Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Space Debris

This conference has been generating a lot of news stories on the festering problem of debris in earth orbit generated by our efforts. It is obviously getting dangerous and something needs to be done to address the issue.

However, I think that we must wait until we have the capacity to put a very powerful energy source in orbit to operate a microwave laser similar to that been tested aboard a 747 against missiles. (earlier post)

Such a laser can be used to target debris and impart a small change in kinetic energy through a series of pulses that vaporise the surface. The only saving grace is a rapid firing cycle that allows a swift handling of the thousands of prospective targets, most of whom are quite small.

The larger items are all prospects for simple interception and direct disposal which is feasible today but rather unnecessary. They mostly degrade in their own good time and we can find them anyway. This problem is all about the small stuff that inevitably gets loose. There we really are beginning to dodge bullets.

Then we have even blown some of this stuff up and a lot of that is in more eccentric orbits and thus more likely to cause a problem. You wonder what they were thinking and are still thinking today when we have no way yet to mop up the mess.

Key findings from the Fifth European Conference on Space Debris

by Staff Writers

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Key_findings_From_The_Fifth_European_Conference_On_Space_Debris_999.html
Darmstadt, Germany (ESA) Apr 04, 2009

During the 5th European Conference on Space Debris, 30 March to 2 April 2009, held at the European Space Agency, Darmstadt, Germany, experts from a wide spectrum of disciplines communicated their research results through 100 oral presentations and more than 40 poster presentations.

The conference was attended by some 330 participants from 21 countries, making this the largest dedicated space debris conference in the world.

Key areas were measurements and debris environment characterisation, environment modelling and forecasting (including orbit prediction aspects), risk analysis for the in-orbit and re-entry mission phases, protection and shielding, debris mitigation and remediation, and debris policies and guidelines.

As a special topic, the surveillance and cataloguing component of Space Situational Awareness (SSA), was addressed.

Highlights and key findings

In his keynote address, Gerard Brachet, former chair of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), reviewed the status of debris environment characterisation and identified the need for concerted actions toward sustainable use of outer space.

A corresponding UN Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee (STSC) activity has recently been initiated. It will build upon past UN space debris activities, which led to a first set of UN space debris mitigation guidelines in 2007.

In the Measurement and Space Surveillance area, the airborne, multi-instrument re-entry observation campaign of ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), in September 2008, is expected to increase our understanding of re-entry and break-up physics, leading to more reliable risk estimates in the case of uncontrolled re-entries.

Moreover, the new US Space Surveillance Network S-band fence will further lower the size threshold of space objects that can be routinely tracked and catalogued, hence (among other achievements) also improving collision avoidance capabilities.

Besides, optical measurements have improved our knowledge of the debris population in high earth orbits, including GEO (Geostationary Orbit), and of high area-to-mass objects on eccentric orbits.

In addition, several beam-park experiments (mono- and bi-static), involving European radars and radio telescopes, provided debris data down to 1-cm sizes.

In the Modelling and Orbit Prediction area, the most recent NASA (ORDEM 2008) and ESA (MASTER 2009) models of the space debris environment were discussed, and long-term environment stability analyses were compared.

The orbit-related contributions addressed the stability of disposal orbits, particularly for navigation constellations, and they looked at ways of extracting orbit and orbit uncertainty information from optical and radar measurements, and from US Catalog data.

In the area of On-Orbit and Reentry Risk Analysis, the focus was on collision avoidance services and supporting risk analyses for LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and GEO (Geostationary Orbit) objects. Reentry risk assessments, based on a detailed simulation of the underlying break-up processes, was another focus of interest.

In the area of Mitigation, the current status of international, national, and agency-specific guidelines or requirements on space debris mitigation was described. It was noted that these can only be a first step toward maintaining a safe space debris environment.

Space debris remediation, i.e. active debris removal from orbit, was identified as the next necessary step. Several contributions addressed technical and operational aspects of implementing such measures.

In the area of Hypervelocity Impacts and Protection, the latest results were presented on accelerator technologies, debris shield optimisation and damage prediction tools. Examples of impacts on the International Space Station (ISS) highlighted the importance of protective measures.

In the area of Space Surveillance, European researchers presented their proposals for optical and radar sensors, and for data processing methods for a European Space Situational Awareness System (SSA).

They looked at expected detection, correlation and cataloguing performances. US and Russian surveillance experts provided some insight into their experience gained over some 50 years of service. Many participants encouraged international cooperation and/or coordination of surveillance activities.

