preformed the operation made many of his colleges very uneasy.

Many of his procedures were preformed on individuals who did not seem to suffer from any major mental disease. His most notorious was that of Rosemary Kennedy, sister of President John F. Kennedy. Rosemary was reported to have been difficult and unruly. She may have been mildly retarded or at least learning disabled. Whatever the reason, he father, Joseph Kennedy had no tolerance for a daughter who did not fit the image of perfection he sought to cultivate. In 1941 he sent her to Freeman for a lobotomy, which left her severely incapacitated. She was forced to live out the rest of her life in institutions, unable to care for herself and badly handicapped. She died in 2005, having never recovered from the operation.

Freeman’s techniques and willingness to preform lobotomies so readily on those who did not appear to have any major mental illness lead to increasing criticism throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s. Concerned over the cruelty and crudeness of Freeman’s practices, even his loyal college James Watts left Freeman’s practice in 1950. Freeman’s fall from grace was accelerated in the mid 1950’s, when the drug Thorazine became widely available. The first modern anti-psychotic, it revolutionized mental health care. Thorazine could help control psychotic episodes and calm violent behavior. Unlike the lobotomy, it had minimal dangers of complications. It could also be adjusted to the appropriate level for the patient and its effects were temporary. Discontinuing Thorazine would result in the full reversal of the effects.

It would be followed by other psychoactive drugs, which were embraced by the mental healthcare sector. Finally, an effective treatment other than lobotomy existed and thus began the revolution that would lead to widespread deinstitutionalization. By the late 1950’s most in the medical field considered the lobotomy to be obsolete, crude and unnecessary. Yet Freeman remained a champion of it and continued to promote the lobotomy as a better treatment than drugs. Freeman dismissed Thorazine and similar drugs. He believed they did not treat the underlying problem and considered them temporary, noting that his operation could “cure” patients for life, but drugs needed to be administered continually.

As his promotion of lobotomy became more fanatical he became more marginalized. Yet Freeman continued to preform the procedures until 1967. That year he preformed the operation on Helen Mortensen. It was the third time he had preformed the operation on Mortensen. It’s not clear why he would do so more than once; he may have believed he had not completely severed the connections in the past operations. Whatever the reason, the operation proved disastrous. Mortensen suffered a severe cerebral hemorrhage and died. She was not the first patient to die during the operation. In fact, a large number had lost their lives due to similar complications, but this time, it would not go unnoticed. Freeman lost his medical license and finally stopped preforming lobotomies.

From 1967 until his death in 1972, Freeman toured the country visiting his former patients to collect their stories in support of his claims of the success of the procedure. Despite his enthusiasm for the procedure, Freeman, of course, never had it himself. Yet it seems he may have been more qualified for it than many of his patients. Freeman appears to have had a number of his own daemons. He often took large doses of sleeping pills and suffered a number of personal tragedies that he never overcame. His marriage was unhappy and his wife an alcoholic. Freeman also lost a son when he fell into a river and was swept over a waterfall while our hiking with Freeman. Though he showed signs of depression, he never received any treatment and instead threw himself into his work.

By the 1970’s, the era of the lobotomy was over. Few were preformed anywhere in the world. Today few psycosurguries are preformed and when they are, it is only in the most extreme cases. A modified form of lobotomy is preformed on very rare occasions. It is almost never used for psychiatric conditions but occasionally may be used as a last resort for epilepsy.

There remain an unknown number of individuals who received the procedure decades ago.   As is typical of the lobotomy, their condition varies widely.  Some were robbed of most of the faculties and left profoundly handicapped while others remain mostly coherent.  A few appear to be relatively normal.   However, today those who have had the operation are now seen as having suffered a major setback, being left with a brain injury that only complicates their treatment and worsens their prognosis.

“My Lobotomy” – An Absolute Must Read on the Subject

Anyone who has interest in the lobotomy, the evolution of mental healthcare of simply wants to read a fascinating, if heartbreaking tail should consider the book “My Lobotomy.”  It’s really one of the most unique and memorable books I’ve ever read.  The book was written by Howard Dully, who, in 1960 was one of the youngest of Freeman’s patients to receive a lobotomy at only twelve years old.

