Each town in the district has a committee and those committees pick delegates to go to the convention.   I have to get out to town committee meetings and speak to the members and delegates in order to secure their votes.

I have to admit that I don’t expect to do as well as I’d like in the convention for a number of reasons.  One is that I started as a novice and really didn’t know how to go about the process for the first month or so.  I’ve got it down now, but my opponent has a head start.  He already managed to get a number of town committees to endorse him.  In these late days my opponent has been on a blitz of events in many towns across the district.   It’s important that I do the same.

After the May 18 convention, I should have a little bit more time to post, at least until we get closer to the primary, but I certainly won’t have as much time as I have in the past.

My Site Can Be Found Here

There are several things you can do if you support my candidacy:

1. Contribute money - I cannot stress this enough.  It’s critical.  I’m not asking for a handout for nothing here, because I’ve already just about broke my bank account spending money on this.   The money goes to a campaign committee and it’s not something I can use for just anything.  Campaigning is VERY expensive and contrary to popular belief, I am not rolling in big corporate donations.   If you donate $100, it will make a BIG difference right now.  If you donate $50 it will make a significant difference.   If you plan on contributing, please don’t hold off for some future date.  I really need it now.  Even if you can only contribute $10, it’s going to help.
2. “Like” My Page on Facebook - You can do this regardless of whether you are a US citizen or not and it’s very important and very helpful, so please do so and ask your friends and family to do so.  The page  can be found at www.facebook.com/Packard2012.   The reason this is important is that the convention and delegate votes are based heavily on a popularity contest.   They want to vote for whomever they think has a greater base of support.   A high number of likes on Facebook helps show that I do have that support.
3. Volunteer – Really, I need people in Connecticut for this, but at this time, volunteers for events and other functions are very very important.  Please contact me ASAP if you are in the area and can help out.
4. Get the word out - Please, talk about this on Facebook, post about it in your blogs, link to my stuff on sites like Digg and Reddit.   It helps get the profile up and, again, boosts the profile.

I’ve gotten a lot of contacts from people who live outside my area and want to help, but either don’t have any money to contribute or can’t contribute because they are not US citizens and who want to help out anyway.   Unfortunately, while I really appreciate that sentiment, aside from liking the content on Facebook and helping get the word out, there’s not much in terms of volunteer activities I can offer to those who are not physically close by.  As we move toward the general election, there might be more chances for those who want to contribute content or editing services to do so, but right now, that’s just not what we have to focus on.

For campaign-related contacts, please send email to Steve@packard2012.org

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.)

There is something very striking about this image even at first glance.  Notice that the no-entry zone has absolutely no correspondence whatsoever to radiation levels.  It’s simply a circle drawn around the nuclear plant.   Much of the area has quite low radiation levels and some of the area outside the exclusion zone has higher radiation levels than the area within it.  Since there’s now no real danger of the reactors being further damaged or experiencing uncontrolled discharges, there’s absolutely no reason to enforce a no-entry zone based on such a blind method of drawing the map.   If a no-entry zone is to exist at all (which it really, at this point, does not need to)

Actual Doses experienced:

Few areas exceed 20 uSv per hour by very much.  The red area signifies areas with higher than this level, but most of this area is only slightly above 20 uSv/hr.  Areas with 20 uSv/hr or more exist in a relatively narrow strip running northwest from the area of the nuclear plant.

A person lives in an area where the external radiation dose rate is 20 uSv/hr.    Of course, this is really only outdoors and inside there will be less contamination, but for the sake of argument, lets assume the worst:  They get 20 uSv/hr and they stay in that are all the time.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so if they spend all their time outdoors in the 20 uSv/hr area, they receive 175,200 uSv per year or about 175 mSv per year.

This is still a bit unreasonable for what a person would actually be exposed to because it assumes they are always outdoors and standing over ground that has not been in any way cleaned of contamination.  Indoors, the level will be a lot lower.  If they travel outside the area of highest radiation, their dose is also reduced.   As time goes on, both radioactive decay and natural weathering and erosion will reduce levels further.   Therefore, after a year in such an area, it’s more reasonable to expect a total exposure of something like 100-150 mSv and maybe quite a bit less.

Most of the no-entry zone is far bellow this.  The yellow areas would produce only about half the dose of the highest regions and the areas shaded green would result in an annual dose of only about 10-30 mSv her year.  That’s hardly a lot of radiation.

How much radiation a person is exposed to in a year from background sources varies greatly depending on things like location, diet, travel and things like whether they happen to cook with natural gas, live in a granite structure or have radon seeping into their home’s foundation.   About 3 mSv is a normal average for those living at sea level in much of the world.   Of course, it’s quite common for it to be much higher than this.   Areas with background radiation in excess of 10 mSv per year are quite common.  A few areas have much higher.   In the Guarpari region of Brazil, background levels can exceed 175 mSv per year due to local deposits of uranium and thorium.  Residents of Kerala India experience doses of over 70 mSv per year.   Ramsir Iran is famous for having some of the highest levels in the world at over 260 mSv per year.  Locations across Africa and Australia may produce levels above 40 mSv per year.

