Dissident Scientist

Nuclear Weapon Research, the University of California, and Bechtel

2006-04-07T23:28:00.000-07:00

The basis of nuclear weapons is the release of massive amounts of energy triggered by the fission or fusion of the nucleus - that central portion of all atoms. This was discovered by a number of scientists in the first half of the twentieth century - people like Lise Mietner, Otto Hahn, Leo Szilard, Madam Curie, and so on. Like most scientific discoveries, it came about due to the work of a great number of people, most of whom initially had no idea that their work would spawn the most destructive weaponry the planet had ever seen. They were concerned with the basic structure of matter - what are atoms made of?

The curve of binding energy is the curve that describes the relative 'desire' of atomic nuclei of different types to fission (split in two) or fuse (join together); for elements lower in atomic number the iron, the tendency is towards fusion; above iron, the tendency is towards fission. This issue is much less scary if we think about the evolution of the universe, which began as nothing but hydrogen. Physical processes in stars lead to the fusion of hydrogen to form helium, and more and more fusion up to the formation of iron. How then, might one ask, did the trans-ferric elements form (going past iron) if their tendency is to fission? According to stellar cosmologists and nuclear physicists, the answer is supernovae - the gravitational collapse of massive stars, during which the massive pressures involved lead to synthesis of the heavy elements.

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are made using two very heavy elements : uranium or plutonium. The fission of these heavy elements releases massive amounts of energy in the form of light and heat. Even the so-called thermonuclear or fusion weapons are built with a fission bomb at their core, which then triggers the fusion of heavy hydrogen isotopes, releasing even more energy. The first nuclear weapons, of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki era, were a thousand times less powerful than the current generation of thermonuclear weapons. Thanks to all this wonderful scientific progress, human beings now have the ability to turn the surface of the planet into a poisonous irradiated landscape. Not much has changed in this regard; people are still quite crazy.

What is rather odd, if not just plain crazy, is that the Bush administration is pushing nuclear weapons research as well as the spread of nuclear reactors on a global basis Witness the recent nuclear agreement with India, which Condi Rice is pushing as hard as she can. What exactly the terms of that contract are remains mysterious, and it is difficult to discover who are the actual beneficiaries are. My guess is that certain US engineering firms with experience in nuclear power construction are going to be getting even richer then they already are. None of the US plants have been economic successes, but the costs have simply been passed on to the public through higher electricity bills.

This brings us to the nuclear weapons research program in the United States. Managed for decades by the University of California, that management is now a 'joint partnership' between the UC and the engineering firm Bechtel, who you may have heard about from their work in Iraq. Currently UC-Bechtel manages the Los Alamos branch of the weapons program; in a few weeks they will submit their bid for the Lawrence Livermore branch of the weapons program. It appears that the Bush administration has made it very clear to the UC that they only way they will get to continue running the nuclear weapons labs is if they continue their partnership with Bechtel. Take a look at Bechtel's record in Iraq- lucrative no-bid reconstruction contracts went right into Bechtel's pockets - not that they did much very much reconstruction other then slapping some paint here and there. Bechtels other business interests include the privatization of water supplies on a global basis; they were just kicked out of Bolivia for trying to do this, and now apparently have turned their sights on California's water supply (a more lucrative market then Bolivia, by all accounts).

Let's get back to science, however and consider why the spread of nuclear energy for electricity generation is such a bad idea. Nuclear power is based on low-level fission of uranium isotope 235. In this process, heat and neutrons are released; the heat is used to boil water driving steam turbines which generate electricity. The problems in terms of nuclear weapon proliferation are two-fold. While nuclear reactors need U-235 that is enriched to 2-3% of the total uranium (most of which is isotope U-238) in order to operate, nuclear weapons need ~66% enrichment of U-235 to sustain the runaway chain reaction that is a nuclear blast. However, if you have access to enrichment technology there is nothing to stop you from taking a 2% enriched uranium sample up to a 66% enriched sample. The second problem is that the neutrons released from U-235 in the course of the nuclear reaction slam into the U-238 isotopes, creating plutonium. Now, plutonium does not need to be enriched in order to make a weapon! You can use it as is. Thus the spread of nuclear power means the spread of raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons. One operating reactor can therefore produce enough material every year for some given number of bombs - and this in an era of international terrorism and nation-state instability.