Freeman had diagnosed Dully with schizophrenia, though this is highly suspect given that he only actually interviewed Howard a few times. In fact, Howard seems to have suffered from little or no mental disease at all. He was an energetic kid, prone to playing practical jokes on others and not always one to sit quietly in class. He was punished often at home for relatively small infractions, such as stealing cookies from the cookie jar in the kitchen.

Howard’s mother died of cancer in 1954, and his father remarried a woman who seems to have hated young Howard. It may have been because she favored her biological children or because Howard was larger than most and thus could seem threatening, but whatever the reason, the didn’t like Howard. She punished him severely and frequently. She attempted to get rid of him by passing him off to the state social services system with inflated claims that he threatened her other children. She insisted he was disturbed and had him sent to a school for special needs children and to a mental hospital. Howard’s father worked multiple jobs and was of little help in defending his son, usually caving to his wife’s hatred of Howard.

Howard’s step-mother went to numerous psychiatrists, but most told her there was no problem with Howard and some suggested she needed help. Then she found Walter Feeman. Freeman mentioned the lobotomy as a possibility, but even he was apprehensive about it. It took her a few months to convince Freeman that Howard was out of control and in desperate need of a lobotomy. At twelve years old and with little understanding of what was being done, Howard had the procedure preformed.

The photograph to the right shows the actual procedure with Freeman holding the instrument in Howard Dully’s brain.

Unfortunately, even after the procedure Howard’s step-mother seems to have continued to hate him and consider him unruly. He was thrown out of the house, forced into institutions and ended up an alcoholic, living on the street and dabbling in petty crime like check fraud to get by. With no family support and having never learned how to live a normal life, Howard Dully spent many years in this condition. He eventually managed to pull his life together. He sobered up, got a degree in information technology and then became a certified bus driving instructor. Though it took years, Dully managed to establish a stable, productive life.

In many ways, Howard Dully was lucky. That might sound like a very strange thing to say given what was done to him, but the results could have been much worse.   Howard Dully is not profoundly disabled.   He can drive, take care of himself and lead a generally normal life.  He’s not spaced out all the time and does not lack emotions.  He’s articulate and even and has a sharp, if dry sense of humor.   He has no problem bonding to others, understanding the feelings of his peers or experiencing normal social interactions.  He can do math, remember things and seems to have otherwise normal cognition, being of better than average intelligence.

In that sense, the results of the procedure could have been far worse and were for many.  It’s unclear why Dully managed to recover so well from the procedure.  It’s possible that his young age aided him.   In younger individuals, neural plasticity allows the brain to better compensate for injuries than in older individuals.  It’s quite likely that Howard Dully managed to regain most of what he lost by reconfiguring the connections in his brain to compensate for the injury.

In 2005, Dully was featured on the NPR program All Things Considered. The program centered around Dully and documented the effects of the lobotomy on him and others. As part of the program, Dully was given unprecedented access to the records of Walter Freeman, which had been stored at George Washington University. He was finally able to see his case file and read what Freeman had been told that lead to the decision to preform the lobotomy. He also interviewed others who had been lobotomized as well as the son of Dr. Walter Freeman.  The program was one of the highest rated NPR radio documentaries of all time.  The program is available online here.

In 2007, Dully co-authored his memoir with Charles Fleming. (as is commonly done by those with little prior writing experience).

The book is shocking and revealing. It provides unique insight into how the lobotomy was used and also into the world of Walter Freeman. There are a few things that really surprised me. Based on his notes and accounts, Freeman does not come off as an unsympathetic doctor. However misguided he may have been, he took genuine interest in the lives of his patients and was concerned for their welfare.  Freeman was, in fact, a very complex character.  Those who knew him almost universally described him as a genius, yet he seemed oblivious to the harm he caused.

There are also accounts of some of the more odd encounters with Freeman, such as one in which Howard and two other young people were presented on stage by Freeman as examples of the success of his procedure. The audience was shocked by their young ages and booed Freeman, who lost his temper and began to defend his procedure by citing the Christmas cards he got from his patients.