Studies have been done of the populations of these areas and no ill effects have been documented as a result of the high radiation exposure.   Of course, the expected radiation exposure from living in such an area for an extended period of time would be much higher than for those in the Fukushima area.   Since the radioactivity in the Fukushima region is mostly limited to the surface and includes many relatively short-lived radioisotopes, it will diminish significantly in the years to come.   Natural sources, on the other hand, are constantly replenished.  So a person who lives in an area with increased radiation levels as a result of the Fukushima incident will not experience the same dose next year as they will this year.  It will be less.

And no, there have been no calls that high background areas of the world be evacuated and declared off limits.

Visitation:

Living in the vast majority of the area around Fukushima would result in a radiation dose lower than living in many areas of the world and which could reasonably be considered acceptable.   Visiting these areas, even for extended periods of time, in order to recover property, secure damaged structures and begin the cleanup would result in even lower levels of exposure.  If a person were allowed to travel to the area and spent a cumulative few days in one of the highest areas of radiation, they would receive less exposure than from a dental x-ray.  A person could spend a month in the regions of highest radiation and experience a total increase in annual dose that would be less than that millions of people around the world live with for their entire lives.   Traveling through the area would result in even lower radiation exposure.

A More Reasonable Proposal:

I’d like to propose a more science-based and less restrictive zoning for the area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant.   Under this proposal, the evacuation and no-entry order would be immediately lifted and the vast majority of the area would be available for immediate resettlement, property recovery and rebuilding.

Two zones would remain for the immediate future, the exclusion zone and the limited access zone.

The Exclusion Zone:

The area immediately around the plant boundary.  This area would be accessible to plant workers, recovery teams and others involved in the cleanup, survey and general maintenance. The reason for keeping members of the public out is not only to reduce radiation exposure but also because this area is the primary area of remediation activity and is being used as a staging area for equipment and personnel.  Those working in the area would need to follow standard procedure for dosimeter.

Limited, escorted visits by those who may live just outside the plant perimeter would be allowed for the purposes of recovering property, surveying damage and securing structures that may remain intact.

Limited Access Zone:

This area is defined not by simple distance from the plant but rather follows the approximate area of the highest radiation levels.  Visitation to this area and travel through it would not be subject to major restrictions.   The only restriction to access would be that the area would not be zoned for full time resettlement.   While those living in that area would be allowed to visit their homes without supervision, they would continue to be offered shelter elsewhere and it would be requested that they not permanently settle into the area or remain there for several consecutive days, although such restrictions would be more of a request than a strongly enforced rule.

Recovery efforts, repair of infrastructure traversing the area and recovery efforts would begin immediately with little or no restriction.  As the area would be considered to be free to visit but not designated for resettlement, schools, post offices and other facilities catering to residents would remain closed, but would be repaired and secured.   Basic services like fire and ambulances would be restored as soon as possible.

Those wishing to resettle sooner in the area could begin remediation work, such as power washing surfaces and removing top soil and could have their property surveyed for safety and radiation levels.   If a government-approved surveyor confirms that the total radiation levels for a structure and surrounding area are within certain standards and that the structure has been repaired to meet building codes, that property could be issued a certificate for residency.

The limited access zone would be the only area subject to government sponsored cleanup and radiation remediation measures.  Areas outside this region would only receive such attention if an exceptionally high reading was found on a “hot spot.”  Other than that, it’s just not worth the amount it would cost to reduce already low levels.

Eventually all resettlement limits would be lifted and the exclusion zone around the plant would also be eventually withdrawn, pending how the future of the recovery plays out.

To the health physicists, radiation safety officers, radiologists, reactor operators and other radiation safety professionals of the world:

In most circumstances professionalism and a desire to remain impartial to political matters dictates that those who art part of highly scientific professions exercise a great deal of restraint while addressing pressing policy concerns.   Research scientists especially tend to be very tight lipped about policy matters and are not prone to engaging the media directly.   In many circumstances, there is no direct response from professionals, or if there is, it comes in the form of highly moderated and subdued official statements from organizations.

There is certainly good reason for this.  Science professionals must remain impartial and not risk having their loyalties called into question.   Strong statements about pressing issues of policy can result in criticism which degenerates to mudslinging.  Some experts would simply rather not have to engage non-professionals who are likely to respond with a frustrating lack of understanding of their fields and believe their talents are better utilized in the world of scholarly journals and professional research.  There is, of course, some risk to ones reputation and to the integrity of ones work that can come from becoming heavily involved in issues of advocacy and direct engagement of the government, media and public.

