Anyone who has started a campfire without an accelerate knows that it can be surprisingly difficult to get a good strong self-sustaining flame going, even with the aid of matches or a lighter.   For early man, it was much more difficult still.  Simply being able to consistently create a fire and contain it for use demonstrates a high degree of intelligence and the ability to learn.

Now scientists have discovered evidence that it may have happened earlier than we had previously believed.

Via CBS News:

Humans used fire 1 million years ago, says study
(AP) NEW YORK – When did our ancestors first use fire? That’s been a long-running debate, and now a new study concludes the earliest firm evidence comes from about 1 million years ago in a South African cave.

The ash and burnt bone samples found there suggest fires frequently burned in that spot, researchers said Monday.

Over the years, some experts have cited evidence of fire from as long as 1.5 million years ago, and some have argued it was used even earlier, a key step toward evolution of a larger brain. It’s a tricky issue. Even if you find evidence of an ancient blaze, how do you know it wasn’t just a wildfire?

The new research makes “a pretty strong case” for the site in South Africa’s Wonderwerk Cave, said Francesco Berna of Boston University, who presents the work with colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

One expert said the new finding should be considered together with a previous discovery nearby, of about the same age. Burnt bones also have been found in the Swartkrans cave, not far from the new site, and the combination makes a stronger case than either one alone, said Anne Skinner of Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who was not involved in the new study.

Another expert unconnected with the work, Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University in The Netherlands, said by email that while the new research does not provide “rock solid” evidence, it suggests our ancestors probably did use fire there at that time.

One thing I have always wondered about, and of course, we will never know, is how many ancients may have learned of fire only to abandon it out of fear. Certainly not all of early man’s encounters with fire were pleasant. It may first have been experienced in the wildfires started by spontaneous combustion of overheated turf or from a lightning strike. Such an experience would be terrifying, and once man began to experiment with fire, it’s all but certain that some mishaps and burns occurred.

Yet some groups stuck with it. Perhaps it was because it was recognized as useful or maybe because it frightened others. Maybe it was just curiosity. Whatever the case, at some point, someone began to create fires and, despite perhaps suffering a few burns or coughing on smoke and enduring the frustration of seeing the tiny smoldering embers go out, they learned how to tame and use fire.

Might there have been some tribes that had mastered fire and others that did not? If so, it’s almost certain that this advantage would have lead to those with fire succeeding and those who didn’t falling by the wayside. This could have even been a factor in early human evolution.

But what i early mankind looked at fire the way we look at new forms of energy today? Would they have used fire at all?  It’s a sobering thought to consider that if our ancestors had the same attitude we have today, we might still be eating raw meat, huddled in mud huts at the mercy of the cold darkness of night…

It’s always been a problem in education, but recently it’s gotten way way out of hand, and it seems to be happening around the world.

In the UK, schools are now banning children making “best friends.”

Via the Sun:

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.
Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

“They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

First, I’d like to know how you can ban kids from having a “best friend,” although I can see how you could force them to drive their unacceptable relationship underground. I wonder what the punishment is for making a “best friend” or not spending equal time with all. And what if you’ve already established a friendship before entering the school?

This is the height of absurdity on every level. It’s perfectly natural for some kids to gravitate toward a play buddy or have a friend who is closer than the rest. Most people have a small inner circle of close friends who they associate with more than the rest of their peers. Clearly some of these relationships will end, either because kids drift apart or because they have an argument or falling out. That might or might not be unpleasant, depending on the circumstances, but really, that’s just life.

I’m not entirely surprised by the policy, however. It seems to be perfectly in line with where society is going.

In New Jersey and elsewhere, it’s hugging:

Via ABC News:

New Jersey School Bans Hugging
The 900 students at Matawan-Aberdeen Middle School in Cliffwood, N.J., will have to find another way to show affection after the principal declared the campus a “no hugging school”.

Principal Tyler Blackmore issued the mandate after the school observed “some incidents of unsuitable, physical interactions between students,” the school district said in a statement.

“We have a responsibility to teach children about appropriate interactions and about having a structured, academically focused environment,” David M. Healy, superintendent of the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, said in a statement.

Healy said the students, who range in ages 11 to 14, would not be suspended for hugging.

Matawan-Aberdeen joins the company of a handful of schools across the United States that have instituted no hugging rules.

West Sylvan Middle School in Portland, Ore., banned students from hugging in 2010 after the principal said the embrace had become a disruption and even a bullying mechanism.

“I was observing students hugging other students and the other students didn’t feel comfortable,” principal Allison Couch told ABCNews.com at the time.

Girls eager to see each other would also run the length of the hallway, hugging all of their friends, she said.

A 14-year-old student at Southwest Middle School in Palm Bay, Fla., was suspended in November for a brief hug he shared with a female student between classes.

Nick Martinez said he hugged his best friend, a female student, and never thought the gesture would result in suspension. The principal saw the hug and brought the two students to the dean, who issued a one-day in-school suspension.

In this case, I will acknowledge that there may be a legitimate need to provide some basic rules for physical interaction. Certainly touching someone, even if it is considered a “hug” can be unacceptable if it’s done in a manner that is uninvited. Furthermore, I’m sure we can all remember incidents from Junior High and High School where students engaged in public displays of affection that were disruptive and bordered on downright obscene.

Still, banning “hugging” in general is a pretty extreme way of dealing with interactions, especially if the act could lead to something like a suspension. I wonder if there’s any exception for extreme circumstances. After all, hugging someone seems to be a natural response to a traumatic or emotional situation. If a close friend confides that “I just found out my mom has cancer,” it would be hard to fault them for wanting a hug, and the idea that this could lead to a suspension is pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps there should be some kind of committee to approve of each hug and grant a hug permit based on the circumstances?

In the UK, some US states and elsewhere in the world, it’s red-colored ink:

When correcting and grading papers, teachers often use a colored pen to make their statements stand out and mark areas that need improvement. The most common, of course, being red. But this, apparently, is no longer acceptable in many areas. The color, it seems, is just too upsetting, or so it has been said.

Via the Mail Online:

Teachers banned from using ‘confrontational’ red ink in case it upsets children
Hundreds of schools have barred teachers from marking in red in case it upsets the children.

They are scrapping the traditional method of correcting work because they consider it ‘confrontational’ and ‘threatening’.

Pupils increasingly find that the ticks and crosses on their homework are in more soothing shades like green, blue, pink and yellow, or even in pencil.

Traditionalists have branded the ban ‘barmy’, saying that red ink makes it easier for children to spot errors and improve. There are no set government guidelines on marking and schools are free to formulate their own individual policies.

Crofton Junior School, in Orpington, Kent, whose pupils range from seven to 11, is among those to have banned red ink. Its Marking Code of Practice states: ‘Work is
generally marked in pen – not red – but on occasion it may be appropriate to indicate errors in pencil so that they may be corrected.’

Headmaster Richard Sammonds said: ‘Red pen can be quite demotivating for children. It has negative, old-school connotations of “See me” and “Not good enough”.

‘We are no longer producing clerks and bookkeepers. We are trying to provide an education for children coming into the workforce in the 21st century.

‘The idea is to raise standards by taking a positive approach.

‘We highlight bits that are really good in one colour and use a different colour to mark areas that could be improved.’

At Hutton Cranswick Community Primary School in Driffield, East Yorkshire, the Marking and Feedback Policy reads: ‘Marking should be in a different colour or medium from the pupil’s writing but should not dominate. For this reason, red ink is inappropriate.’

Shirley Clarke, an associate of the Institute of Education, said: ‘Banning red ink is a reaction to years of children having nothing but red over their work and feeling demoralised. When children, especially young children, see every single spelling mistake covered in red, they can feel useless and give up.’

Hmm.. interesting that a color would be considered so upsetting. I wonder if it’s considered “confrontational” if a teacher writes “A+” or “Great Job” on a paper in red? The ban, whether official or unofficial has lead to many teachers adopting a purple marker or pen for making correction and grading marks.

This brings up a an interesting question: just how much of the aversion to red is inherent to the color, which is, after all, the color of blood and has been associated with war in the past and how much might be just the fact that it’s traditionally used for correcting papers? If kids grow up being demoralized by seeing papers covered in purple correction marks, will purple become the new red? Will purple have to be banned next and will we have to go back to red?

Maybe one should consider what the ink says rather than its color.  I’d take an angry red A+ over a subdued purple F any day!

In California, it’s dictionaries (Yes, dictionaries):

Why on earth would a school ban dictionaries?   Because most dictionaries contain some terms that are taboo or even sexual.   Just open a dictionary and start looking and you’re bound to find words like “penis,” and “sadism” or “prostitute.”   Oh the horror!   Obviously these dirty books must be banned.

