21st Century Science- Summer 2011- The Universe is Creative

News GLOBALWARMINGUPDATE56 TheMirageofRisingSeaLevels Nils-AxelMörner

NUCLEARREPORT58 ToDoubleWorldFood ProductionProliferate RadiationTechnologies! MatthewEhret-Kump Areportonthe34thannual InternationalMeetingonRadiation Processing,Montreal,June13-16.

59 INTERVIEW:DR.YOUNG-JINKIM UniqueNuclearCenterIsa BackboneforIndustrialGrowth66INTERVIEW:DR.ARUNSHARMA ProducersandConsumers BenefitFromFoodIrradiation Technology70INTERVIEW:PHILIPPEDETHIER ParticleAcceleratorsHave AdvantagesforIrradiation72 INTERVIEW:DAVIDPYMER MedicalDeviceSterilization INTERVIEW:DR.JU-WOONLEE

72 EducatetheConsumer!73 RadiationRoundup Moreresponsesfromconference attendees.

BIOLOGY&MEDICINE74 HOPEFORMGSUFFERERS? Monarsen:AnOrphanDrug InNeedofaSponsor MarjorieMazelHecht76 INTERVIEW:DR.HERMONASOREQ TheDevelopmentofMonarsen ForMG

21st CENTURYSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Vol.24,No.2 Summer2011

Features

6 TheUniverseIsCreative! SkyShields

AreflectionontheontologyofmindbyoneoftheLaRouche “BasementTeam,”presentedinJulytotheSchillerInstituteEuropean ConferenceinGermany.

EINSTEININPARIS19 EinsteinPresentsandDiscussesHisTheory CharlesNordmann

ThefirstEnglishtranslationofa1922articledescribingseveral lecturesbyAlbertEinsteinduringhisvisittoParisthatyear.

21 Translator’sNote ShawnaHalevy

ROOSEVELT’STVA39 TheDevelopmentProgramThatTransformed ARegionandInspiredtheWorld MarshaFreeman

FranklinRoosevelt’sTVAbrought themostbackwardregionof thecountryintothemodernage, providingarecordofrapid developmentthattherestofthe worldrushedtoemulate.

ThefirstmajorTVAproject: NorrisDamontheTennesseeRiver.

On the Cover: Astronaut David A. Wolf, STS-112 mission specialist, installs an exterior station television camera outside of the Space Station’s Destiny Laboratory, in October 2002. Photo courtesy of NASA; cover design by Alan Yue.

Departments EDITORIAL 3 The‘BigLie’AboutRadiation AndLNT MarjorieMazelHecht

4LETTERS

5NEWSBRIEFS

BOOKS79 EvolutionaryHistory:Uniting HistoryandBiologyto UnderstandLifeonEarth byEdmundRussell ReviewedbyAaronHalevy

82 TheMostControversialDecision: Truman,theAtomicBomband TheDefeatofJapan byWilsonD.Miscamble,C.S.C. ReviewedbyL.Wolfe

TVA

2 Summer2011 21stCenturyScience&Technology

EDITORIALEDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-Chief

LaurenceHecht

Managing Editor

MarjorieMazelHecht

Associate Editors

ElijahC.Boyd

DavidCherry

ChristineCraig

MarshaFreeman

ColinM.Lowry

GregoryB.Murphy

RichardSanders

CharlesB.Stevens

BooksDavidCherry

Art Director

AlanYue

Advertising Manager

MarshaFreeman

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD

FrancescoCelani,Ph.D.

HughW.Ellsaesser,Ph.D.

LyndonH.LaRouche,Jr.

WolfgangLillge,M.D.

RamtanuMaitra

ThomasE.Phipps,Jr.,Ph.D.

B.A.Soldano,Ph.D.

21st Century Science & Technology(ISSN 0895-6820) is published 4 times ayear by 21st Century Science Associates,60SycolinRoad,Suite203,Leesburg,Va.20175.Tel.(703)777-6943.

Address all correspondence to 21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington,D.C.20041.

21st Century is dedicated to thepromotionofunendingscientificprogress,all directed to serve the proper commonaimsofmankind.

Opinions expressed in articles are notnecessarily thoseof21stCentury ScienceAssociatesorthescientificadvisoryboard.

We are not responsible for unsolicitedmanuscripts.

Electronic subscriptions are $25 for 6issues or $48 for 12 issues. Back issues(1988-2005) are $5 each ($8 foreign).Electronicissuesfrom2006onare$5each.PaymentsmustbeinU.S.currency.

Copyright©201121st Century Science Associates

ISSN 0895-682

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

Well-known toxicologist Dr. Ed-ward Calabrese*1 made the star-

tlingdiscovery recently that theLinearNo-Threshold (LNT) hypothesis, whichgoverns radiation and chemical pro-tectiontoday,wasbasedonadeliber-ate lie, proclaimed in 1946 by NobelLaureate Hermann Muller for politicalreasons.

The LNT assumes that the knowndeleterious effects of very high doselevels can be extrapolated linearlydowntoazerodose.Anotherwaythishas been put is that there is no safedoseofradiation.Asmostofourread-ers know only too well, the reigningLNThypothesisisresponsibleforgen-erationsoffearofradiationinthepop-ulation,themajorfactorinkillingnu-clear power and the enormouseconomicbenefitsitbrings.Onaworldscale,thecostofnotgoingnuclearcanbe measured in millions of lives lost,andmillionsmorelefttoleadalifeofmisery.Meanwhile, billionsofdollarsarespentprotectingsocietyagainstthenon-existingdangersoflow-doseradi-ation.

Although the overwhelming experi-mental evidence that dose-response inradiationisnon-linearhasbeenknownfordecades,ashavethehealthbenefitsof low-dose radiation, Dr. Calabrese’suncoveringofMuller’s“BigLie”istotallynew.

* Dr. Calabrese is Professor in the Environmental Health Sciences Division at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. As a toxicology spe-cialist, he has written scores of articles about the non-linearity of dose-response, including the benefits of low-dose radiation (called hormesis). He is founder and chairman of the advisory com-mittee of BELLE, the Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure, a group founded in 1990, which includes scientists from several disciplines and aims to encourage assessment of the biological effects of low level exposures to chemical agents and radioactivity.

Inbrief,thestoryisthatwell-respectedgeneticist Hermann Muller (1890-1967)liedoutrightinacceptinghisNo-belPrizein1946,whenhestatedflatlyaboutradiationeffectsthatthereis“noescapefromtheconclusionthatthereis no threshold.” Dr. Calabrese wasable to document that Muller knewthisstatementwasnottrue,andthathewas intimately familiarwith thecom-petent research that contradicted hisstatement. He unearthed from the ar-chivescorrespondencebetweenMull-erandco-workersthatshowwithoutadoubtthatMullernotonlyknewofthe research results that showed athreshold, but that Muller et al. con-trived tomake those threshold results“disappear” from the scientific litera-ture.

Thefullstorywillappearinournextissue,inanin-depthinterviewwithDr.Calabrese,tobepostedonthe21stCen-turywebsiteinadvance.

Top-downScientificFraudTheperpetuationofafraudthismo-

mentousdeservestobefullyscrutinizedastomotive.Somewillpointtotheeco-nomicmotive:ThenuclearandmedicalestablishmentshavealotinvestedintheLNT, from the labyrinth of regulationsregardingnuclearsafety,tothelegionsofclean-upoperationsthataremakingthe grounds of former nuclear sitesedible in purity, to the exclusion oflow-levelradiationintreatingdiseaseslike gangrene and cancer in favor ofless-effectivechemotherapies.

But, as in most large-scale scientificfraud,themotivationisnotmerelyeco-nomic,butideological.Theaimofthosepromoting the antinuclear movement,such as Britain’s Prince Philip and hisfellowMalthusianMauriceStrong,istodrastically reduce the world’s popula-tion,fromitspresent6.97billiontobe-

EDITORIAL

The‘BigLie’AboutRadiationandLNT

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2011 3

low1billionpersons.Likethemythicalstory of the Olympian Zeus, who pun-ishedPrometheusforbringingthecom-monmanknowledgeoffire(technology),the“BigLie”aboutradiationisintendedtopreventmankind’sfulluseofnuclearfission.

Mullerwasnotsimplya leadingge-neticist.Hewasaprotégéoftheeugeni-cist Malthusian Julian Huxley, and heworkedwiththegenocideadvocateBer-trand Russell in the Pugwash “ban thebomb” movement. Muller’s argumentwasthatpopulationquantityandqualityneeded tobeplanned,whichcouldbeaccomplishedbyundoing theyokebe-tween“personallove”andreproduction.Asheexplainsinhis1935book,OutoftheNight, “Thephysicalmeans for thisemancipationarenowknownforthefirsttimeinhistory.”

Inhis1935book,Mullerargues thecaseforsavingthespermof“ourgreat-est living men” in order to inseminatewomenofchildbearingage.Inthisway,he wrote, “we should be able to raisevirtuallyallmankindtoorbeyondlevelsheretoforeattainedonlybythemostre-markable gifted.” Muller says that thiswouldofcoursetake“acenturyortwo,”for it would be “voluntary”—familiescouldhave“natural”childrenaswellasspermbankchildren,sothetransi-tiontoanall-geniussocietywouldbeslow.

“Nowallthisisnoidledream,”Mullerwrote. “It not only certainly can bedone—I believe it certainly will bedone.... Not only is our genetic im-provementpatentlypossible,butitisfarsurer and more feasible than any ulti-mate conquest of the atom, of inter-planetaryspace,orofexternalnatureingeneral....”

ThereisclearlymoretobeuncoveredinMuller’sphilosophyandpoliticalac-tivities.Butthefactremainsthathedelib-eratelyliedtosteerradiationpolicyintotherealmoffear,insteadofscience.Thequestionis,whyisafraudthisenormousnotmakingheadlines?Why is therenoclamor for a review of the LNT-basedstandards?

Until scientists and the public act tobring science back to radiation policy,societywillcontinuetopayforMuller’s“biglie”inlostlivesandalostfutureforthehumanspecies.

—MarjorieMazelHecht

EDITORIAL

CosmicCausesofWeather

TotheEditor:I found your article titled “Saturn’s

Storm,Earth’sUnrest,Science’sSilence”[Editorial, Spring 2011] intriguing, as Irecently have been curiously research-ing the potential cosmic causes of theincreased global weather phenomena,earthquake, and volcanic activity.Youreditorial suggests the role of the Sun’ssolaractivityasonekeyelement.How-ever,Ifoundthatthecurrentsolarcyclehas been considerably less active thanprevious cycles especially over the lastthreeyearswhenitsactivitywastohavepeaked.BasedonthisunusualdeclineIlookedatotherpotentialcausessuchasthejetsteamandoceancurrents.

Ilearnedthattheoceancurrentsinflu-encethejetstreampatterns,andwhilethelastdecadehasactuallybeencoolerthanthepreviousdecade,theoceanstempera-turehasactuallyrisenby2degreesCel-siusoverthepast20years.Itwasnotedthattheincreaseintheocean’swatertem-peratureisnotduetoatmosphericwarm-ingbuttothehypervolcanicactivityontheocean’sfloor,estimatedatover5,000spewinglavaandgreenhousegases.

Due to rising ocean temperatures,the jet stream’s patterns have been in-fluenced to cause the abnormal globalweather activity (drought and flooding)andthestormstrengthofhurricanesandtornados.Couldthisincreasedtectonicactivity be the early indications of thepotential for an ELE (extinction levelevent), as you discretely mentioned inyoureditorial?

RecentlyLyndonLaRouchecomment-edinaninterviewthattheworldwouldbe experiencing a significant increaseinnature’scatastrophes,buthedidnotelaborate.IsheinagreementwithyourconclusionofthisarticleordoestheEIRstaff have other relative cosmic infor-mation regarding nature’s phenomenathatyouhavedeterminedtooexplosiveforthegeneralpublictograsp?Inother

words, do your publications have anemergencypreparednessplan inplace,andifsopleaseexplain?

SteveTorrezHouston,Tex.

TheEditorReplies

There is no hidden agenda or pre-parednessplan.Wehavecalledforfullfundingforthe“eyesandears”inspace,so that we may have the best possibleknowledgeofpresentandfuturethreats.Wehavecalledforthekindofprepared-ness plans that should be standard forearthquakes—reinforced buildings, anadequately funded program for warn-ingsystems,andgoodevacuationplans.NAWAPA would provide protectionfromfloods,drought,etc.byitsvastim-provement on water management, andthe changes in weather patterns thatthese new distributions of water willproduce.

There is no simple relationship ofearthquakesandvolcanoes to the solarcycle;however,solarandgalacticinflu-ences are present and their causativemechanismmustbesoughtoutandbetterunderstood.Thereissomenewevidenceof a correlations of earthquake activitywiththesolarminima.Althoughweareexperiencing a weak solar cycle, somevery large solar flares have occurred.We have also recently discovered thatflare intensityhas tobemeasuredovera longerperiodof time tofind the trueintegratedeffect.

The larger point to think about is:What changes in the galaxy influencethebehaviorof theSunand suchphe-nomenon as the Saturn storm? Ratherthantakeastatisticalapproachtosolarcycles,askwhatlargerprocessaretheyapartof.

You might find the book by Pulinetsand Boyarchuk, Ionic Precursors ofEarthquakes, helpful in thinking aboutvarious ways that atmospheric changesmightinfluenceorsignaltectonicactiv-ity.Weather is also influencedby solarandcosmicradiation.Inanotherhighlyrecommendedbook,Sun,Weather,andClimate by Hermann and Goldberg, itisnotedthatasinglecosmicrayofveryhighintensity,perhaps1018eVcouldtrig-geranAtlanticstorm.

Bestofluckinyourresearches.

4 Summer2011 21stCenturyScience&Technology NEWSBRIEFS

ONEPLANETISNOTENOUGH,ISSCREWTELLS21ST CENTURYInaSept.20pressconferenceattheJohnsonSpaceCenterinHouston,

U.S.astronautDonaldPettit,RussiancosmonautOlegKononenko,andEuropeanSpaceAgencyastronautAndreKuipersrespondedenthusiasti-callytoquestionsfrom21stCenturyrepresentatives.Thespacefarers,allscientists,calledforputtinghumanDNAonotherplanetsasamatterofsurvival(Pettit),miningtheMoonandcolonizingthesolarsystem(Kui-pers), and exploring other galaxies (Kononenko).The three are set tolaunch to the International Space Station aboard a SoyuzTMA-03MspacecraftaroundDecember26ofthisyearfromtheBaikonurCosmo-dromeinKazakhstan.

Witha view toward the three-power alliance recentlyproposedbystatesmanLyndonLaRouche,21stCentury’sIanOvertonaskedcosmo-naut Kononenko about U.S.-Russia-China collaboration in space. Ko-nonenko, amechanical engineer andavid sportsman, replied that hewouldexpresshispersonalopinion:“Ithinkthatspacehaslongbeenasportsarena,whereeveryparticipantdemonstrateshowfastorhowhugetheyare.Ithinkthatthefutureofspaceexplorationisonlyinjointexplo-

ration,andwewillbeabletododeepspacemissionsonlyifwecooperate.SoIthinkourfutureisjointco-operation.”

JulietteLamoreux,alsorepresenting21stCentury,ignitedananimateddiscussion,asking,“Andwhatdoyouthinkaboutthepotentialthreatofcyclicalmassextinctionsevery62millionyears,thatwe’veseenontheEarth,andhowmankindmaybegintoaddressthatbiggergalacticquestion?”

Allthreeastronautsanswered.“I’lltacklethegalacticquestionhere,”astronautPettit,achemicalengineer,said,smilingbroadly.“I’mafirmbelieverthatoneplan-etisnotenough.AndIliketosaythatperhapstheultimatereasonforexploringspacecanbelearnedfromthedinosaurs.Ifthedinosaurshadexploredspace,iftheyhadcolonizedotherplanets,theywouldstillbealivetoday.SoIthinkthisisulti-matelywhyhumanbeings,ifwewanttoliveonthetimescaleoftenstotwentiesofmillionsofyears,we’regoingtohavetohaveourDNAonmorethanoneplanet!”CosmonautKononenkoadded:“I think thatproblemswithresourceswillalwaysfacehumanity.Sohumanitywillactuallyhavetolookforadditionalmeansofexis-tence.AndIthinkthatitwillbeanurgentneedtoexploreothergalaxiesandotherplanets....”

DutchphysicianandESAastronautKuipersthenaddedacrucialhis-toricalperspective:“Wehavebeenaroundforonlyashorttime.Andifwethinkincosmicterms—Idon’tknowwhosaidthisfirst—butwe’restandingattheedgeoftheoceanwithonlyourtoesinthewater.There’sanoceantodiscover!...Ifyoulookbacktoouragefromthefarfuture,peoplewillseethatSputnik,Gagarin,Armstrong,thefirstbaseonMars(thespacestationwillbeskipped,becauseitwillbenormal—you’llhaveseveral),industrialization,miningontheMoon,allofthesethingswillhappen.I’mconvincedthathumanitywillspreadoutthroughtheSolarSystem,andwhoknowsbeyond....”

ThepressbriefingwasbroadcastliveonNASATV,andwasalsorecord-ed.Formoredetail.

‘THEBESTFUELWEHAVEISTHEARGENTINEPEOPLE’SpeakingattheSept.28inaugurationoftheAtuchaIInuclearreactor,

thenation’sthird,PresidentCristinaFernándezdeKirchnerenthusiasti-callyproclaimedArgentina’snationalidentityasacountrydedicatedto

scientificandtechnologicaladvancement.“ThebestfuelwehaveistheArgentinepeople,”shesaid,“andwiththisincrediblenuclearreactor,IfeelwearestartingupthemachinewhichourcountryArgentinawas,whichknewhowtobealeaderinallfieldsinLatinAmerica—nuclear,aeronautics,buildingrailroads,automobiles,scien-tificmatters.”

NEWS BRIEFS

LPAC TV

TheupcomingISScrew,ataNASApressconference in Houston, Sept. 20 (fromleft):NASAastronautDonaldPettit,Rus-sian cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko, andEuropeanSpaceAgencyastronautAndréKuipers, engaged in an animated dia-loguewith21stCenturycorrespondents.

presidencia.gov.ar

Argentine President Cristina FernándezdeKirchner,withworkers andnationalandprovincialofficialsatthelaunchoftheAtuchaIInuclearplantonSept.28,2011.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/One_Planet_Not_Enough.pdf

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2011 5NEWSBRIEFS

InafeistyresponsetoattackscomingfromtheInternationalMonetaryFund,theObamaAdministration,andothers,PresidentFernándeznotedthatArgentinahasthesecondhighesteconomicgrowthrateintheworld—8percentthisyear—afterChina.Shepraisedthededicatedworkerspresent,andnotedthat88percentoftheplantwas“madeinArgentina.”Andsheoutlinedthefuturenucleargoals:toextendthelifeoftheexistingEmbalseplantforanother25years,tobuildAtuchaIII,andtobuildthe25-megawattCAREMreactorforuseinthecountry’sinteriortogenerateelectricity.