That said, there exists a humanitarian crisis that is only getting worse due to a combination of unjustified fear of ionizing radiation and pressure to exploit this fear to advance a political or social agenda.   The result has been a enormous unnecessary human suffering.  Those with professional credentials and credibility in the field of radiation safety are in a unique position to help bring this crisis to an end, and, as such, have an ethical duty to do so.

Since the tragic earthquake and tsunami struck Japan almost a year ago, hundreds of thousands of Japanese remain in limbo due to unnecessary evacuations and continued restrictions on habitation or even visitation to the area around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.   The earthquake and tsunami killed tens of thousands and left whole communities devastated.   In such circumstances, the survivors want nothing more than to recover what property they can and begin to rebuild their lives.  Yet this has not been allowed to happen.  Despite the fact that the radiation exposure in the exclusion zone is well within any reasonable safety limits, many have been bared from even visiting their homes.   In the time after the disaster, domestic animals needlessly starved, property that could have been recovered was lost and serious chemical and biological hazards were allowed to fester.   This continues to happen even as the reactors have been stabilized and the most worrisome isotopes have long decayed away.

In addition to this tragedy, the Japanese government continues to spend enormous amounts of money in the cleanup of areas where radiation “hot spots” would result in only the most minimal of exposure and in a policy of idling most of the country’s nuclear power plants, resulting in huge economic losses.   What the people of Japan sorely need is to have the damaged regions of their nation rebuilt.  Every Yen spent on the unnecessary removal of soil is one more Yen that cannot be spent on the necessary rehabilitation of the areas effected by the quake and tsunami.  The message being given to citizens is that they are in grave danger, especially their children.  Inconsistent information, panic and confusion have resulted in enormous psychological stresses to those who have already suffered from the terrible natural disaster.

I therefore ask all radiation safety professionals of the world to stop biting your tongues and speak out loudly and in no uncertain terms, engaging the public, the media and the Japanese government as directly and candidly as possible.  The Japanese people need to be told the truth, without the fear-based spin that politicians often use to try to scare their way into office or special interest groups try to exploit.   The Japanese government must be urged to begin a far more measured and scientifically consistent approach to resettlement and repair that is based on the anual exposure from living in a region as compared with normal background in locations around the world.   Resources should not be wasted in the removal of small “hot spots” which are no more radioactive than clusters of uranium-bearing rock.   All areas should be made accessible to visitation and most to resettlement.    Repairs to local infrastructure and economic assets must take precedent over concerns of radioactivity that have little or no basis in science.

As experts in this field, you are the only ones who can challenge these policies and overrule them by virtue of the authority you have gained through education and experience.   Doing so may well open you to the mud-slinging of certain groups, who would rather not face the truth.   Yet in the face of such suffering, caving to the fear of being attacked by dishonorable interests is the height of cowardice.

In conclusion, I once again ask that all professionals in this field take individual initiative to take a stand against these harmful policies and messages and that groups like the Health Physics Society and others step up to the plate and pull no punches in defense of the well being of the people of Japan.  Your field stands for the furtherance of human understanding and for improved human safety and health.  These ideals demand that you step up to the plate and fight for the refugees of fear who continue to suffer in Japan.

Respectfully,

Stephen M. Packard
depletedcranium.com

Via the BBC:

Countries rally against EU carbon tax on airlines
Delegates from 26 countries opposed to a new EU carbon tax on airlines are meeting in Moscow to consider possible retaliation, amid fears of a trade war.

China, India, Russia and the US are among the countries opposed to the EU fee, which took effect on 1 January.

Critics say the EU has no right to impose taxes on flights to or from destinations outside Europe.

But in December the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU tax on CO2 pollution from aircraft was legal.

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) creates permits for carbon emissions. Airlines that exceed their allowances will have to buy extra permits, as an incentive to airlines to pollute less.

“Nobody has fought harder than the European Union over the years to get a global deal”

The number of permits is reduced over time, so that the total CO2 output from airlines in European airspace falls.

The EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, said the opponents should work with the EU to create a global scheme to cut aviation pollution.

“Nobody would be happier than the EU if we could get such a global deal,” she told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This is just a bad idea. If you’ve concerned about pollution and especially greenhouse gasses, don’t go after aviation. It’s the smallest, highest hanging of the fruit you can pick from. Well under 1% of human generated greenhouse gases come from aviation and yet that relatively small percentage comes with enormous benefits to mankind.

Far more CO2 is generated by processes as low profile and unnoticed as cement manufacture. Additionally, it’s really the height of insanity to burden airlines and passengers in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when most of the electricity generated in Europe comes from fossil fuels. Yet pinching aviation to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has an exceptionally poor cost-benefit ratio when compared to reducing power plant emissions.

Furthermore, the idea that reducing the number of permits over time will reduce pollution by making airlines more efficient is ridiculous.   Considering the price of fuel and the fact that airlines pay more for fuel than any other expense, they have already done all things reasonably possible to improve aircraft efficiency.   Modern turbofan engines have gotten very good, and while a tiny bit more fuel efficiency may be squeezed out in the years to come, it’s not likely that there’s going to be any development that will magically reduce the amount of fuel required by aircraft.

