Giant Thermoelectric Effect from Transmission Supernodes

We are presently mastering the art of fabricating devices at the molecular level and using the fine detail to produce useful effects.  Here we are converting heat into electricity and from the description they are beginning to see astounding efficiencies.  

Obviously, there is no end of applications when one understands that just about everything we do produces thermal energy or more correctly, it wastes thermal energy.

This makes an energy future with even zero wastage at least a talking point and progressively more practical.  As costs drop more waste energy will be captured and used.

We have already made the point many times that our gasoline engines are struggling to capture as little as twenty five percent of the available energy.  From so low a conversion base, a modest improvement provides huge energy.  This is why I have posted often on energy efficiency issues when discussing limits in fuel supplies.

The easiest fix for strained supplies happens to be getting all that is actually been already used.  This technology shows us that it may even be possible.

Giant Thermoelectric Effect from Transmission Supernodes

SEPTEMBER 26, 2010

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/giant-thermoelectric-effect-from.html

 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDYPfjtTJcu4umXBJaj6LkL20Z-gUaR-o6GyW6Wcz3Kp9VRDXBWqcmKUz96EIhD-Z6vA_QDAggl57pU5jAMoj3Csa2Sr3rHPabBiREHJufXIMj2bhAFB4tEc0r43F4epK0gQwmb4-ZsXg/s320/supernodeZT.png

University of Arizona researchers predict an enormous order-dependent quantum enhancement of thermoelectric effects in the vicinity of a higher-order ‘supernode’ in the transmission spectrum of a nanoscale junction. Single molecule junctions based on 3,3’-biphenyl and polyphenyl ether (PPE) are investigated in detail.

If a TE material were found exhibiting ZT over 4 it would constitute a commercially viable solution for many heating and cooling problems at both the macro- and nanoscales, with no operational carbon footprint. Currently, the best TE materials available in the laboratory exhibit ZT about 3, whereas for commercially available TE devices ZT are 1, owing to various packaging and fabrication challenges.

The predicted peak ZT could be 50 if the many body theoretical work is accurate for 30 phenyl groups. If there were 100 phenyl groups then the ZT would be 100.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV-RGcgTsNWGCWPUIN1keOxlHTMHtOd-2inDKxVNKodxhxweWbwmGpSWK90v6Ep_Rl1Nb8tXR-qNljbz9V2-Y_n-p49nMa3JZYqRjSteopg2azzJRijGFXJ5TjVr9Fts5IHJY97JaiIwU/s320/nn-2010-00490g_0009.gif

Thermoelectric devices based on individual single-molecule junctions (SMJs) are ideally suited for local cooling in integrated nanoscale circuit architectures. Supernode-based devices have allow transmission probability and thus a large electrical impedance capable of withstanding voltage surges. Moreover, high-power macroscopic devices could be constructed by growing layers of densely packed molecules. For example, a self-assembled monolayer with a surface density of 4×10^15molecules/cm2 would give 352kW/cm2 at peak efficiency for a meta-benzene film. The efficiency of PPE-based devices increases with ring number and is only limited by the electronic coherence length, suggesting that highly efficient molecular-based thermoelectric devices may soon be realized.

 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPNCsKGOEsUtoxA6a2yrRvnK4UigffLuQXs4Fhy_uvVcHXMh776tKSpCjVQZ4cVsfVQGjdA-1dGjyNzANvAGhB-dWtPR0twhAqChg8oRuWtGlScCoHt7G4_Km5xx4F-nLQ7T8V5Zyfizk/s320/bestvsthermoelectric.jpg

Getting better than ZT of 5 is better than any small engine or generator using smaller temperature differentials.

Getting better than ZT of 20 is better than almost any existing engine or generator that we have now.

Getting to ZT of 50 or 100 and the actual energy efficiency of the conversion of heat to electricity would be very close to Carnot efficiency. There would be very little practical difference in the percentage of conversion that was not being captured.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgffL_2US3d4W_hQ7uxBO63xsZSGDDxWwHFDyTqAYQZS6T8wS4bkQhI68ElfHLijZjbLI1xV9lIHz6eNpkOQt_343iwMAuMSlgtEPwmcCWuYp84cBOOMGjAd6C0CyVT7Jnz06JRckHD6wk/s640/supernodeZT2.png

Is Spent Nuclear Fuel a Waste or a Resource?

There are theoretical ways to consume spent fuel and but I doubt any are presently operational.  Thus we do have a storage problem.  Yet it looks finite in terms of time.

After that we have reprocessing and concentration to produce a storable product.  If it can then be diluted into a storage medium able to simplify long term storage it may be rendered somewhat safe while remaining easily recoverable.

Has anyone ever thought to simply toss irradiated waste material, which is a big headache all by itself, into the lava windows of Kilauea in Hawaii?  It would all be consumed and dissolved into the magma to eventually form solid lava flows centuries from now.

In fact once fuel is fully consumed and having no further economic value, it too could be dumped right there.  Just make sure no toxins are included.

I do not think that this is a dumb idea and it has the virtue of finality.

Is Spent Nuclear Fuel a Waste or a Resource?

