Human Cloning is Bad

Hi everyone, meaning the ten people who read this blog.  In one of my classes we had to write a research paper about a controversial topic.  I choose human cloning, because I thought it wasn't as cliché as gay marriage, or illegal immigration.  If it wasn't a requirement for class credit that I had to publish it I wouldn't.  Don't worry its terrible, so I don't expect anyone to give it a critique or comment on it.  But if you choose to do go ahead and do so.  You can post your thoughts on the comments or go about your day.  I recommend the later.   Also, this will be the last post of for my blog.  Its been sick with ebola for the past few days, and Obamacare cancelled its insurance.I might start another one to highlight my politically incorrect humor so if you're into that keep a look out. 


Jacob Pitzer
English 1A
Professor Mitchel-Wagner
27 March 2014

 

Human Cloning: Advancement or Destruction?

    Since the time that humans came to exist on this planet, we as a race have always tried to take the next step forward for progress. Over time we went from small hunter gathering bands. From small villages of people to large cities that seated empires that stretched across the continents. We as a race have always marched forward to achieve greater and greater feats for our people. However, when these feats potentially undermine who we are as a race of sentient beings; we need to shy away from such endeavors. History also shows us that advances in technology can cause death, despair, and desolation. Look at the first Word War; there were many technological advances that later had a positive benefit to humanity, but came at a very high price in human life. The Second World War showed similar advances in technology, but again, at a terrible cost. It is from these perspectives that we must stand back and examine the entire picture and what implications it holds for all of humanity. These feats in technology do not always come at the heels of war, but at the deeper understanding of science. In the 1990's, a project was commissioned to map and code the entire human genome. The implications were unimaginable; for the first time scientists would be able to identify what causes cancer, and what gene codes for what. For the first time, people with genetic diseases had some hope that they would be able to lead normal lives. But there was still detractors; those who saw this as a way for the government of corporation to own human genes, and essentially, human life. This did not come to fruition thankfully but the battles fought over Biological Engineering were not far from over. Today there are still battles on genetically modified organisms, which are used to create crops that have higher yields, or are resistant to a certain type of pest or pesticide. While science has definitively proven that these types of foods and animals are harmless to the general public, there is still a group of people that believe otherwise. But what if scientists were to expand their effort outside of plants and animals, what if they decided to artificially replicate another organism? They did, Dolly the sheep was the first cloned organism in the history of the planet (that we know of) and her existence raised controversy over whether or not it was ethical to even create her. But how far is far enough? There has to be a line set somewhere, a point in which the human community says the thin red line lies there. That line ends before full human cloning. While it can be useful to clone and grow organs and tissues for already living people who truly need them; cloning a whole human being raises too many ethical questions. Like the sacred truth that humans are unique, or the psychological questions a cloned human might ask, like "who am I" "Where do I come from". Animals do not ask these questions, nor do they care. People on the other hand have a sense of who they are and where they come from. If we start to manufacture and clone humans on a large scale, than what does that say about the sacredness of life? We must reject the ideas that this will lead to human progress, in reality it will do the opposite, lead to our destruction.
    In compiling evidence for this project I carefully selected sources from the library, or the library database for web sources. Reliability is key, the internet and certain print based sources might not be scholarly reviewed, or reliable to say the least. The texts that were chosen were all peer reviewed, cited sources appropriately, and were completed by respected scientists and academics alike. By using these sources, the reader can be assured that the conclusion was not drawn about under false pretenses, and that the sources used presented evidence that allowed me, the author, to draw a logical conclusions based upon the texts. Researching the topic was not very strenuous, as there is a multitude of sources available on all aspects of the topic. I started on scientific sources that would explain and detail what cloning is, and the different types of cloning that exist. In order for me to take a justifiable position, I must define what cloning is and the process of cloning. From there my position can be justified by demonstrated knowledge of the topic. Defining cloning isn't enough for justifying a position, there needs to be more evidence to back my claim that it is harmful for the human race. Bioethics is a field in medicine that focuses upon whether or not certain practices are justifiable or not. Luckily cloning is one of those topics that receives constant appraisal on whether it's valuable or harmful to society. A search for bioethics led me to a vast quantity of books and articles that were able to help me justify my position on human cloning. While not completely necessary, examples of cloning are helpful to the argument of the paper. Since Dolly the sheep is the most famous cloned organism, likely because she was the first, she becomes an important part of the paper. An examination into her life and whether or not she was worse or better off because she was cloned. A detail of her possible health problems or lack of is also critical to examining cloning on a larger scale. However she was a sheep, and sheep do not operate the same way as humans do, and likely could seriously care less about who her parents and brothers and sisters are. Nevertheless, her picture and important details about her life will serve a purpose on the topic of human cloning.
    The most common method, and the method used to clone Dolly the sheep is called somatic cell nuclear transfer. The process works like this in a nutshell: a somatic cell is taken from an organism one wishes to clone. Another cell, an egg cell, or oocyte, is taken from a female of the same species. The nucleus, which contains the DNA of the original animal, is taken from the somatic cell while the rest of the cell is discarded, as it has no more use in the cloning process. The nucleus of the egg cell, or oocyte is also removed, but the rest of the cell is needed to keep the process going. The DNA of the somatic cell is then inserted inside of the egg cell. The egg cell that now contains the DNA of the other organism is shocked with electricity in order to start dividing like a normal egg cell. After being placed into a growth culture, the egg cell will form a blastocyst, which is a very early stage embryo, this embryo will be placed inside the womb of another organism where it will grow like any other offspring. However it will be genetically identical to the organism which the somatic cell was first taken from (sciencedaily.com). Below you will find a visual diagram of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The diagram appropriately uses a sheep, as Dolly the first animal cloned using this method, was a sheep.