From NPR (And Very Much Worth Listening to):
‘My Lobotomy’: Howard Dully’s Journey
Howard Dully Talks about ‘My Lobotomy’

You can buy the book here. It’s well worth the read.

Other Links:
Psycosurgery.org
Rosemary Kennedy: the importance of a historical footnote
Walter Freeman – Father of the Lobotomy
Walter Freeman’s Lobotomies: Oral Histories (recollections of physicians assistant and others)
The Lobotomist(PBS Documentary On Freeman)
Walter Freeman’s Photographs (A look at the photographs Freeman took, including before and after)
Guide to the Walter Freeman and James Watts Papers (George Washington University)

Freeman’s own film on the transorbital lobotomy (part 1) – warning, graphic
Freeman’s own film on the transorbital lobotomy (part 2) – warning, graphic

Unfortunately, adding entirely redundant backup power to railroad crossing warning systems wouldn’t actually address the real safety problem with railroad crossings:  idiots.    It’s really not hard to avoid being killed at a railroad crossing.   If there’s a train coming, don’t enter the crossing.   If there isn’t a train coming, it’s safe to cross.    It’s not hard to tell if a train is approaching either.   Most crossings have signals, such as flashing lights and gates to make it obvious, but even if the crossing lacks signals or the signals don’t work, it’s still fairly obvious.   Trains are generally required to blow their horn when approaching a railroad crossing, so if you’re about to go over a railroad crossing and hear a train horn, look both ways, because it’s possible that the signals are not functioning.

Seems simple, right?  After all, stopping at a railroad crossing to let a train pass is only going to cost you, at worst, a few minutes, and cutting in front of a train is not a good way to keep yourself alive.    It’s impossible for the train to stop in time to avoid a collision, and it certainly can’t swerve out of the way.  Estimating the speed and distance of  something like an approaching locomotive can be surprisingly difficult, especially when you’re also moving.   If you’re wrong and that train hits, it’s not going to do just superficial damage.

Despite these seemingly obvious facts, grade crossings claim a surprising number of lives.   In the US alone, hundreds die in grade crossing accidents every year – 247 in the year 2009 and 338 in 2007.  The problem is not confined to the US, of course.   Everywhere that grade crossings exist, there are deaths on a fairly regular basis.

Supporters of Social Darwinism might suggest that this is not such a bad thing, since it’s generally the fault of the idiot driver who gets killed, but the problem is more broad than that.  Despite the fact that locomotives tend to be a lot larger and sturdier than road vehicles, they can and do get badly damaged by striking cars and trucks.   Debris can fly up and injure train crew.  On occasion, trains have even derailed due to grade-crossing accidents.   Even if the accident does not cause any significant damage to the train, it still means that it has to come to a stop, the crossing ends up being blocked for some time and emergency services need to respond to clean up the mess.   And the idiots who try to beat the train are actually more likely to survive with injuries than die outright.   Add to this the fact that there may be other passengers in the vehicle who had no control over the situation and it’s easy to see why this is a major social problem.

Grade crossings have also been one of the largest obstacles to the deployment of high speed rail or even increasing the speed of rail transit in general.  Higher speeds tend to increase the likelihood that an idiot will misjudge the speed of a train or will not be able to make it out alive when they dart in front of it.  True high speed rail is generally required to run on grade separated tracks because of this.   Building grade separation into rail systems can be very expensive, especially where tracks already exist.    Converting a grade crossing to a grade-separated crossing requires completely rerouting either the tracks or the road or both and may include having to build extended elevated track beds or roadways or digging cutouts to allow the rails to go over or under the road.    The expense is enormous, especially when it requires all crossings to be separated, even those which cross very lightly traveled roadways.

Most newly built railroad tracks do attempt to reduce or eliminate grade crossings, but this is not always possible.  Light rail systems are not normally grade separated and may need to operate at near grade level to allow passengers to frequently board or depart.   While light rail vehicles may be able to stop more quickly than trains, they are not immune to grade crossing accidents.

