Of all the discoveries of ancient man, none made a greater impact on humanity than fire.  Although fire was certainly developed independently by many groups, its discovery is none the less one of the greatest moments in mankind becoming what we are today.  Without fire there could be no cooking, no warmth beyond what nature or body heat can provide, no light after dark.  Fire was man’s first discovery that allowed the utilization of energy on demand.  It would later drive our engines, smelt our metals and even propel rockets to the moon and beyond.

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…

This is nearly identical to the talk Neil Tyson gave about the movie Titanic and how the stars were not accurate in the sky during the final scenes of the movie at TAM last year…

A little anal? I’d say so, considering how bad science and history are generally portrayed in movies. I doubt anyone actually noticed this besides Dr. Tyson.

Whatever your side on this, I also think James Camron did have a pretty good shoot-down for Dr. Tyson.

But he did get his way…

Via Contact Music:

Cameron Changes Stars In Titanic
Moviemaker James Cameron has re-edited a scene in Titanic showing stars sparkling in the night sky – after a leading astronomer told him the astral alignment was incorrect.

The director unveiled a 3D version of his multi-Oscar winning classic last month (Mar12) and he resisted the temptation to use its reworking as an excuse to cut scenes he’s no longer happy with.

But there was one shot Cameron felt obliged to alter, because a top stargazer informed him the astral pattern onscreen was incorrect for the night the liner sank in 1912.

The scene involves Kate Winslet’s character, Rose DeWitt Bukater, drifting on a piece of wood and gazing at the night sky as the disaster unfolds.

Cameron tells British magazine Culture, “Oh, there is one shot that I fixed. It’s because Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is one of the U.S.’ leading astronomers, sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen, and with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in.

“So I said, ‘All right, you son of a b**ch, send me the right stars for the exact time, 4.20am on April 15, 1912, and I’ll put it in the movie.’ So that’s the one shot that has been changed.”

If there’s one thing I don’t care for, it’s political correctness:  the forbidding of certain words, concepts or ideas because they might offend or the forcing of topics to be dealt with in a manner that attempts to sugar-coat them to whatever extent necessary to stop people from being upset.  Granted, it’s wrong to use overtly offensive terminology or derogatory practices, but sometimes you have to deal with the fact that reality is not as everyone wishes it was.

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.

(more…)

I just got back from the Reason Rally, a massive gathering of secularists on the National Mall in Washington DC.   The event was intended to show support for separation of church and state and solidarity amongst non-believers.   In general, it went quite well, but there were definitely a few things that I was a little put off by.

Some might think it a bad idea to attend something like the Reason Rally when running for political office.  After all, atheists are not generally well received, especially in the Republican party.   I certainly considered this, but in the end I decided it was worth the risk.   I really need to raise money for my campaign badly and the Reason Rally was an opertunity to see a lot of politically active people with similar concerns for the nation.   I also saw a number of people I’m acquainted with.   I handed out campaign flyers and hopefully this will translate to some contributions.

As for whether it will hurt me with the more conservative members of the party back home, that is certainly a concern.   I don’t intend to make a big deal of my attendance of the rally when I’m at more conservative committee meetings, but I certainly won’t deny it if I am asked.  I’m not going to lie to win, so the fact that I’m a non-believer is not something I can really hide.   As far as I am concerned, it’s really not a valid campaign issue.

The Good:

The rally went quite well overall.  Despite rain, over 20,000 people attended.   There were many great speakers, each of them offering a slightly different take on the importance of reason and maintaining a secular government.   I didn’t entirely agree with every speaker on every point, but most of them I could stand behind.  There were also a lot of people of different ages and backgrounds, which is great to see.  Some had traveled a long distance to make the rally.   Overall, I don’t think there’s any denying it was a huge success.

It was a very enjoyable event in general.  The speakers were great, the attendees were generally in very good spirits and it was a lot of fun to walk around and meet people from all over the country and a variety of backgrounds.   There wasn’t any bickering over who had the better seat or who might have cut in line to get refreshments or any of the other scuffles common at big public events.

There were some Christian protestors, as one might expect.  They kept to the side.   There were not many of them, perhaps a dozen.   Their presence seemed to be larger than it really was because they all had very big signs proclaiming the need to worship Jesus, obey the bible and so on.    They openly asked rally attenders to come over and talk to them and many did.   The protestors were quickly surrounded by atheists from the rally, who took them up on their challenge ton debate.

There were no incidents at all.  Some of the debates became spirited.  On occasion voices were raised.   I never heard any unrestrained name-calling, just a few arguments that got slightly loud, perhaps out of frustration.  Nobody was threatened and nothing even approaching violence occurred.  In most cases, the exchanges were entirely civil.