Exhibit 1

    As mentioned earlier, the first known case of successful cloning came from Scotland. A team led by Dr. Ian Wilmut was successful in using somatic cell nuclear transfer to create Dolly. This breakthrough, was highly controversial. It was met with considerable press coverage, highlighting the significant scientific breakthrough, as well as the ethics of cloning another organism. Immediately after the announcement of the cloning of Dolly, the general public quickly turned to the idea that this process could be replicated in humans. In an interview with Ian Wilmut, the head scientist on the team that cloned Dolly the sheep stated that he himself was against the cloning of humans. He was quoted as saying "I am uncomfortable with copying people, because that would involve not treating them as individuals. And so I posed the question that I would like to ask anybody who is contemplating such a use: 'do you really believe that you would be able to treat that new person as an individual' (Klotzko 24)? Dr. Wilmut is correct. One must ask how can a clone be an individual? They are genetically identical to another being. Who are they? Are they the original individual, a sibling, a child? People today stammer on about identity and how to hone in on it, but how can you do that with someone who is almost exactly the same as another? It cannot be done. In order to leave the debacle and possible psychological torment away from a future human clone, the ethical thing to do would be to just not clone someone at all. Wilmut furthered his explanation within a book he authored with Roger Highfield. Wilmut explains the psychological aspects of being a cloned human, more specifically being the clone of Wilmut himself. After Wilmut cloned Dolly Scientists, the media, and skeptical people all asked Dr. Wilmut: Will you clone yourself? The answer was a resound and effective No. Wilmut explains as to why cloning of himself of any other person would be unethical. Wilmut explains "Living in my shadow would be intolerable. Even though the reality is that a clone would be an individual living his own life, he would have to deal with the expectations of parents, family, friends, teachers and of course the media. That would be a heavy burden" (Wilmut 37). Wilmut explains even further as to what that would mean personally to the teenager. Wilmut then says "Imagine what a broody teenager would make of being told he is a genetic cop of a parent, let alone a cloner. Imagine what it would be like to know that you are the product of a scientific experiment. Imagine his irritation to learn from his pals that his father-also his brother- was called Wilf at school and that this would perhaps make a good nickname for him too" (Wilmut 37). Wilmut hit this one right on the head again. Scientists must consider what it must feel for that clone. They will ask, who am I? Am I this person, or am I me. Taking into consideration what the background of the donor cell might be, society may possibly be setting up the clone to fail. If their parent was a rapist, will they think "is it my destiny to be a rapist" and then act upon it thinking that this is just who they are. If the cell comes from a purebred genius, will they be expected to go into the field of the donor? What if they want to be something else? Will society allow for this? Cloning will give individuals the idea that they have a pre-determined destiny of sorts, and will not consider that they have a choice in the matter. They won't understand that because the idea of uniqueness and the choice of the individual will mean nothing, because they have neither. It is better to leave this implications out by simply not creating them in the first place, plain and simple. A second question society must ask is what is the point of cloning a whole human being in the first place? The only reason one can think of is to strut about the world stage and show everyone "look what I made". If there is no tangible reason for doing something so strenuous and difficult, why even bother in the first place? In a book authored by Leon Kass and James Q. Wilson; Wilson points out the argument as to why whole human cloning should be done, and how alternative methods would be better suited as a substitute for whole human cloning. Wilson explains that "The limited argument in favor of it arises from circumstances in which the husband and wife cannot conceive a child, in either the uterus or the petri dish. Cloning would thus be a substitute for either adoption, surrogate motherhood, or in vitro fertilization using cells from an unknown donor" (Wilson 100). Wilson is pointing out that there are other methods of conceiving a child that are far more effective and preserve the genetic diversity of humanity. Furthermore with this argument now ruled out in favor of easier and practical methods that preserve the individual identity of human beings, we no longer have a reason to research and apply the uses of reproductive cloning in humans.
While cloning whole human beings is not a path humanity wants to walk, banning cloning altogether may halt medical advancement. One might ask what is the justification? Cloning does not necessarily mean creating whole organisms, the practice can extend to cloning organs or cells, which can be used to treat lethal medical problems. While the central argument here is that whole human cloning is a terrible idea, the purpose of this paper is to inform the public about a situation which it knows little about, and would be better off understanding the process. As a society, we should advocate for cloning of cells and organs and other bodily structures that could help our health or save us from a terrible illness. The difference between this type of cloning and whole human cloning is that the organs are generally ours. How mind blowing would it be that instead of being reliant upon others organs, scientists could grow a new one