Category Archives: Categories

A man in an orange shirt signing an autograph for a child wearing a red cap at an outdoor event with people and umbrellas in the background.

EPA Gags Scientists Amid Skyrocketing Climate Change Economic Impact

Categories, climate change, Political, , , , , , , , , ,

In its latest move to silence any discussion of climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency kept three scientists from speaking at a Monday event regarding the health of Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest estuary. The irony is that the EPA is the sole funder of the $600,000 program that published the document, the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program.

However, silencing discussions on climate change is impossible given the unprecedented frequency of environmental disasters. Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who served under President George W. Bush, told CNN that the environmental devastation from the last three hurricanes and droughts that led to forest fires is going to cost US taxpayers upwards of $300 billion dollars. However, Ms. Whitman noted that estimate does not include the devastation in Puerto Rico from hurricane Maria or the current wildfires in Northern California that have already claimed 233,000 acres and 8400 structures. While no one specific environmental disaster can be directly attributed directly to climate change, Ms. Whitman stated, “…scientists say this is what you can expect.”

It is also going to become increasingly difficult to salience discussions on climate change as the cost of dealing with environmental disasters skyrockets. According to the US Government Accountability Office’s Website today, their report “Information on Potential Economic Effects Could Help Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Fiscal Exposure” projects climate change will cost the US Government “between $4 billion and $6 billion in annual coastal property damages from sea level rise and more frequent and intense storms,” between 2020 and 2039.

The current EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, is under attack, literally. In addition to criticism over his direction of the EPA, Pruitt has received multiple death threats. As a result, Pruitt doubled his security and added a new soundproof booth in his office. According to CNN, this prompted Reps. Peter DeFazio and Grace Napolitano to request the EPA inspector general to investigate potential misuse of taxpayer funds by Pruitt.

Unfortunately, denying the science that underpins climate change is due to human activity will have no effect on the ever-increasing weather extremes. In March, Pruitt stated carbon dioxide is not a “primary contributor” to global warming, a statement that scientists around the globe argue is false. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas and traps heat. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions.” The current level of carbon dioxide is hovering around 400 parts per million, 100 parts per million higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. Most scientists agree this increase is unequivocally due to human activity. The bad news is that the carbon dioxide level continues to rise. At 500 parts per million, it becomes a health hazard to humans.

Many people think that climate change, specifically global warming, means that it is just going to get slightly warmer around the Earth. However, that is not how it works. Global warming causes weather extremes, similar to the recent frequency of hurricanes and droughts we’ve experienced. It also means loss of coastal lands as the world’s oceans rise due to heat expansion and glacial melting. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The evidence is clear. The Earth is experiencing climate change due in large part to human activity. The economic impact, in addition to human suffering, is enormous. Removing EPA regulations and denying the science will create more jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs will be in the emergency relief agencies and health agencies.

Book cover titled 'Nanoweapons: Growing Threat to Humanity' by Louis A. Del Monte, featuring a small insect image.

AUSA Book Review of Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat To Humanity

book reviews, Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, , , , ,

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) published this book review (for inclusion in the print version of their magazine). The full review is below and a link to the review is on the AUSA website at this URL: https://www.ausa.org/articles/august-2017-book-reviews

Here is the full review:

Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity. Louis A. Del Monte. Potomac Books. 244 pages. $29.95

By Scott R. Gourley
Contributing Writer

There are times when a book best serves as the starting point for new discussions or to broaden existing discussions on military technology. Ominous title aside, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity fulfills the role of starting the discussion.

Drawing on three decades of experience as a physicist and business executive leading the development of microelectronics and sensors key to the integrated circuit industry, author Louis A. Del Monte presents a broad look at the emergence of nanotechnology—the science of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale—and the potential implications of “nanoweapons” in future warfare.

In defining the technology, Del Monte offers the criteria used by the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, which calls for only one dimension of the macroscale product to be in the nanoscale of 1 to 100 nanometers.

“This interpretation opens the door for numerous scientific fields to engage in nanotechnology research and application, including the fields of surface science, organic chemistry, molecular biology, semiconductor physics and microfabrication,” he says, noting that the multidisciplinary research category brings with it “unprecedented optimism and serious concerns.”

The concerns in this book are focused on what he asserts to be the weaponization of the technology and specifically the risk of losing control of those weapons.