A new report argues that the world has plenty of uranium but needs to make wise choices about what to do with it once its been depleted in a nuclear reactor

By David Biello   

Bottom of Form

SPENT FUEL: Dry cask storage, pictured here, is the best interim solution for spent nuclear fuel, according to a new report, especially since it may not truly be waste but a future resource.

Courtesy of NRC

September 18, 2010

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-or-resource&sc=DD_20100920

On September 15, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission affirmed its expert opinion that spent nuclear fuel could be safely stored on nuclear power plant grounds—whether in pools or dry casks—for "at least 60 years beyond the licensed life of any reactor." That is good news, because there is nowhere else for such waste to go.

As President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future continues to ponder what role nuclear power might play in the U.S. electricity supply, a group of scientists, engineers and other experts assembled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) released a report on the nuclear fuel cycle paid for by the nuclear industry. In short, the report finds that uranium resources are not likely to run out in the next century, even if the U.S. alone builds as many as 1,000 nuclear reactors. Therefore, either reprocessing or recycling spent nuclear fuel, as the French and Japanese do, is likely to be a waste of money better spent on improving the light-water reactors presently in use. The funds could also be used to create a $670-million-per-year research and development program for nuclear power as well as to determine the best fuel cycle over the course of the next several decades. Finally, the global expansion of nuclear power plants should be enabled by some form of leasing program for the uranium fuel rods—one up for renewal every decade or so.

"For the next several decades in the U.S. the once-through fuel cycle using light-water reactors is the preferred option," said M.I.T. physicist and report co-chair Ernest Moniz at its release on September 16 in Washington, D.C. "Light-water reactors are the workhorse, and there's a lot we can do to improve [them]." The U.S. employs 104 light-water reactors to generate 20 percent of its electricity today; the reactors moderate uranium fission and the heat it produces with water, which is also boiled into steam to turn an electricity-generating turbine.

M.I.T. nuclear engineer Charles Forsberg, another co-chair of the report, noted that a typical light-water reactor in the U.S. needs 200 metric tons of mined uranium resulting in 20 metric tons of uranium fuel per year. All this uranium represents as little as 2 percent of the final cost of the electricity from that nuclear power plant. Therefore, even if uranium prices doubled or more, the impact on electricity prices would be minimal.

The M.I.T. report predicts that even if the world's fleet of more than 400 nuclear power plants grew to be 4,000 such plants that then operated for a century, the cost of the electricity from those facilities would rise by a mere 1 percent as a result of the increased demand for uranium. "There's no shortage of uranium that might constrain future commitments to build new nuclear plants for much of the century," Forsberg said. This also argues against alternate fissile fuels such as thorium. "What do you get by complicating the fuel cycle by looking at thorium when we have plenty of uranium?" asked M.I.T. nuclear engineer and report co-chair Mujid Kazimi.

The question then becomes what to do with that abundant uranium once it's been fissioned in a nuclear reactor. After all, the spent nuclear fuel still contains fissionable uranium 235 and plutonium 239. "Today, we don't know whether spent nuclear fuel from light-water reactors is waste or a resource," Moniz noted. Forsberg added that the spent nuclear fuel currently awaiting a home in the U.S. could be compared with "a super-strategic petroleum reserve. We should be cautious before we throw it away."

But a place to throw such radioactive waste remains necessary. Even though the spent nuclear fuel from the entire U.S. fleet of reactors—roughly 2,000 metric tons per year—requires just two hectares of land to be stored in dry casks, some form of geologic isolation—such as the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada—will be needed ultimately. But rather than choosing a site for political reasons, as in the case of Yucca, the M.I.T. report authors argue for selecting a site based on the type of waste to be placed there, the geology that then best shields that type of waste, and even the initial reactor design as a result (to make sure the right kind of waste is made). For example, an entire nuclear cycle involving light-water reactors, reprocessing of the spent fuel, and disposal of small "packages" of highly radioactive nuclear waste in deep boreholes could prove an attractive option, Moniz noted.

Such reprocessing—or even fast-neutron reactors that don't use water to moderate fission and can potentially create more fuel than they consume—remain a distant prospect. Since the 1950s roughly $100 billion has been spent on the research and development of such reactors around the world, yet there is currently only one producing electricity—the BN-600 reactor in Russia, operational since 1980. And even with such fast-neutron reactors, the amount of potentially worrisome material for making nuclear weapons does not change. "Transuranics are not magically changed in terms of their inventory by these things," Moniz said. In fact, the M.I.T. report argues that creating reactors that produce more fuel than they consume may never be necessary. "Light-water reactors are with us for the entire century," Kazimi noted. "They are the backbone of the system."

So that leaves the question of proliferation, particularly as many countries in Asia begin to build new nuclear power plants, ranging from the United Arab Emirates to Vietnam. The M.I.T. report argues that a leasing program, in which countries with the capability to enrich uranium fuel supply it to other countries and then take back the spent fuel for disposal in one form or another at the end of its useful life. "One might combine climate and proliferation concerns with a way of attaching carbon credits to new nuclear construction in countries that took certain kinds of agreements around enrichment and reprocessing," Moniz said.

