Tag Archives: louis del monte

A close-up of a rope tied in a detailed knot next to a knife on a brown surface.

Will the United States Use Nanoweapons to Topple the Kim Regime?

Categories, Nanoweapons, North Korea, ,

Nanoweapons are the next and most deadly generation of military weapons the world has ever encountered. In fact, they promise to be even more deadly than nuclear weapons. A cloud of secrecy has kept most people from even knowing they exist. Given this fact, let’s define nanoweapons. Nanoweapons are any military technology that exploits the power of nanotechnology. This begs a 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.” In simple terms, the diameter of a typical human hair equals about 100,000 nanometers. Therefore, the largest nanotechnology is over a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. This means nanotechnology is invisible to the naked eye or even under an optical microscope.

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jung um, has already accused the United States of attempting to assassinate him using nanoweapons. In a 1,800 report issued on May 5, 2017, the North Korean state news agency KCNA said a “terrorist group” conspired with the CIA and South Korea’s Intelligence Service (IS) to assassinate its leader Kim Jong un using a “biochemical substances including radioactive substance and nano poisonous substance.” This report marks the second time the United States finds itself accused of using nanoweapons. Pravda, Russia’s state-run newspaper ran this headline on June 6, 2016: “US nano weapon killed Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, scientists say.” While both Russia and North Korea are widely known to issue fake news to support their political agendas, it is striking that they both mention the United States’ use of nanoweapons, specifically nano poisons.

 Is it true? It could be. The United States leads in the development of nanoweapons. Using nano poison to assassinate someone would be virtually untraceable. Unlike a conventional poison, it is nearly impossible to detect its use. What are nano poisons? A nano poison consists of toxic nanoparticles. Because of the size, less than a 100 nanometers in diameter, toxic nanoparticles are absorbed more readily than other known toxins. Nanoparticles are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues, and organs that their larger counterparts cannot. Therefore, nano poisons are more deadly than their bulk counterparts are. Cancer-causing radioactive nanoparticles are particularly deadly and almost impossible to detect. Once a person ingests radioactive nanoparticles, they may die months or even years later, as was claimed regarding the death of Venezuela’s former president, Hugo Chavez.

Currently, the United States, China, and Russia are secretly spending billions of dollars to gain an asymmetrical advantage in nanoweapons. In 2000, the United States government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a research and development initiative involving the nanotechnology-related activities of 25 Federal agencies with a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities. To date, the US has invested over $20 billion in NNI programs. NNI dedicates at least 20% of its budget to DOD programs. In addition, each branch of the US military has its own nanotechnology R&D facility. Nanoweapons are real. As I fully describe in my latest book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity, the United States already secretly deploys them.

Nanoweapons are particularly attractive as military weapons since:

1. Unlike nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, no international treaties limit the development and deployment of nanoweapons or their use in warfare

2. Nanoweapons, for example toxic nanoparticles, have the potential to be weapons of mass destruction

3. Developing nanoweapons is less costly than developing nuclear weapons

4. Detecting nanoweapons manufacturing facilities is difficult

5. Detecting the source of a nanoweapons attack is difficult

Ironically, the next big thing in military weapons will be small and almost invisible, nanoweapons. The United States is the world nanoweapons leader. Therefore, it’s logical that they would use this capability to defend the homeland. If we learn that Kim Jung un is dying from cancer, similar to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, it may be the result of a nanoweapons attack. Science fiction? No! Science Fact.

The iconic pyramids of Egypt stand majestically under a colorful sky at sunset in the desert.

Cosmic Rays Reveal Hidden Chamber in Great Pyramid of Giza

Categories, Technology, Universe Mysteries, , ,

For millennia, grave robbers and archaeologists have been digging tunnels in search of a hidden room in Khufu’s Pyramid (a.k.a. The Great Pyramid of Giza). Until today, they were literally searching in the dark. Now, using cosmic-ray muon radiography, Kunihiro Morishima’s, et al., publication in Nature is providing a roadmap, potentially a treasure map, to a previously unknown chamber in Khufu’s Pyramid. In their article, they report “Discovery of a big void in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons discovery of a large void (with a cross section similar to the Grand Gallery and a length of 30 m minimum) above the Grand Gallery, which constitutes the first major inner structure found in the Great Pyramid since the 19th century.”

Cosmic ray-muons are subatomic particles, with an electrical charge equal to an electron, but with a mass around 200 times greater than an electron. Muons form in the upper layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, the by-products of cosmic rays (i.e., a highly energetic atomic nuclei) colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Traveling near the speed of light, approximately10,000 muons reach every square meter of the earth’s surface a minute. Two factors make muons useful:

  1. Their ability to penetrate solids deeper than x-rays
  2. The difference in their speed in solids (i.e., slower) than air (i.e., faster)

Armed with this knowledge, Kunihiro Morishima, et al., used three different muon detection technologies and three independent analyses to confirm this hidden chamber, now named, “ScanPyramids Big Void.”