So why are they doing it? Personally, I think it’s politics plain and simple. Airplanes are conspicuous and everyone knows they burn fuel, but most people are likely unaware that cement manufacture is a major CO2 source. Airline travel may also be cast as a luxury (even though it is increasingly a necessity) and therefore can play into various social ploys.

Really, however, if you were just looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you would focus your energies elsewhere.

Reasons why civil aviation is good, should be encouraged and not burdened by additional costs:

1. It’s a huge industry which provides a large number of jobs, many of them skilled and very high paying.
2. Many other sectors are heavily dependent on aviation for travel, rapid shipping of products and other important uses of aircraft.
3. Tourism is almost completely dependent on aviation and makes up a huge part of the economy of many nations.  Innumerable businesses and livelihoods depend on economical travel to exist at all.
4. Many areas of the world are entirely dependent on aviation-based tourism and without economical air travel their entire economy will completely disintegrate.  These include some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the world which are preserved largely because they draw tourists and, if they didn’t have tourist potential, would probably be destroyed by the locals trying to get by on whatever resources they could recover.
5. World travel is educational, mind expanding and results in cultural exchange that cannot otherwise occur.
6. When people travel they see the most majestic parts of the world, which would tend to make them want to preserve them.
7. Many areas of the world are entirely dependent on aviation for things far beyond tourist travel.  For island areas, especially, planes may be the only traveling and of bringing in critical goods like medical supplies and even food.
8. When disaster strikes, civil aviation is often pressed into service for evacuation or transport of vital supplies.   You want a healthy airline sector in case you ever need to suddenly use it for this.
9. The airline business is already extremely cutthroat.   Profits margins are razor thin.  Airlines file for bankruptcy and are restructured frequently.   Even a small additional burden can make a big difference.
10. Aircraft are about the safest way possible to travel.  If flying becomes more expensive, it becomes more attractive to drive long distances.  More people drive, which is more dangerous and thus a net increase in deaths.
11. There’s simply no way of reducing the carbon footprint of aircraft by any significant amount other than just not flying as much.  Fuel is already the number one expense to airlines, so they already take all reasonable measures to conserve it.  There’s really nothing other that can be used to fuel an aircraft other than hydrocarbons.  Hydrogen is too low density and requires special handling and storage.  Ammonia is only slightly better and batteries are far too heavy.

Reasons why civil aviation is bad, should be discouraged and burdened by additional costs:

1. It produces carbon dioxide, although not very much in the grand scheme of things.

Here it is:

In 2011, the government will spend about $502.5 million on research for Alzheimer’s and related dementias. About $450 million of that will come from the National Institutes of Health. By comparison, NIH is expected to spend $521 million on complementary alternative medicine and $823 million on obesity.

Lets first get some context here. Alzheimers is a debilitating condition that affects more than 26 million people, mostly those over 65, although it can occur much earlier. It’s a progressive degeneration of brain tissue. Once it begins, it will only get worse. Early symptoms include difficulty with memory, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. As time goes on, it slowly eats away at all mental function, leaving the sufferer, at first confused then increasingly incapable of doing anything. In highly progressed cases, the individual is really just not “there.” They can’t talk, can’t feed themselves, can’t recognize family and don’t know their own name. It’s really more of a slow death than anything else, although sufferers can live for years before dying, usually from an infection or some other secondary cause.

The implications of the disease are quite bad for society. The US alone spends over one hundred billion dollars a year caring for Alzheimers patients, many of whom need constant intensive care. There are ethical issues too, because it is difficult to draw the line at where a person is no longer capable of making their own decisions.   When first diagnosed, many sufferers have enough mental capacity to understand the horrible implications of what is happening to them.  It tears families apart and puts enormous burdens on care givers.  Long term care in nursing homes is extremely expensive and those who have no relatives or other means to pay for such care may end up in public institutions, which are becoming increasingly burdened by Alzheimers patients.  The problem will only grow as the population ages.

There are no known treatments for Alzheimers.   There are medications that do reduce the symptoms slightly, but none that will truly slow the progression.   There’s no known way to prevent it from happening and the cause remains elusive, although it is known to be at least partially genetic.  There may be other factors.  Some studies have found that the occurrence of Alzheimers may relate to everything from alcohol to exercise levels, but the relationship is small and does not account for most cases.

The thing about Alzheimers that is striking is that, based on everything we know, it *should* be possible to prevent it from happening.   Plaques form in the brain, but it’s not clear if this is the cause or the result of the destruction of brain tissue.   Brain cells die, toxins accumulate and the disease progresses.   Something is happening in the brain, some biochemical reaction is either occurring when it should not or is not occurring when it should.  It does not occur in everyone.  There should be a way to introduce a drug or chemical that will either suppress the destructive process or restart the renewing process that has stopped.  Having a better understanding of the genes that are involved can help a lot.  If that can be determined, then it might be possible to suppress those genetic effects.   First, the exact mechanism must be determined and understood, and there’s no reason to think that can’t be done.