With the high quality presentations by a truly international community of experts, the 5th European Conference on Space Debris provided a comprehensive snapshot of the current state of space debris research.

The aspect of space surveillance, which was for the first time included as a main theme, showed a high degree of commonality with several of the traditional topics of this conference. Such synergies should also be pursued in future events.

The 5th European Conference on Space Debris demosntrated a well-established, consolidated knowledge base on the understanding and protection of the current space debris environment. This consolidated knowledge has led to internationally accepted concepts of space debris mitigation.

Main conference finding

However, it is common understanding that mitigation alone cannot maintain a safe and stable debris environment in the long-term future. Active space debris remediation measures will need to be devised and implemented. This is the main message from this conference.

While such measures are technologically demanding and potentially costly, there is no alternative to protect space as a valuable resource for the operation of indispensable satellite infrastructures. Their direct costs and the costs of losing them will by far exceed the cost of remedial activities.

Written by fatih al-farahat in


Stephen H. Schneider: San Francisco Examiner interview regarding global warming and climate change issues

by Thomas Fuller, SF Environmental Policy Examiner, May 24, 2009

This is part one of an interview with Professor Stephen Schneider regarding global warming and climate change issues.

Update: Roger Pielke, Sr., principal contributor to Climate Science, has commented both here and on his website regarding my classification of his weblog as a 'skeptic' weblog. I plead guilty to over-facile classification. Although Climate Science does regularly challenge the accepted wisdom of climate change activists, he is first and foremost a scientist who publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals. As I have noted before here, one of the major themes pursued on Climate Science is that humans do influence the climate through deforestation, land-use policy and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle, and Pielke Sr. thinks that this may actually outweigh the effects of human emissions of CO2.

Mr. Pielke feels that being characterized as a skeptic is pejorative--and it is certainly used that way in many discussions. I guess I've developed a tough skin after being called much worse--to me it's the use of the term denier that sets me off. But it's essentially lazy writing, and I apologize. I actually have the highest respect for what I've seen of his work on his website and elsewhere.

I'll be pursuing this further--sadly, Mr. Pielke didn't provide an e-mail address and the comments section of his blog are usually turned off. I will try and contact him but in the meantime, I apologise for any confusion.

The second participant in the Global Warming Debates here at Examiner.com is Professor Stephen Schneider, whose biography runs longer than many of my articles. Here’s an excerpt:

Stephen H. Schneider is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biology, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. He served as an NCAR scientist from 1973-1996, where he co-founded the Climate Project. He focuses on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He has consulted for federal agencies and White House staff in seven administrations. Elected to the US National Academy of Sciences in 2002, Dr. Schneider received the American Association for the Advancement of Science/ Westinghouse Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology and a MacArthur Fellowship for integrating and interpreting the results of global climate research. He is actively engaged in improving public understanding of science and the environment through extensive media communication and public outreach.

Conducting an interview by email can be dangerous—especially when a journalist is interviewing someone with a publication record as long as Professor Schneider’s. When he tosses three articles at me in response to a question, it, umm, means I have to read them. So. In this interview, I will indicate which of his answers come to us directly via email and which are from previously published sources. Part 1 is completely composed of his email responses.

The first part of our interview is concerned with what is happening now, in May of 2009, regarding climate science and the political debate surrounding it.

Via email:

How would you characterise the state of play regarding scientific discussion regarding anthropogenic contributions to global warming? What is happening in science today that bears on the debate?

Not much change over the past few decades, except nature is cooperating with theory as formerly theoretical projections like heat waves and ice melt is now observed--at faster rates than predicted. All in IPCC and NAS reports. Why ice is melting faster than the models suggest is still not known, but certainly not encouraging!

More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt's Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.

They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them--a petroleum geologist's opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are "winning" why don't they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings--not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute--but with those with real knowledge--because they'd be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol' me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

In terms of U.S. energy policy, do you favor a cap and trade for emissions or a carbon tax? More specifically do you have an opinion on the cap and trade legislation currently under consideration?

They can be made equivalent with good implementation rules. I wrote at Kyoto I preferred a tax and recycle idea--still kind of do, but we need a shadow price on carbon regardless of mechanism--I'll attach my Kyoto editorial on this. (And we’ll look at it in Part II of this interview.)


In general terms, how would you characterise President Obama's energy policy? Is it pointed in the right direction, are the priorities roughly in balance, are the numbers adequate?

He is trying to reverse a big ship headed at a reef—it will take a long time and lots of compromising.