NEWRUSSIANRADIOTELESCOPE1,000TIMESRESOLUTIONOFHUBBLESpektreR,thenewRussianspacetelescopelaunchedJuly18,

observesintheradiorangeofthespectrumandwillopenupanentirenewerainastronomy.Thisisnotonlythelargestradiotele-scopeinspace,butitwillbeintegratedwithaglobalnetworkofradiotelescopesonEarth,sothatthenetworkwillfunctionasifitwereasingledishaslargeasthefarthestorbitaldistanceoftheSpe-ktreRfromtheEarth:60timestheEarthradius.Thisgivesthecom-binednetwork,knownasRadioAstron,aviewingresolutionof7microarcseconds,which is1,000 times thatof theHubbleTele-scope.

SpektreR,combinedwiththeinfraredfocusoftheU.S.JamesWebbSpaceTelescope,readyforcompletionbutthreatenedbytheAdministration’sbudgetaxe,willgiveusincredibleviewingresolution.TheWebb telescopehas aprimarymirror six timeslargerthanthatoftheHubble,whichwouldopenupanewrangeofstudies,fromdistantgalaxies,totheformationandcomposi-tionofotherstarsandplanetarysystems,andtoweatheronotherplanets.

Formoreinformation.

SPACEAPPLICATIONSWILLSHORTENTHEPATHOFAFRICANDEVELOPMENTFacedwithallofthechallengesofextremepoverty,Africanleadersexpressedopti-

mismaboutspacescienceandtechnology,speakingattheInternationalAstronauticalCongress,heldinCapeTown,SouthAfrica,thefirstweekinOctober.

“Space applications will shorten the path of development,” stated MustaphaMasmoudifromTunisia.“In20years,Africashouldbeonparwiththerestof theworld,”HarryKaane fromKenya, told theCongress.Dr.SandileMalinga,theheadoftheSouthAfricaNationalSpaceAgency(SANSA),whowelcomedthemorethan2,000delegatesat theCon-gress,capturedtheessenceoftheAfricanplansforspacetechnologydevelopment,saying,“Weshouldstartnow,sofuturegenerationscanlookbackatwhatwedid.”Hestressedthat“Scienceisimaginationandwonder,” not just technology. “Those things justify our spending onspace.”

AttheopeningceremonyonOct.3,NalediPandor,theSouthAfricanMinisterofScienceandTechnology,commentedthatspacedevelopmentinAfricawilldomorethanhelpimproveagriculture,communications,medicine,andeducation,andpromotehigh-technologyskills.

Inaninterviewwith21stCenturyAssociateEditorMarshaFreeman,Pandor stressed that frontier scienceand technologyprojects, suchasspacetechnology,nuclearR&D,andmedicalresearchwillbethekeytoupliftingthepopulation.Respondingtotheobservationthatitisveryin-spiringthattherearesomanywomenintheleadershipoftheSouthAfri-cangovernment,MinisterPandorsaid:“WeallthinkaboutEleanorRoos-eveltandthecontributionshemade.Shewasapowerfulwoman,andweneverforgetthatwewouldn’thavetheUniversalCharterofHumanRightsifnotforher.Sowedrawinspiration.Andthat’swhatwewouldlikeAmericatogobackto:tobethecoun-trythatinspiresus.”

Courtesy of University of Kwazulu-Natal

Space physicist Dr. Sandile Malinga(right),attheUniversityofKwazulu-Na-tal explaining the LIDAR facility to agroupofhighschoolteachers.

VideograbofSpektreRbeingreadiedfordeployment into spaceon theZenit3Frocket.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19584


SkyShields,amemberof theLaRouche“BasementTeam,”made this presentation, titled “The Preeminence of Scienceover Ideology,”at theSchiller InstituteEuropeanConference,“RescuingCivilizationfromtheBrink,”whichtookplaceJuly2-3,inRüsselsheim,Germany.1

1. A video Shields’s speech can be found here http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18723. The complete conference is available in video format. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/ The July 15 and July 22 issues of EIR also carried tran-scripts of speeches from the conference.

Iwouldliketotakeupthetheme—it’sathemethatistakenupintherecentseriesofvideoswhichhavegoneunderthetitle“Is the Past Fixed?”2butwhicharetacklingaquestion

thatmightbebestdescribedastheontologyofmind.Peoplehavealotofdifferentconcepts,Ithink,attachedtotheword“Mind.”ButtheproblematicthreadthatIthinkrunsthroughallthedifferentconceptspeoplehaveof“Mind,”isthatsomehow,Mindissomethingwhichwepossess:There’ssomethingthatwerecognizeexistsinus—butiscompletelydistinct,andit’smaybeobservingsomethingoutthere,calledtheobjectiveuni-verse.

Thatistosay,you’vegotsomethinginyou,youwanttocall“Mind,”youwanttonameyourself.Ithascertainlaws,certainrulestoit.Certainwordsseemtocometomindwhenyouthinkaboutit:ideas,concepts,likemorality,beauty.TherearecertainprinciplesthatyouconsidertobedefiniteprinciplesofMind.Butthen,thesearenotnecessarilyprinciplesthatyouwouldas-sumeexist in theso-called“objectiveuniverse.”Youassumethattheremustbesomeotherthingouttherethatperhapsismorelogical,perhapshasothercharacteristicstoit,andweareusingourmindstoobserveit.

ThethemeofthisvideoseriesiswhatI’dliketocovertoday,

2. www.larouchepac.com/node/18639

James Rea/EIRNS

SkyShields:“EverythingyouknowasthephysicaluniverseisderivedfromthatexactsameprocessthatyouknowinyourselfasMind....”

The Universe Is CreativebySkyShields




http://www.schillerinstitute.org/

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/


usingsomeoftheworkofVladimirVernadsky.I’dliketodis-abuseyouofthatidea,anddevelopanotioninstead,thatthisthing we call “Mind” has a fundamental ontological signifi-cance.Thatistosay,thateverythingyouknowasthephysicaluniverseisderivedfromthatexactsameprocessthatyouknowinyourselfasMind,totheextentthatyourecognizeitinyour-selfandothers.ThatthisisaprinciplethathasaveryseriousontologicalsignificancethatisthebasisforeverythingthatweseeinCreation.

And,inthecourseofthis,wewillseethattheactualscien-tificfactsofthematter,agreeverycloselywiththenotionthatyoufindintheAbrahamicre-ligions,ofmanbeingmadeintheimageoftheCreator.We’lldemonstratethatthisisactu-allyaveryrigorousscientificconcept,andit’sthebasisforallhumanknowledge,andit’sthe basis of all human eco-nomicactivityintheuniverse:Theabilityforthehumanspe-ciestoactontheuniverseisbased on this principle, thisontologyofMind.

Todoit,I’dliketogivepeo-pleanintroductiontoathink-er whom you have probablyseen in various works of themovement.Mr.LaRouchehasreferenced his works in anumberofdifferentpapers,anumberofdifferentlocations:This is the Russian biogeo-chemist Vladimir IvanovichVernadsky. He is most wellknown as being the founderof the notion—he’s not thepersonwhocoinedtheword,buthe’sthepersonwhomostrigorously develops the con-cept—oftheBiosphere.Andthat,initsshortdescription,istheenvelopeoftheplanetonwhichwerecognizetheexistenceoflivingprocesses.

But in itsmore in-depth investigation, itactuallybecomessomethingmuch larger.Tomake thepoint that peoplehaveseen,Ithink,insomeoftherecentdiscussionwe’vehad,thathascomeundertherubricof“cosmicradiation”:TheentirefirsthalfofhisbookTheBiosphereisdescribingprocessesthatyouwouldname,thatwouldalsofallunderthatrubricof“cosmicradiation.”

Vernadsky:TheOntologyofMindThatistosay,hisdefinitionofthatthinlayeroftheplanetthat

wecalltheBiosphere,isthatthisistheonlypartoftheplanetwhichinteractswiththerestofthecosmos.Orthisisthepartoftheplanetwhichmostactivelyinteractswiththerestofthecos-mos,largelythroughtheprocessweknowasphotosynthesis,wherethesteadyflowofradiationfromtheSun,electromag-neticradiationfromtheSun,isbeingusedtocatalyzeanamaz-

ingnegentropicprocessofthedevelopmentofthebeginningofallofthefoodandalloftheenergycyclesthatyouseeontheplanet: The construction of the carbohydrate structures thatformthebodiesoftheseplants,andthatareeventuallyincorpo-rated,lateron,intothebodiesofanimals,toberecycled,topassthroughtheBiosphere,inwhatVernadskycalledabiogen-icmigrationofatoms,ultimatelytobecomethestructureofthatBiosphereitself,viathedeathandthedecayofvariouslivingorganisms;tobecomeothergeneratedwasteproducts,tobe-come the mountains, to become the soils, to become theoceans.

You’ve got a steady flowthat,ifyouweretoviewitasthisbiogenicmigrationofat-oms,wouldbesomethingthatcontinuesfromthefarreachesof our cosmos into that thinlayer we know as the Bio-sphere,andbecomestheverystructureoftheEarth,therestofitasweknowit.

That’s the scope of whathe’s actually describing. Butin the course of describingthat,heendsupdrawingsomeconclusionswhichhavema-jor implications for ontologyin general, but which we’llsee—once we follow thispath—leadusdirectlytothisquestion of the ontology ofMind.

I’ll give you some back-ground.Vernadsky’s life is afunny one. We’ve discussedthisinthepast.Itspansatimeperiodwhichisaveryunusu-al, but very interesting andrich time period. It roughlyspans a period between the

AmericanCivilWarandWorldWarII,soitpositionshiminaninterestingplace.HeliveshalfofhislifeinTsaristRussia,andhalfofhislifeinpost-TsaristRussia.Andhe’samajorpoliticalplayerinorganizingfortheoverthrowoffeudalisminRussia,inparticular.Butbecauseofhisscientificviews,herealizedthenecessityofthisbeingthecompleteeliminationoffeudalisminordertofacilitatetheevolutionofthehumanspecies.

Justtogiveyousomeideaofwherehestands.AlotofhisworkleadingintotheRussianRevolution,andoutofit,wasonthe topicofhumaneconomic studies, for that reason.You’llfindstudiesofhisonexamining,comparingdifferentkindsoffarmingpractices,betweentheUnitedStatesandRussiaatthetime.HedoesastudyofU.S.agriculture,Europeanagriculture,ashe’stryingtofindoutwhat’sgoingtoreplacethefeudalstruc-turethatexistsinRussiaatthattime.He’slooking,andsays,“Well,afterrevolution—ifyou’regoingtoendtheideaofserf-dom,you’regoingtoendtheideaofafeudalstructureundertheTsar—whatshouldreplacethat?”Andinhismind,thiswasarealquestionofthescientificevolution—thisisaquestionof

www.tstu.ru/tambov/

AcademicianV.I.Vernadskywithhisdaughter,Nina, around1910.


theevolutionofthehumanspecies. And you’ll findwritingsofhisonthatsub-ject already in the late1890s, early 1900s; thatthisisathemethat’sonhismind.

But he’s investigatingthat at the same time ashe’sdoingsomeearlygeo-logical studies with histeacherDokuchaev,exam-ining,lookingatthenatureofsoils,lookingatthena-tureofthemineralcompo-sition of the Earth’s crust.And in the course of thisstudy, he quickly realizesthat when he’s looking attheseminerals,thatyou’renot observing a fixed sys-tem;thatwhatyou’relook-ingatisaprocessthatex-ists.Hesaid,you’relookingat a process that changesandevolves.

And very early on, hemakesthestatementthatyouseeaprocessthatexistsintime.Andthisstrikeshimasearlyas,again,the1890s,early1900s;thisstrikeshimassomethingthat’suniqueto,first,geologicalprocesses.Butthenherealizesthateveryplaceyouseechangeinthesegeologicalprocesses,it’sconnectedtotheactionoflivingprocesses.Andherealizes—hisback-groundisinitiallyonlyingeology—thatheneedstohur-ryupandgivehimselfacrashcourseinthebiologicalsciences,inordertobeabletomakeanyfunctional,use-fulstatementsaboutgeology.

And sohedoes this.Hedoesawhole investigationhimselfoffiguringout,ofjustgettingatwhatwelaterrec-ognizeashisimpressivemapofalllifeontheplanet,re-ally,everythingyoucanpossibly imagine.Becauseherealizesthatallofthis,thisentireBiosphere,isinvolvedinactingon,anddeveloping,andchangingtheunderly-ingabioticstructureoftheEarth’scrust.

‘TheEternityofLife’Butthenitbeginstosparkinhismind,fromthatobser-

vationofthewaythesebiologicalprocessesoperateongeologicalprocesses,itmakeshimbegintorealizethat,if this is true, then thatearlier recognition thathehadaboutthefactthatgeologyisasciencethatexistsintime,meansthatthethinghe’scallingtimeiscloselyconnect-edtotheactionoflivingprocesses.Andinfact,hecoinsatermthatbecomesverycontroversial,whichhecalls“theeternityoflife.”

Now,thishastwointerpretationsatpresent.Oneisaverypracticalinterpretation,whichisnotun-useful,butit’saveryimportantthingtoknowthisandkindofwrapyourmindaround:that,totheextentthathecanobserve

thesechangesingeologicalstructuresovergeolog-icaltime,everymetricofchangethatyouhavetolookatissomethingthat’sconnectedtolife.Every-thing, from carbon-dating, all dating methods ingeologicalstrata,dependonlivingprocesses.Butthen,hesays,thatthesechangesinthegeologicalstratawereexactlythethingthatseparatesgeologyfrom the other sciences, because it gives us thisfeeling,thissensationthatyouwanttorefertoas“time.”And what he concludes from that is thatthere’sneverbeenaperiodontheplanetwhenlifedidnotexist.

Now,thisisveryinterestingforacoupleofrea-sons.Thefirstthingthatshouldcometomind,aswe had a discussion earlier: “Well, isn’t it true,wasn’ttheresomeperiodoftimewhenconditionsontheEarthweresohot,soimpossible,aroundtheformationoftheEarth,thatyoucouldn’tpossiblyhavelife?HowcouldyouhavethisguyVernadskyclaimingthatlife,asaprinciple,issomethingthat’seternal,iftherewassomepointwhereyoucouldn’thavelivingthings?Doesn’ttherehavetobesomemoment of what’s called abiogenesis, where lifehastospringoutofnothingandcomeintobeing?”

AndVernadskyisvery insistent that,no, this isnottrue.Andasearlyas1908,wehavehimmakingthestatement—whichhe’llrefine—I’llgiveitinthe

formhegivesitin1908,butwe’llsee,astimeprogresses,thathisdevelopmentofthisnotionbecomesmuchmorecomplex.Buthesays,in1908,he’sbeginningtorecognize,thatlifeisa

principleasfundamentalasmatteror energy.This is asearly as 1908, so you canget an idea of where hismindisgoing.

That’sobviouslyverydif-ferentfromthestandardre-ductionist view. The viewthat is prominent today isthat, somehow, life is justsome epiphenomenon,composedoutofnon-livingprocesses.And then cogni-tion, we’re just some epi-phenomenon thatgrewoutoflivingthings.Buthestress-es,no;he’s saying that thisprincipleoflifeissomethingthat exists, that, he says, iseternal,thatpredatesalloth-erphenomenathatmightbeobservable.

By1920,hecomesunderveryheavyattackspecifical-lyforthatnotion,theideaoftheeternityoflife.Thisisaperiod,afterheplaysama-jorroleintheoverthrowofTsarisminRussia,butthere’s

National Undersea Research Program/NOAA

“There’sneverbeenaperiodon theplanetwhenlifedidnotexist”—whatVernadskycalled“theeternityoflife.”Here,tubewormsfeedingatthebaseof a hydrothermal vent, an environ-mentwhereitwasoncethoughtthatnolifecouldexist.

Dokuchaev Museum, St. Petersburg

Vasily Vasilievich Dokuchaev (1846-1903),Vernadsky’s teacher is considered tobe thefatherofsoilscience.


acoupthat’slaunchedby—herecognizesitassomesortofmeddling.He’snottotallyclear that this is the med-dlingoftheBritishEmpiretoensure that the revolutionthatoccursistheBolshevikRevolution,andnotthekindofrevolutionthatVernadskyis looking for,but thishap-pens.

In thatcontext,youhavethetakeoverinRussiaoftheideology of dialectical ma-terialism:Thematerialistas-pectofthatrequiresthere-ductionist notion of theprogression upwards, fromthe abiotic, into the biotic,intothecognitive.WhereasVernadskyismakingthisin-sistence, that processes areorganized in the oppositedirection.Atthispoint,he’sonlybeingveryexplicitthatit’slife,asprimary,thatgov-erns the processes that arebelowit.Butthenwe’llseethat he develops that fur-ther.

Thisbecomesahugedeal.Thepaperhewritesonthesubjectin1920,whichiscalled“TheOriginandEternityofLife,”iscompletelycensored.It’snotallowedtobepublished,andthebookinwhichhewasplanningtopublishit,is heavily redacted. The piece that’s mostheavilyredactedishispieceonhumanau-totrophy,whichisonthewillfulevolution-arydevelopmentofthehumanspecies.Sothisgivesyouanideaofthecontext.

ThisnotionoftheeternityoflifeisexactlywhatAlexanderOparinisdeployedtoattackinVernadsky’swork,toattackandtrytoat-tempttoreworkandrewriteandtoexplainaway. But we’ll see thatVernadsky is notonlyinsistentuponthatprinciple,buthislat-erworkdevelopsthattoanevenhigherlev-el.

WorkwiththeCuriesAmajorchangeinhisdevelopmentofthis

conceptoccursintheperiodaround1924,whenhemovestoFrancetoworkinthelab-oratoryofMarieCurie.Now,he’sworkingthereonvarioustopics,manyofwhicharedealingwiththenotionofradioactivity,ob-viously, and radioactive dating methods,whichhesawasamajorwaytoseethisex-pression of time and development in theBiosphere.