After combing through the available open-source literature, the author makes projections about the research, the leading countries involved and what some of those research directions might be. Because of the limited amount of information on nanoweapons research he could uncover, the author asserts it is ongoing classified work and then relies on a level of supposition and conjecture to spotlight hypothetical nanoweapon threats like self-replicating smart nanobots, able to build copies of themselves from raw materials and operating in ways similar to biological viruses.

The rough time frame of 2050 is presented as a possibility for when two “technological singularities” may occur—first, a point when artificially intelligent machines exist that exceed the combined cognitive intelligence of humanity, and then a point when the self-replicating smart nanobots will “have completely changed every aspect of human existence” and “have the potential to render humanity extinct.”

While some readers might dismiss the resulting vignettes as a cross between Terminator and Star Trek, the presentations are based on intriguing open-source threads that the author weaves into an interesting fabric based on his experience with the rapid evolution of integrated circuits. Common supporting caveats include: “My insight suggests,” “speculation on my part,” and “based on publicly available information.”

Those looking for hard data on weapons will not find it in this book. In fact, the author’s commercial background results in occasionally confusing statements that overlook current military realities, such as: “Nanoelectronics and nanosensors have the capability to make artillery projectiles ‘smart,’ meaning that they will have properties that resemble guided missiles.”

However, the author’s insight is founded on a broad technology background and does include many thoughtful suggestions on how categories of nanoweapons could be regulated as extensions of existing arms agreements.

The strength of the book is in establishing awareness and either starting or expanding discussions on some of the issues surrounding the potential of nanoweapons. If the author’s 2050 timeline is correct, this issue is not far in the future. That time frame is more than a decade prior to the planned U.S. retirement of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and likely a time when the Army will still employ upgraded models of many current combat systems.

Clearly, it’s not too soon to expand some of the discussion on the warfighting implications resulting from nanotechnology.

A mechanical insect with metal legs and two large barrel-shaped eyes resembling gun barrels.

Will the United States Use Nanoweapons to Resolve the North Korean Crisis?

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, North Korea, , , , , , , ,
Unless you’re working in the field, you probably never heard about U.S. nanoweapons. This is intentional. The United States, as well as Russia and China, are spending billions of dollars per year developing nanoweapons, but all development is secret. Even after Pravda.ru’s June 6, 2016 headline, “US nano weapon killed Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, scientists say,” the U.S. offered no response. Earlier this year, May 5, 2017, North Korea claimed the CIA plotted to kill Kim Jong Un using a radioactive nano poison, similar to the nanoweapon Venezuelan scientists claim the U.S. used to assassinate former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. All major media covered North Korea’s claim. These accusations are substantial, but are they true? Let’s address this question.

 

Unfortunately, until earlier this year, nanoweapons gleaned little media attention. However, in March 2017 that changed with the publication of my book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (2017 Potomac Books), which inspired two articles. On March 9, 2017, American Security Today published “Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity – Louis A. Del Monte,” and on March 17, 2017, CNBC published “Mini-nukes and mosquito-like robot weapons being primed for future warfare.” Suddenly, the genie was out of the bottle. The CNBC article became the most popular on their website for two days following its publication and garnered 6.5K shares. Still compared to other classes of military weapons, nanoweapons remain obscure. Factually, most people never even heard the term. If you find this surprising, recall most people never heard of stealth aircraft until their highly publicized use during the first Iraq war in 1990. Today, almost everyone that reads the news knows about stealth aircraft. This may become the case with nanoweapons, but for now, it remains obscure to the public.

 

Given their relative obscurity, we’ll start by defining nanoweapons. A nanoweapon is any military weapon that exploits the power of nanotechnology. This, of course, begs another question: What is nanotechnology? According to the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative’s website, nano.gov, “Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers.” To put this in simple terms, the diameter of a typical human hair equals 100,000 nanometers. This means nanotechnology is invisible to the naked eye or even under an optical microscope.
If the U.S. chooses to use nanoweapons covertly, they most likely will use:

 

  • Toxic nanoparticles – These are toxic particles a nanoscale diameter, which means their surface area to volume ratio is enormous. What makes them extremely effective as a poison is that they are able to cross biological membranes that their bulk counterparts are unable to cross. Therefore, they can be readily absorbed. They are more toxic than their due to the large surface area to volume ratio, which allows them to be extremely chemically reactive.