A variety of extreme events have been postulated during the debate about global warming: The death or reversal of the Gulf stream, very rapid melting of the ice covering Greenland or Antarctica leading to dramatic sea level rise, the spread of malaria to areas where it does not currently exist as a threat, etc. How realistic are these potential events? 50%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%?

These are subjective probabilities since there is very little clear empirical base to go on--and since the future by definition has no data before the fact. all are plausible at some probability above that for buying fire insurance--a few percent--and some like Greenland melt seem to be many tens of percent likely for warming much over another degree C.

Why don't Americans care about global warming? Only a third think humans are responsible for it, and most rate it last on a list of concerns.

That is one recent poll--others are not that weak, but it is true of the priority rating. People are confused by a phony media debate in which very dissimilar quality "sides" are given equal time and credibility that average people cannot judge easily. It confuses more than enlightens and thus creates a wait and see response. That is why we have expert assessments to sort out real knowledge from easy claims from special interests on all sides.

What is your best guess as to what will be the progress of temperatures over this century? Which IPCC scenario do you think will play out and what will temperatures be in 2050 and 2100?

No pinned down idea—I have a factor of at least three of uncertainty--as I say in all my writings--I'll attach some. (He did—sigh.) My best guess, 2-4 °C warming by 2100, but if we're very lucky a bit less--and if very unlucky, even more.

Part 2 will look more deeply at the science and will refer to some of Professor Schneider’s more than 500 publications in scientific journals.

Thomas Fuller is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see Thomas's articles on Thomas's Home Page.

Link to interview: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d24-The-global-warming-debates-Stephen-Schneider

Written by fatih al-farahat in


Gordon G. Chang, Forbes, We have a Chinese problem, not a North Korean one. If it weren't for Beijing, Pyongyang would be impotent

We have a Chinese problem, not a North Korean one

If it weren't for Beijing, Pyongyang would be impotent.

pic
Gordon G. Chang

by Gordon G. Chang, Forbes, May 25, 2009

Hours after the Democratic People's Republic of Korea detonated its second atomic device, Beijing condemned the test. "The DPRK conducted another nuclear test in disregard of the common opposition of the international community," a Foreign Ministry statement, issued May 25, noted. "The Chinese government is firmly opposed to this act."

Is that so? Today, China supplies about 90% of North Korea's oil, 80% of its consumer goods and 45% of its food. Beijing is Pyongyang's only formal military ally and its primary backer in the United Nations Security Council and other diplomatic forums. If it weren't for the Chinese, there would be no North Korean missile program, no North Korean nuclear program and no North Korea.

Kim Jong Il, Pyongyang's coldly rational leader, knows he could not survive the loss of China's material and diplomatic support. If Chairman Kim doesn't appear to listen to his sponsors in Beijing in every instance, it's largely because they don't expect obedience each and every time. The Chinese pursue their plan of supporting the North because they know they have influence and can use it at any moment. Kim detonated a nuclear weapon in the last few hours because he knew the Chinese did not object to him doing so. He would not dare cross Beijing on a matter of such critical importance.

For the last eight years, the United States has had a Korea policy that can be described in one word: China. President Bush looked to Beijing to contain Pyongyang and disarm Kim. Yet during his administration the Chinese gave the North Korean leader the one thing he needed most to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them: time. The Chinese counseled patience while the so-called six-party talks, which began in 2003, dragged on, but they failed to broker a solution even though they could have done so.

Many Chinese officials, especially in the Foreign Ministry, know their country's Korea policy is counterproductive in the long run because it will eventually lead to the nuclearization of the region and thereby the marginalization of Beijing's relative power. Yet there is no consensus in the upper echelons of the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army to change long-held policies. Apparently, President Hu Jintao finds Kim useful in the short-term for keeping Japan and South Korea off-balance and in extracting concessions from the United States.

Today, President Obama said North Korea's acts "pose a grave threat to the peace and stability of the world." So what should his administration do? From all accounts, his senior Asia officials feel the United States has no leverage on Beijing. That assessment could not be more wrong. The legitimacy of the Chinese political system rests largely on the continual delivery of prosperity, and that prosperity depends on access to the American market.

In 2008, all but $29.2 billion of China's overall trade surplus of $295.5 billion related to sales to the United States. In 2007, all but $5.9 billion of the overall surplus of $262.2 billion was attributable to sales to America. The United States relies on Beijing to buy American debt, but the Chinese export machine cannot function if China does not buy our obligations. If Beijing does not do so, it will further constrain the American economy. If Beijing further constrains the American economy, Americans will be able to buy even fewer Chinese goods than they are at the moment. If Americans buy fewer Chinese goods, the Chinese economy will fall even faster than it is doing so now. And if the Chinese economy declines any faster, the country's political system will face increased tensions and difficulties.