Butwhilehe’sthere,hehasaseriesofpersonaldis-cussionswithMarieCurie,andsherelatestohimtheworkofherhusband,PierreCurie.Inthatseriesofvi-gnettes,it’sinterestingtosee,hedescribesherdescrip-tionofdinner-tablediscussionswiththefamily,whichwouldbePierreCurie,MarieCurie,andtheirdaugh-ters,onscientifictopics.Hementionsthattheyhadaverypeculiarworkingstyle,whichisthattheywouldspend a long time in discussions, that they wouldspendmonthsinjustdiscussionamongstthem,devel-opingtheseideasintheirhead,andthenPierreCuriewouldwriteaveryshortpaperasaresult.AndVer-nadskydoesalittlesummary;hepointsoutthattheCuries’life’swork,whichhesaysisabout—hegivesafigureof something like25years—somenumberofdecadesoflife’swork,fitsinonevolume.Hesaysthisisnotbecausehe’snotaprolificwriter,butbecausehewritestheseincrediblydensesummariesofhisthoughtprocess.

But, as a result, when Pierre Curie is killed, hedoesn’tgetachancetowriteoutthefinalprojectthathewasworkingon,whichwasthegeneralizationofwork that had been done earlier by Louis Pasteur.Now thiswas somework thatVernadskywasobvi-ouslyveryfamiliarwith,onthequestionofhanded-ness,orchirality.ThiswasPasteur’sobservationthattherewasadistinctionbetween thesamechemicalcompoundswhentheyareproduced:Theexactsamechemicalcompound,whichischemicallyidentical,

meaningitundergoestheexactsamereactions,isproducedintheexactsamewayineachcase,butthere’ssomethingfunda-mentally different for certain compounds,when they’re pro-ducedbylivingprocesses,orinalaboratory,outsidealiving

Roger Viollet

PierreCurie(1859-1906)andMariaCurie(1867-1934)intheirlaboratoryinanun-heatedshedinthecourtyardoftheSchoolofPhysicsandChemistryinParis.OnthetableistheCuries’quartzpiezoelectrometer.AtleftischemistGustaveBémont.

Party-line enforcer Alexander Oparin(1894-1980)wasdeployedtoattackVer-nadsky and his idea of “the eternity oflife,”intheearly1920s.Here,Oparinin1938withAndreiKursanov(left)intheirenzymologylaboratory.


process.Andthatdifferenceisexpressedintheabilityofthesecompoundstorotateaplaneofincidentlight.

Ifyouhave light that ispolarized tooscillate inaspecificplane,certaincompoundsproducedbylivingprocesseswouldexhibitanabilitytorotatethatplaneoflight,whereasthatexactsamechemicalcompound,producedoutsidelivingprocesses,couldnot.Andagain,I’dliketostressthat,inotherrespects,thesecompoundsarecompletelyidentical.Theyarecomplete-lychemicallyidentical,butsomehow,theirrelationshiptolightchanges,on thebasisof theirbeinggenerated,ornotbeinggenerated,bylivingprocesses.

Now,Curiesawthisasanexpressionofamuchmorebroadprincipleofsymmetry.Andhehaddiscussedthisinworkwithhisfamily,withMarieCurie.Vernadskyfoundthisveryexciting,andinparticular,hesaidthathewasexcitedabouttheuniver-salityofthisprincipleofCurie,andinparticular,thatithadtwoexpressions.Oneisaquotethatbecameveryfruitfulinallareasofinvestigationlateron,whereCurienotesthatadissymmetryisanevent.

Now what did he mean by that—that dissymmetry is anevent?Icangiveyouamentalimage,whichwouldhelp.Ifyouweretopictureinyourhead,rightnow,arotatingsphere;nowimaginethatwe’retalkingaboutaperfectlygeometricsphere,withnoexternalmarkings.Ifitwereperfectlygeometric,noex-ternalmarkingsonit,wouldyoubeabletoregisterthatthatspherewasrotating?Andinfact,couldyouevengiveamean-ingtorotation?Ifitwereperfectlygeometric,noexternalmark-ingstoit,you’dfind,asyoulookatthething,itlooksexactlythesame.

Ifyoudosomethingtothatsphere,andyouchangeitsspher-ical symmetry—sayyouputadoton it,allofa sudden—soimagineyou’vegotthisspinningsphere,andsomebodycomeswithapaintbrushandtheydabadotonthesideofthatsphere:Suddenlyyouhavemotion,youhavesomethingthatyourec-ognizeasrotation.That,assoonasyouaddadissymmetry,youhavesomethingthatbecomesrecognizableasanevent.AndCuriegeneralizesthat,tosaythatingeneral,wheneveryouseesomethingyourecognizeasaphenomenon,asanactualevent,it’sbecauseyou’reseeingadissymmetrythat’sgeneratedoutofasymmetry.

Now,thisisimportant,becausethatprinciplealone,allowsyoutoeliminatetheideaofemptyspace.Becauseyourealizethatwhatseemsinthiscasetobeanobjectinemptyspace—inthatcase,youwouldsaythedotmovingonthesurfaceofthesphere—isnot.Itisaprocessthatinitiallyseemedtobe,withrespect to some parameter, perfectly symmetrical. Suddenly,someportionbecomesasymmetrical—youintroduceasingu-larityinthatprocess,andtheasymmetryrelativetothesymme-tryregisterstoyouasanevent,asathing.Andthesimplesense-perceptionresponsetothat,istosay,“Well,thisisanobject,whereaswhatyouhadbeforewasempty.”

Butingeneral,Curiesaysno,that’snottrue.Everythingyouseeasaneventoranobject,is,infact,adissymmetrybeingmeasured against a pre-existing symmetry, and that looks toyoulikeanobjectagainstemptyspace.

AndsoVernadskyrecognizesinthatapproachCurieistak-ing,averypowerfulheuristictool.Andifwegetachance,we’llbeabletoseethatyouwillfindthat,inmusicalcomposition,thatbecomesaprinciplethatyoucanplaywith,andyouwill

seehowitmovesthemind:Whatyourecognizeasbackgroundversusforeground;whatyourecognizeevenassilenceversussoundinamusicalcomposition,isreallyplayingonthisques-tionofthesymmetriesandasymmetries,inyourmind:There’snosuchthingasemptyspace.

SoVernadskyisexcitedaboutthis,becausehehasstartedtorealizethatthisgivesyoutheabilitynow,toeliminateallthenotionsofthephysicists,thesesortofpre-existingunquestion-ablenotionsofabsolutespace,absolutetime,andmatter.Hesays,well,thesearefictions,thesearemathematicalfictions,andintherealworld,theydon’texist.Andyouhavetofigureoutahealthierwaytogetaroundthem,tobeabletoapproachactualphenomena,todescribeactualphenomenaastheyare.

Sothatbecomesanexcitingnotion.

The‘PrincipleofRedi’Butthenhe’salsotakenbythesecondelement,that’soften

calledCurie’sPrinciple,whichisthatthesymmetryofaneffectmustbecontainedinthesymmetryofthecause.Andso,heasks,whatdoesthatexactlymean?Curiehasfamousexamplesofit.Themostfamousexampleis,PierreCurieandhisbroth-er—theirdiscoveryofthephenomenonofpiezoelectricity.

Now,peoplemayormaynotbeaware,thattheirdiscoveryofpiezoelectricity,thatis,theabilityforcertaincrystals,whencompressed,togenerateanelectriccurrent,isbasedentirelyonconsiderationsofsymmetry.Ofrecognizingwhatpre-exist-ingsymmetryexistsinacrystallinestructure,anduponitscom-pression,whatsortofchangesinsymmetryareyouobserving?Whatoccursasaresult?Anddotheinducedsymmetries—dotheyordotheynotagreewiththesymmetryofanelectricfield,

FrancescoRedi(1626-1697)formulatedtheprinciplethatalllifecomesfromlife.


ofageneratedelectriccurrent?Andonthatbasis,he’sabletodetermine,firstpredict,thatthephenomenonofpiezoelectric-itywilloccur;butthenalsobeabletodetermineinwhatmate-rialcouldthatphenomenonbegenerated.Andit’spremisedontheideathatyoucangetthesymmetriestoagreebetweentheelectrical current and its associated magnetic field, and thecrystalitself.

VernadskyhearsthisinhisdiscussionwithMarieCurie,andthen,inhisownreadingofPierreCurie’swork.Andthenheconnectsthatwithanideathatwasalreadydeartohisheart,whichisthisquestionoftherenotbeinganyobservedabio-genesis.Theideaofwhathecallsthe“principleofRedi”:3thatlifealwayscomesfromlife.Thatistosay,youneverseethe

3. What Vernadsky calls Redi’s principle, “omne vivum ex vivo,” is the principle, proven by Pasteur, that “all life comes from life.” This principle was formulated by the 17th Century Italian scientist Francesco Redi (in the form “omne vivum ex ovo”—all life comes from the egg) and has not been disproven to this day: There has never been discovered any evidence of the ability to generate the living from the non-living.

spontaneousgenerationof a livingprocess.Andwhatheobserves in thehistoryof theBiosphere,yousee thesteadyemergenceoflife,fromlife,typicallyexpressedasorganismtoorganism.

Butwewillseethatthesymmetryprincipleisgoingtoallowhimtoexpandthisnotionoflifemuchmorebroadlythaneventhatsimpledescriptionallows.

Whathedoesseealso,isthatthispeculiarsymmetrythatyouseewiththehandedness—hegoesback,now,andlooksatthework that Pasteur had done on the ability for certain com-pounds,whenproducedbylivingprocesses,tobeabletoro-tatetheplaneoflightasitpassesthroughthem—andhestartstorealizethatthereseemstobehereanintrinsichandednessintheprocessitself.

Pasteurhimselfhadalreadyconcludedthatthiswasaformofhandednessthathadtoexistinthevery,verysmall;thatthiswasnotsomepropertyofthecompoundinthelarge.I’llgiveyou an example: It was already known that certain crystalscouldrotateaplaneoflightwhenlightwasshoneonthem.For

LouisPasteur(1822-1895)isshownhereinhislabora-toryinan1885paintingbyA.Edelfeldt.Pasteursuccess-fullyseparated the left-andright-handed formsof tar-taricacidcrystals(a)atright.Dissolvingtheminwaterandexaminingthetwosolutionsinapolariscope(b),hefound thatone solution turned theplaneofpolarizedlighttotheleft,andtheotheronetotheright.Hethenshowed thatonly the left-handed form isproduced inbiologicalprocesses,whileequalquantitiesofleft-andright-handedformsarise in laboratorysynthesisof thecompound.


example,quartzcrystal.Crystallizedquartz,ifyoushinelightthroughit,iscapableoftakingaplaneofpolarizedlightandthenrotatingthat,asthelightpassesthroughit.But,ifyouliq-uefythequartz,oryouconvertitintoglass,theformthatweoftenseeit,initsliquidformorinsolution,itlosesthatabilitytorotatetheplaneoflight.Soyou’reabletoconcludefromthat,thattherotationoflightinthecaseofquartzhassomethingtodowiththecrystalstructureitself.

But then, in thecaseof these livingproducts—like the fa-mousexamplewediscussedina[[video]]onthissubjectonthewebsite,4thecaseoftartaricacid:Inthecaseoflivingpro-cesses,theplaneoflightisrotatedinthesolutionbytheliquiditself;whichmeansinPasteur’smind,thatnomatterhowyouchangetheliquid,itwillcontinuerotatingtheplaneoflightastheplaneoflightpassesthroughit.SoinPasteur’smind,thisisaproductofthesolutioninthevery,verysmall.

AFruitfulDiscussionThisissomethingaboutthehandednessofthegeometrythat

goestothevery,verysmall.Hecallsitmoleculardissymmetry.Vernadskytakesalookatthat,andsaysthatthatthingthatPas-teuriscallingmoleculardissymmetry,isactuallyanexpressionof something much more fundamental.And remember, he’scomingfromthestandpointthatherecognizeslifeasbeinganactualindependent,activeprincipleintheuniverse,afunda-mentalone.

So, he begins a discussion. He begins tossing these ideasaround.Theydevelopreallytotheirpeakintheperiodaround1929,1930,1931.In1929,hebeginsacorrespondencewithamathematician,butaveryinterestingmathematician,namedN.N.Lusin,NikolaiLusin.It’sinteresting,becauseLusinispartofaveryspecificmathematicalschool inRussiaat thetime.

�. See “Louis Pasteur: The Space of Life.”

ThisschoolincludesLusin,anotherfigurenamedPavelFlorensky;there’sanumberofthesefolks.Iwon’tgivethisasanendorsementnecessarily,buttogiveyouaninteresting idea of what their mindset is: people whowereopposedtodialecticalmaterialism,becausetheywereopposedtotheconceptofcontinuityasbeingpri-maryinphilosophy.Andtheystressthattherehadbe-comeanover-obsession inmathematics, inparticular,withcontinuityincontinuousprocesses.

And, so the discussion amongst themselves in thisgroup,isthatrealprocessesare,attheirheart,atroot,discontinuous.And in their discussions, you find thattheydiscuss, inparticular, thatpoliticalprocessesandsocialprocesses,donotoccurbysomekindofgradualsocialevolution,Thattheyoccurofnecessitybydiscon-tinuousleaps,thattheyoccurinrevolutions.

Andsotheystressthatanykindofmathematicalstudythat is not taking discontinuity into account, is some-thingthat’sproblematic.Florensky,forhispart,goessofarastosaythathethinksthatithastheneteffectofsep-aratingmanfromGod,becauseofman’spreoccupationwiththenecessitythatthingsmustcontinuouslyfollowfromwhatcameprior.

Sothat’ssimplytogiveyousomecontext.Andamongthem, they formagroupwhichwasheavilyopposed to thereigningideology,thematerialistideologyindialecticalmate-rialism.Florenskyhimselfislaterexecuted.Lusin,inamajorevent in the early 1930s, becomes a target for execution,whichiseventuallystoppedbyVernadsky,groupingsaroundStalin,andotherpeople.I’llgetintosomeofthatandwhat’stocome,butthisisjusttogiveyouaflavorofwhatthediscussionis.

SothisiswhomVernadskywritesto,askinghimaboutthisquestionofhandedness.HesendsLusinacopyofMarieCurie’sbook;it’sabiographyofPierreCuriewrittenbyMarieCurie.VernadskysendsthistohisfriendLusin,andsays:“Look,I’dlikeyoutotakealookatthis”—thisisin1929—andsimply:“lookatthisandtellmeyourthoughtsonthis.I’dliketoknowfromyourstandpoint,isthereanymathematicalorgeometricalsig-nificancetothisquestionofhandednessinlivingprocesses?”ThatdiscussionmayendupbeingtakenupinpersonbetweenVernadskyandLusin,between1929and1937,butthenextlet-terswehavebetweenthemarein1937.

TheHandednessofSpace-TimeBeforeIgettothat,I’dliketodiscusssomeofthedevelop-

mentsin-between,butthatletterin1929justshowsthatthiswassomethingthatwasonVernadsky’smindasafundamentalquestion,andalreadyconnectedtohisideaof,atthispoint,theprimacyoflifeasaprocess.Butin1931,somethinginterestinghappens. In 1931,Vernadsky—already in his 70s—is againcoming under heavy political attack from different circles.Somegroupingswithin theSovietUnionaredefendinghim;othersareattackinghim.Someofthosethataredefendinghimareattemptingtodefendhisscientificwork,butpreventitfrombeingpropagatedintothegeneralpopulation,becausepeoplerecognize that his concepts are obviously correct, becausethey’reeffective,butthattheywouldbedangerous,weretheytakenupbythegeneralpopulation.

N.N.Lusin(1883-1950) PavelFlorensky(1882-1937)

LusinandFlorenskywerepartofa20thCenturyRussianschoolofmathematicsthatopposedtheconceptthatcontinuityisprimaryinphilosophy (and mathematics). Vernadsky introduced the Curies’worktoLusinin1929.



So,oneofthemajormovesofthecensorsatthistimewas,in-steadofstoppingthepublishingofhiswork,theywouldpreventit from circulating any wider than theAcademy of Sciences.Theywouldonlyallowtheworktocirculateamongaverysmallcircleofscientistsandthenlimittheamountofpublication.

Butin1931,heappliestodoresearchabroadandisdenied,andinsteadistoldthatwhathecandoisgoandstudyinaspe-cialvacationhouse that’sbeensetaside formembersof theAcademyofSciences.Sohe’sunderstandablyupset.But thisyear,1931,wherehe’sinthisvacationhouse,becomesaveryfruitfulyearforhim,becauseanumberofideasthathavebeenfloatingaroundinhismindbegintoconverge.One,hiscon-ceptoftheeternityoflife,thisideaoflifebeinganactualfun-damentalprinciple.Butthen,thatcombinedwiththenotionofsymmetry, ashehaddiscussed itwithMarieCurie from theworksofPierreCurie,and thiscombined, then,withcertainotherclearpropertiesthatherecognized.

Oneis,herecognizesthecreativenatureoflivingprocesses,thattheyexpressaveryclearanti-entropy,where theonlyplace thatwhatyouwouldcallan“arrowoftime”seemstobeseenintheabiotic,atleastinthesmall,asinwhatSadiCarnotwasabletodescribeforheatengines,whichistheirtendencyovertimeforconcentrationsofheattodissipate,etc.,whichwasdescribedasentropy,andnamedentropy.Andhemakesthepointthatitwaserroneouslyattemptedtobeappliedtothewholeuniverseby Clausius.Vernadsky makes the point thatthatwasaninvalidattempttogeneralizeit,thatnothing experimental demonstrates that. Infact,Vernadskywillshow,whenyou’retalkingaboutthewholeuniverse,it’sgoingtohaveacharacteristicwhich looksmuchmore like alivingprocessthananythingelse.

Butherecognizesthisanti-entropy,andhemakesaveryuniqueand interestingcorrela-tion,whichisbetweenthatdirectednessofliv-ingprocesses, thatanti-entropyof livingpro-cesses, and the handedness as Pasteur hadobserved it.And he says, what we’re seeing

hereinthecaseofthelivingprocessesisahandednessoftime.Andtheninhiswritings,hesays,well,ofcourse,thismakessense,because itwas actually anarbitrarydivision thatwasdonebyDescartesandNewton,toseparatespaceandtimeintodistinctthings.

In fact, you only have one phenomenon here, which youwouldcallspace-timebutreallyphysicalspace-time.It’sapro-cess.Thethingthatyou’recallingspaceandtimearereflectionsofsomeactualphysicalprocesstherethatisoccurring.Sincethat’s true, things that you see reflected in the characteristicspaceofaprocessshouldalsobeinthecharacteristictime.So,whateverthishandednessofspacethatwe’reseeinginPasteur’swork,shouldalsobeconnectedtoahandednessoftime.