Alternative medicine is nothing more than treatments and preparations that have already been tested or evaluated by science and rejected.  Most alternative therapies have no basis in science, have no plausible mechanism of action and have absolutely zero evidence of effectiveness.   As a general rule, they have all been extensively tested already.

If the government is to fund scientific studies, shouldn’t it spend more on the ones that actually have the potential to make an important difference than the ones that are just rehashing things that are already known to not work and are not even scientifically plausible?    That seems rather obvious to me.  Tell me I’m not alone on this.

Crazy?

Well, whatever you think of Gingrich, I have no problem with this idea.  Hell, I’d love to see the country run with it.

Lets consider the precedent.  In 1961 the United States couldn’t send a man to orbit (embarrassingly, kinda like now).  By 1962 we had sent a man into orbit for a brief period of time and were still a couple years away from actually having spacecraft do precision manuvers, dock or stay aloft for more than a couple of days.   In 1968, a spacecraft with three men orbited the moon and in 1969, two men landed on the moon.

Sure, today the US government takes decades to make a decidedly non-revolutionary space capsule, but it was not always that way nor does it need to be.

Lets evaluate the steps that would be necessary to setup a lunar base:

1.  Get the components:

Well, there’s really nothing too technically demanding there.   A few pressurized modules.   Those are doable.  Aerotech ought to be able to do that.   There will also need to be extended stay facilities, which include life support systems, water recycling and so on.  All that has been done on the International Space Station and the technology is entirely off the shelf and proven.  There will need to be a communications system, again, totally off the shelf.

Power might be an issue.  The surface of the moon does receive many days of darkness, except for the poles.   A nuclear reactor would be nice, but might be difficult to get developed in the time allotted due to regulatory issues.  Big solar panels could work with ample storage to get through the darkness.  Batteries might work, but would likely be heavy.  A system to regenerate hydrogen could be much lighter, but would also be less efficient and thus require larger solar cells.

But all in all, nothing that can’t be done with current technology there.

2.  Send them to space:

The first step in getting to the moon is getting to space.   The components of the base must be sent to orbit.  There will need to be a rocket large enough to send the components and an earth departure stage to space, ideally in as few launches as possible.

We have that.  The Falcon-9 heavy can send 53 metric tons to earth orbit, which is a real lot.  It’s composed of three Falcon-9 boosters.  The Falcon Nine has been tested, although not in the heavy configuration.   It’s slated to be tested in 2013, but if we actually made it a priority to send it up sooner, it might even be possible to do so this year.

SpaceX is gearing up to start mass producing these things, so there’s no reason not to think that multiple flights could be made in a year, which would be enough to start building a respectable lunar colony.

There are even larger rockets under development.  NASA has proposed shuttle-derived launch systems, which may or may not be built.  SpaceX has also proposed the construction of even larger rockets, based on their highly successful Falcon rocket architecture.

3.  Send the stuff to the moon

Once you get the components to space they then need to be sent on a trajectory that will put them in lunar orbit.  This requires an “earth departure stage.”   The Falcon-9 heavy might be able to send the components to lunar orbit on its own, but it would be at a greatly reduced capacity.  It would be better to have an additional stage to send the components to the moon.

To achieve translunar injection, the Apollo program used the big S-IVB stage.  There’s nothing that big in the current inventory, but we don’t need a booster that big or powerful to send the components to the moon.  Since the base components would be sent on unmanned spacecraft, it’s okay if they take a bit longer than the Apollo capsules to reach the moon.  Unmanned components don’t complain about lingering in the Van Allen Belts for a while or having to spend weeks in transit to the moon.

Because of this a low energy lunar transfer would work just fine.

As it turns out we have a well proven high energy upper stage that could do the job of sending the components to the moon.  It’s the venerable Centaur.   The Centaur rocket stage should fit the bill nicely for sending the lunar colony components to lunar orbit.

4.  Land the components on the moon:

This is something which we, admittedly, don’t have any existing hardware to use.  But then again, we have built a lunar lander before, having started from a lot less and had about as much time to make it work.

What will be needed is a lander that is designed to land large components, but does not have an ascent stage, as it won’t need to return them to earth.  It also won’t need to have habitable areas, since it’s just a cargo hauler.  A spacecraft like this was conceived during the Apollo program.  The Lunar Payload Module would have been the descent stage of the Lunar Module without an ascent stage and designed for unmanned landings.   It was never built, but the concept is straightforward.

The closest thing we have to a design for a lunar lander like the Apollo Payload Module is the Altair lunar spacecraft.  It’s been through a few deign reviews and research was being conducted, but it is currently stalled.  Still, the partially designed Altair is a viable spacecraft and could probably be built in a few years if we actually had any desire to do so.

