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…

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.”

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.

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.

The Bad:

Atheists are a minority and one that is not generally well received by non-atheists, especially in the United States.  One of the biggest arguments made against atheists is that it’s out goal to forcibly take away the religious freedoms of other groups, to destroy their beliefs, burn down their churches and ban them from praying or raising their families as they see fit.   Of course, this is not true at all, at least not for most of us.  What we want is a secular government.  Secularism is not itself anti-religious, but simply religiously neutral.   We don’t want the government to endorse religion or directly support it, but we certainly don’t want to stop people from doing it themselves, on their own time and with their own money.

Being a minority whose beliefs are subject to controversy and discrimination, we’re in no position to say that others should be discriminated against or have their beliefs taken away from them.   It’s true that many atheists believe the world would be better without religion, but that’s just our personal take on it.   I’m sure most would also think the world would be better without Jersey Shore, but that does not mean we want to bomb the coast of New Jersey.

That said, it’s not uncommon for atheists to lampoon religion or point out that it can get ridiculous.   We have the right to do this and would prefer to keep it that way, but that’s a lot different than forcing it on people through the government.

Unfortunately, I found that there were times when religious intolerance seemed to rear its ugly head.   Many of the signs held up by protestors poked fun at religion, and in general they were in good humor and not overly hostile.   There was a guy walking around in a costume of Jesus riding a dinosaur, which was obviously intended to poke fun at Christianity.   A few speakers cut pretty hard at organized religion, including PZ Meyers, who stated that we should view religion “with contempt.”  In the context of his speech the comment was not overly harsh, but taken out of that context, as I am sure it will be, it can be used to make the whole movement seem as radical and militant as too many already believe it is.

I believe we need to be very cautious in this case.   Lets remember, we may think religion is stupid and useless, but we are a minority who is fighting for more respect and acceptance amongst people who already believe we’re trying to oppress them, even if we’re not.   We need to avoid giving them more ammo.   This rally is supposed to make us seem reasonable and show why secularism has value.  Lets not forget the audience is the whole country!

The ugly:

When it comes to showing the world what we DO NOT want to show them and reenforcing the stereotypes we need to get away from, there was one sign that really stood out.   As soon as I saw it I thought to myself “Oh no, this is going to be the number one sign in all the headlines and news reports on this.”   I was right.   It’s absolutely perfect when it comes to summing up the movement in exactly the way we do not want to and in exactly the way our enemies want us to be seen.   In fact, when I saw it, I actually thought “Wow, coming to this rally might have been a really bad idea.”

And… I was right.   If this was a ploy to get media attention, then it worked great, but it also really did an amazing job at making us seem like the enemy of everyone who is not an atheist.

Yep.  There it is.   It’s a reference to the fact that many religious individuals find it offensive that some of the mandates of President Obama’s healthcare bill would make religious-affiliated organizations provide coverage to things like contraception to employees, even if they are opposed to it on the grounds of what they believe.  People are hyper-sensitive to the idea that their beliefs might be somehow limited by government action, so it’s something that they get very upset about.   Others have simply felt Obama is not religious enough.

The message is pretty clear:  You think Obama and the others who are more secular in government are bad?   Well, I actually do, literally, really want to take your religion away from you, burn down your churches, take your children away from you if you pray with them, forbid any public display of religion etc etc etc.  I’m an atheist and this is what atheists are all about.

You can argue that’s not the message of the sign, perhaps that it’s more that she wants a world without religion and will educate people to try to dispel their beliefs or that it’s tongue-in-cheek or a dramatic over statement.   It does not matter, because it will be taken as a literal threat and hostile to most religious people.   This sign is so clear cut, militant, hostile and to the point, it’s bound to offend even the most liberal and accepting Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else.   It does say “I” but it is going to be used as an example of what atheists are all about.

This kind of thing worries and sickens me.   It sets us back in being accepted.  It reenforces all the crap we’ve tried to get away from.