(more…)

Snakes are a form of life that many people don’t like.   I suppose it’s not that surprising.  They’re not mammals, and therefore not warm and cuddly.  They have a body shape that is much different than humans and seems strange and foreign.   They’re slithery, scaly and cold blooded.  They have a weird, somewhat creepy stare with eyes that don’t blink.  They seem very creepy and cunning because they blend into their environment, hide in grass or are difficult to see as they climb trees.  You might not notice that they are there until you step on one.   They have a menacing hiss and a fork tongue that’s strange and scary looking.  They have big teeth and produce a nasty bite.  Many of them are venomous.

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.

(more…)

I get the strangest e-mails sometimes.   In guess people think I just have the answers to everything.  Here’s one:

Dear Depleted Cranium

The price of gas keeps going up but I can’t afford a new car and I really just want to figure out if there’s a way to make my car run more efficiently and burn less fuel.  It would be nice if it made the performance better too.  I really am more interested in saving gas.  I keep seeing all these products that go onto the gas line or the air filter or somehow are connected electrically.  I keep hearing that they are scams.   They sound too good to be true, so probably are.

Is there something that is not a scan that will boost my cars fuel mileage?

The internal combustion engine is a mature technology that has been tweaked and tinkered with for many years. The car business is cutthroat so manufacturers are trying to make their engines as efficient as possible. If there was a simple device like a magnet you could slap on to make the car burn fuel better it would come standard. A few more miles per gallon is a big deal in the automotive industry, especially at today’s fuel prices.

That said, there are a few things that could potentially improve the fuel efficiency of a car and also boost performance, but not by a huge amount:

1. Keep the car well maintained and tuned – In a new car this is not going to make any difference, but as time goes on, spark plugs wear out, potentially resulting in less perfect ignition.  Fuel injectors can get dirty and oil degrades.  Just keep the car in good repair and it will provide the best fuel economy possible.  Check the owners manual to see how often you should bring it in for a tune-up.  Also keep the tires properly inflated.  But don’t expect any of this to make that big a difference.  Unless the car is in pretty bad need of maintenance, it won’t make a noticeable difference.
2. Add a cold air intake – I am a little hesitant to suggest this, because in my experience it really does not produce any improvement you’ll notice, but at least in principle, if you can get the intake air temperature cooler, it will improve overall engine efficiency.  Most engines take in air under the hood where it’s already pretty hot.  A good cold air intake sucks in air from an area where it has not been preheated much by the engine.  It also should not restrict the flow of air by much, since that makes the engine work harder.  I’d recommend against putting one in if you don’t know what you’re doing, because improper installation can cause a lot of problems, some of which could ruin your engine.  And in any case, don’t expect this to make more than a very modest difference.
3. Upgrade to a low resistance exhaust system – The exhaust system you choose for your car never will improve the performance of the engine directly.  An engine will always do best if it has no exhaust system at all, and just vents out the gas directly from the exhaust manifold.   That would be very loud and dirty, however, and modern regulations require a catalytic converter.  Pushing the exhaust through the piping, the catalytic converter and the muffler makes the engine do a little extra work.  Therefore, if you install an exhaust system with less resistance, such as larger pipes and a less restrictive muffler, it can result in the engine generating slightly more horsepower from the same amount of fuel.   Again, don’t expect anything major from this.  Most people who put performance mufflers on their car really just want it to sound loud and obnoxious.  Making the exhaust system actually as low resistance as possible requires completely rebuilding it, which is expensive and probably not worth the modest savings you’ll get.
4. Modify the ECM Code – I am again hesitant to include this one, because usually it’s more trouble than it’s worth. Modern cars have an electronic engine control module which can often be modified by using a programer or by replacing the original ECM with one that is modified with new firmware. Most car manufacturers code their ECM to provide the best compromise between fuel economy, performance, engine response and so on. In some cases, it’s possible to gain more of one of these by making trade offs on the others. For example, some modifiers can squeeze a tiny bit more power out of their engine by sacrificing fuel economy. It’s also possible that you could make the engine use a little bit less fuel if you tweak it to rev up a bit slower or change other aspects of the engine. I don’t really recommend this, especially if you’re not sure of what you’re doing, and because you will ultimately end up having to make tradeoffs somewhere, since the manufacturer already does a pretty good job of balancing performance, fuel economy, reliability, response and so on.
5. Add a turbocharger – This is probably the one thing that can actually result in a major increase in performance and overall efficiency to an internal combustion engine.  It uses a turbine, powered by the exhaust flow of the car, to spin another turbine that compresses the intake air before it reaches the engine.  Because the engine gets more air, it can operate more efficiently.   This will almost always produce better performance.  It may also improve gas mileage, but that really depends on the engine and how you tune it.  You will definitely need to reprogram the engine controller if the engine did not come with a turbo charger.There may be complications.  Not all engines can take the added compression, the additional compression may require you use higher octane fuel in the engine, which would defeat any potential savings and the turbocharger can be difficult to install depending on the car.  Turbochargers get very hot and therefore may need additional cooling components.  Installing them requires re-routing the engines exhaust and intake air.   It’s a complex job and not all engines provide a good place to locate the turbocharger.