Via the Guardian:

‘Oral sex’ definition prompts dictionary ban in US schools
Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for “oral sex”.

Merriam Webster’s 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the “sexually graphic” entry is “just not age appropriate”, according to the area’s local paper.

The dictionary’s online definition of the term is “oral stimulation of the genitals”. “It’s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we’ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature,” district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.

While some parents have praised the move – “[it's] a prestigious dictionary that’s used in the Riverside County spelling bee, but I also imagine there are words in there of concern,” said Randy Freeman – others have raised concerns. “It is not such a bad thing for a kid to have the wherewithal to go and look up a word he may have even heard on the playground,” father Jason Rogers told local press. “You have to draw the line somewhere. What are they going to do next, pull encyclopaedias because they list parts of the human anatomy like the penis and vagina?”

It seems in this case, it’s not all dictionaries, just dictionaries that are not heavily censored to remove all references to anything that might be even slightly sexual in nature. It’s quite amazing, especially given that the definition of oral sex given is pretty straight forward and bland, saying exactly what it is without any graphic description at all. Still, some felt that the very acknowledgment that it existed negated the value of the dictionary.

So what if a 5th grader hears that word and wonders what it is? I suppose they’ll just have to ask their schoolyard friends or hit up a search engine. Yeah, I’m sure that will result in a much less graphic description.

Finally, taking the cake is New York City, which has proposed banning almost any word that seems negative, is associated with upper versus lower classes, might disturb someone, is divisive, refers to something scary, might be sad or is otherwise not absolutely politically neutral in every way:

The words are apparently to be banned from standardized tests specifically, but since those are what usually dictates how subjects are taught and what is put into text books, it’s likely to extend into the general curriculum.  This apparently is part of a larger policy to reduce the use of terms that might “distract” some of the schools students.

Via SILive:

50 words banned from NYC school tests
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — You’ve heard of banned books? Get ready for banned words.

The city Department of Education is aiming to get 50 words removed from some city-issued standardized tests, and some of them are real head-scratchers.

Among the off-limits terms: “politics,” “poverty,” and “religion.”

The reasoning: The words might be distracting to segments of the city’s diverse student population.

….

Here is the complete list of words:
Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
Bodily functions
Cancer (and other diseases)
Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
Celebrities
Children dealing with serious issues
Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
Crime
Death and disease
Divorce
Evolution
Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
Gambling involving money
Halloween
Homelessness
Homes with swimming pools
Hunting
Junk food
In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
Loss of employment
Nuclear weapons
Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
Parapsychology
Politics
Pornography
Poverty
Rap Music
Religion
Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
Rock-and-Roll music
Running away
Sex
Slavery
Terrorism
Television and video games (excessive use)
Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
Vermin (rats and roaches)
Violence
War and bloodshed
Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

This story has gotten so much attention that it’s likely that this will be reversed, because it’s so stupid! For one thing, it’s ridiculous to pretend that the world does not have unpleasant and controversial things in it. If you do, you’ve sheltering students to the point where they are being done an enormous disservice.

A number of subjects would be all but impossible to teach. I’m hard pressed to think of how it would even be possible to write a standardized test on history at all. Some of the most important events in history, which changed the way nations existed and resulted in revolutions were wars. You’d have a hard time explaining the 1960’s without mentioning the Vietnam War or the 20th century in general while ignoring World War I and II. It would be impossible to talk about the Great Depression, since poverty and homelessness can’t be discussed. Banning alcohol means prohibition is a topic that can’t be discussed. If you can’t talk about hunting, a very large portion of the life of Native Americans and early settlers is out, but I suppose you can’t really talk about them much anyway, because there was often violent conflict and oppression involved. Most of the 1800’s in the United States is out, since the Civil War, slavery and other taboo issues were big factors in history. The colonization of the US would have to be further restricted because many early settlers were tobacco farmers.

Biology would not fare much better. You can’t discuss death, so that would make it very difficult to describe life cycles or how the biosphere recycles material from dead organisms. With violence and hunting banned, any discussion of predators or food chain is impossible. Not being able to discuss disease cuts out a huge area as does the ban on anything related to sex. If you can’t discuss bodily functions, then philology and medical-related topics are impossible. The inclusion of evolution is not surprising, but assures that absolutely nothing important about biology can be taught.

Beyond that, you can’t teach much about computer technology or development if you have to pretend that a private user is never involved. Civics and government-related classes are out. I suppose you can still teach math, although you’d have to be very careful with any word problems or you might offend someone.

What A NYC Text Book Might Look Like:

Note:  I hope I did not offend anyone with my use of red.  Next time I’ll use purple so it does not seem so traumatic and confrontational.

They may be the most hated and feared form of animal life for humans.  This is not entirely universal, of course.  Snaked do appear in a positive context in some mythology and religion, but in western religion, they tend to be seen in a very negative manner.   In the Bible, the first evil entity introduced is Satan taking the form of a snake.  Whether it’s the Biblical connotation of snakes or simply their unsettling appearance, snakes are often used as a metaphor for the sneaky, evil and dishonorable in Western society.

Yet, if you consider snakes more objectively, there’s really not much to dislike about them.   A few species of snakes are venomous, but the vast majority of snakes are not venomous at all and are quite harmless.  Of those which do have potentially lethal venom, most are shy and will try to escape if they encounter humans.  There are a few varieties of snake which might be considered to be legitimately frightening animals, because they are both highly aggressive and venomous.  But this hardly makes the entire suborder worthy of fear or dislike.

Moreover, snakes have quite a few major benefits to humans.  The number one way in which snakes benefit mankind is by virtue of the fact that they primarily eat rodents.   A population of field snakes can do a lot to keep the population of rats and mice down in an area.   Rodents, of course, do harm human settlement quite a lot.  They eat or contaminate food stocks and can be a vector for diseases like bubonic plague.   In places like Northern Europe, rats commonly sought shelter in the poorly enclosed structures built by humans.   They have historically been both a nuance and a major danger to public health.

It’s been said that Saint Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland.  To this day I’ve heard the Irish say how he did a great thing because Ireland is free of snakes.   This is rubbish, of course.  There are no snakes native to Ireland and the climate of Ireland is simply not suitable for snakes to flourish.   If introduced to Ireland, a group of snakes might make it through a few seasons, but ultimately it’s just too cool and wet for snakes to make it.  The climate of modern Ireland is what keeps it snake-free, not a saint who drove them away.

But even if he had, why would this be something worth thanking him for?   A relatively harmless animal driven from a land where people had lived largely in poverty with rodents causing far more harm than snakes.   Had Ireland had snakes, it would have been more of a benefit than a problem.  During the potato famine, starving rats consumed some of the few food stocks remaining for humans.  They also tormented those too weak to fend them off, even gnawing on those in the throws of death.   As was the case in much of Northern Europe, the rat was a source of intense misery – one snakes could have made quite a dent in.

I’m just pointing this out to show how ridiculous religious myths can be if you examine them.   St. Patrick not only did not drive the snakes out of Ireland, but if he had, he’d be more a villain than a hero.

CORRECTION:

Upon doing some additional research, I have to correct the point that the climate of Ireland is not suitable for snakes.  While it is fairly cold and damp, and therefore not the best place for many species of snakes, there are snakes in Scotland, Scandinavia and elsewhere which are capable of enduring the kind of climate Ireland has.   It seems that they simply never had a chance to migrate to the island.  It would have been far too cold and harsh during the glacial period and by the time the area had a more suitable climate for snakes, there was no way for them to migrate.  The cold Irish Sea provided a barrier.

There is no fossil evidence of snakes ever existing in Ireland.  They simply never arrived.

• It is highly radioactive.  Because it is a very high energy alpha emitter, it is very radiotoxic.  It also produces a long decay chain of daughters that emit high energy gamma and beta particles.
• It has a half-life of over one thousand years, making it difficult to dispose of and requiring long term storage considerations.   Despite the relatively long half-life, it is still short enough to make it highly radiotoxic, especially because of the nature of the radiation it emits directly and through its daughters.
• It emits enough gamma radiation that a pure sample of the material can kill tissue on contact, after only exposure of a few minutes.
• The gamma radiation emitted by the material and its daughters is sufficient that if you sat next to a few dozen grams of the material, you could easily end up with acute radiation sickness in a matter of hours.   In less than a day it could kill you.
• A pure sample emits enough radiation to create significant amounts of heat.  The total decay heat is more than 100 watts per gram.
• It is chemically reactive, it forms compounds which readily dissolve in fresh and salt water.  It may be mobile in the environment, but it also may cling to materials, making decontamination of areas difficult.
• It has a high biological uptake in most of its chemical forms.
• It may be persistent in the body and has a tendency to be incorporated into bones, replacing calcium.  In such cases, it will not clear the body and has been associated with leukemia and bone cancer.

