IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Everybody--including Russia and China--apparently believes that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands is a bad idea. Iran with nuclear weapons would destabilize the region, lead to more countries going nuclear, possibly serve as a source of supply to terrorists, and could lead to a nuclear exchange or two. But Iran continues to build centrifuges, which turn out the stuff that nuclear weapons are made of. So how can Iran’s nuclear project to build bombs be halted?

First, the UN must make it clear, if it has not done so already, that Iran must not--is forbidden--to build nuclear weapons. The resolution must be clear and must be agreed to by all the nuclear powers, including Russia and China. With the resolution in place, the International Atomic Energy Agency should demand that Iran open its nuclear facilities to completely unhindered inspections. Assume that Iran lets the inspectors in and they find that Iran clearly has a bomb making program. In this case International Atomic Energy Agency should be given the power to halt and then dismantle the program. The centrifuges would be removed from Iran or destroyed on the spot.

If Iran balks at the inspections, this can be considered clear and convincing evidence that Iran is probably in violation of the UN mandate against building nuclear weapons.

The next step should be “Inspection By Force”. In other words, the International Atomic Energy Agency has the right to enter Iran and inspect its nuclear facilities without Iran’s permission. Sovereignty in this situation, as in war, has no validity.

“Inspection By Force” means that a small armored force would drive up to Iran’s border and announce its purpose of inspecting Iran’s nuclear program by authority of the UN resolution. If Iran refuses to admit the inspection force, the force should attempt to enter anyway, up to the point of an exchange of gunfire. Assuming the force consists of armored vehicles, and no large weapons are brought to bear, no bloodshed should occur. If gunfire starts, the force should halt and attempt to hold whatever position it has attained. If it appears that annihilation may occur, the force should return to Iran’s border and remain there.

Psychological and diplomatic means should also be used. First, all the nuclear nations should agree on a “No First Use of Nuclear Weapons”. Iran should be induced to pledge something similar, such as, “In the even that Iran develops nuclear weapons in the future, it agrees to the No First Use pledge”.

Then a second agreement should be signed by all the nuclear powers to the effect that all of them will retaliate against any country that uses a nuclear weapon, regardless of whether it has agreed to the No First Use pledge or not.

The two agreements would effectively lead to the trivialization of all nuclear weapons, including those of the US and Russia. In actuality, nuclear weapons have not been usable since the end of WWII. The use of nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945 showed the whole world what these weapons can do. No country has dared to use one since that time, leaving terrorists as the only likely users. In a sense, the world is lucky to have the examples of the Japan nuclear bombings to look back on. If these examples did not exist, would the US and Russia have been as cautious as they actually were during the Cuban missile crisis? Would some other crisis have lead to a nuclear exchange? The human race does not seem able to learn really important things by applying logic and common sense. We seem to need a horrible example to drive home the point. We’ve had two applications of nuclear bombs . We don’t need another one.

Microwave tests of food?

Recent reports on the internet have claimed that food cooked in microwave ovens is being altered in the process of cooking. The only research in this area seems to have been that of Swiss investigators Hertel and Blanc, who published their work in the early 90s and were then theoretically gagged by Swiss authorities. Meanwhile, it is reported that the Russians ban all microwaved food.

Nevertheless, people in the US have been using microwave ovens to cook and heat food for many years, and there appears to have been no significant bad effect that has been brought to public notice.

It would be interesting to see the results of a few scientific tests. A few ordinary foods like sugar and salt (separately and then together) could be microwaved and then tested to see if any new chemicals have been created, or existing chemicals destroyed or modified. Further tests could be done on more complex food components, such as starches and alcohol, and then on actual foods. A few tests if this type would go a long way toward setting the facts straight. The biotech labs of many companies and colleges could probably do the tests with little advance preparation.

Does anyone know of any real research in this area? If no tests have been done, the following types of tests should be performed.

To test the effect(s) of microwave cooking on food you need a microwave oven and a spectrum analyzer, assuming the spectrum analyzer can detect any changes that occur in the food. The test sequence would be approximately as follows:

Test 1:

Step 1. Get some very clean water and boil it on a stove to volatize any gases dissolved in it. Then get its spectrum to see what impurities it has, if any.

Step 2. Let the water cool to room temperature and then microwave the water to the boiling point and boil for about a minute.

Step 3. Let the water cool and do another spectrum test.

Step 4. Compare the spectrums of before and after the microwaving. If the microwaving did not affect the water, the two spectrums should be the same, assuming impurities have not been affected.

Test 2:

Add some sugar to some water from step one and let it dissolve. Then repeat steps 2, 3, and 4 of the water plus sugar.

Test 3:

Add both salt and sugar to some water from step one and let them dissolve. Then repeat steps 2, 3, and 4.

Further tests:

Other tests can be done in the same manner using other basic food components such as starches and fats and then actual foods such as milk, meat, etc. Food tests would be more complicated because you would now have to compare meat cooked in the microwave oven to meat cooked in a regular oven.

The tests on simple foods could be done in any biotech lab with a microwave oven and a spectrum analyzer. This might be a good project for some biology grad students.

Why Religion?

Human beings have invented more than 100 religions during the period of recorded history. About 25 of these religions are still popular. Some people have taken this to mean that humans have a genetic disposition toward religion--that we have a gene for religion.

A simpler explanation is available. We live in a world of space and time--three dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. If there are other dimensions, we don’t know what they are. Modern theoretical physicists have speculated that there may be as many as eleven or more dimensions. But none of these dimensions has ever been documented. The extra dimensions, if they exist, are not accessible to humans and may never be documented.

In the 4-dimensional world that we know, nothing can happen without something else causing it to happen. Why does the sun rise in the morning? Because the earth rotates toward the east. Why does rain fall from the sky? Because the temperature of the water-laden clouds falls enough to allow vapor to condense into water.

Where did the earth come from? It was formed as part of the solar system. Where did the solar system come from? It came from the “big bang” of about 13 billion years ago. Where did the big bang come from?

At the end of the line, human beings are left with only one viable answer to the question of where did everything come from, and that answer is: “We don’t know”. But we humans don’t like an answer such as “We don’t know”. Because of our 4-dimensional mindset, everything has to have a source or be caused by something else. While we don’t know where the universe came from, we can comfort ourselves with the idea that it was created by some mysterious entity that we can call God. Or, maybe you can say, “God exists in another dimension; a dimension that we don’t have access to.” Of course, this assumes that beings or whatevers in this other dimension(s) have free access to our puny four dimensions, while we have no access to theirs. It’s a nice theory but unfortunately there’s no way to prove it, not now and probably never.

Then, once you’ve invented God, you want to make sure he or she or it doesn’t get mad at you and hit you with a thunderbolt or starve you to death. So you build alters and create rituals that you hope will cause him or her or it to look on you with favor. And anybody that doesn’t know what you know, and who doesn’t do the right thing or think the right way, could be putting you in danger, and you can’t have that.

Does this mean that all religions are bad? Not necessarily, especially if you don’t take them too seriously. Unfortunately,
some people do take them far too seriously.

Speech as Money?

The US Supreme Court ruled some time ago that money is the same as speech.

Two small boys each decide they want a candy bar. Since the candy bar costs a dollar and they don't have any money, they go to their respective fathers and ask for a dollar. One father takes out his wallet and gives his son a dollar. The other father tells his son, "Go to the store and convince the owner to give you a candy bar for nothing."

Question: Will both boys end up with a candy bar?