We already have most of the major components of such a lander.   Radar and remote operation systems are all off the shelf.   The RL-10 engine is a proven rocket engine that could be used for a lander powered by hydrogen and oxygen.  A simpler solution would be a hypergolic lander, using a proven engine system, such as a few AJ-10 engines, which is based on the engines used in the original Apollo Lunar Module.

So while the lander is an engineering challenge, it is nothing that can’t be done in a relatively short period of time.  Planetary landers have been designed and built in less time

5.  Send humans to the base

A lunar colony isn’t much use without some astronauts.   Landing astronauts on such a remote base would be a bit more difficult than sending the components.   The landing hardware would be pretty much the same, but a capsule would be required to transport the astronauts back to the earth and allow for reentry.  There are at least two choices for this:  the Dragon spacecraft has already been tested once and will soon be tested for a second time.  It may lack the service module capabilities necessary for trans-lunar flight, but could be upgraded.

Then there’s the Orion capsule, which NASA has been taking their sweet time developing.  An unmanned test version might launch as soon as next year (but I would not hold my breath on that one), and it should be fully capable of being used as a lunar command module.

That still leaves the issue of translunar injection.  The Centaur is not likely to have enough power to send a manned mission to the moon on a fast trajectory.  A larger version of the Centaur might be able to, or possibly a new rocket stage using the proven J-2 engine.

The Falcon 9 Heavy would not have the ability to launch this kind of mission, at least not in one shot.  Two such rockets could do it by using an earth orbit rendezvous, where one launches the spacecraft and the other the earth departure stage.  Alternatively, a larger rocket could be used, such as the proposed Space Launch System.   This will require NASA to do something it has not done in a long time – actually build the ***** rocket and not just make a bunch of artists renderings, talk about it, spend a few billion and then cancel the project a few years later.

Getting humans to the lunar surface is much the same as getting cargo there, although it also would require an ascent stage to bring the crew back to earth.  NASA’s planned Altair Lunar Lander could accomplish both and could be built with existing technology, but as of 2012, development has been put on hold.   That said, I have no doubt it could be ready to fly in a few years or less, if we actually decided to do so.

Some quick “back of napkin” calculations and considerations:

A Falcon Heavy can carry 53 metric tons to orbit.  A centaur upper stage weighs about 23 metric tons fully fueled.  A smaller upper stage could be used as the earth departure stage or the Centaur could be fired as part of the initial launch to increase payload, but that would necessitate an even lower energy orbital transfer and might be less reliable.   Thus, if the Centaur is considered the best off the shelf EDS, then that leaves 30 metric tons for the payload to lunar orbit.  The Altair Lunar Lander might be a bit too heavy for this, in its current theoretical design (it’s actually really heavy).   Something slimmed down a bit could suffice.   For example the Apollo LM Truck would have weighed only eight metric tons and could carry five metric tons to the surface.   A modernized system might be similar to two LM Trucks in tandem (two AJ-10 engines for example.)  It would weigh about sixteen metric tons and could carry about ten metric tons.  It is possible an even more capable and lighter lunar lander could be built using liquid hydrogen as the propellant or more modern engine designs.

Ten metric tons per vehicle is enough to begin to build a reasonable lunar base in just a few missions. The Spacehab module provides more than 28 cubic meters of fully pressurized habitable space, complete with experiment tracks and associated electrical systems and weighs only five metric tons. The Multipurpose Logistics Module, used to ferry pressurized cargo to the International Space Station, provides about 31 cubic meters of pressurized space and also weighs about five tons. Thus, a single mission to carry a habitation module could easily carry a habitable module of sixty cubic meters or more or could carry a module of roughly thirty cubic meters and still have capacity for other features, like airlocks, batteries and life support systems.

One problem that using such lightweight modules may cause is the lack of radiation protection during solar storms. Since radiation sheidling is heavy, it would make launching it difficult. It has been suggested that a lunar base could have ample radiation shielding if, upon arrival, astronauts filled bags with lunar soil and piled them around one of the modules to produce a heavily shielded shelter from solar storms.

SpaceX is already getting ready to mass produce their rockets, and if plans to recover and reuse the first stage work out, that could reduce costs and improve launch times even further.

Actually getting the station setup would be another issue.  Just landing the systems close together is not that much of a challenge, but interconnecting them so that they can receive power and transfer consumables might be more tricky.  It could be done by astronauts on arrival or possibly by a remote manipulator.  The easiest way might be to mount the modules on a rudimentary rover-like system.  It would not need to travel very far or move very quickly, only enough for the sections to mate.

Hypothetical Missions to Deliver Lunar Base in Ten Missions:

Mission 1: Primary power, control and communications module – Delivers a module consisting of a high gain communications system, cameras and sensors and several large arrays of solar panels and batteries and some basic remote manipulators, surveying instruments and other support equipment.  Although most power will come from a small nuclear reactor, the batteries provide for buffering of short peak power loads.