Such a substance does, in fact, exist:  radium-226.   Gram per gram it’s more toxic than plutonium-239, the isotope most common in spent fuel.   It’s a highly energetic particle emitter that does not decay to a stable isotope but rather to a long chain of other radioactive substances.   First it decays to radon-222, then to polonium-218, astatine-218, radon-218, lead-214, bismuth-214, polonium-214, thallium-210, lead-210, polonium-210 and finally lead-206, which is stable.   For this reason, a chemically pure sample will actually increase in radioactivity until it reached equilibrium with its daughter products.   Despite the relatively long half-life, it produces a great deal of radiation because for every decay of radium-226, there are decays of all the other daughters all the way down the line.  Some of these emit high energy gamma rays.   Radon poses some additional challenges.  Because it is a gas, it may not remain in place and can result in the area around a radium-226 sample accumulating potentially dangerous concentrations of radon.  The radon gas can also disperse, contaminating the area with further decay products.

Despite these dangers, radium-226 was once far more valuable than gold.  For the first half of the 20th century, radium and its decay products were the most widely used radioisotope source for any purpose that required radioactive materials.   It was used for cancer treatment, in the form of radium needles, external sources and devices that collected radon for use in irradiating tissue.  Radium was commonly used in any circumstance where calibration sources were required, with many earth geiger counters coming with a radium-based test source.   It was used in ion and moisture gauges, cold cathode vacuum tubes and combined with beryllium to produce small neutron sources.  Radium was well known for its use in radiolumonescent paints.  The paint was commonly used for clock and watch faces, allowing them to glow brightly without first having to be exposed to light.   Larger concentrations were used for aircraft instrument dials, illuminated markers and cords.  It was realized that the heat from radium could be used as a means of powering boilers or other thermal engines, but was far too expensive to ever be used in this capacity.   It also was experimented with in early “nuclear battery” designs.

Radium-226 exists in small concentrations in uranium ore.  To recover a single gram of the material, several tons of uranium ore must be processed.   Still, because the material had so many uses and was so valuable, large operations existed all over the world to produce it.   In the 1920’s, a gram of radium could cost as much as $120,000, (about 1.3 million USD in modern terms)  though the price later fell to $75,000 due to more efficient production techniques.  Radium needles could contain up to .1 grams of radium, making them worth more than ten thousand dollars.    Because of this, radium was also used as an investment commodity.  Radium needles and other radium sources were kept in bank vaults in the same way gold, silver and platinum might be kept.

Of course, radium is also pretty dangerous for the reasons mentioned above.  Its chemical properties make it prone to contaminating areas and easily absorbed into the body, where it is distributed into bones and teeth, making it an especially persistent and damaging substance.   It produces a great deal of alpha, beta and gamma radiation, which is not desirable for most situations.  Its half life is inconveniently long for applications where disposal after a period of time is expected and the production of radon can be a danger and complicate its use.  For radiolumonescent items, gamma radiation is not desirable and the energy of the alpha particles emitted by radium has a tendency to degrade the phosphorescent compounds in the paint over time.  Radium was blamed for a number of deaths and illnesses, most notably in the “radium girls,” who worked in clock factories, painting the hands and numbers of clocks with radium paint.  Some were encouraged to lick their brushes to sharpen them, resulting in ingestion of large quantities of radium.

Because of this, radium-226 fell from favor as a radiation source for most applications as soon as synthetic, reactor-generated isotopes became available.   By the 1960’s, safer, more well suited isotopes had taken over.  Radiolumonescent items used soft beta emitting isotopes like prometium-147 and tritium.  External cancer treatment or the irradiation of products used cesium-137 or cobalt-60.  Cesium-137 became the most common isotope for testing and calibration of survey equipment, and for applications that required alpha radiation, synthetically produced polonium-210 or americium-241 became the isotopes of choice.  Such isotopes produce forms of radiation more suited to their end use, rather than a hodgepodge of alpha, beta and gamma emissions of multiple energy levels.  They tend to be shorter lived, allowing for small quantities to generate sufficient radiation and reducing the problems of long term disposal.   Many are easily made into forms that are chemically inert, physically stable and not prone to dissolving in water or accumulating in organisms.

Today, radium-226 is no longer intentionally produced for its own use.   It may occasionally be used in calibration source for spectrometry and a few other scientific applications, but only in relatively small quantities.  Radium clocks and other luminescent items are still common in antique shops and are not generally considered to be a major hazard.   However, some aircraft instruments and military items are radioactive enough to make them a concern for regulators (whether this is actually necessary is another matter.)   Radium needles and therapeutic sources are unquestionably very dangerous.  They still turn up from time to time, though most have been removed from the inventories of hospitals and other locations.  Today they are treated as high level waste and must be carefully removed, isolated and disposed of at licensed facilities.  The half-life and properties of radium can make it especially challenging.

Radium also contaminates numerous areas around the world due to past activities such as refining of radium, paint production, clock manufacturing and maintenance of aircraft with radium-painted instruments.   Radium tends to be very difficult to clean up.  It can contaminate local ground water, it may cling to soil or may become mobile in the local biosphere.   Often, the only solution is to remove huge quantities of soil and transport it to an area where it can be immobilized and monitored.

What this has to do with nuclear waste:

By almost any standard, radium-226 is more toxic, more dangerous and more problematic than almost any other type of radioactive material.  Like plutonium, it will persist for thousands of years, but it’s far more toxic and more reactive.   It’s more difficult to immobilize than most substances in spent fuel and is usually in a form that is less chemically stable and contained.  Gram per gram, it produces more heat than spent fuel or most transuric elements.  Highly concentrated radium-226 makes spent fuel appear very tame.   Even compared to more concentrated waste, such as the fission products generated by reprocessing, radium-226 is still  more difficult to dispose of safely.

By the time production of radium-226 began to come to an end, in the mid 1950’s, about 2.5 kilograms had been produced worldwide. Yet that’s only a tiny proportion of what exists on earth.  Since radium-226 is natural, a decay product of uranium, huge quantities already exist on earth and always have.  There are at least fourty trillion tonnes of uranium in earth’s crust and billions of tons more dissolved in seawater.  Many times more uranium exists in the earth’s interior.   For every one tonnes of raw uranium, there exists about .143 grams of radium-226. (note:  value converted from reference in short tons).   That means that there is already 5.72 million tonnes of radium-226 in earth’s crust.

By comparison, the total world inventory of spent fuel is only 188,000 metric tonnes, although additional spent fuel is reprocessed, largely being reused, but with some remaining fission products and contaminated material for disposal.  If the slightly radioactive uranium were removed from spent fuel, more than 90% of the mass would be gone, and the material, though more radioactive, would still be less toxic, less reactive and generally less hazardous than radium-226.

The bottom line is that there’s more radium-226 in the environment we live in than spent fuel and gram per gram it’s far more dangerous.

So why is this not a problem?   Mostly because it’s not heavily concentrated in any one place.   If it were, that small area could be dangerous, but because most of the uranium on earth is distributed across the crust in relatively low concentrations, so is the radium.  This one natural isotope has always been there and yet the sky is not falling.   We all even have a fraction of a pictogram of it in our bodies.  And while I’m not suggesting spent fuel should just be dispersed across the globe or dissolved away in the world’s oceans, if it were, it would result in significantly less radioactivity than the radium-226 that is already there, which is only one of the many naturally occurring radioactive substances.

On a global scale, the hundreds of tonnes of spent fuel is just not a big deal.   We obsess about preventing it from entering the environment, but forget that the environment already has a material in it that is far more dangerous and present in much larger quantities.  If we can live in a world with that much radium-226, plutonium-239 and cesium-135 are really no big deal.

Helsinki/Finland, January 11, 2012-Epidemiological studies are given the most weight in evaluation of human health effects. Therefore, when researchers started their effort to find out whether cell phone radiation causes brain cancer, epidemiology was given the most of attention – and the most funding.

Well… yes, since Epidemology is the study of health events, disease patterns, health statistics and disease rates and their relation to factors like environment, lifestyle and other causes, it would seem to be the field of study that would apply to such a question.

It’s as straight forward as determining that geology is the appropriate field of science to look to when trying to determine the characteristics of a rock.