that had your dna. The idea is liberating in a sense. However the general public does not realize that cloning can involve tiny cells, but they do know that it involves large living creatures like sheep, and people. In the aftermath of the announcement of Dolly's cloning, legislatures around the United States went to work passing laws banning the use of cloning. What they did not realize, is that cloning does not necessarily mean cloning whole organisms. Andrea Bonnicksen noted in an article that "The effort to push an anticloning bill through the U.S Congress seriously miscalculated the strength of interest group politics, when more than seventy biotechnology, medical, and patient advocacy groups held press conferences and argued before Congress that efforts to discourage reproductive cloning made sense, but that a broadly worded ban would stymie medical research geared to treating diseases and conditions" (Bonnicksen 4). Experts in the biotechnology/medical field also feel that research into somatic cell nuclear transfer processes can be very beneficial. But remember, use of the process does not mean recreating a live human, it can be used and implemented to find cures and solutions to various genetic abnormalities. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine written by Jerome P. Kassirer and Nadia A. Rosenthal; both scientists agree that there is benefits to cloning technologies, without going into detail about what negatives might exist. Regardless, they specifically discussed various ways this technology can be useful in the biotechnology field. They write "Research on somatic-cell nuclear transfer might yield numerous benefits. Studies of stem-cell differentiation could provide valuable information about the mechanism of aging or the causes of cancer. Stem cells derived from this technology might also be a rich source of material for transplantation if specific genes or sets of genes in these pluripotent stem cells could be activated and if, as has been described before, the cells could then be coaxed to differentiate" (Kassirer, Rosenthal 1). There are, as I have stated earlier, practical uses of cloning. We should not be afraid of the science, we should be afraid of those who wish to use it to further their fame. With this technology we can grow organs, code new proteins for those who have genetic abnormalities, and extend life beyond what our bodies can give us naturally. The ability to manipulate these traits will give us the advantage to nature in the sense that cancer is no longer a death sentence. AIDS will no longer be a problem because we can code for the protein that fights AIDS, which 1% of the population has. There is so much we can do for the human race using applications of cloning. However, we must not allow these efforts to cloud our conscious as to how far we can go. We must always ask ourselves is this right? Will this adversely affect the human condition? These questions when answered will allow us to understand what is beneficial, and what isn't.
Human cloning is a very controversial topic. The science says it's possible and can lead to a world without genetic diseases and ailments. Religion says life is the work of god, and scientists and business people do not have a right manipulating the will of god to their own needs. I agree with the religious community to an extent. Full human cloning is not something we need to endeavor to do. However, it is necessary for Bio/medical engineering to continue to achieve breakthroughs in the field simply because if we can do something about it, it should not be ones fate to die because they were dealt a bad pair of genes. We must limit our ambitions to simply trying to improve the livelihood of those who are born naturally. There is no need to build "Grand Armies" that we see in movies like Star Wars. Also, we must consider what this means about what we think about life, especially since we are not sure whether or not life is some fluke that happened just on Earth; while rather unlikely we still need to defend the sanctity of life. In the end, with the research and facts presented, there is a solid and irrefutable case that full human cloning can only lead to the degradation of society. If we are to preserve our society's, and keep the diversity that most people love to scream and make a big deal about, than human cloning is simply not a road we must go down. In order to keep the human race unique and free, we must reject the idea that cloning human beings, is a part of the evolution of our race. However if we truly want to evolve past what we are now, it would make more sense to keep the genetic diversity we have today coupled with medical advances that can cure genetic ailments, cancer, AIDS, and all other types of genetic abnormalities. It is our differences that make us who we are and shape the relationships between those we love and our dear friends. If science dares to destroy these bonds than I fear that the human race will be different in the negative. Using Cloning technology to advance our abilities for those who were born naturally is common sense. Using it to create large products of people that share the same DNA will only lead to the loss of the individual, and the loss of the human condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, D.C.:          AEI, 1998. Print.
Kassirer, Jerome P., and Nadia A. Rosenthal. "Should Human Cloning Research Be Off     Limits?" New England Journal of Medicine 338.13 (1998): 905-06. Print.
Klotzko, Arlene Judith. The Cloning Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
MacKinnon, Barbara. "Crafting Cloning Policies." Human Cloning: Science, Ethics, and Public     Policy. Urbana: University of Illinois, 2000. N. pag. Print.
"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
Wilmut, Ian, and Roger Highfield. After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. New     York: W.W. Norton &, 2006. Print.