That, by the way, is Jen McCreigh who blogs at “Blag Hag.” Now I should state that I’ve disagreed with Jen quite a bit before.  I don’t like the way that she seems to find sexism in everything anyone ever says that might happen to involve a woman.   I’m not crazy about her constant taking of offense to damn near anyone who disagrees with her and usually labeling them as being a sexist, racist or otherwise bigoted.   I’m not sure I like her attitude in general.   That said, I’ve generally kept this to myself, because I respect the fact that she has contributed to the secular movement and I don’t want to spark unnecessary infighting by going after unimportant things in her arguments.

That said, this sign has done such a perfect job of illustrating everything we are not and don’t want the world to think of us, I’m just going to come out and say it…

JEN, YOU ARE A F***ING IDIOT

It should not surprise you at all that journalists have made us look bad and like fundamentalists looking to oppress others. You gave them the most perfect photo op I can imagine for that. Sure, there were others who expressed pretty hardcore intolerance, and they hurt the cause too, but none of them managed to do it in a way that was so concise and perfect for a press photo to illustrate the point.

One of the important messages of the reason rally is that it should be okay to be openly atheists and not have to defend yourself as being a good person or assure your theistic friends that you don’t hate them or want to forcibly oppress their beliefs.   Many of us would like to have it be something that is not seen with hostility or something we have to worry about being totally open about.   Those who so publicly flaunt their desire to destroy religion don’t help get us there.

(and yes, I’d think that even if you were a male.)

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.

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.

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.

The fiber optic cable was loose but was still connected to the system and signals were able to be passed. In many circumstances, this would not have made much difference, but since the measurements in this case had to be precise to within billionths of a second, it does matter. When measuring events like neutrino detection, it’s important to remember that the detectors and their signals are never truly instantaneous. When a neutrino strikes the detection medium, it produces light. That light takes a few picoseconds to reach the photomultipliers that detect it. The photomultiplier takes a few picoseconds to respond and the signal then goes through amplifiers and wiring before it is registered, taking nanoseconds or even microseconds. This all has to be accounted for. Lengths of cable must be measured precisely and the time for the signals to propagate calculated. Timing circuits must be equally precise and compensated.

The image above and to the right shows some of the stacks of detection medium at the OPERA neutrino observatory, where these observations were made.

Because the fiberoptic cable was loose and did not have as solid a connection as expected, the light that was being transmitted to the instrument can bounce around a little bit before it is detected. The fine calibration of the system that registers each pulse of light may be upset or the pulses of light can be distorted, causing them to trigger a timer differently.

It should be noted that we do not have proof positive that this caused the discrepancy. The experiment will need to be repeated with the loose connector fixed in order to establish more reliable data. However, it now appears that this was likely the culprit. This is indeed how science should work. Extraordinary claims should be met with skepticism, regardless of how well established those making the claims are. Ultimately, judgement must be held until the experimental setup and data have been very thoroughly audited and reviewed and the results confirmed by other researchers repeating the experiment independently.

I’d be willing to bet money that the results will not show neutrinos traveling faster than light after the experiment is repeated with all the timing systems double-checked. If that is the case, those involved will certainly have some egg on their faces, but hopefully they will not receive too much professional rebuke. In such a complex scientific experiment, mistakes can happen and in this case, the scientists did the right thing by opening their data to the interpretation of others and inviting them to find flaws. No scientist should ever be penalized for saying “It turns out I was wrong. I thought I had good data I could be confident in, but it was pointed out that there was a flaw I was unaware of.”

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.

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.

There is, however, another option, which could provide these isolated communities with highly reliable and economical electricity and heat regardless of the weather they are experiencing. In recent years, a number of small modular nuclear reactor designs have been proposed. These are sometimes described as “nuclear batteries,” although the name is deceptive. They’re not batteries in the traditional sense, but rather are encapsulated fission reactors, designed to provide power for extended periods of time with minimal maintenance and upkeep. Refueling intervals may be years or decades. The idea that the reactor is a kind of “black box” that simply sits on site and provides energy.