To sum it up, someone has a screw loose in our government. I'd like to put it down to sheer stupidity mixed with greed; that's a more pleasant notion then some sinister plot to start a nuclear war, which I find unlikely. The idea that a private company is managing the national nuclear weapons program, especially one with a track record of corrupt insider deals with the Bush administration, is really insane. What really tops it all off is that they want to do research on building a 'new generation' of 'tactical nuclear weapons' - I mean this is beyond the pale! The old ones apparently weren't enough? You can't make this stuff up - and where is the US mainstream media on this issue? You think it would be an important topic; you think some journalist would have been sent out to cover this by their editor, but no - not a word is spoken. Unreal.

Avian Bird Flu, Tamiflu and Epidemiology

2006-04-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

Nature magazine had a good review some tiime ago on epidemics, mostly about SARS. They discuss the issue of 'population-wide' versus 'individual-targeted' means of halting epidemics. For the purposes of today's blog, note that dealing with individuals requires a lot of manpower: doctors, nurses and a whole host of assistants. The conclusion of the nature article is that individual means are preferred - this means tracking individual cases, identitfying 'hot spots' where high rates of infectious transmission occur, and so on. Access to this article may be limited, but here's the issue:

Nature magazine issue

Now, on to the Avian Bird Flu issue. Once again we see how easily the US population is manipulated by the media. Inducing fear in the population is the basis of all propaganda control techniques, and the bird flu scare has the side benefit of being very profitable for a number of pharmaceutical companies with close links to the Bush Administration. Bush wants to give (has given?) about seven billion dollars to Rumsfeld's old company to purchase Tamiflu- patented by Gilead, a Bay Area pharma company. Donald Rumsfeld was the Chairman of the Board of Gilead (i.e the owner) from 1997-2001, interestingly enough, and still holds stock in the company. Their share price, last I checked, went from $35 to $47 a chair - nice jump, especially for those who had the insider line. Maybe Mr Rumsfeld got upset about the fat handouts Cheney's Halliburton has received from the government, and has put the pressure on to get a little cash flow headed his way. Gilead owns the intellectual property rights to Tamiflu but has licensed them to Roche, the manufacturer of the drug.

Consider the following facts about avian bird flu:

First of all, there is minimal human-to-human transfer of avian bird flu - the problem with bird flu is that it could wipe out many poultry farms - a significant economic impact. Canada is suffering an outbreak right now and is initiating a massive bird kill in the industry. Unlike SARS, which was transferred from person to person, human cases of bird flu are due to close proximity to birds - touching and inhaling feathers, feces, skins, etc.

Secondly, one main propaganda strategy has been to focus on the 1918 'Spanish swine flu' epidemic. That virus has been recovered and reconstitued by some very misguided scientists for 'further study' and will now be shipped around the world, according to Nature magazine. This is just insane. At least, if the virus is released we will know where it came from thanks to gene sequencing. Note that the 1918 epidemic was spurred along by the horrible conditions of World War I and the general poor hygiene that existed at the time. This was a horrible event, and has been recorded in books like "The Devils Flu" by Pete Davies. Flu spread rapidly through the atrocious war hospitals of the era, as did non-viral bacterial infections like tuberculosis - in fact, the flu epidemic may have been a major factor contributing to the end of the war. Good epidemiological practices seem to have been almost non-existent. By constrast, the WHO has called China's response to avian bird flu 'almost textbook'.

Thirdly, these drugs are not as effective as claimed and have potential negative side effects. For a general scientific overview of how these drugs work, see this website: Flu Drugs

Viruses function by infecting cells and directing those cells to make more copies of the virus; the virus then exits the infected cell and goes on to repeat the cycle. Tamiflu is a neuraminidase inhibitor; what this means is that it inhibits the action of an enzyme that aids in the release of the new viral particles from the infected cells. Thus, it slows the process down - by about a day. Viruses can mutate; certain mutations would render tamiflu would be useless. This is due to the molecular and structural interactions between the drug and the enzyme. Tamiflu is not a 'magic bullet' and may not even work for a new flu variant. Did it prevent deaths in China and Vietnam? Nope.

Finally, the correct response to an outbreak of disease relies on the public health system of emergency rooms, doctors, and emergency contingency plans. Check with your local hospital - they generally have some plan for what to do if emergency room visits suddenly increase a 100-fold (this is what would happen in the case of an epidemic or a biowarfare attack). However, the Bush Administration doesn't believe in public services and so they have earmarked billions of dollars to go to big pharma. Once again, the Bush Administration doles out cash to its little circle of friends while ignoring the interests of the American people. The bottom line is this: to prepare for a public emergency like an epidemic or a biowarfare attack, you need an effective system in place consisting of well-trained and dedicated public servants backed up by a minimal amount of raw manpower. Hurricane Katrina showed just how ineffective and incompetent this crony-dominated Bush regime really is.