 

If the U.S. chooses to use nanoweapons in open conflict with North Korea, it will likely be:

 

  • Nanoelectronic Weapon Systems – Nanoelectronics are integrated circuits with features in the nanoscale. Intel is shipping nanoelectronic microprocessors for use in commercial computer applications. Because of their nanoscale features, they are smaller, faster, and use less power to operate. This makes them ideal for military weapon systems, like guided missiles.

 

The U.S. has a formidable nanoweapons arsenal. Even as they use them covertly and in open conflict, it may not be apparent that the technology that underpins the weapons is nanotechnology, thus making them by definition nanoweapons.

 

When will that change? It will change when something big happens. Imagine billions of toxic nanoparticles released on an adversary’s army, causing death and chaos. This would significantly reduce the adversary’s military effectiveness. In all likelihood, it may take weeks or months for the adversary to determine the cause. Imagine millions of nanobots attacking an adversary’s army, again causing death and chaos. In effect, killer insect-like nanobots would be a technological plague.

 

Ironically, the next big thing in military weapons is small. Barely mentioned in the media, nanoweapons are as effective and lethal as their larger more visible counterparts. In time, a nation’s military might will be a measure of its nanoweapons capabilities, as well as it nuclear and more conventional capabilities. In fact, by the second half of this century, nanoweapon capabilities are likely to determine the superpowers.
A futuristic, sleek turbine engine with a conical front and illuminated blue accents in a dark setting.

Stephen Hawking Proposes Nanotechnology Spacecraft to Reach ‘Second Earth’ in 20 years

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, , , ,

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is proposing a nanotechnology spacecraft that can travel at a fifth of the speed of light. At that speed, it could reach the nearest star in 20 years and send back images of a suspected “Second Earth” within 5 years. That means if we launched it today, we would have our first look at an Earth-like planet within 25 years.

Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft, termed “Star Chip,” at the Starmus Festival IV: Life And The Universe, Trondheim, Norway, June 18 – 23, 2017. Hawking told attendees that every time intelligent life evolves it annihilates itself with “war, disease and weapons of mass destruction.” He asserted this as the primary reason why advanced civilizations from another part of the Universe are not contacting Earth and the primary reason we need to leave the Earth. His advocates we colonize a “Second Earth.”

Scientific evidence appears to support Hawking’s claim. The SETI Institute has been listening for evidence of extraterrestrial radio signals, a sign of advanced extraterrestrial life, since 1984. To date, their efforts have been futile. SETI claims, rightly, that the universe is vast, and they are listening to only small sectors, which is much like finding a needle in a haystack. Additional evidence that Hawking may be right about the destructive nature of intelligent life comes from experts surveyed at the 2008 Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at the University of Oxford, whose poll suggested a 19% chance of human extinction by the end of this century, citing the top four most probable causes:

  1. Molecular nanotechnology weapons – 5% probability
  2. Super-intelligent AI – 5% probability
  3. Wars – 4% probability
  4. Engineered pandemic – 2% probability

Hawking envisions the nano-spacecraft to be a tiny probe propelled on its journey by a laser beam from Earth, much the same way wind propels sailing vessels. Once it reaches its destination, Hawking asserts, “Once there, the nano craft could image any planets discovered in the system, test for magnetic fields and organic molecules, and send the data back to Earth in another laser beam.”

Would Hawking’s nano-spacecraft work? Based on the research I performed during my career and in preparation for writing my latest book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (Potomac Books, 2017), I judge his concept is feasible. However, it would require significant engineering, as well as funding, to move from Hawking’s concept to a working nano-spacecraft, likely billions of dollars and decades of work. However, in Nanoweapons, I described the latest development of bullets that contain nanoelectronic guidance systems that allow the bullets to guide themselves, possibly to shoot an adversary hiding around a corner. Prototypes already exist.

Hawking’s concept is compelling. Propelling a larger conventional spacecraft using a laser would not attain the near light speed necessary to reach a distant planet. Propelling it with rockets would also fall short. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, a large conventional spacecraft would require close to infinite energy to approach the speed of light. Almost certainly, Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft for just that reason. Its mass would be small, perhaps measured in milligrams, similar to the weight of a typical household fly.