Andhestartsadeepinvestigationofthis,reallygettingintothethickofitaround1931,whenhedoesafullhistoricalstudyofthisdiscussionofeverybodywhotriedtotackletime,andheconcludesthat—it’sreallyatthismoment,thathe’sdoinghisworknow—thefirstmomentthatthegreatestfallacyupuntilthispoint,hasbeentheideareallyimposedbyNewton,thattimeandspacearesomesortofabsolutesthatarenotsubjecttobestudiedbythehumanmind.Thatthesearesomethingthatyou’resupposedtotakeasapriori,andnotbeabletoques-tion.

Andhesays,well,that’sclearlywrong.Hesaysthat’ssome-thingthatthemathematicianmightthink,that’ssomethingthateventhephysicistsmaythink,butit’snotsomethingtherealscientist,thenaturalist,hasthelibertytothink.

Sohebeginselaboratingthisnotion.Hebeginsaseriesofdiscussions.Hewritesaseriesofpapersin1931onthistheme,onthethemeofthe,ashecallsit,“livingtime,”andsometimes,“biologicaltime.”Butit’sinterestingthatalreadyinthisperiod,overtheSummerof1931,he’sbeginningtorealizethatcertainprinciplesthatyou’vealreadyseenreflectedearlierinhisworkaboutthenatureofhumanactivityandeconomicprocesses—hestartsrealizingthattheseareabsolutelyfundamental,indis-

University of Texas at Austin

TheRussianAcademyofSciencesenforcedtheSovietdoctrineofdialecticalmaterialismamongscientistsandcensoredpartsofVernadsky’swork.

SadiCarnot(1736-1892)

RudolfClausius(1822-1888)

Vernadskyunderstoodthat thedissipationofheat inheaten-gines, known as entropy, didnotapplytotheentireuniverse,as Clausius falsely claimed.The universe according toVernadskywasanti-entropic.


cussingthisquestionofevenlivingtime.

Andyouseethere,inhiswork,asfarasIcantell,thefirstreferencetotheworksofWolfgangKöhlerandthe Gestalt psychologists. And hisexplicitstatementonthatmatter,Hereferences theworkofKöhler andthe Gestalt psychologists, and hesays that what’s most interestingaboutthemisthattheyrecognizeinperceptionthethingsthatyouwouldnormallystarttodescribeaspercep-tion,whichis:

Theypointoutthenecessityofrecognizingcertaingeometricalformsorstructuresforvisualspace,fortonalmelody,andforothersuchphenomena,whichareconnectedwiththestructureofthespatiallyandtemporallyidentifiablecognitiveapparatus.

Andhepointsoutthatthe“BerlinProfessor Wolfgang Köhler extendsthese notions about the psychicalforms,aboutthesecognitiveprocess-es, tophenomenaofzoopsychologyandtophysics.”AndthisbecomesanewphilosophicalcurrentofGestaltphilosophy.

Now,it’simportant—Ijustwanttodrawyourattentionrighttheretothatreference.Hesaysspecificallythatwhathe’stalk-ingaboutwhenhe’sdescribingthischaracterofbiologicalcre-ativespace-time,isthebestexampleofbeingabletostarttoexaminethesesortsofgeometries—iswhatyouseespecificallyintheworkoftheGestaltpsychologists,butspecificallyintheirworkonvisionandhearing,andspecificallymusic.Notethereferencetotonalmelody,becausethatwillcomeup.Hisdiscussionofthesignificanceofmusicforthesegeometries,andforthenotionoftime,willbecomeinteresting,especiallywhenwecomebacktoadis-cussionofwhatKöhlerwasworkingonatthattime,elements of which would have undoubtedly beenknowntoVernadsky.

ButI’llcomebacktothat.

The‘StatesofSpace’Iwant todoalittlemoreonthearcofwhatVer-

nadskywasdoing.Butkeepinmindthatreference,inhisworkonbiologicaltime,tospecificallycognitiveprocesses, specifically the work of the Gestalt psy-chologists,andthenspecificallythecharacteroftheroleofmusic,andtonalmelodyinthisprocess.

Butthat’s1931;youseethatreference.AndIknowofoneotherreferenceatthattimetoKöhler’swork,whichisinhisnotesbeingpreparedaroundthesameperiod.Sothatdevelops.

Andanumberofotherthingsbegintohappen.Hepublishesthosepapers.Hecomesunderheavy,heavy

attackin1931asaresultofthat.IshouldaddthatinJanuaryofthatyear,he’dalreadycomeunderfire.InthemagazineBolshevik,therewasanarticlepublishedwhichwascalled“Subver-sives in Science.” And it was one of thesethings—clearly,togethowtheprocessworked—you’dhavethesemomentsofjustrilingupthepopulation.You’dbuildarageinthepopulationintoa feverpitch,with the intentof targettingcertain specific individuals, and usually theywouldmeetwithverybadends.

And at this point, Vernadsky had been at-tacked.Hehadnevermadeasecretofhisownattacksondialecticalmaterialism,andhe’dbeenattackedpubliclyforthisbefore.Butthisonehadaparticularlysharpedgetoit.Andhewasputona listwithanumberofother scientists, averyshort list, among whom was Alexander Gur-witsch,fortherecord,scientistswho,thisarticleinBolshevikmagazineclaimed,wereusingtheirscientificworkandusingtheirpositionstodrawpoliticalandphilosophicalconclusions.

AndIwillmakethepoint:Hemostcertainlywasusinghis scientificwork todrawpoliticalandphilosophicalconclusions,andIthinkthiswasamomentofclarityonthepartoftheenemyatthispoint.

Buthewassingledoutforattack.Inthatcon-text,hestillwrotewhathewaswritingonthisfurtherdevelop-mentofhisanti-reductionistworkonlife,andextendingitmoreexplicitlyintocognition,in1931,andpublishedit.Hepresent-editatthatFall’ssessionoftheAcademyofSciences,andhegaveaspeechonwhathecalled“theproblemoftimeincon-temporaryscience,”whereheincludedhisworkonlife,hein-cludedthereferencetotheGestaltpsychologists,andheinclud-ed thereference tomusic, inparticular.ThiscameunderfirefromA.M.Deborin,whoatthetime,wassortofthewatchdog

Wolfgang Köhler (1887-1967). Ver-nadskybeganinvestigatingtheworkofKöhlerandtheGestaltpsychologistsin1931,inparticulartheirworkonvisionand hearing, specifically music, andtonalmelody,ashewasdevelopinghisnotionofbiologicalspace-time.

A.M.Deborin(1881-1963)wasaleadingpartyenforcerofwhathe called “subversives in sci-ence.”HisattackonVernadskywaspublishedinthemagazineBolshevik(right)in1931.


for dialectical materialism. HewastheSovietphilosophicalde-fender of dialectical material-ism; he was the person whowouldbeassignedtotryandat-tackyouforbeingasubversive.

AndattackVernadskyhedid:Helaunchedamassive,scath-ingattack. Itwasveryvicious,buteverybodyalsorecognized,itwassortofuniversallyrecog-nized,thatitlackedcontent.

Vernadsky,again, inhis70s,responded—again, I’m goingintothis,togiveyouasenseofwhatthecontextwas.Thiswasaverysensitivesituation.Imean,to draw in other people whowouldcomeunderthiskindofattackwhohadbeenexiledand/orkilled—thatwasclearlywhatsomepeople,whoeverDeborinwas connectedwith,were lin-ingupVernadskyfor.

Soitwasimportantthathehandlethiswell;andhewritesalargepublicresponse,andlaunchesaverysharpcounterattackonDeborin.Andinit,heemphasizeshis,Vernadsky’s,ownim-portanceforSovietscienceandthemaintenanceoftheSovietUnion,andreallylaceratesDeborinforattemptingtostopsci-entificprogresswiththisattack,forhisuneducatedideologicalreasons.AndwhenyouseeDeborin’sresponseafterthat,heactuallyputsDeborinonthedefensive,whichisverynice,andDeborinbeginsnaggingsomewhatafterthat,butthenbacksdowninthatseriesofattacks.

ButnowthisfreesVernadskyuptodosomeotherwork,andhestartsbuildingnetworkstobroadenthisnotionthathe’sbeenworkingon,thisconceptof—atermheborrows,thatPierreCurieused,thatMarieCurietoldhimabout—this“statesofspace.”Sohecontinueshisworkonwhathecallsthestatesofspace.Buthethenstresseseverywherehewritesit,whathemeanswhenhesaysthatis,he’srefer-ringtothisphysicalspace-time.

In what follows, almost every time I use the word“space,” unless otherwise specified, I’m referring to aphysicalspace-time,andhe’sclearonthathimself.Thisis,again,mostexplicitlyafterthis1931period,whereyou’vegothisexplicitworkontimebeingcarriedout.

GeorgiiFrantsevichGauseSothen,in1933,Vernadsky,theninhis70s,inhisdiary,

hedescribesmeetingwitha23-year-oldresearchernamedGeorgiiFrantsevichGause,andtheydiscuss.VernadskyhadbeenfamiliarwithGause’smentor,whowasafriendofhis,andVernadskyhadthreeyearspriorapprovedforpublica-tionGause’sfirstpublishedwork.Butinthismeeting,Ver-nadsky’sill,andhe’sstayinginasanatoriumtogetbetter,aspecialsanatoriumformembersoftheAcademyofScienc-es,andhehasanumberofpeoplecometovisithim.

In1933,Gausecomes tovisithim,andwhathe tells

Vernadskyisthathe’sdoingexperimentalworkonthisquestionofopticalactivityintheproto-plasm, that he’s taking up the questions thatPasteurhadposedontheopticalactivityofpro-toplasm, experimentally. And Vernadsky be-comesveryexcited.He’sthrilledthisistakingplace.HeevengoessofarastoofferGauseaposition inhis laboratory,becauseVernadskyseesinthisthepotentialtoextend,experimen-tally,hisidea,ashebeginstoworkitaroundthistime,thattheprinciplethatgovernslivingprocesses is something that lies on a muchmore fundamental level than space, time, ormatter;thatthisissomethingthatspace,time,andmatterareaprocess,thatthey’reareflec-tionof.Thesearesimplyprojectionsofsome-thingmuchmorefundamental.

SoheoffersGauseaposition.Gausedoesnottakeit,butheagreestoresearchandpub-lish things in the laboratory.Theonly reasonGausedoesn’ttakeitisbecause—ifyoutakealookattheareashe’sworkingonatthetime,they’resobroad,hefeelshe’llbelimitedifheleavestheuniversityandgoestoworkforaspe-

cificlaboratory.Buttogiveyouanideaofthenumberofthingsthatcomeout

ofthis:GauseisabletoconfirmthatthePasteurprincipleofthehandednessoftimerunsfardeeperthanhadevenbeensus-pectedprior,withjustopticalactivity.Infact,ifyouaretotakealookattheactualstructuralcompositionofanorganism,there

BiologistAlexanderGurwitsch(1874-1954)was another anti-reductionist scientist sin-gledoutforattackbyDeborin.

Biologist Georgii FransevichGause(1910-1986)workedwithVernadsky, experimenting withPasteur’sideaoftheopticalac-tivityofprotoplasm.ToprotecthimselffromtheSovietsciencepolice,hebecomesinvolvedinessentialworkwiththemilitaryduringWorldWarII,developingantibiotics.Thecrystalstructureof Gause’s naturally producedgramicidin-Sisshownabove.


arecertainprinciplesofhandednessthataren’tviolated.Forinstance,thehandednessofproteins,theopticalactivity

ofproteinsinlivingprocesses,theaminoacidsthatcomposeproteins,isalwaysthesame.Youalwayshaveproteinsthathavewhat’scalledleft-rotarypower.Theyalwaysrotatetheplaneoflighttotheleft.Thesugarsthatareinvolvedintheconstructionof livingprocesseswillalwayshave right-rotarypower.Theyalsorotatetheplaneoflighttotheright.

Hedoesalotofinterestingwork.He,unfortunately,comesunderheavyfirefromtheLysenkoapparatus,andthenthesamegroupingsamongtheSovietapparatusthatareenforcingmate-rialismasanideologylaunchanattackonhim;hismaincol-laboratoractuallyendsupbeingkilled,isexecuted,andGausebecomesunderstandablyafraid.

Hisworktakesaverypracticalturn.HecontinuesworkingwithVernadsky,andVernadskyneverleavesthedirectionthathe’son.Gausemakesapoint,though,toavoidtheactualwork,theconclusionsthatVernadskyisdrawingaboutthestatesofspace,butdiscoversanumberofveryinterestingthings.Onethingis,hetriesto,inthecourseoftryingtotakeapracticaljob,heassignshimself toworkwith theSovietmilitary inWorldWarII,makinghimselfindispensableandun-executable,inthewayhepositionshimself.He’stheonlypersonabletodevelopantibioticsforSovietRussia,andhedevelopsthefirst—possi-blytheonlyantibioticsduringthewar.I’mnotcertain,butdef-initelythefirstnativeantibioticsthatSovietRussiahadduringWorldWarIIweredevelopedbyGause.

Butaninterestingspinonthestory,isthatit’sanaturallypro-ducedantibiotic,thathasthecapabilityofrenderingbacterialcellwallspermeableandcausingthemtoeventuallyjustsim-ply disintegrate. And Gause looks at their structure and hebreaksdowntheaminoacidstructureoftheantibiotic,andhefindsoutthatitcontainsexactlyoneaminoacid,whichismir-rored in the opposite direction, as that which should be re-quiredforlivingprocesses.Everyotheroccurrenceofthatami-noacid,whenit’sintheorganism,isleft-handed,andthisonecaseintheantibioticisright-handed.Heexperimentallyswitch-

esthehand,andturnsitbackleft-handed,anditceasestobeanantibiotic.

Sohe’sabletodemonstratethattheantibioticcharac-ter of this thing is closely connected to the nature ofhandednessintheantibiotic.Awholeclassoftheseanti-bioticsisdeveloped,called“GramicidinS”forGramici-dinSoviet.

Butthenthere’sawholeclassofGramicidins:Eachandeveryoneof themcontainsat leastoneflippedaminoacid,whereifyoufliptheaminoacidback,itlosesitsabilitytobeanantibiotic.Sothen,despitethefactthatheceases to draw some of these more profound conclu-sions,heisabletoconcludethatthisisadeep-runningprinciple.

Now,weknowthatthatshowsupinanumberofdiffer-entplaces.I’lljustgivealist,sopeopleknowthatit’struethatlivingprocessesareuniquelysensitivetothehanded-nessofthechemicalcompound.I’lljustgiveyouanex-ample.Peopleknowmaybeaspartame,whichisthearti-ficialsweetener.Ifyoutaketheexactsamechemicalandyoureversethehandednessofit,itceasestobesweetandbecomesbitter—chemicallyidentical.Everyexperiment

youcoulddo,outsideofexperimentswithlight,woulddemon-stratethosetwocompoundstobeidentical.Buttheorganismrecognizesthemasauniverseapartintermsofactualactivity.

Thesmellofcarawayandspearmintistheexactsamechem-ical:Thedifferenceisthehandedness.So,chemicallyidentical,butyou,yourorganism,recognizesthemasbeingdistinct.Thelimonene,whichmakescitrusfruitsmelllikecitrus—orange,lemon,etc.—ifyoureverseitshandedness,itbeginstosmelllikepineorturpentine.

Someoftheseartificialdrugsarenice:OnecalledDarvon,inoneform,isapainkiller.Ifyouflipittoitsmirror-image,itwillhavenoeffectonyourpain,butitwillcureyourcough.Andthereareallsortsofinsectpheromonesandthings,thathavecompletelydifferentactions:Exactsamechemical,justflippingthehand,thatchangesfundamentallyitsbiologicaleffect.

Vernadskyputhisattackeronthedefensive,accusingDeborinoftry-ingtostopscientificprogress.

Anotherexampleofhandednessinchemicalcompoundsisthatoflim-onene(thecitrussmell)andturpen-tine,whicharechemically identi-cal—exceptfortheirhandedness.


RiemannianGeometrySoyourealizethere’sasymmetry

principle there in living processesthat’sveryspecific,anddoesnotexistoutsideofit.In1937,Vernadskycon-tinueshisdiscussionswithLusinonthistopic,andheasksLusin:“Iwanttoaskyousomethingthat’smorepro-found.IsthereanythinginEuclideangeometry that can account for thisdistinctionhere?”

Supposedly, the standard descrip-tionofwhatthehandedmoleculeis,isahandedmoleculefloatinginEuclid-eanspace.AndI’vehaddiscussions,we’vegonetoanumberoftheseastro-biologyevents, talkingtothepeoplewho are supposed to be the mainworkers in this area, and you’ll findtheyallsubscribetothisidea,thatyoucannottouchthenatureofthespacethatthingsoperatein.ItisaEuclideanspacewithahandedmolecule.

But Vernadsky goes deeper. Hesays,“Look,isthereanythinginaEuclideanspacethatcandis-tinguish,fundamentally,betweenthesehands?”AndheassignsLusinthisinvestigationtofigureitout.Andtheyhaveareallywonderfuldialoguebackandforth.Iwon’tgointoallthede-tails,butitinvolvesthemreallyhackingandslashingatevery-thingthat’sknownaboutEuclideangeometryandbeyond,andconcludingthatthere’snotawaytomakethisdistinctioninEu-clideanspace—andagain,I’msummarizingalotofaveryin-terestingdiscussion.Wecanhavesomemoreonit.

ButthenLusinasksafriendofhis,Finikov;heasksanumberof mathematicians.They’re all passing around Curie’s book.AndafriendofhisrelaysbacktoVernadsky,thatwell,no,inordertogettothephenomenathatyou’retalkingabout,you’regoing tohave to start lookingat theworksofBernhardRie-mann.Andsoyouthenbegintohaveadiscussion,here,withVernadsky,withanumberofotherthinkers,onthenatureofRiemann’swork.

Theyhaveafirst-passseriesofdiscussions,andyouseethisdevelop over time. It culminates in 1938, whereVernadskyholdsanumberofseminarsathishousewiththesethinkers.Atfirst,heinitiallyasksGausetocomeandjusttalkwithhim,andhegetsthereplybackthatGausewillnotmeetinprivatewithany professor, because there had been some bad blowbackfromtheSoviets,duetopeoplesettingthemselvesuplikethat;herefusedtosethimselfupinthatway.Butlateron,Vernadskywasabletocalltogetheralargermeeting,includingGause,an-otherhistologist—essentially,itbecomestwomathematicians(itsoundslikewe’resettingupajoke!);twomathematicians,twophysicists,andtwobiologists,andVernadsky.