The Science of Star Wars: Artificial Limbs

Usually when people get all four limbs cut off and then seconds later become a victim of a massive third degree burn from a volcano, they die.  Unless your George Lucas, whose attitude of "screw logic" have made him a billionaire and sell out to the Disney Company.  However, amputees can now access technology that look and operate in a similar function as the artificial limbs in Star Wars.  Sith Lords, you will have to wait a little while before dangerous lightsaber fights on volcanoes can have you coming out alive after falling into the volcano. 

An article recently posted on theweek.com discussed all of the applications of research into artificial limbs.  It was interesting to note that many amputees from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were actually able to serve another tour of duty after losing a limb.  Interesting enough, researchers are as of now looking into ways where an amputee can have complete control of an artificial limb.  Using wiring within the device and nerves and brain waves to have complete control of the device.  Coming out of the world of science fiction this is truly remarkable.  However, there are still significant risks that need to be considered. 

For one, we know technology loves to break, and often times for no bloody reason.  Anyone whose ever had anything made by Apple knows exactly what I'm talking about.  What would be any potential implications of a broken electrical limb?  How would you fix the problem?  I mean you don't go to the emergency room if your computer breaks, but you don't go to best buy when you break your arm.  Your limb would obviously fall on middle ground.  But then we still have to consider what are the implications of any possible accidents. 

Stuff breaks, like all of the time.  Let's say your out and about minding your own business.  You cross the street, and the idiot driver adjacent to you doesn't look and drives through you.  You look down and there's your robotic limb, impaled by something on the car.  Now before you go "Jake, you just bloody fix it" we need to consider what might happen.  It might be totaled and unrepairable, and you still have to pay off the limb that is now broken.  Regardless of populist health care plans, that limb is still gonna cost a chunk of change, and someone will pay for it.  Looking at the grand scheme of this scenario, we need to examine whether or not the luxury of having it will offset the potential cost for replacement or repair while considering how durable these things might be.  Looking back at when brand new technologies from lateral thinking first came to market, they were not very economically friendly, and experienced many problems and durability issues.  The same goes for products that are a result of vertical thinking.  Bottom line: when this stuff hits market will it be worth having over the potential risk of breaking? 