So the White House has leverage, especially because the balance of power in Asia has shifted decisively toward the United States. In the past, Beijing could stand behind Pyongyang because Tokyo and the so-called "progressive" governments in Seoul--first under Kim Dae-jung and then Roh Moo-hyun--were doing the same. In short, the Japanese and South Koreans, Washington's two principal allies in the region, were giving the Chinese cover to continue with their long-time program of supporting the North.

Yet China's cover did not last. First Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and then South Korea under President Lee Myung-bak got out of the business of propping up Chairman Kim Jong Il. That has left Beijing alone in its support of the abhorrent regime in Pyongyang. In the past, the Chinese have defied Washington when they had company but were almost always cooperative when they did not.

Unfortunately, the Bush White House did not take advantage of changing circumstances in Asia and was unwilling to make China choose between its future--cooperation with the United States and the international community--and its past--relations with Kim's Korea. Today, the Obama administration is making the same fundamental mistake.

President Obama will never have a successful Korea policy until he has a successful Chinese one. North Korea can continue to defy the international community as long as it has Beijing's support. So we don't have a North Korea problem. We have a China one.

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China.

Link to article: http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/25/kim-jong-il-nuclear-china-obama-hu-jintao-opinions-columnists-north-korea.html

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Wolves Running Wild in China

This item is a worthy reminder that all carnivores must be tightly managed. Humanity happens to be a natural prey to all such animals and our historical aggressiveness kept them in fear of us. Unless they caught us alone and vulnerable.

The press loves to push tales of their reappearance in historics regions long since hunted out. This is quite silly. The grizzly had a natural range that reached the banks of the Mississippi. It is now restricted mostly to the Great Bear Rainforest which has its almost inhabitability to recommend it. It is a very safe place to keep them.

My recent reading of Humbolt’s Cosmos informed me that in the rainforest, your constant nightly visitor was the jaguar, kept at bay by the blazing fire kept. And the lions of Africa are denied by a fondness for thorn thickets.

This tale out of China shows just how a pack will identify a source and keep at it until it is wiped out. They stay with the game.

On top of it, wolves are notoriously difficult to hunt. That is why ranchers have resorted to poison.

Of course we now have the Yellowstone pack. I wonder how much public support will remain if a cunning wolf grabs a young child and takes off.

The truth is that the wolf pack of our recent past was a fearsome force during times of famine in the wild. It was quite common for hungry wolves to be driven down into the valleys where dozens would waylay travelers on horseback. We may have insolated ourselves from all that, but the relaxation of our guard demonstrated here is unwise.

China's herders plea for help as wolf packs rampage

by Staff WritersSiziwangqi, China (AFP) May 25, 2009

http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Chinas_herders_plea_for_help_as_wolf_packs_rampage_999.html

Scanning the vast northern China steppe surrounding him, Delger leans on a wooden staff that is his herd's only protection against a lethal enemy that is out there, somewhere.

"They come at night, but you never hear them. When you do hear something, it is the sheep crying out, and by then it's too late," he said.

Delger, 44, has lost six of his 40 sheep in the past two years to stealthy attacks by the wolf packs that roam northern China's Inner Mongolia region.

The wolves were hunted to near extinction in China as Communist leader Mao Zedong encouraged the eradication of an animal viewed as a threat to his utopian efforts to increase agricultural and livestock production.

But mounting attacks by the wolves -- now protected -- have sparked calls by herders and some local governments for resumed hunting of the predator.

"There is not enough protection for us herders now. The wolves cannot be hunted. What about us?" complained Delger, who like many members of China's ethnic Mongolian minority goes by one name.
The attacks have become so frequent that desperate authorities in the Alxa district of Inner Mongolia constructed a 100-kilometre (62-mile) fence last June near the border with the republic of Mongolia.
Alxa herders had lost more than 600 sheep and 300 camels over the preceding two years, state media said. Similar tolls have been reported across Inner Mongolia.

In December, a wolf was spotted along the Great Wall just 50 kilometres from Beijing, the first sighting there in a generation, according to Chinese media.

What remains unclear is the reason for the wolves' boldness.

Government reports and state-controlled media have said all the indicators show wolf populations are on the upswing thanks to environment-protection measures.