In many areas, railways are required to reduce the operating speed because of grade crossings.   This applies to both high speed trains, which must operate at dramatically lower speeds and to more conventional trains which may still have to travel well bellow the speeds they are capable of.  California’s Metrolink commuter rail system uses trains which are perfectly capable traveling at more than 80 miles per hour and if they did so, more people might well ride the train, but because of concerns over railroad crossings, they are limited to much less – usually 60 mph or less. Despite this, there have still been 244 deaths at crossings in the system’s fifteen year history.  If it ran faster there would likely have been even more.

The problem is not new, and over the years, many attempts have been made to get drivers to stay off the damn tracks when a train is approaching.   The image bellow shows a prototype railroad crossing signal that was built in Grenada, Mississippi in the mid 1930’s at a railroad crossing that was considered especially dangerous.   The design attempted to get motorists to stop with a combination of visually dramatic graphics, lights and sound.   The words “STOP – DEATH – STOP” were illuminated with neon lights that would flash when a train approached.  An arrow indicated the direction of the approaching train.  The skull and cross bones was also neon-lit and flashed from red to blue.  A more traditional pair of flashing lights was also included.   If that was not enough, the signal also featured an ear-splitting air raid siren.

This video shows what the crossing would have looked like and sounded like during operation.

A local inventor, Alonzo Billups, designed the crossing sign. He was inspired by the fact that the crossing had a reputation for being especially dangerous, and despite this being well known locally, drivers continued to run the crossing, narrowly dodging trains that passed at ninety miles per hour. It was never widely adopted, but remained in use until the 1970’s.   Just looking at the sign, one can get a sense of the desperation Billups must have felt to get the point across to the motorists.

Attempts to improve crossing safety:

Grade Separation – As mentioned above this is the preferred way of avoiding crossing dangers, by simply removing all crossings.  It’s very expensive and local topography, structures and the routes taken by roads and railways can complicate the matter.   Given that grade separation also avoids traffic being held up by trains, it’s generally worth the difficulties for major roadways, but doing it for each and every crossing is difficult, time consuming and very very expensive.

Boom Barrier Gates - Most early crossing warning systems simply alerted drivers with flashing lights and bells, but did not attempt to physically block drivers from driving through the crossing.   While these are still fairly common, many crossings now have a gate which lowers across the roadway in order to deter vehicles from crossing into the path of the oncoming train.   These gates are not physically strong enough to stop a vehicle from just plowing right through them, but none the less they do generally result in fewer drivers trying to enter the crossing when a train is approaching.

Typically the crossing lights will begin flashing a few seconds or more before the gate begins to descend.  This allows time for those who are already beginning to make it through the tracks to continue across and for those who are too close to safely stop to continue through.   This is analogous to the yellow light that precedes red traffic lights, giving warning to drivers that the light is about to change.

The biggest problem with gates is that most of them only come down to block the side of the roadway that vehicles drive on in each direction.   In the United States, for example, the gates would come down to block the right lane of a two-lane roadway in each direction.  The problem is that a driver who is hell-bent on being an idiot and endangering themselves can still go through the crossing by turning into the opposing traffic lane and cutting diagonally through the crossing.

Drivers making this dumb decision may face an even greater risk of being hit by a train because of their indirect route and the barriers stopping them from making a quick and direct passage in front of the train.

Four-quadrant gate - The four-quadrant gate also known as a double boom barrier gate is similar to a basic boom barrier gate except that gates are placed on both sides of the traffic lanes to assure that the path of vehicles is blocked even if they try to swerve into the opposing traffic lane.  Normally the gates do not come down at the same rate, but rather the gate blocking traffic entering the crossing comes down first followed by the gate that blocks the lane for traffic exiting the crossing.   This helps assure that a vehicle that has entered the crossing before the barriers come down has some time to exit.

For quadrant gates are more expensive than the standard single gate crossing systems.   They do improve safety quite a bit, but they’re far from being perfect.   While it does tend to reduce drivers going around the barriers, it’s not uncommon for drivers to still try to dash under the booms as they are coming down, sometimes damaging them in the process.  Taller vehicles like trucks may snag the barriers as they try to outrun the falling barriers.  Attempting to make it through just before they close completely is a common cause of the booms being damaged and can make them ineffective until repaired.  Some drivers are also willing to just plow right through them and keep going, regardless of the gate being closed.   This is surprisingly common.