If you want more information on flu, take a look at this quality interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm:

Bird Flu Interview

Here is a brief quote from that interview:

"CP: The one easy-to-use drug that's been shown to arrest H5N1 in humans is Tamiflu—

Osterholm: Well, that's not really true. There's no evidence that it makes a difference in H5N1 infection. I have a slide here showing that the case mortality rate in Vietnam was identical for those who got Tamiflu and those who didn't. I actually believe Tamiflu could work, but the problem is, we're applying it in the H3N2 [average seasonal flu] model. Seasonal flu grows up much slower in a human, so that if you get the drug into somebody two days after their onset, you can still have a pretty measurable impact on the severity of their illness and the likelihood they'll have complications. With the H5N1 virus, the virus storm that precedes the cytokine storm is so remarkable in those first 24 hours that if you don't have the drug onboard in those first 24 hours, it may only have limited impact."

Corruption, cronyism, and dishonest manipulation of science: hallmarks of the Bush administration.

Cannabis, Pain Modulation and Big Pharma

2006-04-03T10:58:00.000-07:00

Cannabis sativa is more popularly known as marijuana and has been a subject of some controversy. It is widely used as an illicit substance, yet also has a long history of use as a medicinal compound all over the world. Over the past few decades, the scientific basis of the active effects has been established; like other drugs, its action is due to interaction with cell membrane receptors (known as CB1 and CB2 in the scientific literature). The story of the discovery of these receptors is somewhat similar to the discovery of the human opiate receptors (which are involved in the pain-relieving and addictive effects of morphine, heroin, and all the legal opiate derivatives). The internal, naturally occuring compund that stimulates the CB1/CB2 receptors has also been identified and has been named anandamide.

One central medical use of cannabis is in pain relief. Unlike the opiates (which are foar more powerful in this regard), cannabis demonstrates a lack of physical addiction, which is the central problem with the opiate compounds. Despite decades of research aimed at developing a non-addictive opiate compound, the addictive nature of opiates has been impossible to eliminate. Legal prescription opiate compounds are all addictive. Cannabis, however, while being a milder analgesic, is not habit forming in the way that opiates are. If a habitual cannabis user stops use, physical withdrawal symptoms are not observed.

So, why hasn't cannabis become a legally available prescription compound, available at drugstores across the country? Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in cannabis because it is not patentable - it is a naturally occurring herb which does not need to be chemically modified (unlike the recent pain medication, Vioxx, which was eventually withdrawn from the market due to severe side effects). In fact, legaliation of cannabis would certainly cut heavily into Big Pharma's bottom line as people switched away from dangerous patented pain medications to this naturally occurring herbal medication.

In examining this issue, we really see the extent of the propaganda culture which has developed in this country. The main resistance to cannabis legalization appears to be social in nature; the powers that be don't like the 'culture' associated with cannabis use. This is not a sound scientific rationale. The fact of the matter is that marijuana is a safe herbal remedy, and while people can certainly smoke to much of this, to the detriment of their short-term memory, responsible use is far less dangerous then drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. In addition, the medical benefits include pain suppression and appetite stimulation - a great benefit for cancer chemotherapy patients, HIV patients and many others.

We really see that Big Pharma has had an undue influence on medical therapy in this country; this is to be expected since they rely on patented products sold at exorbitant rates to a uninformed public. If you want to read more on this topic, I highly recommend the book, Generation RX by Greg Critser. Also try your local bookseller.

Global warming, weather and propaganda tactics

2006-04-02T06:36:00.000-07:00

Global warming has been one of the most economically contentious issues in history. The reason is that the industrial and agricultural growth of the past century has largely been fueled by fossil carbon energy sources: natural gas, petroleum and coal. When these hydrocarbon compounds are ignited in the presence of oxygen, a great deal of heat is released to the local environment.

This was known thousands of years ago; the scientific discoveries of the 19th century demonstrated how heat could be converted to mechanical work, and how there was a quantity called 'energy' that was conserved in that process (Isaac Newton based much of his work on the conservation of momentum, but he didn't know about energy - that was discovered experimentally by people like Joule). Thus, energy is a relatively recent scientific concept. In any case, the conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy allowed for the construction of the steam engine and the internal combustion engine.