But wolf expert Gao Zhongxin said the opposite is likely true.

Wolves are attacking livestock because environmental degradation

, expanding desertification, and human encroachment have reduced their natural prey, said Gao, who has studied the issue for China's Northeast Forestry Institute.

"The number of wolves has probably stabilised but desertification and degeneration of the grassland is increasingly serious and a new threat to the wolves," he told AFP.

The issue is an emotional one in China's ethnic Mongolian border areas due to the powerful symbolism of wolves in traditional Mongol society.

Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan modeled his fierce and highly mobile cavalry on the wolf packs, eventually amassing the largest land empire ever.

Mongol nomads have for centuries battled the wolves to protect their flocks, even while revering them as guardians of the grasslands.

"The wolves are central to Mongol culture, but there are fewer of them now. Young Mongols today do not hear the old wolf stories anymore. That is dying out," author Lu Jiamin told AFP.

Lu, an ethnic Han Chinese who lived with Mongol herders during China's Cultural Revolution, detailed the animals' spiritual connection to the wolves in his acclaimed book "Wolf Totem," written under a pseudonym.

He agrees the stepped-up wolf attacks indicate the animals are under pressure, which he calls a bad sign for China's six million ethnic Mongols, many of whom claim their culture is rapidly dying out under Chinese rule.

So far, proposals to relax the hunting ban have gained no traction, although Gao says illegal hunting is under way in some areas.

For now, Delger keeps his sheep closer to home than before and does not let them roam at night.

He was already under pressure from a recent plunge in mutton prices and says promised government compensation for lost sheep has not come through.

"They used to prey on wild animals," he said of the wolves.

"But now they are preying on us."

Written by fatih al-farahat in , , ,


New Wood Dissolution Process Replaces Krafting

A new method of gently tearing apart the chemical constituents of wood has been discovered.

The historic krafting process is a potent chemical process that operates at over a hundred degrees Celsius. It is not easy to work with at all.

Again this is early days, but once again, this may lend itself to small farm based operations able to ship byproducts such as the lignins.

Up to now, one was forced to dismiss wood waste as much other than an inconvenient handling problem for silviculture. This may help change all that. The idea of the wood waste entering a vat and then exiting later as a liquor or as a baled paper like product has appeal.

Now we have a way that will allow ease of handling and no caustic chemicals to deal with. If it can be limited to a modest vat for batch handling, then it should be possible to produce a farm friendly system.

Something like this can be also used to create a woodlot management system. Chips can be gathered and processed over the year for their product stream that can subsidize the whole enterprise.

Queen's Scientists Discover Eco-Friendly Wood Dissolution

http://www.biofueldaily.com/reports/Queen_Scientists_Discover_Eco_Friendly_Wood_Dissolution_999.html

http://www.biofueldaily.com/images/cellulose-fibre-art-bg.jpg


by Staff Writers

Belfast, UK (SPX) May 22, 2009

\Scientists at Queen's University Belfast have discovered a new eco-friendly way of dissolving wood using ionic liquids that may help its transformation into popular products such as bio fuels, textiles, clothes and paper.

Dr Hector Rodríguez and Professor Robin Rogers from the University's School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering worked along with The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, to come up with a more cost and energy efficient way of processing wood.

Their solution, which is reported in the journal Green Chemistry, may see a new sustainable future for industry based on bio-renewable resources.

At present wood is broken down mainly by the Kraft pulping process, which originates from the 19th century and uses a wasteful technology relying on polluting chemicals.

The key reason for tolerating this method is that it is very difficult to break down and separate the different elements of wood. Until now any alternatives to the process have presented similar problems.
The Queen's researchers found that chips of both softwood and hardwood dissolved completely in ionic liquid and only mild conditions of temperature and pressure were needed. By controlled addition of water and a water-acetone mixture, the dissolved wood was partially separated into a cellulose-rich material and pure lignin.
This process is much more environmentally-friendly than the current method as it uses less heat and pressure and produces very low toxicity while remaining biodegradable.

Professor Robin Rogers said: "This is a very important discovery because cellulose and lignin have a wide variety of uses. Cellulose can be used to make products such as paper, biofuels, cotton and linen, as well as many other commodity materials and chemicals.

"Lignin can be used to create performance additives in various applications, such as strengthening cars and airplanes with a fraction of the weight of conventional reinforcement materials. It is also a source of other chemicals which are mainly obtained from petroleum-based resources."

