19. December 2009 by admin.

Santa skeptics have long considered St. Nick’s ability to deliver toys to the world’s good girls and boys on Christmas Eve a scientific impossibility. But new research shows that Santa is able to make his appointed rounds through the pioneering use of cutting-edge science and technology.

Santa is using technologies that we are not yet able to recreate in our own labs. A small group of distinguished professors of mechanical and aerospace engineering who just completed a six month visiting-scholar program at Santa’s Workshop-North Pole Labs (SW-NPL) said Santa is using technologies that we are not yet able to recreate in our own labs. “As the first scholars to participate in the SW-NPL program, we learned that we have a long way to go to catch up with Santa in fields ranging from aerodynamics and thermodynamics to materials science.”

For example, they say that Santa’s sleigh is far more advanced than any modern form of air transportation. “The truss of the sleigh, including the runners, are made of a honeycombed titanium alloy that is very lightweight and 10 to 20 times stronger than anything we can make today.” The truss can also morph, they add, altering its shape slightly to improve its aerodynamics and “allowing it to cut through the air more efficiently.” The runners on the sleigh, for example, have some flexure. This allows them to tuck in to be more aerodynamic during flight, and then spread out to provide stability for landing on various surfaces – such as steeply pitched roofs.”

The sleigh is equipped with state of the art electronics, including laser sensors that can detect upcoming thermals and wind conditions to find the optimal path. “This makes the flight smoother and more energy efficient,” the scientists say. “Efficiency is key, because a lot of the ongoing research at SW-NPL focuses on whether magic is a renewable resource.” The focus on efficiency and a smooth ride has also led to the development of a nanostructured “skin” for the sleigh that is porous and contains its own low-pressure system, which holds the air flowing around the airborne sled onto the body, reducing drag by as much as 90 percent.

A key finding from the professors’ visit to the North Pole is that Santa uses a reversible thermodynamic processor – a sort of nano-toymaker known as the “magic sack” – that creates toys for good girls and boys on site, significantly cutting down on the overall weight of the sleigh. The magic sack uses carbon-based soot from chimneys, together with other local materials, to make the toys. The magic sack works by applying high-precision electromagnetic fields to reverse thermodynamic processes previously thought to be irreversible.

The sleigh is driven by Santa’s well-known team of reindeer, which is equipped with side-mounted jetpacks. The reindeer and jetpacks, which are powered by cold fusion, “are arrayed in such a way as to create a stable reindeer-sleigh system,” they say. “The sleigh’s reins are used to not only direct the heads of the reindeer, but to direct the orientation of the jetpacks for precision flight.”

They explain that the sleigh is also equipped to make use of so-called “relativity clouds” to help ensure Santa and his reindeer can travel approximately 200 million square miles, making stops in some 80 million homes, in one night. “Based on his advanced knowledge of the theory of relativity, Santa recognizes that time can be stretched like a rubber band, space can be squeezed like an orange and light can be bent. Relativity clouds are controllable domains – rips in time – that allow him months to deliver presents while only a few minutes pass on Earth. The presents are truly delivered in a wink of an eye.”

They all concluded that the experience was an eye-opener. “We appreciate the opportunity Santa has given us to visit his sleighport and work alongside the elves at SW-NPL. It was a unique learning experience and a tremendous honor.” They note that the principles of cold fusion are still a closely guarded secret.

Posted in Links | No Comments »

9. December 2009 by admin.

Rejection can make a person more intuitive. New research suggests individuals who have faced the cold shoulder can more easily spot phony people.

The ability to spot a fabricated smile, exhibited by test subjects who had suffered rejection, could be a relic of our past, the researchers said.

It seems to be a skill we’ve acquired through evolution. Living in groups several thousands of years ago was extremely important to survival. Being kicked out of the group was like death, so they became very good at reading facial expressions and social cues.

A similar, albeit perhaps less lethal, threat occurs when you get knocked out of a clique at school or in the office. In fact, past research has shown social exclusion can make a person cold, literally. And another study revealed that loneliness, at least in older adults, is linked with high blood pressure.

People these days who are rejected are in a dangerous place because of evolutional pressure to find their way back into a group.

Rejected stories could be breaking up with a partner and not being called when your friends go out. It could be that a football player who had been injured and could no longer play would feel his football friends didn’t associate with him as much.

It turns out, the eyes might hold the clues for bogus versus genuine smiles, and that rejected people are probably looking harder at these faces, and  may actually be looking at better spots on the face. A rejected person is focusing more on the smiling person’s eyes.