Once the boom barrier is broken, drivers will see this as an invite to run the crossing until the barrier can be repaired.  This may take days, during which time the safety of the crossing is compromised.   It is also fairly expensive to have to frequently replace such barriers.

Barricades and Stronger Barriers – In an attempt to make it impossible for drivers to enter the crossing, regardless of how motivated they are to practice such idiocy, a few crossings have been fitted with systems designed to be capable of physically resisting vehicles entering.   Such barriers are, thus far, relatively uncommon at railroad crossings.  They are, however, seen fairly frequently at other locations.   Pop-up barriers, vehicle-blocking gates and various types of retractable barricades are a common feature at secure facilities, such as prisons, restricted areas at airports and government facilities.

Usually such barrier systems are installed in combination with more traditional gates, where the less secure gates close first and then the secure barriers are extended.  Care must be taken in designing such systems to avoid some possible problems that could occur.   Retractable posts must be designed in a manner that avoids the possibility that they could pop up just as a vehicle passes and become caught on the underside, damaging the post or even trapping the car in place.   Systems should also be designed so that if a vehicle is, for whatever reason, stopped in the crossing when the barriers extend, it will not be trapped such that it can’t move as the train approaches.   One way of doing this is to use ramp-style barriers that can be driven over in one direction.  Another method that has been tried is using barriers that only block oncoming traffic (as with single boom barriers), but which have additional barriers in the center of the road to stop drivers from crossing into the other lane.   Of course, it’s still possible a driver could back up and go around the separators.

These types of barriers tend to be fairly expensive, though not nearly as expensive as grade separation.  While it would seem that such systems could increase safety significantly, they have not been widely deployed and thus there’s little hard statistical data on the impact they have.   However, since they are more difficult to penetrate, it would seem they have at least the potential to make crossings safer.

Now, my idea:  Make the consequence something people care about

Perhaps I’m a bit bitter toward the idiots who endanger lives and cost so much, but I’d like to see a system that makes crossings safer by punishing those who violate the regulations and basic good sense.   If people do not care about their lives or the lives of others, then fine, make it a money issue.   First, make the fine large enough to really really hurt.  Secondly, make it damn near guaranteed that running the crossing will cause the driver to be caught.

People are willing to take stupid chances and risk their lives, partially because they know the majority who race through the crossings do make it in time to avoid death.  So when it comes to fines, drivers need to know that running the crossing will not simply result in the possibility of a fine, but the distinct probability of one, and a huge one at that.   The simplest way of doing this is with cameras.  Cameras are already established as an effective way of policing stop lights, and the same technology can work with almost no modification on railroad crossings.

These days, cameras are cheap and a system that uses cameras and suitably high fines can easily pay for itself with just a few idiots trying to rush the gates.  The system should take high quality photos of both the license plate and the driver, to be sure they can’t get away with claiming someone borrowed the car.

Suggested Punishments (first offense):

• Private Passenger Vehicle – Mandatory $1,500 fine
• Private Passenger Vehicle with occupants under the age of 18 – $2000 fine plus $500 for each minor passenger
• Commercial vehicle or small delivery truck – Mandatory $5,000 fine.   Suspension of commercial driving license until a safety course is completed.
• Large truck, tractor tailor etc – Mandatory $25,000 fine.  Commercial driving license suspended for a minimum of 90 days.
• Hazardous cargo carrier, compressed gas carrier or bulk flammable liquid carrier – Mandatory fine of $100,000 imposed on the owner/operator of the vehicle.   Mandatory sentence of no less than six months imprisonment for the driver.   Mandatory suspension of all driving privileges for no less than one year.   Mandatory suspension of all special driving permits (trucking licenses, commercial drivers license) indefinitely with lifetime ban on re-applying.

Notice the key word being “mandatory” – plea bargains and sentence recommendations expressly forbidden.

Or, better yet, get downright draconian on the idiots who go through railroad crossings:

My idea would be this:   If a vehicle enters the crossing, an automated system of sprayers hoses down the side of the car with paint.   Not regular paint, of course.   Even spray paint on top of automotive paint can be removed by using buffing compound and then polishing or re applying the clear coat to the area.   This paint would be fast drying and have extremely high solvent levels, thus allowing it to eat right through the original finish of the car and assure that nothing less than a full body sandblasting and repainting will repair the damage.