However, and please let me play “devils advocate”,

Only if I can play with science advocate.

is the epidemiology overrated?

No.

There, are we done?

Will epidemiology ever give us reliable answers concerning cell phone radiation and brain cancer?

Yes, and they have. Or is it simply that you don’t like the answer and want it to be something else, therefore you consider it flawed?

In 2010 and in 2011, two of the largest epidemiological studies on brain cancer were published. It appears that the time and money were used generously,

There’s a lot of interest in the topic, so a lot went into it. I’m not certain which studies you mean, but there have been some enormous ones recently.

but the studies failed to provide reliable answers concerning cell phones radiation and brain cancer. Flaws in the design of both studies prevented delivering conclusive answers.

Really? Well, if you say so. But thankfully, we don’t have to rely on any two studies. Two studies don’t mean much in the world of epidemiology anyway. To actually get a conclusive answer, you need to have confirming data coming from many studies. In this case we’re lucky enough to have literally thousands. So, you could actually discard two of them if you so choose and it won’t change the balance of the evidence much, because there’s such a huge amount from other sources.

It was 1999 when the largest case-control epidemiological study, INTERPHONE, was planned. At that time, optimists hoped that by the end of this project in 2004 we would know whether cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.

Actually, I think we had a pretty good idea even back in 1999, so it doesn’t seem very optimistic to think we would by 2004. That would be like me predicting that in the year 2017 we’ll know that the earth revolves around the sun. Unless there’s some kind of complete collapse of civilization that leaves behind only a handful of completely uneducated people, I am pretty sure we will know that in 2017, since we do already know it now.

I think I see where this is going though. The Interphone study was supposed to be one of the largest studies of this type and would dispel the doubt forever. It pretty much did.

After several delays, INTERPHONE published the results of the glioma brain cancer study in 2010.

The results were confusing, to say the least. Use of the cell phone for less than 10 years seemed to have a “protective” effect, whereas the use of the cell phone for more than 10 years showed a small increase in glioma occurrence.

Well I agree on one thing: The study abstract didn’t do a very good job of putting this all in context. It might simply be that research scientists are very apprehensive about using absolutes and tend to talk in degree of confidence. The tiny increase in giloma, but only in certain subsets was almost certainly statistical noise. It was miniscule. The “protective” effect can be attributed to a combination of statistical noise and possibly some slight confounding factors.

The balance of the data provides pretty good confirmation of no overall risk increase. Again, this should have been made more clear. The problem largely stems from having non scientifically literate persons get involved in the reporting. Reports and public officials have a tendency to focus on very narrow portions of a study like this and take them out of context. They will generally then demand to know whether the researchers can be 100% confident that this is not in fact a risk effect. The answer to that question is always no, statistical analysis never regards anything as being 100% certain. Then the study gets reported as if it raised doubts, when it actually does not.

Several problems with the design of INTERPHONE were debated. By design, the INTERPHONE study was unable to detect brain cancer induced by cell phone radiation because of its long (over 10 years) latency period.

Okay, that might be the case, but plenty of other studies did look at longer latency periods. A few went so far as to track down some of the early adopters of cell phones who started using them frequently in the early 1980’s and they also found no increase in brain cancer.

That said, even if the AVERAGE latency period were something like twenty or thirty years, it’s hard for me to imagine that there could be a bell curve so narrow as to have zero detectable risk increase after a much shorter period of time.

At the time of execution of INTERPHONE (2000-2004), cell phones were in common use for only a few years. There would be not enough time for the development and diagnosis of brain cancer if it was caused by cell phone radiation.

It does not matter how common they were by the early 2000’s. The fact of the matter is that they have existed since the late 1970’s and they have been used by many people since then. Sure, the actual proportion of the population that began using cell phones a lot in the early 1980’s is small, but it’s still more than large enough to produce good study results.

It’s not even really a cell phone issue. Wireless phones are just UHF/Microwave transmitters and those have been around for ages. There are studies that have been done on others exposed much longer. Police officers started using radar guns in the late 1950’s to measure the speed of motorists and some cops spent thirty years working highway patrol with a radar gun in their car. Others spent their careers as microwave technicians for AT&T or television networks. Military personnel worked on the deck of ships with radar antennas energized nearby.

Studies have been done on these individuals. Many of them, in fact. The results are consistent and compelling: The only health effects ever detected are acute thermal injuries and no chronic effect of exposure to RF fields has ever been documented.

However, there was an even more important design flaw. The information about the extent of exposures to cell phone radiation was based on individual recollection of the subjects in the study. The study subjects were asked about their history of using cell phone, including how long and how many phone calls they made in the past.

Perhaps in this study, but not in all. While it may introduce a potential source of error, I’m hard pressed to see how this could possibly skew the studies that badly. Even if you rely on spotty recollection, the fact that people who reported being heavy phone users show no greater cancer risks than those who never owned a cell phone at all would seem to be pretty hard to mess up.

By the way: Studies on cigarette smoking and cancer have largely been based on the subject’s recollection of how many packs they usually smoked a day. Despite this, they had no problem picking up on the fact that tobacco causes lung cancer.

It is a very unreliable method. Who of us remembers how many and how long calls made a few days ago? The study subjects were asked to recall cell phone use up to ten years before the study.

Okay, lets see if I can do this…

Got my first cell phone in the summer of 2001. Before that I had used cell phones a bit, but only occasionally when on that belonged to someone else. I worked for a company that sold cell phones so I had a good plan with a discount. Consequently, I used it a good few minutes a day or more. I would say my use has generally been on the increase since then, although not always. I’ve generally made or received three or four calls per day, usually each one only being a few minutes. Occasionally I have longer calls. In 2004 and 2005 I had a job that had me on the road a lot and my usage went up to about a dozen calls a day, but mostly short. As it stands now I use about 180 minutes of talk time in a month, but occasionally one or two long calls can push that way up. That’s how it’s been for the past few years.

Good enough?

Therefore, by design, INTERPHONE compared reliable information concerning diagnosed cancers with entirely unreliable information about exposures. Such kind of comparison can not produce reliable result, as was seen in the confusing results of the study published by INTERPHONE in 2010.

Again, you’re presuming that this error is so great that it would make someone who has never owned a cell phone indistinguishable in risk from someone who says they’ve been a heavy cell phone user for the past ten years. That just does not make sense. Even if recollection skewed the data, it shouldn’t so enough to cause that kind of discrepancy.

In 2011, the Danish Cohort published another largest study, evaluated in this column in December 2011.

Similarly to INTERPHONE, the Danish Cohort compared reliable information on diagnosed brain cancers with the absolutely unreliable information about exposures based not on the use of cell phone but on the length of subscription with the network operator.

No. That’s actually perfectly reasonable. It stands to reason that a person who has a cell phone contract and owns a cell phone will be more prone to using a cell phone than one who does not. This is even more true in the early years. In 1983, a handheld cell phone cost about four thousand US dollars. Anyone who pays that much for something obviously has reason to do so. For example, real estate agents were some of the first to embrace the technology, because even given the high cost, they needed to make appointments while traveling between properties.

It might be imperfect in that some cell phone owners will use it more than others, but a cell phone owner will always use it more than one who does not own a cell phone.

The study also contaminated the control group with the cell phone users.

The study looked at the habits of long term user as compared to the general population and to groups of similar demographic profiles. Some of those included those who had used a cell phone as well, but didn’t you just assert that it would not matter since the latency period is very long? In any case, it’s all but impossible to find a large group these days which has never owned a cell phone. So the study compared long term cell phone users to those who either had recently acquired a cell phone, never owned a cell phone or had been very light user. The study actually looked at the groups using more than one method. It examined it based on the length of the phone ownership, the average usage of the phone, the reported habits etc.

In all cases, no coloration to increases in brain cancer was ever detected.

Again, as with the INTERPHONE, the Danish Cohort made comparison of reliable data on cancer with the unreliable information about exposures cannot produce reliable final result.

And what the hell would you consider to be reliable data?

Brain cancer is a rare disease, somewhat in the range of around 10 cases per 100,000 people. It means that in order to reliably detect the change, which seems to be less than 50% according to flawed INTERPHONE, tens of thousands of the study subjects should be analyzed. This is very expensive but not necessarily productive.

It’s actually not quite that rare. In fact, it’s about twice as common as cited.

But regardless, the fact is that if the probability of brain cancer were increased by using a cell phone, it would be easy to detect if that probability increase were large. In other words, if it increased the risk from, 22 per 100,000 people to 23 per 100,000 people, that would be very hard to find and a massive sample would be needed. On the other hand, if it increased it from 22 per 100,000 people to 100 per 100,000 people, that would be easy to detect and would stand out from the statistical noise in even a modest study.