   Turbochargers are expensive, especially when you factor in professional installation, which is required unless you really know what you are doing.  They may or may not actually result in a noticeable improvement in mileage.  When they do, it’s still not generally going to result in enough savings to pay for the cost of installation.  For this reason, turbochargers are generally installed for performance reasons but not to provide improved fuel economy, at least not in gasoline engines.

I’m sorry but that’s pretty much it. Aside from other basic things like trying to accelerate gradually and not gun the engine too much, avoiding any unnecessary items mounted to the outside of the car, which may increase drag and things like that, those are really the only things you can do and they probably won’t help enough to make them worth the effort, with the exception of keeping the car well maintained, which is always a good idea anyway.

It was a pretty big deal when scientists at CERN announced that they had recorded neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light in experiments conducted at a neutrino observatory in Italy which measured a neutrino beam generated some distance away at the main CERN facility.   The difference was tiny, only a few billionths of a second.  However, if true, it could turn science on its head.   The experiment was repeated several times and the results were clearly too great to be random statistical error.

At the time, many scientists expressed skepticism, and rightfully so.  All data to this point has indicated that nothing travels faster than the established speed of light.  Neutrinos have been observed from distant stellar supernovas, and they arrived at the same time as light from the supernova, indicating they did not travel faster.  However, it was suggested that the high energy levels of the neutrinos generated by accelerators may have pushed them a little faster.  Still, if true, this could undermine the foundation of relativity, a well tested and universally accepted fact in science.

Many things were proposed as an explanation for the discrepancy.  It could have been that the measurements of distances were not accurate, despite extreme steps being taken to confirm them.   It was suggested that there could have been relativistic factors involving the rotation of the earth or local gravity coming into play and causing distortions in time.

Now, however, we have a much simpler explanation.  While it has not been proven to be the case, suspicion has turned to a loose cable that was part of the time synchronization system.

Via the CS Monitor:

Loose cable could explain ‘faster-than-light’ neutrinos
Those famous neutrinos that appeared to travel faster than light in an Italian experiment last September probably did not do so after all. A faulty connection between a GPS receiver and a computer may be to blame for the mistake.

In September, and again in a repeat run in November, scientists on the OPERA team had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory near Rome at what appeared to be a light-speed-shattering pace. The neutrinos completed the trip about 60 nanoseconds faster than a beam of light would have done.

Though the physicists felt confident in their experimental setup, they and the rest of the scientific community suspected that the shocking result was probably due to some error, considering that light as the universe’s speed limit is a central tenet of Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

And indeed, in November, another group of physicists also working at Gran Sasso Laboratory demonstrated that the neutrinos in question could not possibly have been traveling faster than light, because if they had, they would have given off a telltale type of radiation, which was not detected.

Further complicating matters, even the OPERA scientists couldn’t yet explain why the neutrinos clocked in as fast as they did. Now, according to Science Insider, sources familiar with the OPERA experiment say a fiber optic cable connecting a GPS receiver and an electronic card in one of the lab computers was discovered to be loose. (The GPS was used to synchronize the start and arrival times of the neutrinos).

Tightening the connection changed the time it took for data to travel the length of the fiber by 60 nanoseconds. Because this data processing time was subtracted from the overall time-of-flight in the neutrino experiment, the correction may explain the seemingly early arrival of the neutrinos. To confirm this hypothesis, the OPERA team will have to repeat their experiment with the fiber optic cable secured.

(more…)

Recently came across an especially irritating editorial in the Washington Times and decided I really could not let the contentions stand.

Here it is, by Dariusz Leszczynski:

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?

(more…)

Although the winter for much of North America has been mild this season, in Alaska it has been extremely harsh.  While those who live in the more remote parts of Alaska are used to dealing with the extremes of nature, this year they are facing the prospect of being cut off from vital supplies of fuel due to the extent of ocean icing and the harsh weather that has made even airlifting of fuel problematic.   This is not the first time these settlements have faced these kind of fuel problems, and it’s not likely to be the last.   In the past, there have been close calls and times when distant Alaskans have been left without fuel for periods of time.  Yet each time this happens, there is always the possibility that remote villages will suffer or even lose lives.

Remote areas of Alaska are off the wider electrical grid and are far from natural gas pipelines or railways to deliver coal.   Heat may be provided, at least in part, by wood burning stoves that can use local fuel, although wood supplies may also be limited.   However, by far the most important source of energy is oil.   Diesel oil is the only way for these communities to generate electricity and provides most of the heat.   Petroleum also powers local transportation and powers the vital systems of the communities, either directly or by generating electricity.   Communications, drinking water wells, sanitary systems, heat and lighting all require energy provided by oil.