While none of these reactors have been built, all are entirely possible with current technology. The biggest problem is not technical or safety issues but regulatory problems. In the US, all nuclear power reactors, regardless of size, face the same regulatory framework. A ten megawatt reactor must go through the same level of licensing, site studies and inspections as a 1700 megawatt reactor. It must carry the same level of insurance and have the same safety systems and evacuation plans. These regulatory requirements alone can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some examples of small modular nuclear reactors:

• The Toshiba 4S – A small nuclear reactor capable of producing ten megawatts of electricity and also capable of being used for district heating.   The 4S is intended to be built underground a 30 meter deep shaft.   The reactor is sodium-cooled, although a version with lead coolant has also been considered.  It would provide maintenance-free energy for about thirty years, after which the core would be allowed to cool for a year and then be replaced.   A pilot plant has been proposed for construction in Galena, Alaska and has generally been well received by the local population.  With a population of only 612, the 4S would provide ample power to keep Gelena warm and electrified during the worst winters.   Construction remains delayed because of regulatory issues.   If the Gelena plant ever does get built, it is hoped it would provide a prototype for more reactors of this type in the near future.
• SSTAR – The SSTAR is a lead cooled nuclear reactor which would be constructed off site and delivered as a fully self-contained unit and used until in place until the end of the units lifespan, at which point it would be replaced.   It’s currently under development by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Initial plans were to have a prototype operating by 2015, but there have been few recent updates on the progress of the program.  The SSTAR is expected to be capable of generating ten to one hundred megawatts of electricity, depending on the size of the unit.   The unit would have a thirty year lifespan.
• Hyperon Power Systems Reactor – Hyperon is a privately held company which has been working to develop and market a small, self-contained prefabricated nuclear power reactor for several years.  The initial proposal was to use a self-regulating uranium hydrate reactor.  Hyperon had claimed that this would be rapidly deployed as the technology had already been proven in numerous TRIGA reactors.  In 2009, the company announced that they were shelving the uranium hydrate design in favor of a lead-cooled fast reactor, citing difficulties in getting approval for the uranium hydrate reactor and delays in development.  However, the company has also indicated it may continue to move forward with the earlier reactor design as well.  The company indicated that it would begin shipments in 2013, but it’s not entirely clear whether this will actually happen.  The proposed reactors, if they are ever built, are expected to produce about 25 megawatts of electricity and have a lifespan of up to a few decades.
• Adams Atomic Engine – A design pioneered by our good friend and fellow nuclear energy supporter, Rod Adams.  The Adams Atomic Engine is a gas cooled pebble-bed reactor.  It would be created as a self-contained unit and available in a number of sizes and configurations, depending on the end use.   The Adams Engine would use nitrogen as the coolant and a closed-cycle gas turbine to generate mechanical power for electrical generation or marine propulsion.   A similar reactor, the ML-1, was designed and constructed by the US Army in 1963, but the design never made it past the prototype phase.  The Adams Engine would have a number of differences from the ML-1 thus avoiding most of the problems experienced by the ML-1 prototype.

There are only a few of the types of small, self-contained reactors intended for sights like the remote villages in Alaska.  There are others.  Many are liquid metal cooled and others are gas cooled and pebble bed type reactors.  a few small self-contained light water reactors exist too, such as the mPower reactor being developed by Babcock and Wilcox.   In general, the light water variety tend to be larger and, due to the lower burn up of light water reactors, they do not have as long a core lifespan and therefore do not allow for the reactor to be left in place for many years without refueling or maintenance.  

Molten salt reactors are also an excellent choice for small reactors with limited maintenance and extended refueling lifespans.   Because molten salt reactors can achieve very high burnup, they do not need frequent refueling and do not require large on sight spent fuel storage.   The passive safety of molten salt reactors is another important advantage as well as the fact that they can operate at very high temperatures, allowing for small modular gas turbine power conversion systems.   Flibe Energy is a venture aimed at marketing such reactors.

Assuming the regulatory hurdles could be cleared, these types of reactors offer vast benefits that could liberate areas of the world from reliance on expensive oil, transported long distances and requiring continuous resupply.

Some areas with constant energy supply issues that could benefit from a nuclear reactor (to name a few):

• Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station
• McMurdo Station (had one briefly)
• Scott Base
• Palmer Station
• Bellingshausen Station
• Thule Air Force Base
• Diego Garcia
• Guam
• Ascension Island
• Saint Helena
• Guantánamo Bay
• Kwajalein Atoll
• Wake Island
• Yellowknife
• Red Dog Mine
• Nome
• Prudhoe Bay
• Eareckson Air Station
• Numerous Islands in the Caribbean

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.