Mission 2: Nuclear power module – Aside from the lunar poles, the moon receives 14 days of darkness, during which time solar-independent power will be necessary for heating and other uses.  Batteries or regenerative fuel cells would need to be enormous for this.   A small nuclear reactor with a thermoelectric generator or sterling engine and heat radiators.  The module would also have power control systems and other support equipment.  The Safe Affordable Fission Engine is already under development and perfectly suited to this task.  Connection to other modules is achieved by small remote rovers, trailing power and communication cables, grasped by remote manipulators and automatically mated.

Mission 3: Main habitation module – 50 cubic meters of habitable space with basic electrical and ventilation systems.  Mission module is unloaded to lunar surface from the lunar delivery module with a crane like device or perhaps a ramp.

Mission 4: Service, habitation and life support module I – Additional habitable space, life support systems, water recycling systems, carbon dioxide scrubbers.   Module is unloaded from the lander by a crane or ramps.  Also has wheeled delivery system, based on lunar rovers used during Apollo.  Allows lander to land a short distance from the main module and to travel to the main habitation module to dock.

Mission 5: Service, habitation and life support module II – Similar to mission 5 and carries additional life support and recycling equipment.  Allows for full redundancy of all systems.  Also lands nearby and uses a rover to dock with the base.

Mission 6: Surface science module – pressurized module with airlock, allowing for access to lunar surface. Also contains experimental space for lunar experiments. External connections and racks for unpressurized experiments.

Mission 7: Secondary habitation and science module – another 20-30 cubic meters of living area, primarily designated for experimental equipment.  Also uses a rover to dock.  Contains additional equipment such as space suit maintenance, basic medical equipment.

Mission 8: Provisions and supplies mission – lands near lunar base with a pallet containing large tanks of oxygen, dehydrated or canned food, two or more tonnes of water, other basic supplies such as sanitary supplies, replacement parts, such as bolts and screws and other consumables.

Mission 9: Similar to mission 8.  A total of about twenty tonnes of water, food, oxygen and other supplies allows for a greatly extended stay on the moon, should such a contingency be necessary, as might be the case if it became impossible to lift off due to a spacecraft failure, requiring a “rescue” mission.  This mission might also carry some exploration equipment, such as one or more lunar rovers.

Mission 10 - First crewed mission, also includes some additional equipment and consumables.

The lunar outpost could be expanded in the future as needed.

Is it doable?

I think so.   The Falcon Heavy is expected to cost about $80 to $125 million, though perhaps less if many missions are done with the same rocket type.   The Centaur costs about $23 million. The cost of a lunar lander is anyone’s guess, but if produced in a large production run, I don’t see any reason why it would need to be more than $100 million. The original Apollo Lunar Module cost about $50 million, which would be about $200 million in today’s dollars, but that is considering that it also included the habitable ascent module and that it was the first of its kind and needed to be developed entirely from scratch. It also was limited to a production run of ten units. The hardware might cost an additional $50 to $250 million per mission. There would be additional costs per mission due to control and other expenses, but all in all it could be done for under one billion dollars per mission, if costs were kept under control.

One billion dollars per mission is not impossibly expensive for the US Space program. The Space Shuttle was estimated to cost upwards of one billion dollars for each mission, though it varied greatly depending on the nature of the mission. NASA claims the official cost per Shuttle launch to be about $450 million, but that does not include the special hardware that was developed and used for each mission. Although initial hopes for the Space Shuttle were to have upwards of fifty launches per year, the most ever launched in one year was nine. During the height of the shuttle program, around four to six missions occurred per year, and the budget for the program was upwards of six billion dollars.

In such a context, the prospect of building a lunar base, using largely existing hardware does not seem to be impossibly expensive, at least if initial costs are kept down. NASA has become notoriously inefficient at getting things going and moving from paper studies to real spacecraft in a reasonably inexpensive and rapid manner, but if this could be overcome, there’s no reason to think the program cost could not be kept under fifteen to twenty billion dollars, including the delivery of humans to the lunar base. If it were spread out over a few years, that would be entirely affordable.

Sadly, it’s not going to happen…

For whatever you think of Newt Gingrich, there’s one thing I respect about the man.  He’s the only candidate out there who is actually proposing the kind of ambitious, big science program that could get the nation excited again about science and move to a new level of capability.   It’s not going to happen, because at this point the bureaucracy of the US government is just not capable of doing such a thing and because politicians seem to have a lot of trouble actually making a program with a real goal happen.   There’s not a lot of support for such proposals in general.

In my opinion, this is exactly what the country needs.  It needs a goal to focus on and a way to restore national pride and excitement about science.  Such bold ideas should be proposed and they should be made to happen.  Sending a man to the moon in 1969 should not be allowed to stand as the crowning achievement of the United States.  We need to have the will to repeat and then overtake our best accomplishments to keep pushing progress forward.