The internal combustion engine became the global basis of transportation. Engines can burn any hydrocarbon fuel, including peanut oil, ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen, biodiesel and petrodiesel, etc. As long as the fuel explodes in the piston chamber, the engine will run. Of course, engines are tuned to specific fuels; this depends on the specific chemistry of the fuel - diesel engines are designed differently then ethanol-gasoline engines, for example. Good fuels also leave little residue in the engine. In all cases, what comes out of the engine is water and carbon dioxide - the chemical products of hydrocarbon and oxygen combustion.

Let's consider heat a little more carefully. In the 19th century it was known that a body can lose heat through conduction (through a solid surface), through convection (wind chill, for example), and through radiation (massless photon-based transfer of energy, as in a light bulb). The Earth sits in space, so the only way the planet loses energy is through radiation. Our atmosphere serves as a blanket: infrared radiation from the planetary surface hits water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases in the atmosphere, which absorb those photons and start jiggling about. Heat is then re-radiated in all directions, including back to the surface.

So - if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you increase this heat trapping effect. Water vapor is also important -drive out to the desert - you will find it is blazing hot during the day, but freezing cold at night. This is because there is little water vapor to trap the day's heat; the energy from the hot desert surface radiates away to space at night. Warm air, by the way, can hold more water vapor then cold air.

The dynamics of wind, atmospheric pressure and water vapor make up what we refer to as weather; we can only predict the weather about a week or so into the future. Climate is the seasonally averaged weather, which is far more predictable - although you absolutely lose the fine resolution when you look at climate vs. weather. The role of the oceans in climate, as well as of the ice sheets and the biosphere, makes the whole subject incredibly complex.

As we pump more and more fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere, we end up warming the atmosphere; this warms the oceans and assists in melting ice sheets in Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, etc. This latter effect, along with thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands slightly when heated) leads to a rise in sea level. A warm atmosphere can also hold more water vapor, increasing the warming effect and leading to more large, violent storms (as in Katrina).

To slow this down, the only solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and to develop alternative and renewable energy sources, from wind to solar to sum-zero CO2 biofuels. Nuclear energy is not renewable, by the way, and who wants a reactor meltdown in their backyard? Of course, this runs into the thorny problem of the energy businesses and their poitical control of governments. Something like 60% of Wall Street underwriting is in the fossil fuel and energy industry, and they don't want to stop making billions in profits, even if it means screwing over future generations.

The fossil fuel industry has therefore mounted a vast PR campaign whose primary goal is to prevent any government regulation of CO2 emissions, and they seem happy to use any dishonest and misleading tactic that they can come up with. What can I say? Disgusting greedy behavior is what I see. I must also admit that I dislike propaganda tactics, regardless of who is using them or for what purpose. Self-styled scientists who engage in this kind of propaganda remind me of religious figures who engage in child abuse - a perversion of basic principles.

If you want to study the scientific details, the site Real Climate has ongoing discussions of the latest climate research (at a technically advanced level) as well as links to many other sites on climate.

Britain calls for home micropower generation

2006-03-30T09:24:00.000-08:00

Even though the US and Britain have been lagging far behind Germany and Japan when it comes to renewable energy generation, there is hope on the horizon. However, the horizon seems to stay where it is. The general mantra of the energy-linked government institutions has been 'more research is needed' even though the renewable energy research budget in the USA has been stripped bare. This kind of propaganda is extremely disappointing; the truth of the matter is that today's technology is already highly advanced. The real need is to go beyond research and to move into actual development of renewable energy resources - this means building more wind turbine factories and more solar panel factories.

The assault on wind power and solar power has taken a number of forms. Wind has been attacked as 'anti-environmentalist' even though coal-fired and nuclear-powered electricity generation pose far more risks to the environment. Who funds these attacks? The fossil fuel lobby, of course, which is still desperately trying to stimulate demand for fossil fuels by using virulent attacks, blatant disinformation, and a whole host of related tactics including pressuring government officials and elected politicians.

Here are some links to the BBC reports on the issue in Britain:

microgeneration in Britain
some problems with the plan
electricity calculator

The electricity calculator is an interesting toy but I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

Here in the United States (California in particular) the behind-the-scenes attempts to sabotage renewable energy development continue unabated. Conservative think tanks are busy attacking the plan at the behest of their sponsors (the fossil fuel lobby and their billions in profits); here is one example of the smear tactics being used:
conservative think tank smear campaign.