Therefore, what we can say from these studies, without doubt, is that while it is impossible to rule out the possibility that there is an increased risk, it must be vanishingly small, if it does exist, because otherwise it would have been easily detected.

As shown by the experiences with INTERPHONE and Danish Cohort, large amounts of money (tens of millions of Euros) and ample amounts of time (over 10 years) were used and no reliable answers received.

No, we have reliable answers. They’re just not the ones you want.

In the current situation, with the above presented experience, should the epidemiology be the first kind of studies to use our scarce research resources? Epidemiology is very expensive and takes a very long time to get results. Any flaw in the study design sets us back by ten or more years.

Well I agree in so much as there’s no point in throwing more money at this. We have plenty of data. The jury is not out. The questions have been answered. It’s time to consider spending money on things we don’t know.

Would we be we better off using the available funding for the human studies examining acute effects of cell phone radiation on physiology? This would, of course, include studies of the known molecular events leading to initiation and development of cancer. We still do not know if cell phone radiation triggers any such events in living humans.

We’ve actually done that too.

And as far as molecular events that lead to initiation and development of cancer, those are not observed with microwaves. No mechanism by which that could happen has ever been discovered, despite more than a century of study of RF fields and electromagnetic radiation.

Performing physiological studies on volunteer will provide information whether any known carcinogenic events are triggered by cell phone radiation. Depending on the result, we could act immediately by imposing preventive measures based on scientific evidence.

Yes, we have done that. We’ve done it on humans. We’ve done it on animals. We’ve done it on live tissue cultures. We’ve done it on chemical systems that mimic what goes on in cells.

To provide such information, epidemiology will still need tens of years before it is able to perform effective studies, assuming that studies will be designed without any major flaws. Volunteer studies examining physiology and pro-carcinogenetic events would provide information much faster.

It’s been done. At some point it becomes time to give up on the existence of something which has been studied for so long and has not been determined to exist.

In this time of scarce resources, we need to make choices how to obtain, most reliably and expeditiously, information about the possible effect of cell phone radiation on brain cancer.

Based on the experience of the last 10-15 years, epidemiology does not seem to be the method of choice.

Well, compared to an assclown with an ax to grind and a desire to be in the newspaper, it actually does pretty well.

The solution to this problem has been the radioisotope thermal generator.   An RTG is a simple device, consisting of a strong particle-emitting isotope that produces heat and a thermoelectric generator which converts that heat into electricity.   The heat can also be used to keep vital components of the probe warm.  Unlike nuclear reactors, radioisotope thermal generators are extremely simple, have no minimum critical mass, produce little gamma and almost no neutron emissions, which could blind scientific instruments, and therefore require little or no shielding.  Modern RTG’s can provide hundreds of watts of reliable electrical power for years on end in a small, durable package.

The choice of isotope for space missions has always been, and continues to be plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 is a powerful alpha emitter which produces enormous amounts of heat energy.  Plutonium-238 produces only a small amount of low energy gamma emissions, making it easy to shield.  It’s easily prepared into ceramic oxide pellets that are chemically stable and have good thermal transfer.   With an 88 year half-life, plutonium-238 is short lived enough to be a good energy producer yet long lived enough to allow for missions of many decades.

All radioisotope thermal generators used for deep space missions have used plutonium-238.   RTG’s were also used to power the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages left by astronauts on the moon.    The RTG used for the Mars Science Laboratory provides 110 watts of electricity and uses about 4.5 kilograms of plutonium-238.  Larger RTG’s have been built for deep space probes, which provide up to 300 watts of power and use 7.8 kilograms of plutonium-238.  Some spacecraft have used multiple RTG’s, for example, Cassini was equipped with three RTG’s which provided a total of 900 watts of power to the spacecraft.

There are other isotopes that can also be used to provide power for RTG’s, but none are as desirable as Pu-238.   Strontium-90, a high energy beta emitter, which can be extracted from spent fuel, also produced significant amounts of heat, but would require substantially more shielding and produces less power per gram of material.  Isotopes of Curium have been studied as well, but also provide much less power and require greater shielding.  Americium-241 has also been considered, but at least four times as much material would be needed to produce the same amount of power, and greater shielding would also be required. Still, Am-241 is regarded as being the second most well suited fuel for RTG use.

Worldwide production of Am-241 is only a few kilograms per year, with US production capacity standing at only 500 to 750 milligrams annually.   Most of this material is already used to fill demand for smoke detectors and moisture gauges.  In order for the US to have a viable chance of using Am-241 as an RTG fuel, production would have to be ramped up significantly.

At one time, plutonium-238 was relatively cheap and easily available.  The United States had large stocks of the material and used it for numerous space missions.  Yet since the early 1990’s, that has not been the case.  Since then, only Russia has had the capacity to produce plutonium-238 and the price has skyrocketed.   US missions have been entirely dependent on plutonium-238 purchased from Russia at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.  Yet now even this limited supply is threatened, as Russia has begun to signal that it will no longer be able to provide the quantities of Pu-238 that the US (or potentially other nations) would require for continued space exploration.

Production of Plutonium-238:

The plutonium that can be extracted from light water spent fuel contains significant amounts of plutonium-238, but it’s combined with other isotopes of plutonium, making it unusable.  Separating out the plutonium-238 would require a complex plutonium enrichment system, which is far less practical than simply preparing the plutonium-238 on its own.

To produce plutonium-238, the first thing that is required is neptunium-237.  Neptunium-237 is produced as a byproduct of the reprocessing of spent fuel.   When a nucleus of uranium-235 absorbs a neutron, it will usually fission.  However, in a thermal spectrum reactor, some of the uranium-235 (about 18%) will absorb a neutron and not fission.  Instead, the uranium-235 becomes uranium-236.  Uranium-236 has a low neutron cross-section, so most of the uranium-236 generated in a reactor will just remain uranium-236, but a small amount of it does absorb a neutron and become uranium-237.  Uranium-237 has a very short half-life of only six days, decaying to neptunium-237.  Another source of neptunium-237 in spent fuel is the alpha decay or americium-241.

Spent fuel contains about .7 grams of np-237 for every one hundred kilograms of fuel.  That might not seem like much, but fuel reprocessing operations routinely go through hundreds of tons of fuel.   Because Np-237 is the only isotope of neptunium present in spent fuel in any significant quantity, it does not require any enrichment.  Instead, simply chemically separating the neptunium out yields nearly 100% neptunium-237.

After removing the neptunium-237, it is fabricated into targets which are irradiated with neutrons in a high flux reactor.   The targets are then removed and processed to separate out the plutonium-238 that is produced.  The plutonium-238 is then fabricated into RTG fuel tablets.

The end of US production:

The United States ended the practice of spent fuel reprocessing in 1977 when it was banned by the Carter Administration because of “proliferation concerns.”  Since then, the ban has been lifted, but as all reprocessing operations were shut down in the 1970’s and little support can be found for restarting the practice, the US still has no capacity to reprocess spent fuel.  After 1977, some material from plutonium production reactors continued, which yielded some neptunium-237, but that also ended in 1992, with the end of the cold war.

Today, the United States reprocesses no fuel at all and therefore cannot produce any neptunium-237.  There may still be some of the material remaining, though it’s doubtful that very much is left.   It should still be possible to obtain Np-237, purchasing it from countries with major spent fuel reprocessing programs, such as Russia, France or Japan.   However, this depends entirely on the willingness of such nations to provide it and may be expensive, since additional steps beyond normal reprocessing are required to produce the highly concentrated neptunium necessary for plutonium-238 production.

Getting enough Np-237, however, is not the biggest problem that the United States faces in producing Pu-238, however.   The US has a shortage of suitable reactors where the neptunium could be irradiated to produce the final plutonium-238 product.  Irradiating the targets requires a reactor with a very high neutron flux and the ability to receive materials for irradiation.  During the Cold War, the United States operated reactors at the Hanford and Savannah River sites primarily for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.  These same reactors could be used to irradiate materials for the production of medical and industrial isotopes along with materials like plutonium-238.  Therefore, up until the late 1980’s, the US had ample capacity for plutonium-238 production.   In the early 1990’s, the United States shut down all such reactors over “proliferation concerns.”   Russia, on the other hand, converted theirs to the full time production of peaceful isotopes, which is why they have been the world source for plutonium-238.