The official reason for painting the cars is to make them easy for local police to apprehend the drivers.   Violating the crossing would also trigger cameras to snap pictures of the car and alert local police so that any officers in the immediate vicinity can be dispatched to intercept the driver.  The paint would be distinctive, perhaps two bright colors streaked across the entire side (tires, windows, trim and all).  Since the paint is used to mark cars that have violated the crossing, it would be illegal to drive a car with the distinct paint on public roads.  After being painted, the car would need to be impounded until the owner made arrangements to have to transported to a body shop and repainted, or at least sanded to get the paint off it.

When the driver is intercepted, they are not ticketed, because people don’t actually fear tickets that much.   Rather, they’re arrested on the spot and brought back to the station cuffs and all for some mug shots and a few hours in the hold.  The car would be towed to the impound lot directly.   Of course, the police would also have the right to search it, so you had really better hope you have nothing in there that you shouldn’t.

One might object that local police forces would not want to be burdened with this.  I disagree.  All that has to be done is to give them a good sized chunk of the fine imposed and they’ll line up to be part of the program.   Not only that, but local authorities are welcome to add whatever kind of impediment charges, fees and additional charges they might like.   And of course, they any cop who conducts the arrest is very much welcome to add whatever bonuses they might decide to add to the arrest, such as throwing the idiot to the pavement and holding them down while they’re checked for weapons, making them stand on the side of the road in full view of everyone else in handcuffs while the car is searched, conducting highly invasive cavity searches back at the police station, publishing mug shots and making sure that the individuals get to share a holding cell with some especially interesting characters while their arrest paperwork is processed.

Other possible safety problems with crossings, aside from idiots:

The vast, overwhelming majority of collisions are caused by people running crossings.  However, on rare occasions accidents may happen because of a malfunction or design flaw.   The gates and lights are built to railroad signal standards and thus are extremely reliable.   Of course, testing, inspection and rapid repairs are all part of assuring that they continue to work properly.

Many crossings do not have backup power, and this could be an issue if there were a power outage, but it’s straight forward enough to address.  Railroads may have their own power sources to provide traction power to trains or power to signals, though these are not 100% reliable either.   It is common practice for railroad signals to have local battery backups.   In some extreme circumstances, a signal may be without power for several days, causing the batteries to run down.  Such events should be rare enough to make it possible to dispatch a crew to replace the batteries or to place an officer or guard at the crossing before each train passes.

In a few very rare cases, a flaw in the design of the crossing can cause collisions.  Such was the case in the 1995 Fox River Grove bus–train collision. The accident happened when a school bus stopped at a traffic light near a railroad crossing, with a portion of the rear of the bus protruding into the path of the train. The railroad crossing and traffic light were supposed to be synchronized so that the light would not turn red when the crossing was about to be activated, thus avoiding vehicles becoming trapped in the crossing area. The system failed to work properly.

A subsequent investigation found that there had been numerous complaints that the system was not properly timed but that officials had failed to address the problem.  Obviously, such tragedies can easily be avoided by reasonable measures in testing and repair of these systems.

Finally, there is the fear that a vehicle could stall or become suddenly disabled just as it crosses a grade crossing.  If this were to happen at a time when a train was at least a few minutes away from the location, it would be relatively easy to deal with.  Sensors could detect the stranded vehicle.   Help could be sent to move the vehicle out of the way, and if a train were close enough to pose a danger, it could be brought to a stop safely.

The real nightmare would be if a vehicle were to stall out, of all places, right on the track, having begun to enter the crossing just before the signals activate.   The driver, finding that the car is impossible to restart, would still have enough time to exit the vehicle and run to safety before the train struck, but the car would be a complete loss.

Still, that’s hardly something worth worrying about, because that scenario would require some astronomically bad luck in the timing and location of a breakdown.  It would not be expected to happen very often at all.