Electricity=good.  Water=good.  Electricity+Water=very very very bad.  Even though the human body contains a great quantity of water, I don't see that as the problem.  Pacemakers, artificial hearts, and other electrical devices have been around for a long time and we haven't seen any large scale problems working within the body.  However water exists in just about every other place, and when mixed with an active circuit, the result is never favorable unless that result was your intention.  I'm a firm believer in individual responsibility, meaning that its the individuals job, and not the doctor, to take care of themselves and the hypothetical electrical limb.  But stuff happens, water can get in anywhere, and I fear when mixed with an electric current running to your brain, your brain might become well, toast.  It's very similar when my grandparents installed a new line of electric fencing, I was dumb enough to put the metal gate against the active fence, and the electricity ran right through me.  Luckily it wasn't a potent current, and I doubt that the limb will be a giant microwave of energy, but there still needs to be concerns aired before we go through with human testing. 

I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that eventually the price of electrical limbs will go down like every other cool new thing out there.  However, keep informed on the health care law.  With all of the money going to insurance companies, and not to research, we might have a problem with innovation.  Innovation is what brings costs down.  Research allows us to find new and better ways to treat problems.  Older but still effective ways then go down in price.  That works for everyone.  It creates jobs, and most importantly allows humanity to advance with technology. 

Science of Star Wars Part I (Engineering Physics)

I've decided to do some soul searching these past few weeks.  Nuclear Fusion is great, but what if we expand our borders a little bit?  I mean who doesn't like the Star Wars series!?  But in all seriousness I'm going to explain different aspects of science applied in Star Wars, from light sabers, to Darth Vader's bio-suit, and who can leave out the death star.  While some of these things are a bit far fetched (Jar Jar Binks is one)  technology seen in the movies is achievable today, and in some cases already achieved.  If by the end of this series you don't think of me as an evil genius, than your likely in Neville Chamberlains company. 

I'm going to start off with the Death Star, the most iconic weapon in American pop culture.  The idea of building a massive battle station with the firepower to destroy a planet isn't so far fetched as it seems.  Theoretically, it is possible, however not within the grasp of current technology, well at least for a super laser. 

A study done by Lehigh University done in 2012 estimated that building the death star based alone on steel costs would be about $852 quadrillion dollars, and it would take roughly 833,315 years to make enough steel to start construction.  Recently, a White House petition sprouted up to build the death star as an economic stimulus package.  The petition garnered the 25,000 signatures necessary to force a white house response.  The White House countered with the cost of 852 quadrillion, plus the 833,315 years of producing steel to begin construction.  The White House added the moral argument that it doesn't support blowing up planets (I for one, am sick of Venus and wish it to go the way of the dinosaur)  and the logical argument of producing a space station that can be blown up by a single star fighter.  So by todays standards it can be built, just none of you will be alive to see it. 

Now onto why we want this fella in the first place, because we want to blow stuff up and terrorize the universe.  Lets face it, the creeps in Alpha Centauri don't have jack on our death star.  The laser needed would need to be immensely powerful obviously, but how can it be achieved?  And is there anything in the universe that powerful?  Oh why yes, yes there is.  Gamma ray bursts.  When a massive star dies, and I mean MASSIVE.  It collapses into a black hole, for active readers this is not a new concept, for new readers check earlier posts.  Anyway, the energy from the star is then expelled from the collapsing star and pushed out in two directions, a lot like a tube of toothpaste.  The energy forced out has the power to literally destroy anything in its path.  And it will.  Physicists estimate that if a gamma ray burst were to head toward Earth, it would take a fraction of a second to end us.  At least in that regard it will be a very quick death.  I wouldn't sweat that too much, the likelihood of that happening are 1 to several billion.  Still I won't say its completely impossible...