A real smile is not shown in the mouth; it’s shown in the eyes. There are muscles around the eyes that are indicative of a real smile, whereas a fake smile just requires the mouth muscles.

Rejection does not cause individuals to cling to any inkling of camaraderie, and they do not latch on to any sign of positivity and accept the insincere smiles as genuine. Rather, getting the boot from a group makes a person that much more savvy when it comes to entering another one.

It’s clear we’re equipped with radar for identifying who is open to affiliation and who is not.

Posted in Links | No Comments »

3. December 2009 by admin.

No one wakes up in the morning eager to buy gene-altered food, and there’s good reason for this. Genetically modified foods do nothing for the “eating public”. They provide no extra nutrition, flavor, safety or any other trait that people actually want. Instead, these food products only offer risks, which include potential toxicity, allergenecity, and lower nutritional value.

This presents a tough problem for the Monsantos of the world, who are pushing these GM foods. How can you sell something to the public that offers no benefits to them? And, because of their lobbying power, the biotech companies have ensured that their products are not labeled. So Monsanto’s real request of the public is “be unknowing guinea pigs for foods that make us a lot of money and offer you nothing but risk.”

Obviously this message is a PR nightmare, so Monsanto has come up with a spin that is old as public relations itself: “accept and buy our products because they will help the world.” More particularly, their ads displayed in mass transit systems around the country and regularly on NPR claim that GM foods “will feed a hungry world” and “reduce the load of pesticides” used in agriculture.

Not surprisingly, both these claims turn out to be self-serving myths. Earlier this year the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a detailed report entitled “Failure to Yield”. The report’s findings were straightforward and incontrovertible. After 21 years of research, billions of dollars of investments in public and private funds, and more than 13 years of commercialization, GM crops have done nothing to significantly increase yield: so much for the “feeding the world’s hungry” spin.

Now, a just released report from The Organic Center, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years”, exposes the “less pesticide” myth.

It turns out that far from reducing pesticides, GM crops are a major reason for the massive expansion of pesticide use in recent years. This should not be a surprise. The majority of GE crops are “Roundup Ready,” designed to survive heavy and repeated spraying with Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Roundup Ready crops have dramatically increased Roundup use, and spawned a growing epidemic of Roundup-resistant weeds, which now infest millions of acres of American cropland. Killing resistant weeds requires more herbicides. How much more?  Based on official USDA data - GE crops have increased the overall use of weedkillers in the U.S. by a massive 383 million pounds since 1996.

Sometimes even more chemicals won’t do the trick. In the South, cotton farmers are reverting to the pre-industrial practice of “chopping cotton,” or manual hoeing, to rid their fields of Roundup-resistant pigweed.

Dow Agrosciences will soon bring us GE corn, resistant to 2,4-D, one of the weedkillers in Agent Orange - the dioxin-laced defoliant used during the Vietnam War. 2,4-D-resistant corn will undoubtedly increase use of this dangerous weedkiller, which has been banned in Sweden, Norway and Denmark due to its links to cancer and reproductive disorders. Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Syngenta all have their own new “herbicide-tolerant” crops in the works, some resistant to two and even three herbicides each. The inevitable result will be continuing increases in the use of toxic chemicals to kill “next-generation” weeds resistant to multiple weedkillers.

In the face of all this, many farmers are becoming disillusioned with GE crops. In many states, demand for conventional seed, especially soybeans, is outstripping supply. Among the reasons given by farmers for this historic switch are dramatic price hikes for biotech seeds, increased pesticide costs due to resistant weeds, premiums for non-GM supplies, and importantly, the ability to save and replant conventional seeds, which is illegal with Monsanto’s patented GE seeds.

Thanks then to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Organic Center for debunking the myths about GM crops and foods. In terms of timing, the two reports released this year couldn’t have come at a more crucial moment. Through careful scientific analysis they expose the false advertising that biotechnology companies are using in print and on our public radio airways.

We should all know what Monsanto and other companies are selling, and its not a solution to world hunger or a cleanser for the environment. What they are really selling is what they make best: chemicals. The biotech giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow - are, without exception, major pesticide manufacturers. They have each bought up sizeable chunks of the world’s seed supply, and are using biotechnology to make those seeds sell their pesticides for them.

It may be good for their bottom line, but its bad for us, the safety of our food, and the health of our environment.

Posted in Links | No Comments »