Really, the big danger is idiots.  I have no sympathy for idiots.  I’d like to see them have to pay for their idiocy.  Not necessarily with their life, but with a good chunk of change.

An obvious area of debate is transportation, especially in terms of cars versus motorcycles.   There’s no doubt that motorcycles are smaller, with smaller engines and less dead weight being hauled around to carry a single passenger.   They use less fuel than cars.

So are they better for the environment?   The Mythbusters take on this question in an episode that will be airing some time in the upcoming season.

Via the LA Times:

‘MythBusters’ asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars?
A trend is afoot, according to “MythBusters” television host Adam Savage: “People are trading in their cars and driving motorcycles instead because they believe that’s the more environmentally friendly choice,” Savage said in Wednesday’s season opener of the popular Discovery Channel show. “The logic is because motorcycles are generally more fuel-efficient than cars, they burn less gas and thus they must be better for the environment.”

The question is: Are they really? As the MythBusters have done with each of the show’s previous seven seasons, Savage and his co-host Jamie Hyneman set out to test the theory.

Selecting three motorcycles and three cars that represented popular models from the ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, they put the six vehicles through a 30-minute, 20-mile course. Seventy-five percent was freeway driving; the other 25 percent was in the city. Savage drove the three cars. Hyneman trailed him at speed on each of the three bikes. None of the vehicles’ makes and models were disclosed.

All of the vehicles were equipped with portable emissions-measuring systems that took exhaust gases from a probe in the tailpipe and engine information from the engine control unit. The devices determined the vehicles’ fuel economy and emissions profiles while the vehicles were running on the real-world course in California’s Alameda County earlier this year.

The upshot? Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested — from the ’00s — the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

The MythBusters’ conclusion: “At best, it’s a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars,” Savage said on the show. “At worst, they’re far worse.”
…
In the 2011 American Lung Assn. State of the Air report, eight of the top 10 cities for ozone pollution were in California. Los Angeles ranked first.

Despite the MythBusters’ findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle’s true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago.

Note to MythBusters: How about a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment for cars and motorcycles for the Season 9 opener?

It’s definitely a complicated issue, especially when one considers the issue of the actual resources that go into one of these vehicles, what impact they may have in terms of displacing other vehicles and how they are driven. Given the differences in driving habits and engine types and efficiency, it’s very difficult to make a one-to-one comparison between motorcycles and automobiles.

Motorcycles are certainly smaller and have a lot less metal in them. However, motorcycles don’t generally age gracefully, especially if they are driven often and therefore may need more frequent replacement. Additionally, many of those who own a motorcycle feel the need to also own a car, since cars have greater utility and can be used when the weather precludes the use of a motorcycle, so owning a motorcycle does not really displace the resources that go into a car.

Many drive motorcycles primarily for recreation, and in this circumstance, they may not be any help at all. Of course this is not universally true, and those who use motorcycles regularly for primary transportation are not comparable to those who use their bikes mostly for fun. How the motorcycle is driven plays a huge role in the environmental footprint. If it’s used for aggressive acceleration, as might be the cause in recreational use, the efficiency is reduced. On the other hand, when used in city traffic, a motorcycle can have major benefits over a car. Motorcycles can negotiate crowded roads better and thus may spend less time wasting fuel by idling.

All these calculations, however, are based on the presumption that the car and motorcycle are both carrying one passenger. This is usually, but not always the case. If the car is carrying three or more people, it wins in efficiency hands down. Motorcycles usually have one person on them, but can carry two. The ability to more easily carry a second passenger or increased cargo capacity can be added with a sidecar. However, when not in use, the sidecar will increase both drag and rolling resistance, thus reducing fuel efficiency.

And of course, though not directly related to emissions, it goes without saying that motorcycles tend to be less safe. Some might say this is a good thing if it means more human deaths, (though I find such views to be despicable) but it could also mean more energy and resources go to medical care.

Personally I have nothing against motorcycles, and I do not wish for this post to come off as being against motorcycles in general. If you enjoy riding, continue to do so. If a bike works out well for your transport situation, go ahead and get one. But the environmental benefits of motorcycles are just not there. It’s a complicated question, but there’s just no evidence that they have a major net impact on reducing emissions.