Contrary to popular belief you can't just melt a planet, the mass will still be there and it will turn into a gas giant.  You could try to break it into tiny pieces, but then there is still gravity.  If you cut Earth in half, gravity will just bring the two halves back together.  Both of these methods would cause extinction level fatalities but remember the goal here is to blow up a planet.  But how do you do that?  Using Gravity.  If you want to destroy a planet you must scatter the mass of it so quickly its forces of gravity cannot overcome the process of pulling it apart.  In order to do this you need to bring the planets mass up to escape velocity.  But from there you can use math and calculus to determine just how much energy is needed to actually do the deed.  I'll spare the details, because its a lot of math. 

Where to get this energy still is another problem.  Although the most likely would be through a large fusion reactor.  If engineers can figure out to match the output of the sun, and keep the plasma within a vacuum safely, you have your death star laser.  It would then be a matter of figuring out how to dispense the energy.  

For those of you who have no idea what this might look like, let me enlighten you

And I just had to throw this famous scene in

For those of you who don't believe me, I find your lack of faith disturbing

Fire (heat) + Nuclei = Super Happy Fun Time (Thermonuclear Fusion)

If you look at the title, and know me very well, you can probably guess this has to do with something explosive, and you're right.  Unlike WD-40 and fire, red phosphorous and fire, and thermite and fire, this process isn't something your average chemistry student can pump out in a lab.  But I assure you it is just as fun, and explosive.  Just like the chemical equation that I have made famous : WD-40 + fire yields FUN, the same basic principle applies to thermonuclear fusion.  In a nutshell you heat nuclei to extremely hot temperatures.  When you heat nuclei they move at a faster rate.  The faster it moves, the more energy it creates, the more energy the higher temperature.  However they do not naturally move that quickly on their own and must be introduced to a sufficient source of heat.  Now, you can do this one of two ways: first there is an uncontrolled reaction, think the Ivy Mike test with the hydrogen bomb, that was an example of a thermonuclear reaction that was uncontrolled.  The second would be the opposite, a controlled reaction.  Considering it has never been done you can conclude its pretty difficult.  Getting the particles within the plasma to fuse together is only a matter of temperature, but keeping that plasma contained is a whole other story.  If that plasma touches anything solid the whole thing is done.  The fusion process is so specific that if anything goes amiss the whole thing collapses and fails, but on the upside that also means catastrophic failure and potential Chernobyl like implications are very small, if not statistically impossible.  Anyway the best way to contain that plasma would be within the vacuum.  The vacuum idea is not as easy as it sounds.  The problem right now is how to keep that fella from expanding and ruining your life.  The best examples would be stars.  Massive gravitational forces act to keep the plasma of the star from expanding outward.  If this can be achieved at a proportional level than we might have a break, and a huge one.  You can look at inertial confinement, and magnetic confinement as potential solutions to the problem of containing the plasma.  Both are great ideas, and have great potential.  The question is, will it be this, or will someone work out something entirely different that will change how we look at fusion.  I must note that Thermonuclear reactions are not the only way theoretically to achieve fusion, but considering its the only process that's ever worked (on an uncontrolled level)  you would be silly to go with what you don't know.  But then again stranger things have happened. 

Politics and Eco Activists: Looking out for our best interests?

For my science minded followers let me assure you there will be discussion on fusion concepts and applications.  When it comes to Energy, and especially Nuclear Energy there always has and will be politics and policy that come into play.  The purpose of this blog is to highlight every facet of Nuclear Fusion, which sadly includes the games our government plays when it comes to energy policy.  This post today is meant to address the policies of the U.S government when it comes to Nuclear Power, and why the government is wasting your money on projects that cost more, and have less potential than nuclear power and research.  When President Obama was first elected and sworn into office in January 2009, he claimed to be a major supporter of Nuclear Power.  Most of us know now when Mr. Obama says something it may just be carbon dioxide and nothing else with little or no substance, but backtrack five years ago we didn't have such trust issues.  Anyway The President and his administration worked up a deal with Constellation Energy to build a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant near the Chesapeake Bay.  To make long story short the Obama Administration then rebuked the deal, and instead put down $900 million to build a solar plant in my home of Southern California.  Nice right?  This story reported by the resilient earth blogger Doug Hoffman goes into greater detail about the deal.  Here is the link: http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/obama-killing-us-nuclear-industry