Thebiologistsareexpertsinthehandednessinlivingorgan-isms:Gauseandanotherthinker;twophysicists,oneanexpertinrelativity,andtheotheroneanexpertinspectrometry.Andthenthetwomathematicians,Finikov,whoistheexpertinRie-manniangeometry,andLusin,whowastheexpert,whohadthisstreakofrequiringdiscontinuity,whosaidthatcontinuitywas

thebiggestproblemyouhadinmath-ematics.

Theyhaveanumberofdiscussions.Again,I’lljustsummarize:Theycon-cludewithVernadsky’sconclusionin1938—whatbecomesthesecondinaseries called “The Problems of Bio-geochemistry,” that living processesexpressadistinctphysicalspace-time,andthatthatdistinctphysicalspace-timehastobeofaRiemannianchar-acter.Andagain,there’salotinthis.There’salotmoretothat,butthen,inthecourseofdiscussingworkingonit,he’sgotanumberofreferenceswherehe’svery,veryexplicit(andagain,I’llmaketheseavailableinanupcomingpaper);buthe’sveryexplicitthatthemindiscapableofunderstandingthis.

Butinordertounderstandtheac-tualcharacterofthegeometrythat’scharacteristicoftheselivingprocess-es,it’snecessarytoembarkonamorefundamentaldiscussionofcreativity

perse.Andyouseealotinhisdiaryentries,ofhimdiscussingthefactthat,likely,themodelthatwe’regoingtoneedtolookat,inordertoexamine,tolookatthesortofspace-timephe-nomenaIwanttolookathere,isgoingtobetheoneyoufindinthecompositionsofBach,Mozart,andBeethoven.There’squoteafterquoteofhimdiscussingthat.Thisisinhisprivatewritings,notinthepublishedones,butyoucanseethedirec-tionhismindisgoing.

It’ssignificantthathe’sdoingthisattheexactsametime—thisisalmostexactlycoincidentwiththetimeperiod,whereyouseeEinsteincomingtosomeofthesameconclusions.HemakesanexplicitstatementinadialogueEinsteinhaswith[Max]Planck,thatsomeofthephenomenathatarebeingrunintoinphysics,thequantumphenomena,canonlybeaddressedfromthestand-point,hesays,specifically,ofaBachfugue.Soyoustartrealiz-ingthisthemeiscomingup.

BernhardRiemann(1826-1866).Vernadskyandhiscircleofbiologists,physicists,andothersin-tensivelystudiedRiemann’sgeometryanditsap-plicationtophysicalspace-time.

TrofimLysenko(1898-1976),anotherSovietscienceenforcer,whotargettedtheworkofGause.Here,LysenkospeakingattheKremlinin1935.Attheback(fromleft)areStanislavKosior,An-astasMikoyan,AndreiAndreev,andtheSovietleader,JosephStalin.


Remember that VernadskyhadstartedlookingatKöhler’sworkonsightandsound,andrealizedthatKöhlerhadbeeninadialogueatthattimeandpriorwithMaxPlanck,whomEinstein was in his dialoguewith, on exactly that theme,onthenatureofthecharacterofcreativity,asitexpressedit-selfinmusicandpsychology,forphysics.

PickingUptheThreadsI’mactuallygoingtoleaveit

atthatpoint,becausefrankly,that’s sortof themosthonestthing thatwecoulddohere:Because things actually areleftatthatpointrightnow.Togive you an idea of wherethingsstand,Vernadskyneverfinishedfoundingthesciencethat he wanted to found onthattopic.Thereisanamazingbodyofwork,andwewanttoassembleitsopeoplecanseewhatitis,butitwasleftunfin-ished.Thethreadsthatarere-quiredtobepursuedthereareveryclear,though,onthein-vestigationofcreativityperse,anditsexpressionintheanti-entropicnatureof livingpro-cesses.Thatthat’sgoingtohaveaveryspecificgeometricchar-acteristic that will be reflected in the space-time of theprocess.

Allthatisclear,butwhat’slefttobedoneisgoingtorequiretheworkofpeoplewiththeexpertiseintherightareas,withtherightsenseof thephysical-scientificquestionsthatareinvolved,butalso,thesensethattheresolutionliesinthehigherdomainofMind. ItwouldhavetobeagroupofpeoplethatsomehowhadanexpertiseinClassicalartisticcomposition, maybe performed itoften, maybe opened events withimpressiveperformances. Itwouldhavetobethatsamegroupofpeo-ple that would do these musicalperformances, thatwouldalsoen-gageintheirfreetimeinprofoundscientificdiscussion.ItwouldhavetobeagroupofpeoplewhichwasinterestedintheexactsamesortsofeconomicquestionsthatVernadskywas interested in, because youwouldhavetobeabletopursuea

studyofhumanactivityinthelarge.Soitwouldrequireaveryspecifickindof

groupingthatyoudon’toftenfindinhistory.Thatexactsamegroupingwouldbewellsit-uatedtofinallyfinishoff,pickupthethreadwhere it was left by Einstein and Planck,wheretheydidn’tgetmuchfurtherthantherecognitionthatthewholeapproachquan-tummechanicshastakentothesequestionsis wrong, and the proper approach wouldhavetobesomethingthatlookedlikesome-thinginthecharacterofaBachfugue.

Now,again,thatwasleftundone.It’sgo-ing to require a very specific grouping ofpeopletobeabletopursuethat.Ithinkpeo-plemightgettheidea.I’dliketoproposethatthisisataskthatwetakeup,andthatwearewellsituatedtotakeupamongstourselves.Andthat,frankly,there’snobodyelseontheplanetexceptforourassociationthat’sinthepositiontoanswerthesequestions.

Everythingthatcameafterhasprovenit-self tobeadeadend.Thereductionistap-proachinbiologyhasprovenitself tobeadeadend.Thestatisticalapproachinphysicshasprovenitself tobeadeadend.Notbycoincidence, they’re closely connected tothe statistical approach, the fraud that’slaunchedineconomics,becauseit’stheex-act same problem expressed across theboard, the same underlying ideologicalproblem.AndtheresolutiontoalloftheseIthinkwillbefoundatonce.Butthat’sadis-cussionthat,hopefully,we’llbehavingover

thecourseof theweekend, and inperpetuity, after thismo-ment.

So,that’swhatI’vegotsofar.Wecanpursuesomemoreindiscussionafterwards.

Max Planck (1858-1947) and Albert Einstein(1879-1955),inBerlin,1929,wherePlanckpre-sentedAlbertEinsteinwiththeMaxPlanckmed-aloftheGermanPhysicalSociety.Bothscientistsunderstood the intimate connection betweenmusicandscience.Quantumphenomena,Ein-steinwrotePlanck,canonlybeaddressedfromthestandpointofaBachfugue.

James Rea/EIRNS

TheSchillerInstitutechorusperformingattheRüsselsheimconferenceinJuly,whereShieldspresentedthisspeech.Shieldschallengedtheaudienceto“pickupthethreadwhereitwasleftbyEinsteinandPlanck,”awayfromthedeadendofreductionisminbiology,physics,andeconomics.


TherecentexpositionbyEinsteinonhiswork,alongwiththediscussionswhichfollowedattheCollègedeFrance,waswithoutdoubtan

unprecedented event. The famous physicist tookpart in itwith inexhaustible patience.One felt inhimthedesirenottoleaveanymisunderstandingsinthe shadows,not to ignore anyof theobjections,but,onthecontrary,toprovoketheminordertobet-tertackleandwrestlewiththemsquarely.

IntheUnitedStates,inLondon,andinItalywhereEinsteinwassuccessivelyreceivedsomemonthsago,helimitedhimselftoexplainingtheTheoryofRelativ-ityinaconferenceformat.IntheUnitedStatesandinLondon,hepreferredtospeakinGermanbecauseofhis imperfectknowledgeofEnglish; in Italy,heex-pressedhimself in Italian,whichpermittedamoreintimatecontactwiththeaudience.Butinallofthosecountrieshelimitedhimselftoa“non-contradictory”monologue—ifImayborrowthisincorrectbutcolor-fulexpressionfromourpoliticallanguage.

InParis,ontheotherhand,Einsteinwasnotsatis-fiedwithspeakingdidacticallyexcathedra.Heres-olutelylaunchedintothecontroversy,replyingpub-liclyinwhatwastobecomeamostcelebratedseriesof discussions, takingonall objections andques-tionsaskedbysomeofthemosteminentrepresenta-tivesofthescientificcommunity.

Ithoughtthatitwouldbeusefultogive,forthesehistoricjoustingsofthought,animageasexactaspossibleandfromwhich,nevertheless,thetoo-eso-tericlanguageofthetechnicianswouldbeexclud-

EDITOR’SNOTEThis is a translation by members of a LaRouche

movementteamofa1922articlebyCharlesNordmanndescribing several lectures byAlbert Einstein duringhisvisittoParisthatyear.Nordmann’sarticle,“EinsteinExposeetDiscutesaThéorie,”appearedinRevuedesDeuxMondes,Vol.IX,pp.129-166.

Charles Nordmann (1881-1941) was an astrono-mer andphysicist,whose research andpublicationswerewellknowninthesciencecommunityandinthepublicatlarge.HewasalaureateoftheFrenchAcad-emyofSciencesandaKnightoftheLegionofHonor.Oneofhisbooks,EinsteinandtheUniverse:APopularExposition of a FamousTheory, was translated andpublishedinEnglishin1922(NewYork:HenryHoltandCompany).

NordmannpublishedfrequentlyonscientifictopicsinRevuedesDeuxMondes(ReviewoftheTwoWorlds),a French-language monthly cultural affairs magazinethathasbeenpublishedinParissince1829.

A translator’s note appears on p. XX. Numberedfootnotesarefromtheoriginalarticle,unlessspecifiedasaTranslator’sNote.Illustrationshavebeenadded,ashaveveryoccasionaltranslationsof foreignterms(insquarebrackets).Emphasisisfromtheoriginal.

EINSTEIN IN PARIS

Einstein PresentsAnd Discusses

His TheorybyCharlesNordmann

EinsteininParis,1922.


ed.Thatiswhatguidedmeinthepagesyouwillread.Intimestocome,someyearsfromnow,itisprobablethattheintellec-tualcontroversies,whichEinstein’spresenceinParisprovoked,duringthisfreshspringof1922,willhavegreatlysurpassedinimportancetheaffairsthatpresenttimeshavethrustuponus.Iwouldwagerthatinafewcenturies—andwhatisthatintheastronomicalorevensimplybiologicaltimeoftheplanet?—therecent discussion on relativity in the Collège de France willhavemarkedoffanewstepforwardontheroadofhumanintel-ligence...whiletheConferenceofGenoa[1922]willbelong-forgotten,likesomanyuselesspastarguments,andsomestilltocomeinthefuture.

AttheCollègedeFrance,thefactthatthesessionshadthegoodfortuneofreflectingatightdiscussion,ratherthandidac-ticlectures,originatedfromadesireonthepartofEinsteinhim-self,adesireinspiredinhimbyhismodesty,orbettersaidinhislackofconfidenceinhimself.

Infact,hereiswhathewroteinaletter,afewdaysbeforehearrivedinParis:

IwillcertainlyhavesomedifficultyexpressingmyselfinFrench,butIthinkI’llbeabletopullmyselfthrough,for

examplebyreadingapreparedtext.Furthermore,formulasalsohelpalot,1andIhopeawillingcolleaguewillbegoodenoughtoutterandextractthewordsthatwouldgetstuckinmythroat.

Itwouldperhapsbeevenmoreagreeable,andmoreusefulifweweretohaveasortofsmallcongressonRelativity,inwhichIwouldonlyrespondtoquestions.Thedifficultiesofexpressionwouldannoymelessinthiswaythanamoreorlesscompleteexpositionofthetheory.

Asexperiencewouldhaveit,Einstein’sfearswereun-founded.Atleastforustheyhadbeenworthit,forthesewerethemostpassionatecontroversiesonecouldpossi-blyimagine,andtheygaveushoursofintellectualplea-sure,asonetoorarelyhasoccasiontosavorinthepedes-trianmonotonyofthisbriefexistence.

Themeritofhavingbroughtsuccesstothesenowfamoussessionsisnotslight.ItisdueabovealltoMr.Langevin,

professorofexperimentalphysicsattheCollègedeFrance,onwhoserequestEinsteinhadbeeninvitedtoParis,asIhaveal-ready mentioned. It is Mr. Langevin who oversaw the dailyscheduleofthesmallnumberofmeetings,wheresomanysub-jectshadtobecovered.Itwashewho,withafirmanddiscretehandmanagedtoprovokethediscussions,preventthedebatefromleadingastray,andrestricted,whenevernecessarybutal-wayswithawell-chosenword,theexactpositionsoftheadver-saries.Inrarebutdecisivemoments,healsoparticipatedinthebattlebyhelpingtheslightlywoundedparticipants,orbygivingthecoupdegrâcetothosewhowereinsuchadesperatestatethatitwasnecessarytocutshorttheirunnecessarysuffering.Fi-nally,itishewhoplayedforEinsteintheindispensableanddif-ficultrolethatEinsteinhadaskedforinhisletter,theroleoftheintellectualPylades,theinformedcue-giverwhosevocabularyandacuteknowledgeofthesubjectareneverwanting.

ThefirstsessiontookplaceattheCollègedeFrance,Friday

1. We must understand that Einstein speaks here of the language of mathe-matics which assuredly, with the aid of a blackboard, is the most international language . . . at least for the initiates, and the only one that dispenses with being multi-lingual.

Astronomer Charles Nordmann,with the titlepage fromthebookhewrote in1922, the sameyearthisarticleappeared.

ThecourtyardoftheCollègedeFrance,withastatueofGuillaumeBudé,whowasacontemporaryofErasmusandThomasMore.

AmodernviewoftheauditoriumwhereEinsteinspokeattheCollègedeFrance.


Here,presentedforthefirsttimeinEnglish,isafirsthandaccountofEinstein’shistorictriptoParis,afterWorld

WarI.Notonlyisitofinteresttothehistorianofscienceorresearcherofinternationalrelations,butthissnapshotfromaturningpointintimeprovidesanythinkerwithanexam-pleofhowagenuineideacanbepresentedandhonestlydiscussed.

Beingasocialcreaturemightnotbeexclusivetothehu-manspecies,butcomingtoknowpersonalitiesthatarelongdead,isdefinitelyuniquetousandisaveryspecialtoolinhelpingusliveuptoouruniqueness.Becomingfriendswithoneofhumanity’sgeniusesofthepastprovidesafunstudyindiscoveringanexpressionof thepotentialofmankind,andprovidesaclearexampleofwhatthenatureofanindi-vidualmanis,asopposedtoamonkey.

IhavespecificallypickedEinsteinasmy“buddy.”AsEin-stein’sfuture,weareabletoreaptheideasandmethodthathesowed(ifwebothertoknowhimandourhistory),inor-dertoprovideanewplatformofcultureandideasforourfuture.Ihopethatthispeekintothepastwillhelpfosterthatforyou.

In distilling the significance of the human individual’screativecapability,youquicklyrealizetheeffecttheinterac-tionofthehighestlevelofmindcanhaveonthedevelop-mentofsocietyatlarge;youseethegranderimpactalifecanhaveon theworld, rather thananexistenceofbeingconsumedbythedailysoapoperaofpersonalsituationsthatare inconsequential in the scheme of things (unless, ofcourse,theyhelpyoudevelopyourindividualcreativitytobeaneffectiveworldcitizen.)

Originalsourcesaretheonlywaytogetalivingsenseofadebate.Notonlythepapersapersonwrote,buthisletters,lecturesgivenbycontemporariesonthetopic,newspaperarticles,andsoon.Theseshadowsofaprocessgiveyouachancetoimmerseyourselfinanenvironmenttoappreciateandrediscoverforyourselftheculturaleffectanideahas.

InsearchforsuchacontextofEinstein’sdevelopmentofhypotheses, I reached a road-block in my research. ThePrincetonUniversityPresshadbeenputtingoutthecollect-edworksofEinstein,articlesandletters,butatthispointhadonlyreachedtheyear1920-1921.Justwhenthingsstarttogetgood!Einstein’stheoryofgravityhadjustbeenpubliclyvalidatedandthereforepopularized,hewasplungingintoGeneralRelativity’s implicationson the shapeof theuni-verseanditsinteractionwithotherprinciples,suchaselec-tromagnetism.

InreadingbiographiesofEinstein,theeventtheyspeakofasmostimportantintheseyears—theearly1920s—isnotsomescientificpaperbeingpublished,butEinstein’striptoParis.OneoftheintendeddestructiveeffectsofWorldWarIwastocutoffinternationalintellectualrelations.Einstein’stripwouldbethefirststepinmendingFrenchandGermanrelations.Thiscreatedquiteastirandmanypeoplewerenothappyonbothsides.

Withsuchanimportantinstanceinscientificandpoliti-cal history, I was surprised that I couldn’t find Einstein’sspeechesfromthisconference,butonlythirdhandshortref-

erencestowhatwastalkedabout.IncontactingtheEinsteinarchives,IwastoldthatEinsteinspokeinformally,sotherewerenowrittennotesfromhimpersonally,butthearchivistgavemeadateandthetitleofajournalforwhichaCharlesNordmann was commissioned to report on the event. ItrackeditdownandassembledateamtotranslateitfromtheFrench.

For more on the context of the political environment,pleaseseeMichelBiezunski’sarticle“Einstein’sReceptioninParis in1922” in thebookTheComparativeReceptionofRelativity,*andanarticlebyNordmanninEnglishonvisitingbattlefieldswithEinstein.**Botharepricelessaccountsthathelp you appreciate the actual struggle intellectuals wentthroughtomakehumanitystrongerthroughadvancementinthought;andthefactthatsciencecannotbeseparatedfrompolitics,andshouldtakealeadingroleinculture.

Nordmann’s article gives a good picture of the circlewhichexisted,bothassupportersandcritics,aroundEin-steininthedebateonTheRelativityTheory.Howrefreshingitistoseehowanideacanbehonestlyfoughtover,insteadofsimplydecidingtoagreetodisagree,ordecidingthatany-body who dissents from the prevailing opinion is crazy.What’sunusualinwitnessingthebackandforth,isthattheoppositionsideiscompetent,forthemostpart,andisgenu-inelyseekingthetruth.ThisprovidesafoiltothelackoftruescientificdebatetodayinaBoomerera.