Regardless, the U.S., at least, appears to be in no hurry to build nuclear reactors; only one is currently under construction at Watts Bar in Tennessee, with another potentially in the works at Vogtle in Georgia as a result of a loan guarantee from the Obama administration. The problem, as always, with nuclear is construction costs—the M.I.T. report assumes a nuclear reactor costs $4,000 per kilowatt of electricity produced to build—or $4 billion for a typical one-gigawatt nuclear power plant. Actual industry estimates for reactors being built today are at least $6 billion for such power plants and as much as $10 billion. "If you build a nuclear power plant and operate it well, it's going to produce a steady stream of income," Moniz noted. But "the disadvantage of nuclear is the enormous capital commitment that is made up front."

Or as the report notes: "The track record for the construction costs of nuclear plants completed in the U.S. during the 1980s and early 1990s was poor. Actual costs were far higher than had been projected…. The first few U.S. plants will be a critical test for all parties involved."

Organic Polymer Thin Film Energy Absorption Leap

We are getting cleverer about optimizing photonic energy conversion.  The first layer is able to capture and guide photons for sufficient dwell time that an electron is activated before the photon escapes.

This has been one of the real promises of so called nano technology.  You were suddenly working with edges whose dimensionality is similar to that of photons.  Thus work like this is no surprise at all.  The issue has been fabrication and there we are seeing continuing improvement as we see in this image.

I am hopeful that such devices will produce a major breakthrough in solar cell efficiency which has been stuck at around fifteen percent for all practical purposes and I am probably been generous.  Been able to convert at a higher efficiency and over a broader range of spectrum can produce solar cells much more productive than at present.

A magnitude improvement is the type of objective that a combined strategy may be able to achieve.  It would eventually make solar energy highly practical instead of been a barely viable option easily displaced for economic arguments.

An organic polymer thin film could absorb as much as 10 times more energy from sunlight than was thought possible

SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

This schematic diagram of a thin film organic solar cell shows the top layer, a patterned, roughened scattering layer, in green. The organic thin film layer, shown in red, is where light is trapped and electrical current is generated. The film is sandwiched between two layers that help keep light contained within the thin film. 

Ultra-thin solar cells can absorb sunlight more efficiently than the thicker, more expensive-to-make silicon cells used today, because light behaves differently at scales around a nanometer (a billionth of a meter), say Stanford engineers. They calculate that by properly configuring the thicknesses of several thin layers of films, an organic polymer thin film could absorb as much as 10 times more energy from sunlight than was thought possible.

The key to overcoming the theoretical limit lies in keeping sunlight in the grip of the solar cell long enough to squeeze the maximum amount of energy from it, using a technique called "light trapping." It's the same as if you were using hamsters running on little wheels to generate your electricity – you'd want each hamster to log as many miles as possible before it jumped off and ran away.

If you go down to the nanoscales that we are interested in, hundreds of millionths of a millimeter in scale, it turns out the wave characteristic really becomes important.

Visible light has wavelengths around 400 to 700 nanometers (billionths of a meter), but even at that small scale, Fan said, many of the structures that Yu analyzed had a theoretical limit comparable to the conventional limit proven by experiment. 

"One of the surprises with this work was discovering just how robust the conventional limit is," Fan said. 

It was only when Yu began investigating the behavior of light inside a material of deep subwavelength-scale – substantially smaller than the wavelength of the light – that it became evident to him that light could be confined for a longer time, increasing energy absorption beyond the conventional limit at the macroscale. 

"The amount of benefit of nanoscale confinement we have shown here really is surprising," said Yu. "Overcoming the conventional limit opens a new door to designing highly efficient solar cells." 

Yu determined through numerical simulations that the most effective structure for capitalizing on the benefits of nanoscale confinement was a combination of several different types of layers around an organic thin film. 

He sandwiched the organic thin film between two layers of material – called "cladding" layers – that acted as confining layers once the light passed through the upper one into the thin film. Atop the upper cladding layer, he placed a patterned rough-surfaced layer designed to send the incoming light off in different directions as it entered the thin film.

By varying the parameters of the different layers, he was able to achieve a 12-fold increase in the absorption of light within the thin film, compared to the macroscale limit. 

Nanoscale solar cells offer savings in material costs, as the organic polymer thin films and other materials used are less expensive than silicon and, being nanoscale, the quantities required for the cells are much smaller. 

The organic materials also have the advantage of being manufactured in chemical reactions in solution, rather than needing high-temperature or vacuum processing, as is required for silicon manufacture.

PNAS - Fundamental limit of nanophotonic light trapping in solar cells

Establishing the fundamental limit of nanophotonic light-trapping schemes is of paramount importance and is becoming increasingly urgent for current solar cell research. The standard theory of light trapping demonstrated that absorption enhancement in a medium cannot exceed a factor of 4n2/ sin2θ, where n is the refractive index of the active layer, and θ is the angle of the emission cone in the medium surrounding the cell. This theory, however, is not applicable in the nanophotonic regime. Here we develop a statistical temporal coupled-mode theory of light trapping based on a rigorous electromagnetic approach. Our theory reveals that the conventional limit can be substantially surpassed when optical modes exhibit deep-subwavelength-scale field confinement, opening new avenues for highly efficient next-generation solar cells.