Hawking’s concept represents a unique application of nanotechnology that could give humanity its first up-close look at an inhabitable planet. What might we see? Perhaps it already harbors advanced intelligent life that chose not to contact Earth, given our hostile nature toward each other. Perhaps it harbors primitive life similar to the beginning of life on Earth. We have no way of knowing without contact.

You may choose to laugh at Hawking’s proposal. However, Hawking is one of the top scientists on Earth and well aware of advances in any branch of science he speaks about. I judge his concerns are well founded and his nano-spacecraft concept deserves serious consideration.

A surreal image of ocean waves crashing onto a road with yellow dividing lines under a cloudy sky.

Record Scorching Temperatures Are Result of Global Warming

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, , ,

When many people hear about global warming, it conjures images of the world’s temperature getting just a little warmer. NASA’s website asserts, “the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.”

An increase of 1.4° Fahrenheit does not seem extreme. Actually, it seems relatively mild. Unfortunately, that is not how global warming works. We do not experience a slightly mild increase in temperature worldwide. We experience, instead, extremes in climate change. However, when added together they result in an average temperature increase of only 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) across the Earth’s surface.

Cyclical events, such as night, day, change of seasons, precipitation patterns, can fluctuate significantly on a local basis. However, the global temperature depends on how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun, minus the amount it radiates back into space. The amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is almost constant over the course of a single year, but does vary significantly with the 11-year sunspot solar cycle. For the most part, the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is predictable. However, the amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and that is what is causing global warming. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing, particularly the increasing amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). It is the increase in greenhouse gases that is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Some refer to this phenomenon as the “greenhouse effect.”   

One or two degrees (Fahrenheit) average temperature change may not appear like a big deal, but historically a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. Likewise, a one to two degrees increase is now causing the sea level to rise. The sustained increase in temperature between 1880 and 2009 caused the sea level to increase an average of eight inches. The measured sea level increase on the United States East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico is even higher by several inches. Since 1993, the average annual rate of global sea level rise is accelerating. This increase in the average sea level is largely due to melting ice at the polar caps and the thermal expansion (i.e., expansion due to heat) of the ocean. If the current trend continues, recent studies project sea level increases from six to twenty feet by 2100. While six feet sounds manageable, it would represent a loss of land mass for the United States equal to Massachusetts. If the sea level increase is twenty feet, the United States coastline would be unrecognizable and the land loss would equal 48,000 square miles, displacing five percent of the United States population. The same would be true of all countries that border the world’s oceans. While there is still debate regarding how much the sea will rise, none argues the contrary.

In addition, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), seven million people die each year from prolonged exposure to air pollution directly caused by burning fossil fuels. In highly industrialized urban areas, each breath could be equivalent to puffing on a cigarette. We humans may find a way to engineer around this toxic environment by using special air and water filters in our homes, cars, and workplaces. However, numerous species will not be as fortunate. In fact, experts predict that one-fourth of Earth’s species will be heading toward extinction by 2050. By 2100, those same experts warn that humanity may face extinction.

There is little doubt that human activity is playing a significant role in global warming. NASA reports carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent since the 1750 Industrial Revolution. Indeed, for most of the 20th century, atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged in the mid 200 parts per million (ppm). Today, NASA reports it is over 400 ppm and it is on a trajectory that continues to increase.  

Where does all this carbon dioxide come from? The preponderance of evidence argues climate change, air pollution, and acid rain results from burning fossil fuels to power the machines of modern civilization. If you live in modern society, everything you use relies on fossil fuels, in one form or another. For example, consider any product. Fossil fuels may be essential for powering the machines that make the product, be a critical ingredient in the product, and/or be necessary to ship the product to market.

Unless we change the current trajectory of increasing greenhouse gasses, expect climatic disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. Currently, California and Arizona are experiencing scorching temperatures. Tomorrow, wherever you are, it may be your turn to experience a climatic disaster.

Fixing global warming first requires we recognize it is a reality and attributable to human activity. Although many fossil fuel phase-out initiatives are taking place at the state and local levels, in reality, we are a nation unprepared for the inevitable. Some nations, like Sweden, do have a plan to fade out fossil fuels. Most, though, ignore the risks. However, we all share the same planet. When the climate passes the tipping point, it will affect everyone. When air pollution becomes an even more potent killer, it will not discriminate. It will affect everyone.

This is not a political issue or a matter of opinion. It is a scientific issue and a matter of life and death.