There are other reactors in the United States that could potentially produce plutonium-238, but not many of them.   The US has seen an unfortunate reduction in the number of research and irradiation reactors available.  Many, such as the Fast Flux Test Facility were shut down due to “proliferation concerns.”  Others like the High Flux Beam Reactor were closed after celebrities lobbied heavily against them.  Many simply were closed due to age and have not been replaced, given the lack of construction of new research reactors in the US in recent years.

There are only two reactors in operation that might be usable for producing plutonium-238.  One is the High Flux Isotope Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  However, the HFIR is already running at near full capacity for basic materials research and producing specialty isotopes.  It’s the only source of the vital isotope Cf-252 in the United States.  It also hosts a recently installed cold neutron source.   Because of this, the HFIR does not have enough available capacity to produce Pu-238.  That leaves one reactor: the Advanced Test Reactor.   The ATR is located at the Idaho National Laboratory.  It’s the only source in the US for production of cobalt-60, an isotope critical to medicine and industry.  It’s also one of only a few reactors that can be used to simulate extended fuel irradiation in a light water reactor, making it critical to fuel studies.  It’s not entirely clear to what extent producing Pu-238 at the Advanced Test Reactor might limit its capacity for other important functions.

The Advanced Test Reactor has been the focus of recent efforts to restart US Pu-238 production.   Several bills and proposals to begin production at the site have been floated, but funding has not been provided.  Most recently, a funding request for the relatively small amount of fifteen million dollars by the DOE was shot down by Congress.  No explanation was given, but it seems no US legislators are interested in restarting plutonoum-238 production, quite possibly because nobody’s spent any money lobbying for it and some have spent money lobbying against it.

Restarting production in the US may prove more difficult than simply finding a suitable reactor.   Producing the final Plutonium-238 tablets used for providing heat to RTG’s requires that the irradiated targets be dissolved, the plutionium-238 processed out and fabricated into the final RTG fuel.   The material is very hot, both in terms of radioactivity and literally.  Handling and processing it requires special facilities such as hot cells and plutonium chemical separation facilities.  The United States has limited capabilities in this area, with most of the facilities capable of fabricating special nuclear materials shut down over “proliferation concerns.”

That said, the US should have enough capacity for processing such materials to make at least a modest Pu-238 production program possible, if only funding is provided and the effort to do so is undertaken.   Ideally, enough would be made to allow for its use on spacecraft without extreme conservation measures taken, but that seems to be politically unlikely due to “proliferation concerns.”

In the end, we are left with a few options for the US space program, not all of them very appealing:

1. Restart domestic production of plutonium-238
2. Continue to rely on the limited Russian capacity to produce the material and hope they do not cut production or sales, as they seem to be indicating will happen.  Perhaps this could be avoided by paying an even more exorbitant amount to Russia for the material.  Continue with only limited deep space flights due to this limited source.
3. Hope that some other country steps up to the plate and starts making plutonium-238.  There’s a good chance that a country like China might start domestic production in the coming years, as they become more ambitious in their space program.  Whether they’ll share with the US is another issue.
4. Rely on another isotope that will result in less energy per kilogram, require greater shielding and therefore dramatically reduce spacecraft capabilities and increase launch expense.
5. Rely exclusively on solar power for space exploration.  Space exploration will therefore be limited to the inner solar system, out to about the orbit of mars and a little bit further, even out to Jupiter, although this will require very large solar arrays and will be restricted in capability due to very limited power capacities.   Beyond Jupiter, exploration by space probes will be impossible and will have to cease entirely.  And while exploration of the inner solar system will still be possible, landers that require significant amounts of continuous power will not be possible, thus making the Mars Science Laboratory the last of its kind.

Personally, I vote for choice 1.

Shooting down an ICBM has always been an extremely challenging problem.  There is very little time to react to the missile and they travel at extreme speed.   The distances involved are enormous and because an interceptor must also travel at extreme speed, it can easily shoot right past the target.  This is made even more difficult by the fact that modern missiles have penetration aids and decoys that are hard to distinguish from the actual warhead.  Some also have the ability to maneuver and change course, making it difficult to plot an interception point.  The earliest systems addressed this in a simplistic, though likely effective way:  They would try to destroy the incoming warhead with a massive nuclear explosion.  For example, the Spartan missile carried a five megaton radiation-enhanced warhead that could destroy incoming missiles at a distance of 50 kilometers.   Another missile, the Sprint, used a much smaller explosive and was intended as a last line of defense for warheads that were entering their terminal phase.

Such systems, however, quickly fell from favor for a number of reasons.   For one, the massive blasts associated with them could have some catastrophic effects on the ionosphere and satellites in the area.  While this may have been considered preferable to absorbing an attack with nuclear missiles, it was still a major concern.   The use of high power nuclear explosives was also considered politically impalpable and the prospect of hundreds of nuclear-armed interceptors alarmed the Soviet Union.   The Soviets responded by designing new warheads that were radiation hardened and could withstand blasts up to as close as a few hundred meters.   They also threatened to build up their arsenal of nuclear missiles to include a large enough number to simply overwhelm any defense system

In the end, the US and Soviets both signed treaties to limit such weapons.   The US system, known as Safeguard, was only operational for a few months before being shutdown.   A similar Soviet system was dramatically scaled back and eventually had its nuclear warheads replaced with conventional explosives.

Today there are some interceptor systems that use missiles to intercept ICBM’s, although their effectiveness is somewhat limited.   One of the most notable is the US Aegis anti ballistic missile system. It’s quite effective against single warhead missiles that lack penetration aids and advanced features, but the effectiveness against a barrage of modern ICBM’s is questionable.

A separate approach developed in the 1980’s and focused on the use of directed energy weapons, especially lasers.   These would have a number of advantages over interceptor missiles.  They would be able to engage the target almost instantly and could track a fast moving and maneuvering target in ways that a physical interceptor never could.  The Strategic Defense Initiative was a program initiated by the Regan administration in the early 1980’s.   It studied a number of methods of intercepting missiles and warheads but focused especially on the use of high power lasers.   President Regan would say that one reason for pushing the program was the realization that even a single nuclear missile, perhaps launched by error, could not be stopped and would inevitably trigger a nuclear war.   Therefore, the ability to shoot down a missile quickly and effectively would be an important capability to help preserve world peace.

Whatever the motivation, the Strategic Defense Initiative had decidedly mixed results.  Huge amounts of money were expended and great strides were made in the development of high power lasers and remote sensing systems.   High speed interceptors were developed which eventually were incorporated into THAAD and the Aegis system.   High powered chemical lasers were developed and demonstrated to be capable of blinding satellites and tracking missiles, but showed limited potential against actual missile threats.   A few tests were conducted that showed the lasers could destroy the bodies of missiles, but this was generally limited to fairly thin-walled liquid fueled missiles, which were largely obsolete by the time.

The YAL-1:

After the close of the program in the early 1990’s, some attempts were made to find applications for the technology.   One was the YAL-1.  The YAL-1 is an attempt to make one of the huge chemical lasers developed for SDI into a viable weapon.   The mission of the YAL-1 is to shoot down ballistic missiles during the boost phase. This is a very short period of time during which the missile is just leaving the launch site on course for its target. It would be the ideal time to shoot down a missile, since it would avoid contamination of friendly areas with any materials on the missile and provide the quickest response to the threat.

The YAL-1 is a heavily modified Boeing 747-400, which has been used to house the massive laser.   The system is much more complicated than just cutting off the nose of a 747 and sticking a big laser in it, of course.   It involves a very precise system of tracking lasers, steering optics, sensors and support systems as well as the laser itself.   Engaging a target involves the use of a complex array of targeting optics and tracking lasers, which follow and illuminate the target.  Once acquired and tracked, the primary laser is fired through a stabilized turret containing adaptive optics which compensate for beam distortion caused by the atmosphere.

The laser used is itself a complex piece of equipment. A chemical oxygen iodine laser, it gets its power from a chemical reaction that produces an excited laser medium. The laser is fed by a combination of chlorine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide. These highly toxic and reactive chemicals are stored on the aircraft in corosion-resistant tanks. The byproducts of the reaction are discharged by a specialized exhaust system.

Now I have to admit, a massive flying laser is pretty damn cool and I’d love to have one to shoot at various things with, but the program has not been cheap. It was started in the mid 1990’s and didn’t actually reach the point of being able to test fire the laser in flight until earlier this year. During that time, it has cost tax payers more than 5.2 billion dollars.