Coenzyme Q10 Issues

This is of course a pitch for a supplement product named Accel that supplies Coenzyme Q10.  For those using it, it spells out the limitations of the common form and alerts us to look for a superior form of the product.  I am sure the better form is on the shelves somewhere.  If not, then google the name to locate the seller.

The advent of beneficial supplements over the past decade in particular has pushed the bounds of product quality although for any new product that is an issue.  The first into the market usually has a lock on initial supply.  He creates a new market and others discover demand in their pipelines.  They attempt to break in with often substandard product and perhaps a weak understanding of the science.

After as an example all shark cartilage product is easy to produce by simply boiling.  Except that denatures the product.  The real separation method is both better and easier but is simply not shared.  At least that was the early history of one supplement until research perfected the condriten glucosamine product and developed more efficious sources.

At least we are now alert.  Again this supplement supports us, as does a good daily dose of condriten, in sustaining youthful vigor.

The Awful Truth About  Coenzyme Q10

Here's the Only Way That the CoQ10 You Take Can Give  You the Energy and Immune System Health You Need...

Dear Health Conscious Reader,

The many health benefits of taking Coenzyme Q10 – increased energy, improved metabolism, weight loss, cell protection, and better cardiovascular health – are already well established.1

In fact, research shows CoQ10 may promote neurological health as well.1

Yet many patients I talk to in my practice tell me they don’t feel any different after they start taking CoQ10.

When they show me the bottle, I immediately know why.

As it happens, most of the CoQ10 they are taking never makes it to their cells where it can do the most good.

In fact, most people over 50 have a hard time converting CoQ10 into its usable form. The lion’s share of the valuable CoQ10 enzyme disappears – making it impossible to give your cells the protection and nourishment they need.

Fortunately, I’ve found a simple way to solve this problem forever … make sure you maintain healthy levels of CoQ10 in your cells all year long … and enjoy the increased energy, vitality, and health that CoQ10 can deliver when it actually gets absorbed into your bloodstream and delivered to your cells!*

Which of these CoQ10 supplements is in your medicine chest?

The trouble with most brands of commercially available CoQ10 supplements is that they use a cheaper form of the enzyme – known as ubiquinone – that is extremely difficult for your body to absorb.

So the label says the pill contains X amount of CoQ10. And it probably does. But only a tiny fraction of that is actually absorbed by your body. The rest is passed as waste, and is in fact wasted – never reaching the cell membranes and walls were it is needed most.

We solve this problem with my best-selling CoQ10 supplement – Accel.

Accel is composed 100% of a form of CoQ10 known as ubiquinol – vastly superior to ordinary store-bought CoQ10 supplements.

With ubiquinol, your body absorbs up to 8 times more CoQ102 than with ordinary CoQ10 supplements as shown in the graph below:3           

Better absorption means you can get more CoQ10 in your system while actually taking fewer pills. CoQ10 has been around for years. And it’s been helpful. But there are major drawbacks to the old type of CoQ10: it’s both weak … and expensive.

Accel makes a difference because it’s in a stronger reduced form – so it is much more easily absorbed.

I remember when I had to tell some patients to take 400 mg of the old CoQ10 every 8 hours to keep their blood levels high enough. It worked out. But it was very expensive. They could easily go through a bottle or two a week.

With Accel, most people can get all the anti-aging power of coenzyme Q10 with just one caplet a day. That makes the health benefits of CoQ10 available to you at a fraction of the cost.*

Accel consists of pure ubiquinol – CoQ10 in its reduced form. As a result, the beneficial CoQ10 enzyme remains in your blood stream much longer than with ordinary CoQ10 tablets.4

The “delivery system” used in Accel speeds and maximizes absorption even further. How does it work?

The outer caplet is a soft gel encasing a precisely measured dosage of 50 mg – my daily recommended requirements – of liquid ubiquinol CoQ10.

The smooth outer caplet is easy to swallow. Once inside your body, the gel quickly dissolves, rapidly releasing liquid CoQ10. This highly water soluble liquid is rapidly – and fully – absorbed into your system.

 The adventures of “Super Mouse”

Remember the old Adventures of Superman TV series with George Reeves?

In one episode, a scientist invents an energy pill that gives a laboratory mouse super strength similar to Superman’s – turning the ordinary mouse into “Super Mouse.”

Taking Accel won’t give you super strength or super speed. But it can boost your energy by a degree you can notice and feel.*

How can I be so sure?

Several months ago, I had a private meeting with Dr. Tatsumasa Mae here at my Florida medical offices.

Dr. Mae is the world’s leading CoQ10 researcher.

He showed me a videotape of the test subjects he used in an animal study of the anti-aging properties of CoQ10.

The video showed that after several months, his lab mice taking no CoQ10 all died of natural causes.

All of the untreated mice showed typical signs of oxidative stress.

A second group of test mice took conventional CoQ10. They were still alive, but showed signs of aging. These mice lasted longer than the first group, but when they died, they had similar conditions.

But the third group of lab mice in the video had been given my “super-absorbable” Accel CoQ10.

And what I saw was nothing short of a small miracle….

The test subjects taking Accel were not just alive. They actually looked younger than the mice in the other groups!

The Accel mice also had more energy. They were running around in their cages with all the vigor of mice half their age (see graph).