One thing that certainly needs to be mentioned is that the campaign still is very much in need of donations.   We’ve received a few very generous contributions, but it has proven to be an extremely expensive endeavor.   If you can chip in a few dollars or a few hundred, it will help a great deal.   I cannot take any donations from those outside the United States (unless you’re a US citizen living abroad.)   That is simply federal election law.  There has always been concern that foreign interests could influence US politics, so it is illegal to in any way fund a US campaign.

There is now also a campaign store, where bumper stickers, shirts and so on can be purchased.  Because a portion of these purchases goes to the campaign, they can also only be purchased by US citizens.   If there’s a lot of demand for them from outside the US, we’ll consider allowing foreign citizens to buy them at cost, thus avoiding that problem, but as it stands that’s not currently being offered.  Really, I don’t see much reason why someone outside the US would want the campaign gear, anyway.

There are some things that anyone can do to help out, including foreign nationals and those who might not have a lot of money.  Some of the things that can be done are listed here.

The campaign needs help getting the word out on social media.   We also are trying to get news submitted to various sites to get more attention.  It helps a lot when such submissions come from multiple parties.

One thing we really need is a Wikipedia entry for the candidacy.  It’s really better if that kind of thing is done by a third party, not associated officially with the campaign.  It makes the article more credible and avoids it looking like it’s been written entirely by the campaign for good PR.   If it has multiple authors and editors, that is even better.  I certainly don’t want to write it myself, because that makes it look like little more than a self-produced advertisement.

We also need residents of Connecticut and especially the Third District who can help out in some other ways.

Via the Mail and Guardian:

Obama rescues the Grand Canyon

Barack Obama took a big step towards preserving one of the world’s natural wonders on Monday, banning uranium mining on 400 000 hectares of land around the Grand Canyon.

The move, announced by the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, at a film screening in Washington DC, bans new mining claims around the canyon for the next 20 years. The area is rich in uranium deposits.

“A withdrawal is the right approach for this priceless American landscape,” Salazar said. “People from all over the country and around the world come to visit the Grand Canyon. Numerous American Indian tribes regard this magnificent icon as a sacred place and millions of people in the Colorado river basin depend on the river.”

Environmental groups said the move, which was opposed by the mining industry and some Republicans, would secure the American president’s environmental legacy.

The measure does not affect about 3 200 existing mining claims around the canyon, however. The administration said there would be continued development of 11 uranium mines.

Conservation groups said Obama had shown political courage in going ahead with the ban in the face of opposition. “Despite significant pressure, the president did not settle for a halfway measure,” said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group. In the final years of the George Bush presidency, when uranium prices were rising worldwide, mining companies filed thousands of claims in northern Arizona on lands near the Grand Canyon.

They also proposed reopening old mines adjacent to the canyon.

Salazar ordered a temporary halt to claims in 2009 after Obama came to office. Government officials proposed the 20-year ban in October last year, after an environmental review calling for the preservation of an “iconic landscape”.

The reality is that the Grand Canyon was never actually in any danger of being torn up for mining. That’s because the iconic expanse of canyon of eroded sandstone and river bed is located within the Grand Canyon National Park. It might depend a little on how you define the beginning and end of the canyon, but in general, the expansive “grand” part is all within the national park. Because it is within a national park, there can be no mining claims. The area is permanently and unquestionably protected and the only development and construction allowed is limited infrastructure for the park itself. (things like visitors centers, hiking trails and such.)

The park is enormous. It’s 1,902 sq mi or 4,927 sq km. It includes the canyon itself and much of the surrounding area. It was established as a National Monument in 1906 and has enjoyed the protection from commercial development of a US national park since 1919. There is absolutely no way that any part of that massive area will be mined for uranium or anything else.

The park is in Arizona, in a relatively sparsely inhabited region. Much of the area around the national park is federally administered land. As such, claims can be staked for mineral recovery. It’s not actually in the park and it’s certainly not in the canyon. It’s many miles away, but in the general region of the Grand Canyon. More than two thousand potential mining sites have been staked, many for uranium, as uranium can be found in the sandstone of the area. This is normal. Mining companies can, depending on the circumstances, claim or lease federal land for mineral recovery.

In 2009, it was proposed that a massive area that is only remotely close to the Grand Canyon be closed to mining. Now that decision has been extended, at least for the next twenty years. Vague environmental concerns are cited as the reason. There are already some long standing hard rock mines in the area, which apparently will still be allowed to operate.

I have to admit that I don’t actually have any expertise on this area or the eco-systems or whether it’s so unique or amazing as to make it worthy of complete protection from mining and development.   However, it should be made clear that regardless of the validity of this decision, this is not the Grand Canyon and the Grand Canyon was never in danger of being destroyed by mines.