IfyoucanbecomeaccustomedtotheflowerydescriptivenatureofNordmann’swriting,you’llfindthisarticleuseful,notonlyfortheon-the-groundreportinginthemiddleofthedevelopmentofEinstein’sthoughts,butalsobecauseitpro-vides a good overview of the fundamental principles onwhichEinstein’s theoryisbased,andthemanyparadoxesthat seem tocomeupaccording tocommonsensewhenfacedwithrelativity.AlsoitpresentsafairapproximationforalaymanofEinstein’sbasicmethodofapproach.

Forexample,onethreadthatcomesuprepeatedlyinthearticleisthesubjectofmath.Nordmann,onbehalfofEin-stein,issuretomakethepointthatmathisnotusefulinandofitself,andisoutofreality,unlessitistheservantofphys-ics.Anothercontinuousthreadisthediscussionofthemeta-physicalvs.positivism. ItseemsthatNordmannissure toqualifybothsidesandimplythatthere’sabalanceneeded;butfromtheworkofEinsteinandmycomingtoknowhisdiscoveryprocess,itisclearthatEinsteinissimplyabovethemysticorthedatacollector,whichcomesupwhenEinsteindiscussesErnstMach.

Aswithall secondhand (orevenfirsthand) sources, thevaluecomesfromwhatyouareableonyourowntoputto-getheroftheprocessofmindoftheindividualcharactersonstage,andwhat’spushingtheoveralldramaasawhole,asopposed to having a perfect map of what was discussedwhen.

Therefore,Ihumblysubmittoyouthistranslation.—ShawnaHalevy

Footnotes _________________________________________________* Michel Biezunski on Einstein’s reception in Paris, 1922.** Charles Nordmann on visiting battlefields with Einstein.

Translator’s Note

http://books.google.com/books?id= GTSftplc2jYC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq =%22Einstein%27s+Reception+in+Paris+in+1922%22 &source=bl&ots=xW_x4N-hIR&sig=ZufswNBpaB2OI0VAX9Whwr4Ld9M&hl=en&ei=5SDvSppPj-aUB_nmiIAF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct =result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Einstein%27 s%20Reception%20in%20Paris%20in%201922%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GTSftplc2jYC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=Michel+Biezunski+on+Einstein%E2%80%99s+reception+in+Paris,+1922&source=bl&ots=xXXq8J1eNR&sig=9-9Ig1DFCRR8rVtuix6q2lrBVIU&hl=en&ei=u_O1TojrE4TO2AWnz7XVBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Michel%20Biezunski%20on%20Einstein%E2%80%99s%20reception%20in%20Paris%2C%201922&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mHIkAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA586&lpg=PA586&dq=Charles+Nordmann+on+visiting+battlefields+with+Einstein&source=bl&ots=SCjz_Ko4KQ&sig=UpLw1i-49Ff_vLUzM0yFQUHFWx0&hl=en&ei=HPS1Tov6FsfM2AXErfDODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


March31st at 5p.m., in thisAmphitheatreVIIIwhich, eventhoughitisthelargestroomofourfineinstitution,isnonethe-lessridiculouslysmall.Longbeforethissessionbegan,thefor-tunately privileged crowd that was admitted to this uniqueeventhadfilledalloftheseatsandwasspillingoverintothenarrow passageways of this all-too-modest room where Ein-steinwasgoingtospeak.Andallthosewhowereinattendancehadtoagreeonthecertaintyofatleastonething,that,atleastfor this place, thenon-existenceof spacewasquite certain.Therewerestudents,professors,scientists,alltheeliteofFrenchscienceandofFrenchculture,allthegreatnameswhichhonorthiscountry.Fromthedensityofattendees,onemightbelieveoneselftobeatafamoussession,whererecentlytheidolizingpublicwouldbeflockingtoalessonofaCarooraBergson.Butinregardingthecrowdalittlemoreclosely,thecomparisonisnotquitejustified.Thereweretrulyveryfewfamousactressesor high-society ladies, in this gathering of dignitaries whosecompressibilitywasputtosuchharshtrial.Hereagain,Mr.Lan-gevin’sextremehonestywasmanifested.Totheextentthatwehadbeengenerousinthedistributionofticketstopeopleinsci-enceandresearch,eventoyoungstudentswhoseattendancewasconsideredlegitimate,inthesamedegree,weweremerci-lessinrejectingallwhocouldrepresentsnobbery,hamactors,or simple idle curiosity.Also, all things considered, I’m notquitesureonecouldhavebeenabletoenumerateamongthiscenter of tasteful intellectuals a half dozen of truly elegantwomen.Withinthedecayingwallsofthisjewelbox,wherethepurestdiamondsofthemindwereabouttorevealtheirluster,notevenaningeniousthiefwouldhavebeenabletostealsuf-ficientjewelstomerittheleastnewsworthycommentforthenewspapers.

ThiswasalsoverymuchinharmonywiththetastesofEin-stein.

But,allofasudden,onthelowerplatformoftheamphithe-atrewherealittledesksurroundedbysomechairsisarranged,herecomesEinsteinaccompaniedbyMr.MauriceCroiset,ad-ministratoroftheCollègeofFrance,andMr.Langevin,followedbytheprofessorsoftheCollège.Thewholeroomrosetoitsfeetinonemovementandgreetedthewiseonewithaterrificac-clamation.Einsteinseemedmovedandanxious.Insomeper-fectly succinct and chosen words, Mr. Maurice Croiset wel-comedhimandtoldhimhowproudtheCollègewastohavehimhere.WhatMr.Croisetdoesnotsay,butwhichalltheide-alistsofthecountryarethankfulfor,istherolethatheperson-allyplayed,andnotwithoutcourage, inbringingEinstein tothisvenerablehouse,andwhichshoweditself,onemoretime,tobedeservingofitshigh,andfreetradition.

Inafewphrases,Einstein,standingthewholetime,thanksuswith his soft and singing voice, initially not very confident-sounding.Inacautiousmanner,heremarksthathispresenceinthisplaceisthehappysignthatscienceisnolongerthreatenedbypolitics.Then,hesitsdown:Therespectfulroom,whichwasalsostanding,doesthesame.Immediately,andwithouttransi-tion,—Einsteinhasnotastefororatory—hebeginstospeaktousabouttheTheoryofRelativity.

Hisdictionisslow.Youfeelthatthewordsarenotgoingfastenoughtofollowtherapidlyadvancingandwell-orderedtroopsofhisideas.Thevoiceiscaressing,andofaratherlowandvi-branttone.HenriPoincaréhadalsoanextremelylowvoice,

butitstonewasstilllowerthanthatofEinstein.Einsteindoesn’tignoreanyofthenuancesofourlanguagewhichhepronounc-eswithaslightaccent.Hesays“lesékations,”“larélativité,”“lakinématique.”2Whilehespeaks,hiseyes,withvery inclinedeyebrowsabovetheeye-sockets,converginguponan“accentcirconflex”[^] towards themiddleof theforehead,seemdi-rectedveryfaraway,muchfartherthantheardentlooksofthepublicforwhomhehadbecomethegeometriccenter.Thoseeyes,whichtheycontemplate,arethesereneregionswherethemindofthescientistsynthesizesthemarvelsofmatteranden-ergy.Thisidealcontemplationisnotatallthatofadream:thatwhichhescrutinizesarelivelyrealities,whichareimpression-ablethings;because,forEinstein—andhewillnotstopinsistingontheseideaswhichseparatehimfromcertaincontemporariesofhis—themathematicalabstractionisnotatallsomewingedthingusedtoleadthemindwildlyastray,itisanddoesnotneedtobeotherthan,thehumbleservantofthings,suchastheyexistin reality.From time to time,he leans towardsMr.Langevinwhoisseatedtohisleftandalittlebitsetback,togettheneces-saryword,theFrenchwordwhichheishavingdifficulty,fol-lowinghisownexpression,in“extractingfromhisthroat.”

Sometimes,it’sanEnglishwordthatcomestohislips,andIhearhimmurmuring“assumption”whileMr.Langevinsoftlywhispers “hypothesis.” But these short pauses, which some-times slowdownhisdelivery, arenotdisagreeable,becausetheygivetheaudiencemembertimetobetterpiecetogetherthereasoning;whoseextraordinarilydensesuccessionofargu-mentsmakesthispresentationtherichestmeltingpotofideasthatcanbeimagined.Andthen,asiftolightentheheavyideasof his presentation, each time that the desired word doesn’t

2. [Translator’s note] This may not be clear to non-French speakers. The ac-tual French spellings of these words, with accents, are les équations, la relativité, la cinématique. It would be as if a German speaker said in English “He sait dat fery vell.”

AlbertEinsteinandProf.PaulLangevinin1922.


comeeasily,Einsteinsmiles,whilewaitingforMr.Langevintodelivertohimthedesiredterm.AndthissmilethatwassowellcapturedbytheartistChoumoff,hassomethingextremelyse-ductivetoit.Itseemstomethatithassomethingofacourteousreluctance,likeaprayertonotbecomeangryatthesesmall,purelyphilologicalhesitations.

Moreover,Einsteinspeakswithoutanynotes,withhissightaimedhigh.Hisusualgestureistoslowlyraisehistwohandswiththethumbandindexfingertouchingsoftlyasifhewereextendingandslackeningsuccessivelyaninvisiblethread,thesuppleandsilkythreadforthedemonstration.

In thisfirstmeeting,Einsteindeclaredat thebeginninghisdesiretolimithimselftoasortofgeneralexpositionoftheprin-cipleofrelativity,orratherofthemethodemployedintheelab-orationofthetheory.Thefollowingmeetings,headdedrightaway,willbeentirelysetasidefordiscussion.

Totellyouthetruth,eversincethisinitialmeeting,Einsteinhad,byhisownpresentation,launchedthecontroversyandde-batedwiththesharpestprecisionsomeofthecriticismswhichwereleveledathim,andsomeofthemisunderstandingsthatthecontroversyhadcreatedaroundthenewdoctrine.

Iwouldnotbeable,here,tofollowEinsteinstepbystepinhispresentation,whichlastedtwohours.Itwouldtakemesev-eralhundredpagestotranslateitentirelyintoalanguagewherethetechnicalexpressionswouldbemadeaccessibletothenon-specializedreader,sincethewordsandthephraseswithwhichwecanexpressthesethingsunfortunatelydon’thaveanyofthedense and concise brevity of mathematical formulas. Thatwhichcanbesaidinfiveminutes,whenwecantalkfreelyofcoordinateaxes,quadratic forms,geodesics,andtransforma-tionformulas,wouldrequiremuchmoretimetoexpresswhenwehavetofirsttranslatetheseesoterictermsintoordinarylan-guage.Inhispurelydidacticpart,thepresentationofEinsteinhadmoreoversimplyconsistedinrecallingtheessentialbasesofhistheory,andthenotionsalreadyknownbythosewhodomethehonorofreadingmyownwritings.3Thisleavesoutthe

3. I may be permitted here to refer my readers to the articles where I have ex-plained the experimental and theoretical foundations of the Special Theory of

specifically critical and meth-odologicalpartofthepresenta-tionwhichgivesititsoriginality,andofwhichInowproposetoexpress, in the simplest waypossible, the profound interestandconvincingconclusions.

ThetheoryofEinsteinisgen-eratedfromproblemsthatcomefrom “experimentation.” It isbased on facts, and its authorinsistswithmuchvigoronthispointwhichhasoftenbeenmis-understood.Itiscompletelytheoppositeofametaphysicalsys-tem—and my readers remem-ber that I have already devel-opedthisideaatlength.

Whatare,therefore,thefactson which the new theory was

built,andwhichseemed,insomeway, tocompel itsaccep-tance?Thepointisthis:Thereis,inclassicalscience,orinthestudyofmechanics,whichwaslaidoutbyGalileoandNew-ton, a principle which is called the “principle of relativity,”whichcomesmoreorlesstothefollowing:Intheinteriorofamaterialsystem,wecannotinanywayshowitsmotion,viaex-perimentsdonewithinavehicleinuniformtranslation.Forex-ample, ina trainmovinguniformly, (andnot taking intoac-count the vibrations, which are precisely alterations in theuniformity of the motion) we cannot by any known processshowtherealityandthemagnitudeofthemotion.Whentwotrainspassoneanother(nottakingintoconsiderationtheseal-terations),thepassengerscannotknowwhichisactuallyinmo-tion, that is tosay,eachonebelieves that it is theotheronewhichisinmotion.Allclassicalmechanics,alltraditionalsci-ence,isfoundeduponthisverysimpleprinciple.Ithasbeenverifiedthroughoutcenturies.Notonlyisittheresultoffacts,butithasinitajenesaisquoiofevidencewhichsatisfiesthecourseofourreason.Thelatterinfact,repudiatestheideathattherecouldexistinnature,amongalluniformmotions,thatistosayamongsimilarmotions,somewhichcouldberealmo-tions,thatwouldexcludeotherones.

Thegoodintuitivesenseandthefactscombined,havethere-forecometoagreementincementingonsolidfoundationstheclassicalprincipleofrelativity,asfarasuniformmotionsareconcerned.But,notethatsincethe19thCentury,anotheredi-ficewaserectedinscience,whichisnotconcernedwiththedisplacementsofmaterialbodies,butratherwiththesubtlemotionsoflightandelectricity.Ontheothersideofmechan-icswaserectedelectromagnetismwhichnotonlycombinesinasuperbtheoreticalsynthesis,opticsandelectricity,butwhichhasledtomagnificentexperimentallyverifiablepre-dictions;among themostbeautifulare thediscoveryof thewirelesstelegraphandtheproofthatHertzianwavestravelat

Relativity, and, for General Relativity, I refer the reader to my recent little book Einstein and the Universe, where the conclusions are found to be (as one would judge) entirely in agreement with those found in the controversies which pro-vide the occasion for the present article.

OneofthemanyarticlesinthepopularpressreportingonEinstein’svisittoFrance.L’IllustrationalsocoveredEinstein’s1922visittoaFrenchvillagenearDormans(above),whichhadbeendestroyedinWorldWarI.


thespeedoflight.Electromagnetism rees-

tablishesasafoundationthisprinciple that the speed oflightisconstantineverydi-rection.

But, observe that certainrecent facts, certain experi-mentswereshowntobein-compatible,eitherwithelec-tromagnetism, or classicalmechanics, or better still,with the two principleswhich serve as foundationsrespectively for these twodisciplines, which are theprincipleofrelativityandtheprincipleoftheconstancyofthespeedoflight.Theexper-imentofMichelson,amongothers,appearedtobelead-ingtothenecessityofabandoningeitheroneortheotherofthese principles.This is when Einstein, through a profoundanalysisofthenotionsservingasfoundationsforclassicalme-chanics,showedthatthisisdeducedrigorouslyfromtheprin-cipleofrelativityonlyifweallowforcertainhypotheticalenti-tieswhichwecallabsolutespaceandabsolutetime.

Ifweeliminatethesetwohypothesesandifwedefinetimeandspace,thatistosay,extensionsanddurationsasweob-servethem,bytakingintoaccountthenon-instantaneousprop-agationoflight,wethenelaborateanewscienceofmechanics,themechanicsofEinstein,whichisfounded,liketheclassicalone,ontheprincipleofrelativity,butwhichconstitutesanap-plicationofthisprinciplethatisextricatedfrommetaphysicalhypothesesandfromtheapriorinotionsofabsolutespaceandabsolutetime.

Inaword,Einsteinmaintains the twoprinciples thathavebeentestedexperimentallyandwhichareatthebasisofclassi-calmechanicsandelectromagnetism.Solelybyapplicationofthese classical principles, but whichhe purifies of their metaphysical re-fuse,heconstructsanewscienceofmechanics without any special as-sumption.Then, it turns out: 1. thatEinstein’s science of mechanics ac-countsforboththefactsexplainedbytheoldscienceofmechanicsaswellasthisnewone;2.thatitimmediatelysolves the incompatibilities that theMichelsonexperimenthadshownbe-tweenmechanicsandoptics;3.thatitexplains and predicts a number ofphenomena, of facts pertaining toelectronsandwhichescapethegraspof classical mechanics; that it ac-countsforcertainoldresultsthatrep-resented enigmas for traditional sci-ence,suchastheFizeauexperiment.

Asmyreaderswillremember,Ihave

explainedallofthisextensivelyinthisreview.Iwill,therefore,onlyretainthis:TheontogeneticexaminationthatwehavejustmadeofthistheoreticalbodycalledSpecialRelativityprovesclearlythatthisfirstaspectofEinstein’sworkhasbeenelabo-ratedonthebasisofdatagivenbyexperimentation.

TheTheoryofRelativityaccountsforalloftheresultsofthetraditionaldoctrineandonlydiffersfromitbythefactthatithaseliminatedfromitallremainingmetaphysicalresidues.Noonewilldisputethatthismakesitasuperiorscience.Thereisnoth-inginsciencebutthatwhichcanbemeasured,anditissurelybetter tobasescienceonthis, thanonthatwhichcannotbemeasured.

Therefore,whenthenewspapersannounced,withatouch-ingtoneofunanimity,thearrivalinParisofthecelebratedmeta-physicianEinstein,theywerecertainlydeliveringthemostfalsi-fied of all possible inexact news that ever came out of thewhiningprintingpresses.Obviouslywe are allmoreor lessmetaphysicians,startingwiththehousewifewhoisconcernedaboutwhatshewill feedherhusbandforsupper tonightbe-causeshemakestheassumptionthatherhusbandexists,andtherefore,sheismakingadaringmetaphysicalassumptionfrombeyond theoutsideworld.However, thisbeing thecase,wecanascertainthatEinsteinistrulytheleastmetaphysicianofallphysicists.Hismeritandthecauseforscandaltothemisoneistscomespreciselyfromthefactthathehas,betterthananyonebeforehim,de-metaphysicizedthedomainofscience.

Oneofhisconstantpreoccupationsistomakeclearlyunder-stoodhisparticularconcerninthisrespect.InhispresentationofMarch31st,andwiththefinesse-filledimplicationsthatchar-acterizehim,heexplainedthispointextensivelybyaddressingaparticular speciesofmetaphysiciansknownasmathemati-cians, that is, thepuremathematicianswho, lost in theirab-stractdreamsandcarriedonthepowerfulwingoftheirimagi-nationstowardsomeunrealbeauties,neverputtheirfootdownontherigidsoilofwhatexists.

Einsteincertainlydoesnotholdmathematiciansincontempt.Withouttheircollaboration,heprobablywouldnothavebeenabletobringhisworktofruition.ItistheabsolutedifferentialcalculusofRicci,theequationsofLevi-CivittaandofChristof-

FrenchphysicistPaulLangevin(1872-1946) worked closelywith Einstein in science andpolitics.