These communities use a lot of oil, and although they may have large storage tanks, the energy density of petroleum means that they can’t go very long without replenishment.   Getting the supplies to these communities is never a sure thing.   When it does arrive it’s expensive and it’s rapidly becoming more expensive as petroleum prices go up.  Due to both the costs of oil as a commodity and the difficulty in delivering it, the final cost can be upwards of ten US dollars a gallon when it is delivered.

Via NPR:

Ultra-Harsh Alaska Winter Prompts Fuel Shortages

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Living in Alaska’s outer reaches is challenging enough, given the isolation and weather extremes, but at least three remote communities also have experienced weather-related late deliveries of fuel so crucial to their survival during an especially bitter winter.

The iced-in town of Nome and the northwest Inupiat Eskimo villages of Noatak and Kobuk faced fuel shortages that illustrate the vulnerability of relying solely on deliveries by sea or air, potentially subjecting communities to the mercy of the elements. The villages, which just received their fuel, are especially vulnerable, unable to afford more additional storage tanks for gasoline and heating oil, which can run as high as $10 a gallon.

Compounding a problem with no easy answers, temperatures dipping as low as minus 60 over the past few weeks means air deliveries are delayed at the same time people are consuming more fuel more quickly. Some people in both villages also use wood-burning stoves for supplemental heat, but diesel is the critical commodity.

“It’s been pretty tough,” Noatak resident Robbie Kirk said of life in the community of 500, which finally received a fuel delivery on Tuesday, three days after the village store ran out of heating oil. “We usually have a nice reserve of fuel. Now we’re just playing catch-up.”

Nome missed its pre-winter delivery of fuel by barge when a huge storm swept western Alaska. In a high-profile journey, a Coast Guard icebreaker is cutting path in thick sea ice for a Russian tanker delivering 1.3 million gallons of fuel to the community of 3,500.

Without a fuel delivery, Nome would likely run out of certain petroleum products before the end of winter and a barge delivery becomes possible in late spring.

Until recently, the situation was much more dire for the smaller communities of Noatak and Kobuk, located farther north above the Arctic Circle, where relentless extreme cold prevented fuel deliveries by plane until this week, residents say.

Before the new supply of fuel arrived in Noatak, the village store borrowed some heating oil from the village water and sewer plant, said store manager Connie Walton. But filling the store’s two 23,000-gallon tanks has diverted any potential crisis.

“We’re good for another month and a half,” Walton said.

Residents in Kobuk also were highly relieved by an air shipment of heating oil that arrived Wednesday in the village of 150 people about 175 miles to the east. It’s been too cold for people to use their snowmobiles much, so gasoline isn’t as much of a concern, said City Clerk Sophia Ward. Running low on the diesel used to warm homes was another matter.

“I’m glad that it came in today,” Ward said Wednesday. “It’ll keep our elders warm.”

In Noatak, residents once had fuel shipped by barge on the Noatak River, but that has long been impossible since the river shifted and became shallow there.

Two years ago, residents began tapping into another source of fuel, thanks to the Red Dog zinc mine 40 miles to the northeast. The mine in 2009 began a program to sell gasoline and diesel to Noatak and another close neighbor, the village of Kivalina. The fuel is sold at cost, said mine spokesman Wayne Hall.

“This is strictly for what we can do to help out our closest community members,” he said. “Energy and heating costs are one of the biggest costs to families in this region.”

The program lets individuals buy fuel on Saturdays every three weeks at a staging area about 23 miles from the village. This winter, they can buy gas in 55-gallon drums calculated at $4.89 a gallon. Villagers also bring their own drums to fill with diesel fuel at $4.35 a gallon.

The latest Red Dog fuel day for Noatak took place on the day the village store ran out of diesel. So villagers formed a convoy of about 30 snowmobiles and freight sleds, and headed out in weather marked by temperatures of 47 below and, for the first 10 miles, dense fog, said Kirk, who regularly takes advantage of the sales.

“It basically cuts my heating fuel in half,” he said. “It’s pretty critical for me.”

The state also helps lower the soaring cost of electricity in Alaska’s rural areas, spending almost $32 million in fiscal year 2011 through its Power Cost Equalization program, which subsidizes residential electric rates and the power bills of community buildings. Power in most villages is diesel-generated.

With so many scattered settlements of a few hundred or less, the logistics of keeping them all supplied is daunting. The very fact that oil would be brought in by air should drive home just how difficult and expensive an operation this is. Even when the system works and fuel and electricity are available, it’s always extremely expensive. The cost may be offset by subsidies, but that only shifts the burden to the government and tax payers. Ultimately, there’s no getting around the fact that getting hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel to remote settlements is a costly undertaking.

(more…)

Background:

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.

(more…)