Microgeneration is a great idea; it is just part of a larger movement to turn people's homes into sustainable dwellings. Food and energy can both be produced in people's homes (of course it helps a lot if you actually own your own home, rather then renting!). Government should be doing all it can to support this entirely reasonable idea. The big energy corporations can be expected to fight this tooth and nail, as it will cut into their markets. The fact that big business interests have such a huge influence on the mainstream media is going to make it more difficult then it should be - but renewable energy is the only rational response to peak oil and global warming. Good luck to you!

Methamphetamine and Big Pharma

2006-03-27T10:03:00.000-08:00

This post deals with the issue of drug abuse, and explains why it should be a public health issue rather then a criminal issue. It also explains some of the culpability of Big Pharma in the high rates of drug abuse in the US.

Methamphetamine is a powerful stimulant derived from amphetamine - a stimulant first synthesized in the mid-1930's and sold under the brand name Benzedrine. Traditional use of the Chinese herb ma huang containing the very similar compound ephedrine goes back many centuries. Ephedrine itself is a chemical mimic of the naturally produced biochemical, adrenaline or epinephrine. This substance is released as part of the 'fight or flight response' in mammals under stress or due to fear. The biological effects of adrenaline include an increase in heart rate, suppression of appetite, heightened awareness of surroundings, an increase in muscular strength, and dilation of the lungs for better air intake. This last effect in particular is the reason that adrenaline-related drugs are effective treatments for asthma sufferers.

In this case, we have an interesting example of the development of pharmaceutical drugs starting with herbal products. The scientific name of ma huang is the genus Ephedra (many species contain the active compound). This herb has traditionally been to treat asthma, bronchitis and nasal congestion problems. It is also included in modern 'herbal supplements' for weight loss or improving athletic performance, although it is one of many banned substances in Olympic and many professional sports. Studies have shown that this herb needs to be used with great caution. Serious medical side effects may include cardiac effects and rapid increases in blood pressure; headaches and irrititability may occur at lower dosages. Ephedrine is the primary active compounds in Ephedra species, and they served as the basis for the development of a whole series of active amphetamine compounds.

The first derivative of Ephedra was amphetamine, marketed as Benezedrine in inhalers. Remarkably, these inhalers were readily available over the counter in the 30's and 40's with no more restrictions then aspirin. I believe they were even marketed as a cure for cocaine addiction! They were also widely used by college students to stay up and cram for exams. People rapidly discovered that they could open the inhalers and ingest the contents orally, producing a more intense physical and mental effect. We will see that this phenomenon, the abuse of legal drugs by students, still continues today. These drugs were also heavily used by all military forces in World War II, resulting in many cases of amphetamine-addicted soldiers.

Addiction is a phenomenon that can have both physical and mental components, but in the case of amphetamine the rapid onset effect seems important. This is the difference between slowly sipping a beer and drinking several shots of hard liquor in rapid succession. One component of addiction appears to be this 'rapid onset' effect, which may trigger numerous biochemical pathways. The addict tends to crave this 'sudden high' and as a result will often try to concentrate whatever substance they are addicted to in order to achieve the 'maximum effect'. Drinking hard liquor, injecting opium derivatives with hypodermic syringes, smoking cocaine freebase, and grinding up medications and 'snorting' them through nasal passages are all examples of this phenomenon. This subject is not widely discussed, perhaps because it applies equally to legal substances, illegal substances, and prescription medications.

Methamphetamine is a derivative of amphetamine. The general structures of these compounds are all very similar and they activate similar biochemical pathways in the human body. All contain a six-carbon ring linked to an amine (nitrogen group). All derivatives of amphetamine are based on these key elements of the naturally occuring adrenaline structure. This includes methylphenidate (Ritalin), fenfluramine, methamphetamine, bupropion (Wellbutrin), etc. What is remarkable when one looks at the structure of the different drugs and the legal status of these drugs is there is a huge difference in legal status and usage of these drugs - methylphenidate is widely given to children as a treatment for 'attention deficit disorder', while methamphetamine is viewed as the worst drug problem that exists in California. Since these drugs target the same biochemical pathways in humans, it is not at all clear to me what the basis for the legal distictions is. It is also not clear whether or not childood use of methyphenidate leads to an increased risk factor for methamphetamine addiction as an adult. In other cases, drugs such as bupropion are regularly abused by methamphetamine addicts who grind the pills (intended for oral intake and slow release) into powder and snort or inject them for the 'maximum high'. Here is a comparison of methamphetamine and Ritalin: comparisons.