Worse, it has a number of major problems that may well doom the plane from using its laser to do anything more than obliterate taxpayer money.
The Effectiveness Is, At Best, Questionable – Despite what you may see in sci-fi films, lasers are not the ultimate in destructive weaponry.   A laser of the type in the YAL-1 only heats the surface of a missile and attempts to weaken the skin to the point where the physical stresses on the missile fail.   This is much easier with older liquid fueled missiles, which often have thin aluminum tanks which could rupture relatively easily.  Solid fueled missiles are much tougher.   A design goal of the YAL-1 has been to engage solid fueled missiles at a range of 300 km, but it’s not clear if it can achieve this.Even if it does, it’s possible to make a missile resistant to laser weapons.  Ablative coatings or shields can prevent the heat from compromising the missile’s structure, and using a highly polished material around the tanks can be a very effective means of simply reflecting most of the laser beam away.  Other relatively simple counter measures could be employed by a savy enemy.  For example, they could launch a barrage of several decoy missiles, perhaps only having small first-stage engines and no warhead, simply to draw fire from the YAL-1 and depleted the limited reserves of laser chemicals stored on-board.

It Has Limited Range – 300 kilometers is not a huge distance, assuming it can even work at that distance.   In order to be effective, the YAL-1 would have to be orbiting in the area in the immediate vicinity of the launcher.  Even in the best circumstances, it will need to be a few hundred kilometers from the missile launch.   If it were to defend against missiles from Iran, for example, it would have to fly within Iran’s airspace.That pretty much means that the airspace around the launcher would have to already be under the control of the US Air Force and that overflying the area was already permitted.  If that is the case, then why even bother with the YAL-1?   The easier and preferred method of preventing missile launches is to destroy the launchers on the ground before they get a chance to fire.  While they can sometimes be camouflaged, a system of good reconciles and rapid strike aircraft can be very effective in making sure none ever get the chance to launch.

We Only Have One and That’s Not Enough -If you want to be able to effectively suppress missiles being fired from an area, then you will need to blanket that area on a consistent basis.  In other words, you need at least one and ideally several YAL-1 aircraft constantly orbiting.   If you ever give the enemy a chance to launch while the aircraft is not patrolling, that is when they’ll fire their missiles.   It’s rather difficult to hide the presence of something as big and unstealthy as a Boeing 747.   Like all aircraft, the YAL-1 has limited endurance.  It can remain aloft for a while using in-flight refueling, but eventually the crew will need more food, the engines will need to be inspected and the aircraft will need to land.   If it fires the laser at all, this could happen even faster.   The on-board chemical tanks only have enough material for about 20 shots at most, and it must land to have the laser system refueled.

Realistically, to have a viable force to actually suppress missiles being fired from even a small region of the world, at least ten of these aircraft would be required.  That is in addition to the other aircraft needed to keep the big 747 fueled and secure.  Each plane is estimated to cost about one hundred million US dollars to operate each year and has a capital cost of about one and a half billion dollars.   In other words, the project cost is going to be at least fifteen billion dollars and cost over a billion dollars annually to operate.

To add to the problem, the facilities, chemicals and equipment needed to service the YAL-1 is unique to only this aircraft and would not be available at most air bases.  It would either have to be brought to the area of operation or the aircraft would have to fly all the way back to the United States every time it needed to be reloaded with chemicals or serviced.

It Has Limited Capabilities Beyond Shooting Down Ballistic Missiles – If you are going to spend such an enormous amount of money on a weapons system, it would seem logical to want to be able to use it in more than the most narrow of circumstances.  Most ballistic missile interceptors are designed to also have the capability to engage aircraft or even satellites.   Few aircraft in the US Air Force inventory are good for only one very narrow and relatively rare mission.   Unfortunately, that would seem to be the case with the YAL-1.  It could, at least in principle, be used against enemy fighter or bomber aircraft, although the effectiveness is unknown and the range would be considerably less than many existing and highly effective surface to air or air to air missiles.

It’s  not considered to be a very good platform for attacking ground targets.   The thicker atmosphere at low altitudes tends to absorb the infrared laser light, severely limiting range and effectiveness.The laser could be modified to engage ground targets, but range would be reduced because more energy is absorbed by the atmosphere at lower altitudes.   And while some targets would be susceptible, hardened structures like bunkers or concert structures would be all but impervious to a laser weapon.   It  would also be many times more expensive than attacks using more conventional methods like guided bombs.  Since the YAL-1 was not intended to engage ground targets, there would need to be some modification to the tracking systems of the aircraft.

The Technology May Already Be On the Verge Of Obsolescence – Chemical lasers like the one used by the YAL-1 remain of interest for military purposes because they can generate a huge amount of laser energy from reserves of chemicals, without the need for large amounts of electrical power.   However, in recent years, advancements in battery technology and solid state lasers have started to challenge the capabilities of chemical laser systems.  Chemical lasers are limited to the number of firings by the chemical reserves on hand.  Refueling of the laser can be complex due to the precautions needed when handling the highly reactive chemicals involved.  They also require complex systems for chemical storage and delivery.

The availability of low cost, light weight lithium ion batteries and highly efficient solid state lasers is beginning to make it possible to achieve sufficient power from lasers that avoid the problems inherent to chemical lasers.  Already smaller solid state laser systems are appearing on the battlefield.  These systems are powered by generators with battery banks used to provide the brief pulses of extremely high power needed for the lasers.    For the time being, chemical lasers still seem to have the edge for super high power applications like the YAL-1, but solid state laser systems are progressing rapidly and may become the choice for applications of this power level in the near future.  In such an application, an APU and battery bank would take the place of the huge and hazardous chemical tanks.

Now, the big question:  What do we do with this thing?

Developing and building the YAL-1 has taken a huge amount of national treasure.   It is undoubtedly one of the most unique aircraft in the world, with capabilities no other has and technology that represents the cutting edge of laser weaponry.  Considering how much has been put into this thing, there must be something useful that can be done with it.

It could certainly be used for some research applications.  Testing a laser of this wavelength at various altitudes and conditions, determining the ability of various weapons to survive attack by a high energy laser is another application.  It might even be useful for certain atmospheric and meteorological research or in using lasers as part of a space propulsion system.  However, most of these could be done much more easily and at a lower cost in the laboratory or on the ground.  The amount of money spent would hardly be worth it if the YAL-1 only sees use as a very limited application scientific experiment platform.

As a weapon or defensive system, the YAL-1, realistic uses are harder to think of.   A fleet of ten of these is just not going to happen given the cost.  It’s possible one or two more might be built, if a viable use could be found for such a small fleet.

About the best I can think of would be to retain the anti-ballistic capability, but with the understanding that it will be pretty limited in coverage and to make the modifications necessary for engage targets on the ground.  For ground targeting, the YAL-1 could be useful for destroying targets where extreme levels of precision are required, far beyond what could be achieved with even the best guided bombs and missiles.  This might work for targeted assassinations of enemy leaders or if a vital target like a communications exchange is located right near a hospital or school.

But damn, that’s a lot of money for a weapon with no real deterrent value and little chance we’ll ever use.

Fission was recognized as a potential energy source after the possibility of a fission chain reaction was realized.  A chain reaction occurs when neutrons produced by nuclear fission strike other fissile nuclei, releasing more energy in a self-sustaining reaction.   In 1942, an experiment at the University of Chicago proved that nuclear fission could indeed produce such a chain reaction.   The first artificial fission reactor was created by piling large amounts of uranium together with ultra-pure graphite blocks.  The graphite slowed neutrons, making them easier to absorb by the uranium nuclei, resulting in the fission chain reaction.  In 1945, the first artificial fission chain reaction to occur without the aid of a moderator when the first nuclear weapon detonated in the Trinity test.  The Trinity device used plutonium as the fissile material, an element produced in nuclear reactors at the Hanford site.   Plutonium is too short-lived to be found in large quantities in nature.  Another bomb, fueled by uranium was the result of years of painstaking isotope separation, which increased the amount of fissile uranium-235 available to far beyond what is found in natural uranium samples.

For many years, it was believed that such fission reactions were always limited to these artificial circumstances.   Nuclear fission, it was thought, was the result of painstaking efforts by mankind to gather up the necessary materials, enrich beyond their natural concentrations and either bring them together rapidly in large quantities or place them in the special conditions inside a reactor, where neutron moderators make it possible to sustain nuclear fission.

In 1940, Russian scientists observed the phenomena of spontaneous fission, where heavy elements like uranium split on their own without the need for a neutron to cause the event.  It was also known that uranium atoms could split as the result of a neutron generated by cosmic rays.   However, such events are uncommon and produce little energy.   They are distinct from the chain reactions that had only been observed in human-created nuclear reactors.