And in spite of being “old” (for mice), they showed almost no sign of aging. After a year, the “super mice” on Accel aged 22% slower than mice taking conventional CoQ103.

Researchers also measured the effect of CoQ10 supplementation on stamina. They found that mice taking ubiquinol were able to run continuously on their treadmills two and a half times longer than mice taking conventional CoQ103.

The many health benefits of taking Accel CoQ10

Increased energy … improved metabolic function, cell protection, better cardiovascular health and weight loss are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the health benefits my patients and I receive by taking our Accel CoQ10 daily (yes, I take Accel, as does everyone in my family!).*

Here are just some of the other ways Accel can help you live longer and feel better:

• Heart health … according to the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, a number of clinical studies have found CoQ10 promotes cardiovascular health.5
• Blood sugar … an Australian study showed that patients who took CoQ10 were able to maintain blood sugar levels that are already within the normal range.6
• Vision … in a recent clinical trial, taking CoQ10 for a year helped them see more clearly.7
• Cognition … an animal study performed at Johns Hopkins University found that CoQ10 supplementation improves learning and memory.7
• Bronchial Health … researchers in Texas found CoQ10 promotes bronchial health.7
• Gum health … CoQ10 can improve gum and oral health.7
• Clear-headed comfort … in one study, more than 6 out of 10 patients treated with CoQ10 daily reported feeling more clear-headed comfort.7
• Oxidative stress … Accel is a powerful antioxidant, eliminating the free radicals that can cause damage to cell membranes and mitochondria.3
• Skin care … a German study shows that CoQ10 can help reduce wrinkles and protect skin from the damaging effects of too much exposure to sunlight.8
•  

Accel is the quick and easy way to get  100% of the CoQ10 you take daily….Just look at all the advantages Accel gives you:

• 50 mg CoQ10 daily – each Accel caplet contains a precise dosage of my daily recommended CoQ10 requirement.
• Small softgel caplets – easy to swallow. Outer gel cap dissolves in minutes, instantly releasing easily absorbed liquid CoQ10 into your system.
• Greater bioavailability – Accel is up to 8X more absorbable1 than conventional store-bought CoQ10.
• Lower cost – Accel’s superior bioavailability means you have to take fewer caplets to get the amount of CoQ10 you need.
• Guaranteed – if you do not agree that Accel makes you feel better and have more energy, simply return it to us for a complete refund.
• Convenient – Accel is delivered straight to your door. No need to drive to the pharmacy or health store.
•  

We know from years of research that CoQ10 has a direct effect on human metabolism and physiology. I’ve seen the evidence of clinical tests first-hand. And I’ve seen the effects in my patients.

May I share a secret with you? I intend to have the energy and vitality of a teenager well into my 60s, 70s, and even my 80s! That’s my goal, anyway. And it’s the whole point of anti-aging medicine: to retain the power of youth well into our old age.

That’s why I take Accel every day. CoQ10 is one nutrient I plan to take every day for as long as I live. You should, too. And now we’ve made taking daily CoQ10 more convenient, affordable, and effective than ever….*

ET to Washington - No Nukes

This is actually useful information.

Those following my blog know that we have a working conjecture as follows:

Conjecture:  That humanity achieved modern development around twenty thousand years ago and then transitioned through genetic manipulation into a generation that was space adapted.  There may have been a range of types, but all were space adapted.  They then abandoned Earth to live in space habitats which are large spinning spheres able to sustain one G of acceleration internally to maintain general health.

I go on to a lot of detail and conforming evidence to understand their intent.

This population is presently observing our development closely with the intent to shortly reconnect.  That is the cause of the continuing and more obvious presence of UFOs or MEVs (magnetic exclusion vessels).  It may even be the root of expectations around 2012.

Provided star travel is possible and of that I am not yet convinced since I do not need it, other aliens may in fact be here and working with our counterparts.

Now we return to this information.  Sixty years of reports has associated UFOs with nuclear weapons facilities and their been interested observers is clear.

It is also pretty apparent that they are not directly communicating with our leadership by a hot line.

However merely demonstrating the capacity to shut down weapon systems communicates a powerful point.  They will not stand by if we suddenly go into attack mode.  Nor should they.  The damage would be far too great.

What part of this message is difficult to understand?

The credibility of these informants is top notch, and they have had the good sense to come forward as a group since individuals can be easily discredited by a simple allegation of any sort as has consistently been done in the past.

For sixty years we have not had much in the way of military witnesses which in light of the mass of reports and we mean tens of thousands of reports, is incongruous.  Those are the best trained observers who would have provided credibility to other eyewitness reports.

This group coming forth fills a large hole in the data.  And no, it is not unbelievable.  What is unbelievable is the practiced disinterest from clearly interested parties and the ability to use the official secrets act to turn every witness into a clam.

Aliens 'hit our nukes': They even landed at a Suffolk base, claim airmen

By DANIEL BATES

Last updated at 5:14 AM on 27th September 2010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315339/Aliens-hit-nukes-They-landed-Suffolk-base-claim-airmen.html

It may sound like a Spielberg movie plot, but if senior U.S. airmen are to be believed, this scenario is not science fiction.

They claim that since 1948, aliens have been hovering over UK and U.S. nuclear missile sites and deactivating the weapons– once even landing in a British base.