Regardless of the background of these drugs, methamphetamine abuse is a serious problem in California. My first encounter with meth abuse occured when I was a freshman in a rural California high school. I saw one of the older students picking repeatedly at his nose one day and I asked him what was the matter. He showed me the hole in the septum separating his nasal passages, and how he could pass a piece of tissue paper through the hole. He said it was because he had been 'doing too much crank'. As a result, I never had the slightest inclination to try methamphetamine, which was widely available at my high school.

I must admit that I am also very suspicious of the use of amphetamine derivatives to treat hyperactive children. I feel that most of these children are actually highly intelligent and are simply bored with our modern society. If you sit down in front of a television and try and absorb what passes for popular culture in our society, you might find yourself needing a stimulant in order to pay attention as well. I do recall that the vast majority of my own teachers were incredibly boring; the ones who weren't certainly stand out in my memory. It is also interesting that this 'disorder' is modern in nature; what did parents do before amphetamines were invented? I can already hear a roar of outrage from child pyschiatrists, but I would urge them to consider their own training, which has been so heavily influenced by profit-motivated pharmaceutical companies.

One important issue in methamphetamine abuse is the role of alcohol and marijuana in the lives of methamphetamine users. The classic 'meth head' will often injest large amounts of hard liqour in the course of methamphetamine use; these binges can go on for days. The meth keeps the user up so that he or she can drink more liquor. At the end of the binge, a 'crash' is the result. Many methamphetamine users will keep a large quantity of marijuana on hand, which they will use to 'recover' from the binge. Now, most of these meth addicts were told as children that marijuana is just as bad as methamphetamine. When they try marijuana for the first time, they find that its effects are fairly mild and innocuous, much like the effect of drinking a few beers. At this point, they realize that they have been misinformed by the educational system, which tends to constantly promote the dangers of marijuana use. They then start thinking, very erroneously, that other drugs must not be so bad either. This leads to the use of cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin, which have very serious side effects and which are extremely bad for the abuser's health. An experienced physican can identify and distinguish heroin and methamphetamine addicts on sight. Opiate use tends to bring a sweaty sheen to the user's skin, for example, and amphetamine use generally leads to characteristic acne-like skin problems, as well as weight loss. When I see a child with this kind of acne, I often wonder if they are being prescribed amphetamines.

This is why I believe that the legalization of the plant Cannabis sativa , more widely known as marijuana, would lead to a decrease in the abuse of dangerous drugs in California. It should be treated the same way that alcohol is today, with serious penalties for sale or delivery to minors, and with high taxes on it sale. I strongly believe that this would end marijuana's current status as a 'gateway drug'. Currently, marijuana is a gateway to the acceptance of illegal behavior. Marijuana smokers become criminals in their own eyes once they smoke a little of this relatively innocuous herb, and as any criminologist knows, once you think of yourself as a criminal you start thinking about breaking all sorts of laws. Reformation of marijuana laws is thus a critical step in reducing the incidence of methamphetamine abuse in California.

The Renewable Energy Grid: A Long Way To Go

2006-03-25T01:19:00.000-08:00

Energy - electricity - the mysterious force that comes out of your wall socket. Well, there are endless textbooks and popular science tracts on electric current, the history of electricity, electrical engineering, etc.

Let's assume that we can get off fossil fuels for electricty generation and switch entirely to solar and wind generatd electricity. This creates a new problem in the power grid - the intermittent supply. Solar and wind are captured according to natures dictates - solar in the daytime when the sun is visible, and wind - well, that is more complex, but it is definitely not on demand. However, we all like to use the majority of our power at night - lights, computers, DVD players, etc. The problem is that the grid will have to be able to store this captured energy in a convenient form.

If you consider a plant, it has the same problem. Plants solve this by converting the intial solar electric current generated via chlorophyll (bound in light-harvesting protein super-complexes), water, sunlight, and the photosynthetic reaction center (electrons are stripped off of water and flow through plant cell membranes during the initial stages of photosynthesis). The end result, however, is storage of this power in chemical form - as sugars, fats, proteins, etc.