ForafurtherexplanationofEinstein’smechanics,seethevideo“TheGeniusofAlbertEin-stein.”

www.larouchepac.com/node/15482?page=2




fel,andthegeometriesofGaussandRiemannwhich,whenused

judiciously,allowedhimtocompletehiswork.But,herefusestoconsiderthatcalculatingisanythingelsebutaninstrument,thatis,merelyabridgebetweenhisexperimentalpremisesandthe lawfulconclusionsofexperimentation.Hewantsmathe-maticstobetheservantofthefacts.Alwaysandaboveall,heispreoccupied with the physical significance of mathematicalsymbols.ThosewhohaveseenintheRelativityTheorymerelythemathematicalapparatus,arelikethepassers-bywhowouldmistakeTrinityChurchforthegiganticscaffoldingthathidesitsharmonic lines, and which might otherwise even somewhatcontributetoitsstrength.

Thisisoneofthemostfrequentmisunderstandingsthathasarisen between those who consider the Einstein theory as apurelyphysicaltheory,andthereareafewofuswhoforalong

timehaveheldthatpointofview,andanumberofthosewhoarehismathe-maticaladversaries.

Einstein stoodupwithforce against the often-expressed opinion thattheTheoryofRelativityisnothingbutapurely for-mal construction. It is aphysical theory, a theoryof the outside world, atheoryofthephenomena,oftheeventsoccurringintheuniverse.Hesaidthefollowing in his ownwords:

ManymathematiciansdonotunderstandtheTheoryofRelativityalthoughtheymayapprehenditsanalyticaldevelopments.Theyarewronginseeingsimplyformalrelationsandofnotmeditatingonthephysicalrealitiestowhichcorrespondthemathematicalsymbolsinuse.

Hereisanexamplewhich,Ithink,willhelpusunderstandthis conception. If a man who has learned nothing else butmathematicsweretolivehisentirelifeinsideofaclosedroom,hewouldbeperfectlycapableofreadingandunderstandingthelogicalsequenceoftheformulasofatreatyofcelestialme-chanics.But,hewouldotherwiseunderstandnothingof thecelestialmechanics,becausehewouldfailtounderstandthattheseformulasapplytotherelativemotionsofrealexternalob-jectsthatwecallthestars.Itistothissortofman—dueallow-

Nimitz Library, U.S. Naval Academy, Special Collections and Archives

PhysicistAlbertMichelson(1852-1931).

Figure1FIRSTMICHELSON-MORLEY

INTERFEROMETER(1881)A.A.Michelson’sinstrument,construct-ed inBerlin in1881, fordetecting therelativemotionoftheEarththroughthepresumedstationaryether.Thetwoper-pendiculararmsarerotatedsothatonepointsinthedirectionoftheEarth’srota-tion.Half-silveredmirrorsatthecentercreate equal path lengths for the lightrayinthetwoorthogonaldirections.Itisexpected that the light ray movingagainsttheetherstreamwilltakeslightlylongerthantheraywhichtraversestheotherperpendiculararm.Thiswillbeevidentasashiftinthefringepatternintheinterferometerpositionedate.

Insetshowsthefringepatternsinnarrowandbroadmag-nificationfromalaterinterferometer.Sources: A.A. Michelson, 1881 “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Am. J. Sci., Vol. 3, No. 22, pp. 122, 12�. D.C. Miller, 1933, “The Ether-Drift and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Rev. Modern Phys., Vol. 5, p. 211 (July).


ancebeingrespectfullymadetosavetheirreverence—thatEin-steinwilltendtocomparethoseindividualswhocriticizehistheorieswithouthavingstudieddeeplyenoughtheirphysicalcontent.

Wellthen,thephysicalcontent,whichisthebasisfortheen-tireTheoryofRelativity,istheexistenceandtheinvarianceofaquantitymeasurablewithrulersandclocks,aquantitythatwecalltheintervalbetweenthingsandwhichisneithertheirdis-tanceintime,northeirdistanceinspace,but—myreaderswillremember—asortofconglomerationbetweenspaceandtime.

TheentireEinsteinsynthesisisfoundedonthebeliefoftherealexistenceofthisphysicalconcept.Ifthisconceptdoesnotexist—andthisisconditionalonexperimentationandontheinstrumentsofthephysicist—theentiretheorybecomesnoth-ingmorethanaplayofmathematicalformulasandvanishes.But,Einsteinseemstobeuntroubledinthisregardandwehavetorecognizethathistranquilityisbuttressedbysoliddemon-strations.AsidefromalltheverificationsofclassicalmechanicsthatalsoverifyEinstein’smechanics,itistheadmirableexperi-mentalverificationsofphysicaldiscoveries(distortionoflightbygravitationexplainingtheanomalyoftheplanetMercury)thathaveledtothenewtheory.

Ashewasspeakingonthesethings,andbecauseofhisim-perfectmasteryoftheFrenchlanguage,Einsteinhadafewver-balhesitationsandhetreatedustosomeinspiringflavorfulne-ologisms. For instance, when speaking about classicalmechanics,whichdiffersfromhisownasdoesthestaticchrys-alisfromthefastmovingbutterfly,Einsteincameupwiththenewexpressionof“‘antique’mechanics.”Iaskedmyselfiftheuseofthisimproperqualificationdidnotmaskalittlebitofde-liberateirony.

ItisnotonlySpecialRelativitywhichisbasedontheneces-sityofresolvingproblemsposedbyexperimentation;itisalsothecaseforGeneralRelativity,whichrepresentstheadmirablecrownofhis theory. Inparticular,almost theentiresynthesiswastriggeredbythefollowingfactthatclassicalsciencehadnoticed,butwasincapableofexplaining,andinwhichNewton

hadonlyseenacoincidence:Thenumberswhichexpress theweightsofdifferentbodies (that is tosay,theirreactiontogravity)areidenticaltothosethatexpresstheirinertia(thatistosay,theirreac-tiontosomemechanicaldisplacement).Whenwefindsimilartypesofidentitiesinnature,suchsin-gularfacts,itisnaturalthatweseektoelucidatethematterdifferentlythanbysimplysayingthatitisanunbelievableandfortuitouscoincidence.ThatwasnonethelesswhatNewtonresignedhimselftoac-cept.This is something that Einstein was not re-signedtoacceptatall,andhisstunningpenetra-tionfoundthesolutiontotheenigmainthetheoryofGeneralRelativity,whichbroughttogetherintoagrandioseanduniquesynthesisthesetwodomainsof gravitationand mechanicsbetween whichclassical sci-encehaderect-ed an unjustifi-ablebarrier.The

facts, and nothing but thefacts,areattheoriginofEin-stein’sdoctrine.

Again, itwasbymeditat-ingmoreprofoundlyonper-ceived realities and on theexperimental foundation ofgeometrywhichwascarriedoutbeforehim,thatEinstein

Nimitz Library, U.S. Naval Academy, Special Collections and Archives

TheMichelson-Morleyexperimentof1887,setupinthebasementofAdel-bertHall,WesternReserveUniversity.Resultsweresmallerthanexpected,thoughnotcompletelynull—anenigmatothisday.

(Formoreonthistopic,see“OpticalTheoryinthe19thCenturyandtheTruthaboutMichelson-Morley-Miller,”byLaurenceHecht,21stCentury,Spring1998.)

French physicist HippolyteFizeau(1819-1896)

Figure2SCHEMATICOFAFIZEAUINTERFEROMETER

Fizeauusedhis interferometer tomeasure theeffectofmovement of a medium upon the speed of light. Hepassedlightintwodirectionsthroughmovingwater,andmeasuredtheinterferencepattern.Bothbeamstravelthesamedistance,butonegoesinthedirectionofthewaterflow and the other goes in the direction opposing theflow.An interferencepattern is formed (causedby thetimedifferencesofthebeams)whenthetwobeamsarerecombinedatthedetector.


arrivedat theconclusion that theworld inwhichwe live isbarelyapproximatedbyEuclideangeometry.Thisconclusionhasalsobeenconfirmedbythefacts:suchasthebendingoflightraysbyamassivebody,etc.Ihavealreadyexplainedthesethings,andIwanttostressonlythis:TheTheoryofRelativitystartsfromsense-perceptionrealitiesinordertoleadtoothersense-perceptionrealities.Mathematics,howeverconsiderableitsimportance,itslogicalrigor,anditsuniquemodeofexpres-sionsmaybe,onlyplaysarolethatisanalogoustothatoftrans-missionbeltsinmachine-tools.ThatisthereasonwhyEinsteinneverstoppedrivetinghimself to therealworld, to thedata.BetterthanNewtonhimself,hehasappliedthehypothesesnonfingo.

TheTheoryofRelativityisthemostprofoundandthemostsuccessfulofallattemptsbythehumanmindtobanfromsci-encewhatisnotmeasurable,andtochaseoutofphysicsallthatismetaphysical.

SuchwastheimpressionmadeuponusbyEinsteinonMarch31st after he had ended with a few cosmological consider-ations,onwhichIshallreturnlater.Hemadeapenetratingex-posédivestedofanypretense,whosesoleeloquencestreamedfromfactsandfromreason.Then,thegreatphysiciststoodupinthemidstofapplause.

***

ThefirstdiscussionsessiontookplaceonApril3rdinthephys-icsamphitheateroftheCollègedeFrance,whichisevenmorecrampedthanthe“large”amphitheaterinwhichEinsteinspokethepreviousFriday.Theaudiencewascomposedalmostexclu-sivelyofscientists,ofphilosophers,ofresearchers—andinthefirstamongtheirrankswasDoctorRoux,hispaleasceticfacecappedwithhissmalltraditionalskullcap,Mr.Bergson,Mme.Curie,andagreatmanymembersoftheAcademyofSciences.

The session was to be dedicated exclusively to questionsraisedbytheSpecialTheoryofRelativity.EinsteinwasseatednexttoMr.Langevininfrontofasmalltable,tothesideofagi-ganticblackboardwhichwouldsoonrevealthedialecticalpas-sionoftheplayers.

Thefirstquestionwasonthe Michelson experiment.Myreadershavenotforgot-ten that, according to theSpecialTheoryofRelativity,thelengthofagivenobjectandthetimeseparatingtwoeventsarecharacterizedbyquantities which vary withspeed, and which vary insuchawaythat thelengthsandthedurations(expressedinseconds)areshorterforagivenobserverwhentheob-jects under considerationmove very quickly with re-gardtotheobserver.Asfaraslengthsareconcerned,Ihaveeven given an elementaryexplanationhere.Asforthetimes, an analogous expla-

nationcanbeproduced;butduringthispresentation,Einsteingaveanotherdemonstrationofthisfact,whichwassosimplethatIsimplycannotrestrainmyselffromreportingithere.

Itisknownthatlightplaysafundamentalroleintheregula-tionoftimepiecesandtheverydefinitionoftime;thatthereisnobetterdefinitionforthedurationofonesecondthanthetimenecessaryforlighttotraverse300,000kilometers,andthatitislightor electricity (whichhasanequal speed)whichare thepracticalagentsforthesynchronizationofclocks.Letusthere-foreassumethattheidentityoftimebedefinedbythetimetakenbyalightraytomakearoundtripalongthedistancebetweentwoparallelmirrorsuponwhichtherayreflectsnormally.Thisgoingandcomingoftheraysituatedbetweenthetwomirrorsisanexampleofthetypeofperiodicphenomenonbywhichtimeismeasuredout.Itwould,forexample,defineathree-hundred-millionthofasecond,ifthedistancebetweenthetwomirrorsis50centimeters.Suchwouldbethevalueofthedurationascon-sideredbyanobserversituatedbetweenthetwomirrors.

Nowletusassumethatthesystemcontainingthetwomirrorspassesbeforemeataverygreatspeed,carriedbyarapidtrans-lation,paralleltothetwomirrors.I,whoseeitpassby,remarkthat the light ray,which leaves the centerof thefirstmirror,must,inordertoruntothecenterofthesecond,andfromtherebacktothefirst,traverseapathslightlyinclinedinthedirectionofthetranslationandnotnormaltothemirrors.Itfollowsthatthistrajectory,whichdefinestheunitoftimefortheobserverconnectedtothemirrors,definesforimmobilemeatimelon-gerthanmyownunitoftime.Inotherwords,thedurationsofphenomena,thetickingofclocks,likeallthegesturesmadeinavehicle invery rapidmovement,willappear tobesloweddown,andconsequentlyappearprolongedtoanobserverinmotion,andviceversa.Q.E.D.

Inthecourseofhisexplanations,EinsteinwasledtospecifythatalthoughtheapparentcontractionsofobjectsbyspeedisdeduceddirectlyfromtheMichelsonexperimentbythetheory,theapparentslowingoftimefollowsfromthisexperimentonlyindirectly. Experiments will perhaps someday permit time-contraction to bededuced from theobservations of positive

Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941)inaportraitpaintedbyJ.E.Blanchein1891.

Polish-French physicist andchemist Marie SklodowskaCurie (1867-1934), in aphototakenaround1920.

Emile Roux (1853-1933)wasaFrenchphysician,bac-teriologist, and immunolo-gistwhocollaboratedclose-lywithLouisPasteur.


rays[ions]orfromtheobservationoftheeclipsesofJupiter’ssatellites.Buttheprecisionofastronomicalobservationsseemsinsufficientatthepresenttimetoestablishthelatter.

Theprincipleandmostcertaindemonstrationoftime-con-tractioncausedbyspeedisfound,asfordistance-contraction,inthemanyindirectyetmutuallyagreeingverifications,whichconstitutetheapplicationsofthisnotiontothenewmechanicsandtheverifiableconsequencesthatitentails.

InregardstotheMichelsonexperiment,Einsteinhassincerecountedtome,thatthefamousAmericanphysicisttoldhimoneday:“‘IfIhadbeenabletoforeseealltheresultsthathavesince been derived from my experiment, I tend to believe Iwouldneverhaveperformedit.’”Itisincidentallysomethingrathersingularandvery interesting fromahistoricalpointofviewtoconsiderthisattitudeoftheprincipalprecursorsofRel-ativitywhenpresentedwiththetheoryofEinstein.Duringthecourseofarecentconversation,Einsteingavemesomecuriousclarificationsonthissubject,theessentialelementsofwhichIfindusefultosummarizeforthereaderhere.

HenriPoincaréhasdied,anditcertainlywouldhavebeen a profoundly movingthingtoseeEinsteindiscusswith this powerful mind,whohadonsomanypointsshown the way. Would hehavebeenapartisanoftheGeneralTheoryofRelativity?Itisprobable,butnotabso-lutely certain. Studying themany famouspageson theorigins and foundations ofgeometry, Henri Poincaréhad arrived at the conclu-sion that, if it is not moreideallytruethantheothers,Euclidean geometry is thatwhich corresponds to thenatureoftheexternalworldand to our sensations. On

thispointEinsteinmadeacleanbreakwiththeideasof Poincaré, starting fromthe day he forecast thecurvingof raysof lightbygravity,whichwasrecentlyverified,asweknow,andasPoincaréhadnotimag-ined.

ThatisthekeystoneofallRelativity,thecentralpointfrom which Einstein wasabletodeducethattherealgeometryoftheworldisin-deed a non-Euclidean ge-ometry.ItisquitedifficulttoknowwhatPoincaréwouldhave thought about this.Surely under this form orperhapsanother,hewouldhavebeen,inkeepingwithhisownideas,afullrelativ-ist;andhewouldcertainlyhave accepted with totalsympathy anything whichwouldhavepermittedhimtolivewithoutthesemysti-calcreatureswhichhefoundsingularlyrepulsive:thenotionsofabsolutespaceandofabsolutetimeofNewton.

Perhaps even more than Poincaré, Einstein admits havingbeeninfluencedbythefamousViennesephysicistMach(whohadfirstdiscoveredandstudiedtheshockwavethatrapidpro-jectilesproduce in theatmosphere.)Mach formerly strove toreduceallofmechanicstoobservablephenomena,allmotionstomaterialreferencesandsupports.Althoughhewasnotabletobringhisideastomaturityduetohislackofmathematicalandphilosophicaltools,theyareincompleteharmonywiththeveryprinciples of Einstein. However, just before his recent death,MachdeclaredhishostilitytowardtheGeneralTheoryofRela-tivity.“Butitisbecausehewasold,”Einsteintoldme,smiling.

AsforLorentz,whoisincontestablythemostcertainprecur-sorofEinstein,itappearsthatheadmitsthefoundationofGen-eralRelativity,whileat thesame time refusing toaccept theprinciples which established the basis of Special Relativity.Howeverillogicalthisattitudemayseemtobe,itisnotshock-ingifonerecallsthatLorentzalwaysdefendedthethesisoftheabsoluteandimmobileether,andtheactualspeed-contractionofbodies.Hisoverall attitude regardingRelativity is, asonecouldjudge,similarenoughtothatofMr.Painlevé.But,asofnow,itisimportanttonotethattoadmitGeneralRelativityisthe sameas admitting theessentials andmajorityof SpecialRelativity,sincetheformerwasonlycreatedbyEinsteintorem-edy theshortcomingsof the latter;which today,moreover, itsubsumesinamoregeneralsynthesis.Ifyoutakethegreater,yougetthesmalleraswell.

Theconclusionofthisfirstcontroversialsession,andthebe-ginning of the following session (which took place onApril5th),werealmostentirelytakenupbyapassionatediscussionprovokedbyMr.Painlevé,who,tothedelightofhisfriends,had

TheinterferencepatternproducedwithaMichelsoninterfer-ometerusingaredlaser.

French mathematician, physi-cist,engineer,andphilosopherHenriPoincaré(1854-1912).

Thisbustof theViennesephysi-cist and positivist Ernst Mach(1838-1916),sculptedbyHeinzPeter,standsintheCityHallParkofVienna.


abandonedpoliticsforafewhours.Thisdiscussiongreatlycon-tributedindefinitelyclarifyingoneofthemostdelicatepointsoftheTheoryofSpecialRelativity.