The problem with contemporary energy policy is that we are pumping BILLIONS of dollars into the green energy sector and getting very little return on investment.  Why, because the technology is either A unreliable B not ready and in some cases both.  Hydro power is the most reliable and efficient out of the main green energy sources.  The problem with it is that you need a might river or water source to get some good juice, and I mean big.  So putting a hydro plant on the Los Angeles River might power your television and small hut so you can watch Al Gore's channel, but have fun powering the stock exchange to full capacity.  Solar power has tremendous potential but again, it is not ready.  The batteries on any solar unit will where out in 8 years at the most.  Meaning technology wise, solar units have the lifespan of a fruit fly.  Besides that with Nuclear Fusion, you get a better deal because think about it; Would you rather take scraps from the sun, or would you rather harness its power and fit it to your needs?  If you're in favor of the latter, I know of a green party blog that would better suit your reading indulgence.  Lastly we come to wind, which is singlehandedly the dumbest investment in the energy sector out there. And again all we have to do is think, does the wind blow all of the time and at a constant rate?  Nope.  So then why on God's ocean covered Earth would we pump money into an energy project where the fuel source cannot give you a consistent rate of energy?  The government spends billions on these projects and all they do is flop.  If that happened in the private sector the business would die. 

If the government wanted to truly advance energy independence, they would take my advice and the advice of many scientists.  Put money into research, not implementation of potential reliable sources such as solar.  Keep the upkeep on hydro plants and build new ones where the potential energy yield generated would be worth the investment.  Lastly put more money into expanding Nuclear power with the technology we have and research into fusion power which would single handedly out do any other energy source this planet has ever seen.  I'll end on a note to my colleagues at school who may want my head on a spike after reading my posts.  I can't see how anyone could reasonably be against fusion power.  Look up into the sky, see that massive bright light?  It's been keeping life on our fair planet alive for billions of years, and what do you think powers it?  Yeah, if you don't like fusion power, you must not like sunlight.  Next post I'm going to discuss different theories and concepts on Nuclear Fusion and what a fusion reactor might look like and do.  Stay Classy Pasadena

Nuclear Fusion and why it matters

Imagine a world where you could power your home without coal or natural gas.  Think about doing away with some of the silly "green" projects.  No longer would you rely on expensive solar units.  There would be no need for unreliable wind farms.  The power of water will no longer matter because now it doesn't matter if you live near a major source of water or one that is diverted by man.  With fusion power, engineers and scientists can recreate the power of a star and use it to power our homes, and the savings on energy costs and resources will be abundant.  Few detractors claim that developing fusion can possibly create an event where the reaction breaks down and collapses into a black hole.  Physically speaking any reaction created would not have the mass to do such a thing.  Take our own star, the sun, for example.  The sun with it's tremendous size does not have the mass to collapse into a black hole.  Take our much smaller reaction, that only uses a fraction of the power of a star.  It simply will not have the potential to collapse and consume the solar system. However, I am a very big fan of black holes and would not mind creating one simply to advance scientific knowledge, but that's beside the point.  One might ask what does fusion do?  And how does it work?  When two atomic nuclei collide together to form a new nucleus.  However not all of the mass is conserved, as some of the mass is converted into photons.  The difference between this and Fission, which is used in power plants and weapons is that fission cuts an atom, which releases the energy held together from the strong nuclear force.  The problem with fusion power at it's present state is that all fusion reactions attempted have been either unsuccessful, or have been unsustainable and lasted for milaseconds at best.  The problem is that fusing two atoms together is incredibly difficult.  Even if you take the lightest element (Hydrogen) and try to fuse it, it will not work.  that is because all nuclei have a positive charge, since like charges repel it is incredibly difficult to fuse two like nuclei together.  However, if both nuclei are accelerated to incredibly high speeds and collided they can overcome the natural electrostatic force and create a strong enough attractive force to achieve fusion. That is where I will be going with the next few posts, which is how we can achieve fusion sustainably without the use of massive particle accelerators.  While nuclear fusion is still a long way off, Thermonuclear reactions, more specifically those used in weapons, are widespread in use.  Basically it uses the heat given off from a fission to ignite a nuclear fusion stage.  Essentially not fusion, but more of a fission catalyst to start the fusion reaction.  Take a look at the Ivy Mike test in 1952, that will give you a better sense of what a thermonuclear reaction looks like.