So, we need a new kind of 'load-balancing' power plant that is (a) capable of storing massive amounts of electrical energy (imagine a million solar roofs, for example, in one city) and (b) capable of delivering that energy on demand. This is quite a bit different from the traditional gas or coal fired power plant. These plants tend to operate at a given 'baseline load' and if more power demand exists, additional plants are brought online. Obviously, this requires a lot of coordination of power delivery (and since there is only one power grid, it makes one wonder what 'competition' or 'independent' means in the electricity business). New plants will have to be able to 'run in reverse' - to store electrical power in mechanical or chemical form (even in giant capacitors? That would actually be direct storage of electricity), and then efficiently convert that stored energy back to electric current.

Here is one notion: fuel cells, electrolyzers, and hydrogen/water closed loop systems. Fuel cells are not going into cars anytime soon, but they may be very feasible as power-plant type operations. During the day, you need an efficent method of using electricity to generate hydrogen from water (a good electrolyzer system for converting H2O to O2 + H2). Do this on a very large scale, and you might be able to fill up tanks with hydrogen(H2). During the night, when demand increases, run the fuel cell, generate power, and start the whole process again the next day. This is just one possible solution. Flywheels (mechanical storage) could also be effective. In any case, if you are going to power the grid using renewables, you will need something like this.

Unfortunately, we are very far away from such a system. It would mean the end of coal-fired electricity, which would be good for many reasons, the most important of which is global climate change. It would provide a lot of jobs, on the other hand, and a whole new energy sector whould have to develop itself. This would need government subsidies and support to get started - but who controls the U.S. government today? Fossil fuel interests and the associated investment banks and mutual funds, is who. Hmmm... perhaps we all need to take a good long look in the mirror... Of course, the government claims to be devoted to alternative energy (can I have some more switchgrass, please?), while slashing the budget for renewable R&D again. This indicates that the problem is also that we live in a propaganda state - and accurate science threatens such regimes for the same reason that Gallileo's work threatened the Papal Authority - the notion that you can find things out for yourself is dangerous to the totalitarian ruler.

Why I decided to write a blog

2006-03-21T16:38:00.000-08:00

Why write a blog with the title, "dissident scientist"?

My main concern these days is the corruption of information. There are many reasons to want an unsullied information stream, especially if one is a scientist. Why engage in the scientific activity at all, you might wonder? I like science for many reasons, not least of which is that it is intrinsically profoundly anti-authoritarian and democratic in nature. One does not need the blessing of the Pope to conduct a simple scientific experiment or to analyze the data collected from that experiment.

I find it quite delightful that any person can study science, that any authority can be debunked, that no cow is sacred - within the limited region of scientific inquiry. Let me explain that last thought - I can't stand science when it adopts a religious tone or when individuals trot out 'scientific explanations' for religion, law, and society. Science addresses questions of the 'what and how' variety, not the 'why are we here' variety.

For example: what is light? and how is light generated? are valid scientific questions. Why is there light?, on the other hand, is not a scientific question. I will view such questions as religious or philosophical in nature; philosophy, by this view, is secular religion. I also detest religion when it attempts to tell science 'what to believe" - to which my reply is, "mind your own business!". Whether it was the Pope persecuting Gallileo or the fundamentalist evangelists attacking basic biological science, it is always a bad mixture.

My underlying belief is that scientific inquiry should exist as an independent branch of our society - like the courts, or the legislative and executive branches, the media, business interests, etc. When science comes under the control of totalitarian states or military and business interests it falls apart and becomes mere technology. Unfortunately for the United States, the scientific enterprise is under an unprecedented assault by short-sighted business and government interests, and has been for some decades now. The result will be the eventual decimation of science in this country unless the trend is reversed.

Finally, I also believe that ordinary people are smart enough to understand complex scientific arguments if said arguments are delivered in a clear, logical and engaging manner. The notion of the 'academic elite' is just patently false. The idea that scientists could turn into the new 'high priests' of our society is particularly repugnant to me. The use of 'expert testimony' in the commercial media is a classic example of this kind of perversion of scientific principles, especially when it is used to bamboozle the public on a wide variety of issues - pharmaceuticals, global warming, nuclear power, ozone depletion, energy production technologies, information technologies, domestic spying technologies, etc. etc. etc.

My general areas of scientific interest and limited 'expertise' are renewable energy, pharmaceutical drugs, green plant photosynthesis and climate change - topics that are intimately woven up with business and government interests in the modern era. What to write about first?