Furthermore, they warn, our governments are hushing the activity up.

Captain Robert Salas, who, along with six others is to break his silence on the subject, said: ‘We’re talking about unidentified flying objects, as simple as that.

‘They’re often known as UFOs, you could call them that.

Disruption: The group of veterans will claim on Monday that several nuclear missiles malfunctioned as UFOs hovered overhead

‘The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it,’ he said. 

The former officer said he witnessed such an event first-hand on March 16, 1967, at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

‘I was on duty when an object came over and hovered directly over the site.

‘The missiles shut down – ten Minuteman [nuclear] missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There’s a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they’re not from planet Earth.’

Colonel Charles Halt claims to have seen a UFO at RAF Bentwaters, near Ipswich, one of the few bases in the UK to hold nuclear weapons.

The sighting is said to have taken place 30 years ago. First he saw the object firing beams of light into the base then heard on the military radio that aliens had landed inside the nuclear storage area, he said.

Real or fake? The veterans claim the U.S. and UK governments covered up the UFOs incidents 

Controversial: At the event in Washington on Monday the men will release declassified U.S. government documents which they say back up their claims

‘I believe that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted – both then and now – to subvert the significance of what occurred at RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practised methods of disinformation.’

The six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man, are to present declassified information which they claim backs up their findings. They have witness testimony from 120 former or retired military personnel which points to alien intervention at nuclear sites in the U.S. as recently as 2003.

They will urge the authorities to confirm that alien beings have long been visiting Earth.

A press conference today in Washington will also highlight testimony from retired U.S. Air Force Captain Bruce Fenstermacher, whose security team saw a cigar-shaped UFO hovering above FE Warren nuclear base in Wyoming in 1976. 

Researcher Robert Hastings, who has written on the subject, explained that so far the aliens appeared interested in ‘mere surveillance’ but warned they seemed to have gone further in some instances.

‘At long last, all of these witnesses are coming forward to say that, as unbelievable as it may seem to some, UFOs have long monitored and sometimes tampered with our nukes,’ he added.

Read more: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315339/Aliens-hit-nukes-They-landed-Suffolk-base-claim-airmen.html#ixzz10pwNL3HJ

Big Bad Wolf Makes Good

This is an excellent reminder that the role of a predator population is a positive force in the environment.  Where human conflict occurs, it is because wolves are trying to break into areas in which humanity is the dominant predator as on range land.  The question then must be asked if man is doing his job.

Today we are having an explosion of deer and elk populations that clearly need to be harvested and brought into the human husbandry cycle.  Otherwise the wolves will become active throughout their old range and that continues to be undesirable unless one thinks a hungry wolf pack in famine times happens to be a good neighbor.

I firmly support active husbandry of all live forms within an ecological niche.  That does include large working fields and managed wood lots with careful population control.  The problem in Yellowstone was elk population control.  An annual human harvest of the elk would also have largely solved the problem of the elk.  However it would not have solved the nuisance of the coyotes.

The obvious point is that predator displacement is hard work and may not be satisfactory.  A better practice may be to collar all such animals and ensure we know were they are.  It is certainly necessary to keep deer out of orchards and gardens and there we have a worse problem.

We have long since tried to make agriculture super easy and productive.  We are overdue to go back and understand the rest of the surrounding ecology and learn to optimize it rather than fight it.

The Big Bad Wolf Makes Good

The Yellowstone Success Story and Those Who Want to Kill It

By Chip Ward

At long last, good news.  Fifteen years have passed since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and the results are in.  The controversial experiment has been a stellar success.  The Big Bad Wolf is back and in this modern version of the old story, all that huffing and puffing has been good for the land and the creatures that live on it.  Biggie, it turns out, got a bum rap.

The success of the Yellowstone project is the kind of good news we long for in this era of oil spills, monster storms, massive flooding, crushing heat waves, and bleaching corals.  For once, a branch of our federal government, the Department of the Interior, saw something broken and actually fixed it.  In a nutshell: conservation biologists considered a perplexing problem -- the slow but steady unraveling of the Yellowstone ecosystem -- figured out what was causing it, and then proposed a bold solution that worked even better than expected.

Sadly, the good news has been muted by subsequent political strife over wolf reintroduction outside of Yellowstone.  Along the northern front of the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado, as well as New Mexico and Arizona, so-called wolf wars have added fuel to a decades-old battle over the right to graze cattle or hunt on public land.  The shouting has overwhelmed both science and civil discourse.  This makes it all the harder to convey the lessons learned to an American public that is mostly ecologically illiterate and never really understood why wolves were put back into Yellowstone in the first place.  Even the legion of small donors who supported the project mostly missed the reasons it was undertaken, focusing instead on the “charismatic” qualities of wolves and the chance to see them in the wild.

No Wolves, No Water

Here’s the piece we still don’t get: when we exterminated wolves from Yellowstone in the early 1900s, killing every last one, we de-watered the land.  That’s right -- no wolves eventually meant fewer streams, creeks, marshes, and springs across western landscapes like Yellowstone where wolves had once thrived.