Dr Hector Rodríguez said: "The discovery is a significant step towards the development of the biorefinery concept, where biomass is transformed to produce a wide variety of chemicals. Eventually, this may open a door to a truly sustainable chemical industry based on bio-renewable resources."

The approaches that the scientists are considering for the future include the addition of eco-friendly additives to the ionic liquid system or the use of catalysts.

The researchers are hoping to eventually achieve better dissolution under even softer conditions and are also trying to achieve complete separation of the different elements in one single step.

Both teams are also focusing on biomasses which are rich in essential oils and can later be used in processes such as the manufacture of fragrances.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Drug Legalization Debate

This article marshals the problems facing society in terms of coming to grips with the ongoing drug abuse prevalent throughout society. That must also include alcohol and tobacco. That marijuana has been positioned as the flash point between the various camps has created the focus of this article.

For the record, I personally abhor the idea of any drug that might affect my mind and judgment and wish that they would all go away. I personally have about one drink a month and I am sure it is because I do not wish to get into debates over why I am a teetotaler.

However, we are at were we are at.

I personally think that the debate is misdirected into a counterproductive confrontational style that has only served the interests of the parasitic bureaucracies and the criminal class.

First, I think all drug use should be simply reclassified as a medical issue first. But then society needs to demand mandatory treatment of those afflicted in order to restore their contribution to society. A few will resist treatment, but the repetition of the process will surely wear them down.

This is actually important. Wartime conscription is an example of mandatory reshaping of people’s lives that stood up well in its benefits to post war development. Applying those lessons could swiftly sort out the present problems that we have with users. And it is something that a society must demand of its citizens. Just as we must pay our taxes, it is also unreasonable for us to conduct our lives in such a way as to be both a burden on the state and our families and to be unable to advance ourselves so that we might contribute.

Knowledge that a negative drug test will fast track you to a conscripted training and work battalion would surely make drug experimentation very unattractive to any youth who does not have serious home problems to begin with.

The law has no place attempting to micro control people’s behavior, but it clearly has a place in establishing expectations and seeing them met. In practice, we should expect a twenty year old to meet the physical fitness levels easily achieved in basic training. The future benefits are manifold in terms of health and future productivity. And such training never needed to be military, nor should it.

Thus a person who has succumbed to drug abuse must be brought back to productive status as a benefit to himself and society. Once that becomes the guiding principle, the remainder of the drug problem will evaporate for lack of support to a residual nub.


Legalize marijuana? Not so fast.

Backers serve up a timely batch of arguments, but their latest reasons are half-baked.

By the Monitor's Editorial Board

The American movement to legalize marijuana for regular use is on a roll. Or at least its backers say it is.
They point to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said in early May that it's now time to debate legalizing marijuana – though he's personally against it. Indeed, a legislative push is on in his state (and several others, such as Massachusetts and Nevada) to treat this "soft" drug like alcohol – to tax and regulate its sale, and set an age restriction on buyers.

Several recent polls show stepped-up public support for legalization. This means not only lifting restrictions on use ("decriminalization"), but also on supply – production and sales. The Obama administration, meanwhile, says the US Drug Enforcement Agency will no longer raid dispensaries of medical marijuana – which is illegal under federal law – in states where it is legal.

The push toward full legalization is a well-organized, Internet-savvy campaign, generously funded by a few billionaires, including George Soros. It's built on a decades-long, step-by-step effort in the states. Thirteen states have so far decriminalized marijuana use (generally, the punishment covers small amounts and involves a fine). And 13 states now allow for medical marijuana.

Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), recently told a Monitor reporter that three reasons account for the fresh momentum toward legalization: 1) the weak economy, which is forcing states to look for new revenue; 2) public concern over the violent drug war in Mexico; and 3) more experience with marijuana itself.

If there is to be a debate, let's look at these reasons, starting with experience with marijuana.

A harmless drug? Supporters of legalization often claim that no one has died of a pot overdose, and that it has beneficial effects in alleviating suffering from certain diseases.

True, marijuana cannot directly kill its user in the way that alcohol or a drug like heroin can. And activists claim that it may ease symptoms for certain patients – though it has not been endorsed by the major medical associations representing those patients, and the Food and Drug Administration disputes its value.

Rosalie Pacula, codirector of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, poses this question: "If pot is relatively harmless, why are we seeing more than 100,000 hospitalizations a year" for marijuana use?