All this changed in 1972, when an unusual discrepancy in the concentration of uranium-235 from a mine in Gabon Africa was detected.  Chemical analysis of a unique uranium deposit  indicated that the formation had sustained a fission chain reaction at one time.   The possibility of a natural nuclear reactor of this type had been suggested as early as 1956, but the Gabon discovery was the first time that such an event was confirmed to have happened.  Further investigation of the site identified at least sixteen regions of the deposit where the concentration of uranium and lighter elements clearly indicated that significant amounts of nuclear fission had occurred.

The reactor at Gabon operated about 1.7 billion years ago, producing chain reactions for at least hundreds of thousands of years.   It was remarkably similar to modern, artificial nuclear reactors.   Fission occurred when water seeped into cracks and pores in the deposits of extremely high grade uranium ore.   The water acted as a moderator, causing the chain reaction.   In modern times, water can only be used as a moderator in reactors where the uranium has been slightly enriched to contain more uranium-235 than found in nature, but because uranium-235 has a half-life of about seven hundred million years, there was a great deal more when the Gabon reactor was critical.

Exactly how long the Gabon reactor was critical or how much energy was released is not known.   Scientists have estimated that it probably generated about 100 kW of power and likely operated intermittently due to the buildup of neutron poisons and variations in the water levels in the rock.   It also generated some amount of plutonium-239 and other heavy isotopes, which would have added to the available fissile fuel.

There has been some debate about just how common reactors like that found in Gabon may have been.   While the Gabon deposit is the only one that is known to have sustained nuclear fission, that certainly does not mean it was the only one.  In fact, there were almost certainly others, possibly many others.  The geological record is incomplete for the period of time that the Gabon reactor was critical.  The vast majority of geological formations from over a billion years ago have long been obliterated by erosion, subduction, volcanic activity and other forces that continuously shape the earth’s crust.    Even if these reactors were once common on earth, we would not expect to find the evidence and the fact that at least one still exists intact at all may be sheer luck.

What is known is that deposits of uranium in concentrations high enough to potentially sustain such reactions are fairly common, even today, and while they don’t have the necessary isotopic concentrations to produce a fission chain reaction, they would have in earth’s early history.   The further back one goes, the higher the concentration of uranium-235 would be and thus the more easily a fission reactor could have come together.  Debate continues about the time scale when such reactors could have functioned, with some arguing that such naturally occurring uranium concentrations would require high levels of oxygen in order for the necessary geochemical processes to occur.

Yet the lack of a complete geological record ultimately makes it impossible to know for certain.   Reactors may have been very commonplace billions of years ago and they may have existed for some time after the period the Gabon reactor was dated to.   It’s remotely possible that a combination of plutonium produced within such reactors and the presence of better moderating materials, such as naturally-occurring beryllium allowed these formations to produce fission chain reactions even more recently than would have been possible with the Gabon reactor.

All that can be said is that there was a period of time in Earth’s distant history when natural nuclear reactors were possible and existed and they may very well have been fairly commonplace.   This itself is a huge revelation.

A reactor at the center of the earth?

Upon learning of the natural reactor discovered at Gabon, nuclear chemist J. Marvin Herndon hypothesized that nuclear fission might actually be far more central to the formation and conditions of earth than had been previously though.   Herndon suggested that if sufficient uranium existed in the core of the earth, it could result in a massive fast fission reactor, which would be capable of producing enough fuel through breeding to sustain fission for billions of years.

Herndon’s assertions have not generally been accepted by the mainstream geological community.   Direct evidence of such a reactor is relatively limited, although the levels of helium isotopes measured in volcanic samples have been intriguingly close to those that the hypothesis predicts. None the less, if true, the georeactor hypothesis would be an elegant explanation for a number of observed phenomena.   It would explain the source of apparently excessive heat in the earth’s core and mantel, which has traditionally been attributed exclusively to nuclear decay.   It also could explain the mysterious phenomena of magnetic pole reversal, which could have been caused by periods when the reactor stopped due to the buildup of neutron poisons, only to start again once they had decayed away.

There is, however, some other data which appears to dispute the possibility of a reactor at earth’s core.  It such a reactor did exist, the bulk of the earth would prevent gamma rays or neutrons from being detectable, but it should still be possible for neutrino detectors to measure the characteristic neutrinos generated from fission reactions in earth’s core.   The data from such detectors does not support the hypothesis that a nuclear fission reactor provides a significant proportion of the heat in the core and mantle of the earth.   Such a reactor could still exist, but it would have to be less than about three terawatts or a greater number of neutrinos should have been detected coming from the earth’s core.  In that case, the reactor would only account for a small portion of the 40 terawatts of observed geothermal activity.

While the neutrino data may seem to indicate that a large nuclear reactor is not currently operating within the earth, it does not rule out the possibility that such a reactor has operated intermittently and that it is currently either not producing a fission chain reaction or is only producing a small one.   Even if that is the case, the residual heat of such a reactor would be very significant.   It is also possible that a redactor existed at one time, perhaps billions of years ago, but has not produced a chain reaction since.   If this is the case, the implications are still enormous for the formation of the earth and the heat and magnetic fields observed to this day.

Implications for earth and beyond:

We really do not know if there is indeed a georeactor or if there ever was.  While the hypothesis is controversial, it cannot be completely discounted and must be considered a possible factor in the structure and formation of the earth.  The implications are quite profound and could rewrite our most basic presumptions of the planets history and formation.

What we can say for sure is that nuclear fission reactors did exist on earth, at least in the crust.  The influence of such reactors must now be considered as an influence on everything from the mineralogy of the earth’s crust to the formation of early life.   The amount of uranium and its daughter products observed in the modern earth may be less than what once existed due to much of the element fissioning away.   Some of the lighter elements that are abundant in the crust may be the byproducts of this fission.  The heat generated by these reactors could have played a major role in shaping the early geology of earth.  It may have even influenced life, possibly heating bodies of water or producing hot springs, where heat-dependent microbes flourished.   It’s even possible that the ionizing radiation generated by the reactors was a factor in the early formation and evolution of organisms.

But even if fission chain reactions did not play a major role in the history of earth, it does not diminish the potential importance on a cosmic scale.   If fission occurred naturally on earth, then we can be certain that occurred naturally elsewhere and continues to occur naturally elsewhere in the universe.   Similar reactors could have existed on other terrestrial planets in our solar system or may have contributed significant amounts of energy to the primordial planets as they formed around the sun.   It has been suggested that fission reactions could also account for the energy observed from the gas giant planets of the solar system.

With more than a billion billion stars in this galaxy alone, there are certainly other places where fission occurs and where it could easily play an important role in how planets form or how life might develop.  As a source of energy, fission could potentially provide the heat necessary for life to exist on planets or planetoids too far from stars to otherwise support life.   It could even mean that otherwise frozen bodies in interstellar space could harbor life.   This alone could vastly change our current ideas of where life might exist beyond earth.

The suggestion that fission could also play a role in the ignition of stars is yet another intriguing, if unorthodox hypothesis that needs to be at least considered.

Whatever role fission plays in the energy balance of the earth and the universe, we now know that it does play some role.  It happens.   It’s a fundamental reaction and a source of energy in nature.  It must be considered in cosmic and geological models as a potential influence.  Uranium and other heavy elements are formed in supernova and are found across the universe.   The distribution of these elements now needs to also be considered as an important factor in which kinds of reactions can occur in which areas.

The more practical side:

The artificial nature of fission has always been used as an argument against it.   It has been claimed that it produces materials that are not normally encountered and have properties that are different from any pre-existing substance and that the uniqueness of the reaction and its byproducts makes it unpredictable.   It has also been argued that since the sun and other stars are powered by fusion, nuclear fusion is therefore a more perfect, cleaner energy source that we have always lived with, while fission does not have the same kind of appeal.

We now know that this is simply not true.   Fission can and does happen on its own, without human intervention and has so for billions of years.   Fission chain reactions and the byproducts of fission are not alien to earth and their existence did not halt life, but may have facilitated it.  They can exist in the environment without causing catastrophe and always have.   Fission is not unusual and is certainly not a creation of man.   It is a basic reaction, as fundamental as fusion or fire.

We live in a nuclear powered universe.  The energy we experience may have come from nuclear fusion, fission, decay, from the reactions of cosmic rays or even from the subatomic reactions that occurred moments after the big bang.   Nuclear reactions generate all energy, liberating it from the forces that bind all mater together.  These reactions will happen with or without our intervention.

We would be fools to not realize this and use nuclear energy to our own advantage.

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.