The chain of effects went roughly like this: no wolves meant that many more elk crowded onto inviting river and stream banks where the grass is green and the livin’ easy.  A growing population of fat elk, in no danger of being turned into prey, gnawed down willow and aspen seedlings before they could mature. Willows are both food and building material for beavers.  As the willows declined, so did beaver populations.  When beavers build dams and ponds, they create wetland habitats for countless bugs, amphibians, fish, birds, and plants, as well as slowing the flow of water and distributing it over broad areas.  The consequences of their decline rippled across the land.

Meanwhile, as the land dried up, Yellowstone’s overgrazed riverbanks eroded.  Life-giving river water receded, leaving those banks barren.  Spawning beds for fish were silted over.  Amphibians lost precious shade where they could have sheltered and hidden.  Yellowstone’s web of life was fraying and becoming threadbare.

The unexpected relationship between absent wolves and absent water is just one example of how big, scary predators like grizzlies and mountain lions, often called “charismatic carnivores,” regulate their ecosystems from the top down.  The results are especially relevant in an era of historic droughts and global warming, both of which are stressing already arid Western lands.  Wolf reintroduction wasn’t a scheme designed to undermine vacationing elk hunters or harass ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands.  It wasn’t done to please some cabal of elitist, urban environmentalists eager to show rural rednecks who’s the boss, though out here in the West that interpretation’s held sway at many public meetings called to discuss wolf reintroduction.

Let’s be clear then: the decision to put wolves back in Yellowstone was a bold experiment backed by the best conservation science available to restore a cherished American ecosystem that was coming apart at the seams.

The Biggest Losers

Today, wolves are thriving in Yellowstone. The 66 wolves trapped in Canada and released in Yellowstone and the Idaho wilderness in 1995-96 have generated more than 1,700 wolves.  More than 200 wolf packs exist in the area today and the effect on the environment has been nothing short of astonishing. 

There was one beaver colony in the park at the time wolves were reintroduced.  Today, 12 colonies are busy storing water, evening out seasonal water flows, recharging springs, and creating habitat.  Willow stands are robust again and the songbirds that nest in them are recovering.  Creatures that scavenge wolf-kills for meat, including ravens, eagles, wolverines, and bears, have benefited.  Wolves have pushed out and killed the coyotes that feed on pronghorn antelope, so pronghorn numbers are also up.  Riverbanks are lush and shady again.  With less competition from elk for grass, the bison in the park are doing better, too.

Elk are the sole species that has been diminished -- and that, after all, was the purpose of putting wolves back in the game in the first place.  The elk population of Yellowstone is still larger than it was at its low point in the late 1960s, but there are fewer elk today than in recent decades.  The decline has alarmed elk hunters and the local businesses that rely on their trade.

Worse yet, from the hunting point of view, elk behavior has changed dramatically.  Instead of camping out on stream banks and overeating, they roam far more and in smaller numbers, browsing in brushy areas where there is more protective cover.  Surviving elk are healthier, but leaner, warier, far more dispersed, and significantly harder to hunt.  This further dismays those who had become accustomed to easy hunting and bigger animals.

A lively debate is underway among game wardens, guides, and wildlife biologists about just how far elk numbers have declined, what role drought and other non-wolf variables may be playing in that decline, and whether elk numbers will -- or even should -- rebound.  State wildlife agencies that once fed hay to bountiful populations of elk to keep them from starving during harsh winters depend on hunting and fishing licenses to fill their coffers.  Predictably enough, they have come down on the side of the frustrated big game hunters, who think the wolves have killed too many elk.  Hunters have been a powerful force for conservation when habitat for birds and big game is at stake, but wolf reintroduction hits them right in the ol’ game bag, and on this issue they seem to be abandoning former conservation allies.   Of course, wolves themselves can be hunted and selling the privilege of doing so has proven lucrative for state wildlife agencies.  Montana recently expanded its wolf-killing quota from 75 to 186, while Idaho licensed 220 wolf kills in 2009.

Beyond the Bovine Curtain

As wolf reintroduction took hold and wolves migrated out of Yellowstone as far as Oregon to the west and Colorado to the east, it became clear that surrounding states needed plans to deal with their spread.  Once regarded as an endangered species and legally protected by the Endangered Species Act, wolves were taken off the formal list of protected creatures wherever states created plans for restoring and managing them.  The intention of the federal government was to allow states to participate in, and so take some control over, the recovery process in the West.

As it happened, however, most states took a strikingly hostile approach to their new wolf populations, treating them as varmints.  A federal court took away Wyoming’s power to regulate wolves within its borders when it decided that the state’s management goal would be no wolves at all outside of the Yellowstone and Teton national parks.  Other Western states are now planning to keep their numbers as low as possible without triggering a federal takeover, too low to play their ecological role, or even survive over the long run, according to conservation biologists.  After wolves were “delisited” in Idaho in 2009, 188 of them were killed by hunters before the year was out.

In August 2010, a federal judge ruled that wolves everywhere but in Minnesota and Alaska (where wolf populations are plentiful and healthy) must be relisted as an endangered species and afforded more protection.  How this major decision will shape the debate from here on out is uncertain.  Since relisting precludes sport hunting, state wildlife agencies are now making plans to kill more wolves themselves to keep their numbers low.  Critics worry about a return to the days when wolves were routinely shot, trapped, poisoned, and gassed in their dens.