Emergency-room admissions where marijuana is the primary substance involved increased by 164 percent from 1995 to 2002 – faster than for other drugs, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network.
Research results over the past decade link frequent marijuana use to several serious mental health problems, with youth particularly at risk. And the British Lung Foundation finds that smoking three to four joints is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes.

While marijuana is not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence – defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who use pot daily become dependent for some period of time, writes Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, "Pot Politics" – and 1 in 10 people in the US who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time (about the same rate as alcohol). Dr. Sabet was a drug policy adviser in the past two presidential administrations.

He adds that physicians in Britain and the Netherlands – both countries that have experience with relaxed marijuana laws – are seeing withdrawal symptoms among heavy marijuana users that are similar to those of cocaine and heroin addicts. This has been confirmed in the lab with monkeys.

Today's marijuana is also much more potent than in the hippie days of yesteryear. But that doesn't change what's always been known about even casual use of this drug: It distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness. When combined with alcohol (not unusual), or even alone, it worsens the risk of traffic accidents.

Would legalization take the violence out of the Mexican drug war?
NORML likes to point out that marijuana accounts for the majority of illicit drug traffic from Mexico. End the illicit trafficking, and you end the violence. But that volume gives a false impression of marijuana's role in crime and violence, says Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon and a drug-policy adviser in the US and Australia.

It's the dollars that count, and the big earners – cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin – play a much larger role in crime and violence. In recent years, Mexico has become a major cocaine route to the US. That's what's fanning the violence, according to Dr. Caulkins, so legalizing marijuana is unlikely to quiet Mexico's drug war.

Neither are America's prisons stuffed with users who happened to get caught with a few joints (if that were the case, a huge percentage of America's college students – an easy target – would be behind bars). Yes, there are upward of 700,000 arrests on marijuana charges each year, but that includes repeat arrests, and most of those apprehended don't go to jail. Those who do are usually large-scale offenders.
Only 0.7 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons are in for marijuana possession (0.3 percent counting first-time offenders only, according to a 2002 US Justice Department survey). In federal prisons, the median amount of marijuana for those convicted of possession is 115 pounds – 156,000 marijuana cigarettes.

Can marijuana rescue state coffers?

The California legalization bill proposes a $50/ounce tax on marijuana. The aim is to keep pot as close to the black-market price as possible while still generating an estimated $1.3 billion in income for this deficit-challenged state.

But the black market can easily undercut a $50 tax and shrink that expected revenue stream. Just look at the huge trade in illegal cigarettes in Canada to see how taxing can spur a black market (about 30 percent of tobacco bought in Canada is illegal).

A government could attempt to eliminate the black market altogether by making marijuana incredibly cheap (Dr. Pacula at the RAND Organization says today's black market price is about four times what it would be if pot were completely legalized). But then use would skyrocket and teens (though barred) could buy it with their lunch money.

Indeed, legalizing marijuana is bound to increase use simply because of availability. Legalization advocates say "not so" and point to the Netherlands and its legal marijuana "coffee shops." Indeed, after the Dutch de facto legalized the drug in 1976, use stayed about the same for adults and youth. But it took off after 1984, growing by 300 percent over the next decade or so. Experts attribute this to commercialization (sound like alcohol?), and also society's view of the drug as normal – which took a while to set in.

Now the Dutch are finding that normalization has its costs – increased dependence, more dealers of harder drugs, and a flood of rowdy "drug tourists" from other countries. The Dutch "example" should be renamed the Dutch "warning."

As America has learned with alcohol, taxes don't begin to cover the costs to society of destroyed families, lost productivity, and ruined lives – and regulators still have not succeeded in keeping alcohol from underage drinkers.

No one has figured out what the exact social costs of legalizing marijuana would be. But ephemeral taxes won't cover them – nor should society want to encourage easier access to a drug that can lead to dependency, has health risks, and reduces alertness, to name just a few of its negative outcomes.
Why legalize a third substance that produces ill effects, when the US has such a poor record in dealing with the two big "licits" – alcohol and tobacco?

Parents need to resist peer pressure, too.

Legalization backers say the country is at a tipping point, ready to make the final big leap. They hope that a new generation of politicians that has had experience with marijuana will be friendly to their cause.

But this new generation is also made up of parents. Do parents really want marijuana to become a normal part of society – and an expectation for their children?

Maybe parents thought they left peer pressure behind when they graduated from high school. But the push to legalize marijuana is like the peer pressure of the schoolyard. The arguments are perhaps timely, but they don't stand up, and parents must now stand up to them.