This marks the potential beginning of a new field in archeology, namely archeological cosmic-ray muon radiography. According to the Nature article, “While there is currently no information about the role of this void, these findings show how modern particle physics can shed new light on the world’s archaeological heritage.”

Using muons to generate three-dimensional images of volumes is not new. Developed in the 1950s, the technology is termed “muon tomography.” Current applications include detecting nuclear material in road transport vehicles and cargo containers for security reasons and non-invasive nuclear waste characterization for safety reasons. However, the Nature article marks the first archeological application.

Khufu’s Pyramid, built on the Giza Plateau (Egypt), dates back to the pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), who reigned from 2509 to 2483 BCE. It is one of the oldest and largest monuments on Earth. However, there is no consensus regarding how the ancient Egyptians constructed it.

Muons have a rich history in scientific discovery. The Rossi–Hall experiment in 1940 confirmed Einstein’s time dilation effect, as predicted in his theory of special relativity. In 1963, the Frisch-Smith experiment confirmed Rossi-Hall’s experiment and measured mean muon velocities between 0.995 c and 0.9954 c (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum). In 1977, Bailey et al. measured the lifetime of positive and negative muons using the CERN Muon storage ring (particle accelerator). This experiment confirmed both time dilation and the twin paradox. The twin paradox predicts, via Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that one twin in a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light will age slower than the other twin, who is standing stationary on the Earth.

Our friend the muon continues to help us push back the frontiers of science, from Einstein’s special theory of reality to a hidden chamber in Khufu’s Pyramid.

A woman holding a sign that says 'We are better than this!' at a protest or rally with a crowd in the background.

Politics In Science

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, Political, , , ,

Many of us would like to believe that science is the search for truth as it relates to the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. However, that belief is only partially true.

Scientific research is often driven by government grants and contracts, whether you’re in a university or Fortune 500 company. While the research itself may follow the scientific method and lead to unbiased results, politics determines the fate of those results. For example, the carbon dioxide level is currently about 400 parts per million (ppm). For the last 650,000 to about 1950, the carbon dioxide level never cross the 300 ppm level. However, with the increased use of fossil fuel, such as coal and gasoline, the carbon dioxide level began climbing to its current level. The bad news, it is still climbing. At 500 ppm it is a health hazard to humans.

Well over 90% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is related to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas that traps heat. As a result, we are seeing the sea level rise and the Gulf of Mexico become a catcher’s mitt for the increased frequency of hurricanes. In addition to the human suffering caused by climate change, there is a financial impact. According to the US Government Accountability Office’s Website, 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. However, the reality of climate change is being treated as a political issue. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, kept three scientists from speaking at the October 23rd Narragansett Bay Estuary Program workshop on the 2017 State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed report.

The government has the ability to politicize science by directing research via:

  • University grants
  • Military industrial complex programs
  • Government laboratories/agencies programs
  • Censorship of government scientists

Obviously, science is no longer the pure search for truth regarding natural phenomena. Today’s science follows the government’s roadmap. Acting on results is a political decision, even when life and death are in the balance.

What does all this mean? Science is riddled with politics. Scientists working on government programs have two choices, follow the government roadmap or quit. Let me be clear. I am not talking about defense contract research, which for security reasons must be kept secret. I am talking about fundamental science, such as climate change research, which should proceed without censorship or political agendas.

Unfortunately, the EPA’s mission of “protecting human health and the environment” is now politicized to the point that they will censor government scientists and deny the reality of climate change. Although the World Health Organization estimates that “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress,” the EPA director, Scott Pruitt, told CNBC that “ “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” Pruitt is an attorney, not a scientist. However, he apparently feels comfortable challenging the mass of scientific evidence that contradicts his viewpoint.

Human endeavors tend to always be inherently political, including scientific research. However, politics in science should be confined to interpreting the results, not refuting results that have been widely established via the scientific method. For example, are these irrefutable facts or results open to interpretation:

  1. Greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap heat.
  2. Carbon dioxide is increasing dramatically to the point that the amount of heat trapped is causing sea levels to rise and weather extremes, such as droughts and hurricanes.
  3. The increase in carbon dioxide is due to human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels like coal and gasoline.

The bulk of the scientific community would argue they are facts. Is it possible they are wrong? Yes, it is possible. However, government censorship and policies will not set the truth free. As Einstein stated, “ Truth is what stands the test of experience.” If we examine our current experience, we are seeing unprecedented carbon dioxide levels associated with unprecedented climate change. We need to embrace the facts and work on solutions. Governments can censor scientists or deny reality, but Mother Nature will have the final say.

 

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.