Up until now, where wolves and cows mix, cows have ruled.  What wildlife advocate George Wuerthner calls the “bovine curtain” limits full wolf restoration to within Yellowstone’s park boundaries.  Outside the park, where the feds have less power and control, wolf packs continually form but are often slaughtered, usually at the insistence of ranchers who can legally shoot wolves that attack cattle.  They are also compensated for wolf-kill losses from both state funds and privately donated ones.  Wolf predation accounts for only about 1% of livestock deaths across the northern Rockies, but those deaths generate disproportionate resentment and fear.

Ranchers are the first to understand that, in the arid West, a cow may require 250 acres of forage to live.  In the states where wolves are spreading, cows wander wide and don’t sleep safely in barns at night as they do in the east.  Wolves need room to roam, too.  Overlap and predation are the inevitable results.  If wolves are ever to effectively play their ecological role again across the West, significant changes in animal husbandry, like adding range riders and guard dogs, would be required, as well undoubtedly as less grazing overall.  The implied threat to limit grazing provokes fierce opposition from cattlemen’s associations, a powerful and influential Republican constituency throughout the West.  Real cowboys don’t sip tea, but as anger over those wolves builds they may be riding off to the nearest tea party nevertheless.

At public hearings across the rural West wherever wolves are rebounding, near-hysterical locals claim that their children will be carried off from their yards by those awful beasts set loose by evil Obamacrats willing to sacrifice life and limb to win favor with tree-hugging easterners.  In New Mexico, such hostility has led topoaching that has decimated an endangered species of gray wolves reintroduced 12 years ago after the last survivors of that species were trapped, bred in captivity, and released into the wild.

Eco-Commodities or Ecological Communities?

Today’s wolf wars pit opposing perspectives on how (or even why) our public lands should be managed against each other.  The disagreement is fundamental.  On one side is a historic/traditional resource management paradigm that sees our Western lands as a storehouse of timber, minerals, and fresh water; on the other side, a new biocentric orientation driven by conservation biologists who see landscapes as whole ecosystems and all species as having intrinsic value.  At one end of the spectrum lie strip-mining coal companies; at the other, deep ecologists.  In between you can find conflict, contradiction, and confusion as we sort out a new consensus about how to manage vast public land holdings in the West.

In the beginning, Americans assumed that nature was inefficient (if efficiency is defined as getting the most bang for the buck) and that humans could manage the planet better than Mother Earth.  Wild rivers, after all, spill their liquid bounty where they will and then empty themselves into the sea.  What a waste!  In the same way, forest fires were viewed as a prime example of Nature’s wanton destruction.  To a rancher who is leasing public land, wolves and cougars are monsters of inefficiency.

It’s far clearer now that nature is, in fact, efficient indeed, if creating healthy, viable ecosystems is what’s on your mind.  Matter and energy are never wasted in food webs where synergy is the rule.  Because we have come to appreciate how rich nature’s interconnections are, we are now committed to protecting species we once would have wiped out with little regard.  Health (including the health of the planet), not wealth alone, is becoming a priority.  Think of wolf reintroduction, then, as a kind of hinge-point between the two paradigms.  After centuries of not leaving the natural world’s order to chance, micro-managing wherever we could, we are now encouraged to take a chance on Nature, to trust the self-organizing powers of life to heal ecosystems we have wounded.

While organizing campaigns to make polluters accountable, I learned that citizens generally won’t take them on until they grasp that the deepest link they have to their environment is their own bloodstreams.  Once they understand the pathways from a smokestack or a poisoned watershed to the tumors growing in their children’s bodies, they can become a powerful force.  But first they have to know what’s at stake.

In this regard, ecological literacy is not a side issue.  It’s a prerequisite for survival.  The articulation of reality is more primal than any strategy or policy.  If greed is turning the Earth into a scorched planet of slums, ignorance is its enabler.  Just as American farmers once realized that erosion follows ignorance and learned how to plow differently, just as most of us finally learned that rivers should not be used as toxic dumps, so today we must learn that environments have the equivalent of operating systems.   Predation by large carnivores is written deep into the code of much of the American landscape.  Today, a rancher who expects to do business in a predator-free landscape is no more reasonable than yesterday’s industrialist who expected to use the nearest river as a sewer. Living with wolves may be a challenging proposition, but it’s hardly impossible to do -- as folks in Minnesota or Canada can attest.

Hard days are ahead as the weather, once benign and predictable, becomes hotter, drier, and ever more chaotic.  Western landscapes are already stressed -- wholeforests are dying and deserts are becoming dustbowls.  To maintain their vitality in the face of such dire challenges, those lands will need all the relief we can give them.  We now understand far better the many ways in which nature’s living communities are astonishingly connected and reciprocal.  If we could only find the courage to trust their self-organizing powers to heal the wounds we have inflicted, we might become as resilient as those Yellowstone wolves.

Chip Ward lives in Capitol Reef, Utah, where songbirds are eaten by housecats, housecats are eaten by coyotes, and coyotes are eaten by mountain lions.  He is the author of Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West and Hope’s Horizon: Three Visions for Healing the American Land.  His essays can be found at chipwardessays.blogspot.com.

Copyright 2010 Chip Ward