They must let lawmakers know that legalization is not OK, and they must carry this message to their children, too. Disapproval, along with information on risk, are the most important factors in discouraging marijuana and cocaine use among high school seniors, according to the University of Michigan's "Monitoring the Future" project on substance abuse.

Parents must make clear that marijuana is not a harmless drug – even if they personally may have emerged unscathed.

And they need to teach the life lesson that marijuana does not really solve personal challenges, be they stress, relationships, or discouragement.

In the same way, a search for joy and satisfaction in a drug is misplaced.

The far greater and lasting attraction is in a life rooted in moral and spiritual values – not in a haze, a daze, or a munchie-craze.

Today's youth are tomorrow's world problem solvers – and the ones most likely to be affected if marijuana is legalized. Future generations need to be clear thinkers. For their sakes, those who oppose legalizing marijuana must become vocal, well-funded, and mainstream – before it's too late.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Lithium Battery Breakthrough

This news could not be better in terms of energy storage technologies. We now have a way to manufacture a composite using nano sized carbon fibers which is also non reactive and permits simple wicking of other substances. We can do this with molten sulphur but what is to stop us from doing the same with any and all other molten elements.

Recall that carbon and here we are working with elemental carbon has the highest melting point of any and all elements. I made use of that obscure fact to argue the existence of a carbon layer slip plane between the earth’s crust and the core. The same fact allows us to create full range of carbon based composites with the various elements.

Thus a woven carbon sheet might be dipped in molten titanium to form an advanced material superior to anything otherwise possible.

This and previously reported advances in lithium battery technology is speeding us toward the super battery that is a full order of magnitude superior to what is now possible.

It used to be that a bright young mind could tear apart a device and sort of figure out how it might work. That day is long past. Now we will be confronted with products whose critical structure will be invisible even under a microscope. Sort of like an UFO.

Major Breakthrough In Lithium Battery Technology

by Staff Writers
Ontario, Canada (SPX) May 21, 2009


http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Major_Breakthrough_In_Lithium_Battery_Technology_999.html

An NSERC-funded lab at the University Of Waterloo has laid the groundwork for a lithium battery that can store and deliver more than three times the power of conventional lithium ion batteries.

The research team of professor Linda Nazar, graduate student David Xiulei Ji and postdoctoral fellow Kyu Tae Lee are one of the first to demonstrate robust electrochemical performance for a lithium-sulphur battery. The finding is reported in the on-line issue of Nature Materials.

The prospect of lithium-sulphur batteries has tantalized chemists for two decades, and not just because successfully combining the two chemists delivers much higher energy densities.

Sulphur is cheaper than many other materials currently used in lithium batteries. It has always showed great promise as the ideal partner for a safe, low cost, long lasting rechargeable battery, exactly the kind of battery needed for energy storage and transportation in a low carbon emission energy economy.

"The difficult challenge was always the cathode, the part of the battery that stores and releases electrons in the charge and recharge cycles," said Dr. Nazar. "To enable a reversible electrochemical reaction at high current rates, the electrically-active sulphur needs to remain in the most intimate contact with a conductor, such as carbon."

The Canadian research team leap-frogged the performance of other carbon-sulphur combinations by tackling the contact issue at the nanoscale level.

Although they say the same approach could be used with other materials, for their proof of concept study they chose a member of a highly structured and porous carbon family called mesoporous carbon. At the nanoscale level, this type of carbon has a very uniform pore diameter and pore volume.

Using a nanocasting method, the team assembled a structure of 6.5 nanometre thick carbon rods separated by empty three to four nanometre wide channels. Carbon microfibres spanning the empty channels kept the voids open and prevented collapse of the architecture.

Filling the tiny voids proved simple. Sulphur was heated and melted. Once in contact with the carbon, it was drawn or imbibed into the channels by capillary forces, where it solidified and shrunk to form sulphur nanofibres.

Scanning electron microscope sections revealed that all the spaces were uniformly filled with sulphur, exposing an enormous surface area of the active element to carbon and driving the exceptional test results of the new battery.

"This composite material can supply up to nearly 80 percent of the theoretical capacity of sulphur, which is three times the energy density of lithium transition metal oxide cathodes, at reasonable rates with good cycling stability," said Dr. Nazar.

What is more, the researchers say, the high capacity of the carbon to incorporate active material opens the door for similar "imbibed" composites that could have applications in many areas of materials science.

The research team continues to study the material to work out remaining challenges and refine the cathode's architecture and performance.

Dr. Nazar said a patent has been filed, and she is reviewing options for commercialization and practical applications.