Thisanimatedandalwayscourteousdiscussionwasamostcuriousandinterestingspectacletowatchinitsperfectobjectiv-ity.Intruth,Mr.Painlevéneverceasedtopubliclypraise,onalloccasions,hisadmirationforEinstein’sgenius.ItwaswithinafewweeksthatapositionofcorrespondingmembershipfortheMechanicsDepartmenthadbecomevacantattheAcademyofScience,andforwhichafewvoicescalledforEinstein,whowasneitheracandidate,norevenpresentedhimself.Mr.Painlevéwaspleasedtodeclarethathisvoicewasamongthem.ItwasatthisoccasionthatahighlyesteemedmemberoftheAcademyproclaimedthesedeliciouswords:“HowcanyounominateEin-steinasamemberoftheDepartmentofMechanicswhenitisEinstein,himself,whohasdestroyedthescienceofmechanics?”Ifitistruethatallprogress,allchange,constitutes,insomeway,adestructionofthatwhichismodified,itisanaturaltendencyformanymentoconsiderthisdestructionasnecessarilybad.ThesamethingoccurredwhentheCopernicansystemdestroyedthePtolemaicsystem,whenLavoisier’schemistrydestroyedtheolddoctrineofPhlogiston.Butitis,alas,theverynatureoflife’sprogress that itonlygrowsand thrivesupondestruction.The

butterflydoesn’tleaveitscocoon;thebirddoesn’thatchfromtheeggwithoutdestruction.Mandoesn’tbecomeanadultwith-outthedeathofthatwhichmadehimachild.Noflowerwouldblossomthatdidn’tfirstrupturethefragileenvelopeofitsbulb.ThisisalsothehistoryoftheEinsteindoctrine.Unlessyouwishtoseetheuniverseseizedwithinamonstrouslethargy,andideascrystallized forever into rigidforms,whoseimmobilitywouldbetheequivalentofdeath,onemustberesignedtoaccept,es-pecially with science, that theonlyraisond’êtreistostriveal-waysfurther.

Thus, Mr. Painlevé neverceasedtopraiseEinsteinasoneofthegreatestgeniuseshumanhistoryhadever seen. I know,that for his part, Einstein pro-fessedthemostsincereadmira-tionfortheworkofthisfamousFrench geometer. In these cir-cumstances,theatmosphereinwhich the conversation be-tweenthesetwoscientistsopened,wasinfinitelypropitioustothehappyshocksthatconfrontedandanimatedthesesincereintellectsandfromwhichmorelightwasshed.

NothingwasmoreamusingthanseeingEinsteinandMr.Pain-levésidebysideinfrontoftheblackboard:thefirstalwayscalm,armedwiththesoftpatiencewhichcomeswithabsolutesecuri-ty;thesecond,impetuousandlively,boilingwiththeefferves-cenceof ideasandarguments; thefirst immobile, the secondneverremaininginoneplaceandalwaysgoingbackandforthwithinthenarrowarenainfrontoftheboard.Einsteinwaspaleandhisattitudeandmannerofspeakingseemedtoresembletheinflexiblesolidityofanimmovablerock,resistingovercenturiestheforcesoferosion;Painlevéwasallflushedbythefluxofhisboilingblood,passionateinhisgesturesandarguments,attack-ingwiththesuddenoutburstsofunpredictableandbrilliantfitsandstartsthatweusuallywitnessinassaultsagainstoldandshakythings,withtheideaofturningacceptedorderupsidedown.

Justbyjudgingtheappearanceofthesetwomen,who,armedeachwithapieceofchalk,coveredthevastblackboardwithbattalionsoftheiropposedequations,ittrulyseemedasthoughitwereEinstein,whowastheconservative,andMr.Painlevé,the“revolutionary.”Andyet,oddlyenough,theoppositewastrue.Itwasthefirstwhohadcompletelyoverturnedtheentireedificeofthetraditionalstructure,wherethehumanspirithaddozedwithafalsesenseofsecurity,wherebythesecondactedasarampartinfrontofthefortressofNewtoniansciencethatwasunderattack.

ThediscussionwasfocussedonanimportantpointabouttheTheoryofSpecialRelativity.Itended—asweshallsee—withacompleteagreementbetweenthetwochallengers,andservedtocompletelyeliminateamisunderstandingwhichthisfirstlev-eloftheEinsteinmonumentcouldhaveborninsomeminds.

Hereishow,Ibelievewecanpresent,withouttheuseofasingleformulaandwithoutanyesotericcalculation,theques-tionthatwasraisedandtheresponsethatwasgiventoit:

Weknow,asIhaveexplainedinthepast,thatbecauseoftheparticularpropagationoflight,thereexistsnouniversalorab-

Museum Boerhaave, Leiden

DutchphysicistHendrikAntoonLorentz (1853-1928)photo-graphedwithEinsteininLeidenin1921.

French mathematician andPrimeMinisterPaulPainlevé(1863-1933).


solutetime,andthattheworkingsoftwoidenticalclockswouldnotappearidenti-caltoanobserverattachedtooneoftheseclocks,andwhoseestheotherpassingbyhimataveryfastspeed.AsIshowedear-lier,theclockwhichisnotmovingwithrespecttomeseemstogofasterthanthatonewhichwasmovingspeedilybyme.In a general manner, the duration ofevents,suchasthevibrationsofadiapa-son,thebeatsofaheartorallothergivenphenomena, will appear shorter, morehurried, to a non-moving observer ofthesephenomena,thantoanobserver,infrontofwhomthevehicleonwhichthosephenomenon are located, passes byquickly.Forthislastobserver,thesephe-nomena will appear to be slower. In aword,foragivenobserver,eachvehicleinmotioninspacehasitsownparticulartime,itsparticularspeedinwhichflowthephenomena.Thistime,thisdurationofagivenphenomena(e.g.,theburningofacigarette),wouldseemalwaysgreater,whenthephenomenaaremovingatagreaterspeed,inrelationtome.Consequently,thistime,thisduration,hasforme,itssmallestvalue,whenthespeedisnull,thatistosaywhenIamattachedtothevehicleinwhichtheobservedphenomenonisoccurring.Thisminimumvalueoftime,weshallcallthepropertimeofthevehicle,andthisexpressionislegitimatesinceitdesignatesthetimeindi-catedbytheproperclockswhichareinthevehicle.

Allofthisisthenecessaryconsequenceofthestatedlawsofthepropagationoflight,andconstitutesoneofthefoundationsoftheTheoryofSpecialRelativity.

Thissaid,wehavehere,reducedtoitsessentialelements,thequestionraisedbyMr.Painlevéandwhichatfirstsight,seemedtodrivetowardacontradiction,aparadox.

Considerarapidtrainwhichpassesthroughastationatfullspeedandcontinuesitsroutewiththesameprodigiousanduni-formspeed.Thistrainhaswithinitanidenticalclocktotheonewhichisinthestation.Attheprecisemomentwhenitpassesthestation,theconductorofthetrain,whowemaysuppose(harm-lesshypothesescostsolittle)isaskillfulphysicistequippedwithalloftheperfectionsoftechnique,whohadmanagedtosetthetrain’sclockinsyncwiththestation’sclockattheinstantthathesawthisclockpassing,thatis,bytheintermediationoflightrays.

Afterhavingrunthetrainforasmanykilometersaswewishatthesameprodigiousanduniformspeed,withhisclockthusreg-ulated,Mr.Painlevésupposedthatthetrainsuddenlystopped,and,suddenly,ranbackwards,thatistosay,returnedtowardsthestation,alwayswiththesamespeed,butnowdriveninre-verse.Now,wecancalculateintheseconditions(knowingthenumber of kilometers traversed by the train) the exact timemarkedontheclock[onthetrain]asitre-passesthestationandtheexacttimemarkedoffonthestation’sclock.Inmakingthiscalculation,wefindthatatthepreciseinstantwhenthetrainre-passesthroughthestation,theclockinthetrainmarkedashort-ertimethanthestation’sclock,asthiscanbenotedattheinstantofpassingby thestationchiefand theconductor,as the twoclockscrosspathsandarevisiblesimultaneously.

Inotherwords,if,atthemomentthetraincrossedthestationforthefirsttime,thestation’sclockandthetrain’sclockbothin-dicatedthetimeofnoonsharp,ortwelvehours,zerominutes,zeroseconds,zeromillionthsofasecond,thissynchronizationwouldnolongerexistuponthetrain’sreturntothestation.Iftheclockonthetrainindicated,say,1p.m.andzeromillionthsofasecond,theclockinthestationwouldindicateatthesamemo-ment(definedbythepassageofthetrainthroughthestation),1p.m.andsomemillionthsofasecond.Weindeedassume,Ire-peat,twoclocksofidenticalconstruction.Inotherwords,thepropertimeelapsedbetweenthetrain’stwosuccessivepassesbythestationwouldbeshorteronthetrain’sclockthanthesta-tion’sclock.Thestationchiefwouldhavealsogrownolderthanthetrainconductorduringthisinterval.Thus,ifwecouldsuffi-cientlyprolongthelengthandthespeedofthetrain’svoyage,itcouldhappenthat,assoonasitre-passedthestation,thestationchiefwouldhavegrownolderbytenyears,whereasthetrainconductorwouldhaveonlyagedbyoneyear.Thechronometersandcalendarsofthetwomen,nottomentiontheirstateofageoftheirorgans,orthenumberoftheirheartbeats,supposingthattheywerecounted,wouldtestifyaswitnesses.

Thesewere the fantasticunsuspectedconsequencesof thelogic of theTheory of Special Relativity. But what appearedshockingandmysterioustoMr.Painlevéinitsconsequences,wasnotthatitoffendscommonsense;itwasn’tthatsomemenagedreallymuchless thanothers,simplybecause theyvoy-agedso;no.Whatshockedhimwasnotthat,ifIcouldsay,voy-agesnotonlyformedbutprolongedyouth;hisanalyticalimag-inationhadalready,doubtless,madedreamsmoreastonishingthanthat,andheknewthataworldinwhichmencouldtravelatspeedsoftensofthousandsofkilometerspersecond,relativetooneanother,wouldbeaworldverydifferentfromours.

No,onceagain,whatshocksMr.Painlevéabouttheseconse-quences,issomethingelse;itissomethingthat,atfirstglance,seemstohimtogoagainstlogic;itisthefollowing:WhenintheTheoryofSpecialRelativityoneconsiderstwoobserversinrel-ativemotion,onealwaysmakessuretospecifythattheappear-ancesobservedbyeachsubjectarereciprocal.If,forexample,observerAseesthenumberofmeterstravelledandtheclock

FurtherexplanationofEinstein’sclockonthemovingtrainappearsinthevideo“TheGeniusofAlbertEinstein.



heldbyobserverBrespectivelyshrunkandsloweddownbyhisspeed,itwillfollowthatobserverBwillseeA’smetersandheldclockshrunkandsloweddownbythesameproportions.ThisresultsfromthefactthatthespeedsofAinrelationtoB,andBinrelationtoA,arenecessarilyidentical,andthisreciprocityisinconformitywiththeclassicalprincipleofRelativity.

Istherenot,asksMr.Painlevé,anessentialcontradictioninallofthis,inthefactthat,inthechosenexample,thestationmasterseesthattheexpressclockhassloweddowncomparedtohisown,whilethetrainconductorsees,inagreementwiththestationmaster,thatthestation’sclockrunsearlycomparedtohisown?Shouldn’tthereciprocity,whichiscommandedbytheprincipleofRelativity,demandonthecontrarythatthetrainconductorseestheclockofthestationrunlaterelativetohis?Besides,ifthatwerethecase,wewouldfindourselveswithanabsurdity,animpossibility,becauseit iscontrarytocommonsensethatiftwomenseeclocksH1andH2atthesamemo-mentandatthesameplace,onecanseeH1earlyrelativetoH2,andtheotherseesH2earlyrelativetoH1.

Howcanwegetoutofall this,howcanweescape fromthose difficulties, those contradictions that some might betemptedtoconsiderasimpossible?

Einstein’sanswercompletelydissipatedthemisunderstand-ingbecauseitis,asweshallsee,onlyamisunderstanding,and,followinghisownexpression,“broughttolighttheparadox.”Here,reducedtoitsmostimportantelementsandfreedfromitstechnicalterminology,isthewayonecouldsummarizetheex-planationofthegreatphysicist,whosedemonstrativeevidencewas—althoughabithidden—implicitlycontainedintheTheo-ryofRelativity:

TheTheoryofSpecialRelativityexclusivelyconcerns—myreadersdidn’tforgetit—systemsinrelativeuniformmotionstooneanother, that is, those systemswhich, in traditionalme-chanics,playaprivilegedrole,andaretheonlyonestowhichcanbeappliedtheprincipleofGalileo’sandNewton’sclassicalrelativity.But,itisconvenienttorecall,thattheTheoryofSpe-cialRelativitywasfirstelaboratedbyEinsteinforthepurposeofenlargingandconsolidating,ifIdaresay,thisprincipleofGali-leanrelativity,withtheintentionofsubjugatingtoittheopticalandelectromagneticphenomenathatseemedtorebelagainstit.Therefore,theequationsofEinsteinianSpecialRelativitycanonlybeappliedtouniformmotions,thatis,tospeedsconstantinvalueanddirection.

Thus,intheexamplewhichistheobjectofthedebate,wecouldnot consider the train,which goes to a certainplace,stops,andthengoesback,asinuniformmotion.Thesuddenstopand return inanoppositedirectionconstituteaccelera-tionsandperturbationsofthetrain’smovement,whichmomen-tarilyceasestobeuniform,andthenbecomesuniformagain,butintheoppositedirection.Thus,evenwhenconsideringthetrainonlyduringmomentswhen the speed is constant, it isclearthatthesametrainonitsoutboundandreturnjourneysdoesnotconstitute in reality thesamereferencesystem,buttwodifferentreferencesystems.Asaresult,theexpresstrain’sclock,startingatthemomentwhenthetrainreversesdirection,mustbeadjustedanewtoindicatethenewpropertimeofthetrain,andtheoldadjustmentmustbemodifiedtotakeintocon-siderationthechangeofspeed,becauseitisachangeofspeedwhensomeone,relativetoanobserver,reversesthedirectionof

themovingobject.Inaword,thetrainstation,thedepartingtrain,andthere-

turningtrain,reallyconstitute,notjusttwo,butthreedifferentsystems,eachhavingitspropertime.Itisnotvalidtosupposethattheclockonthereturningtraincouldindicatetherealtimeofthevehicle,ifitdidnotreceiveotheradjustmentsthanthosemadewhenitdepartsthestation.Iproposetodemonstratethis,withthefollowingsimpleexample:Let’ssupposethatanotherexpresstrain(let’scallitExpress2)movestowardthetrainsta-tion,while Express1,whichwehaveconsidereduntil now,movesawayfromitwiththesameuniformspeed.Let’ssupposethat the station’s clockproducesa light signal atpreciselyaquarterpastnoon,asignalfromwhichExpress2andExpress1willsynchronizetheirclocks.Eachofthetwotraindriverssetshisclockbyconsideringthetimetakenbythesignaltoreachhimfromthestation,whichtheyconsiderasthedistancefromthisstationdividedby300,000kilometers.But traindriver2recognizesthathiscolleaguefromExpress1madeamistakeinthisoperation,becausetraindriver2observes,whilepassingbyExpress1,thatthelatterdrivesawayfromthelightwhich,con-sequently, reaches him at a speed inferior and not equal to300,000kilometers.Inconsequence,traindriver2,ifhehadtofixhiscolleague’sclockwhilepassingby,wouldmakeacorrec-tion,whichthelatterdidnottakeintoconsideration.Thissuf-ficestodemonstratethattheclockonExpress1wouldnotbeable to give indications comparable to the preceding ones,whilehemakeshisreturntrip.Q.E.D.

Butthisonlysolvesonepartofthedifficulty,andleavesun-touched the one concerning the reciprocity of the vehicles’hourlyindications.Respectingthispoint,thequestioninfinalanalysisisposedthus:Sinceallmotionsarerelative,shouldn’ttheresultbethesame,whetherourexpressgoesbackandforthandthetrainstationstaysunmoved,orifwesupposeourex-press stationaryand the stationgoing thedistancebackandforth?And,thereforewhyisitthattheclockinthestation,atthemomentofthesecondintersection,runsearlyrelativetothatoftheexpress,andnottheotherwayaround?

Theansweristhefollowing:InSpecialRelativity,onlysys-temsinuniformmotion,intheGalileansenseoftheterm,showareciprocity,fromthestandpointofthemeasureofspaceandtime,butitisnotthesameforsystemsinacceleratedmotion.Thishasbeenshownclearlysince1911(atatimewhenEin-steinhadnotyetdevelopedGeneralRelativity)byMr.LangevininaremarkablememoironTheEvolutionofSpaceandTime.

InSpecialRelativity,allchangesofspeed,allaccelerationsrelativetotheenvironmentinwhichlightpropagates,haveanabsolutedirection.Thisiswhy,inthisfirsttheory,wecannotsubstitutetheaccelerationofourtrainwhenitchangesspeed,foranaccelerationofthestationintheoppositedirection.Fi-nally, this is why, between the indications from the station’sclockandtheoneonthetrain,thereisthedissymmetrythatMr.Painlevéhassoappropriatelybroughttoourattention.

AtatimewhenweonlyknewoftheTheoryofSpecialRela-tivity,whichgaveanabsolutevaluetoaccelerationsintheUni-verse,asclassicalmechanicsdid,wehadforamomenthopedtobeabletodemonstrate,throughcertainnewelectromagneticexperiments,theexistenceofamedium(let’scallitetherifyouwish)relativetowhichthoseaccelerationswereconsideredtoexist.


ButtherewassomethinginthisthatwasshockingtothemindofEinstein.Hisideasmadehimrejectapriorithepossibilityofeverattaininganabsolutespace.Thisiswhyhecalledthe“The-oryofSpecialRelativity”thefirststepofhiswork,whichap-pliedonlytouniformmotions,wantingtoindicatethatitwasonlyafirststeptowardstotalrelativismofallmotions.

TheinterestingandsosuggestivediscussionbroughtupbyMr.PainlevéonthisparticularsubjectandwhichrepresentedthehighpointofthediscussionsattheCollègedeFrance,hadthebenefitofdemonstratingbrilliantlythefactthattheTheoryofSpecialRelativitymaintainedcertainprivilegedmotionsinmechanicsandcertainsomewhatabsoluteaxesofreferenceintheGalilean-Newtoniansenseoftheterm.Somepeoplehadassuredlythetendencytoforgetthat,butsuchhadneverbeenthecaseforEinstein.

WhenEinsteindevelopedSpecialRelativity,hisonlypurposewastointroduceelectromagneticphenomenaundertheprin-cipleofclassicalrelativity.Butheknewbetterthananyoneelsethatthiswasonlyafirststep.Itwasforthepurposeofeliminat-ing that last remnant of absolute space which still survivedwithinSpecialRelativitythathetackledthegiganticproblemofGeneralRelativity.Here, therewasno longeranyprivilegedmotion.Bothuniformandacceleratedspeedswereunitedto-getherinagrandsynthesisandwereobedientlysubjugatedtoauniqueconceptionofuniversalphenomena.4

WejustsawthattheparadoxmentionedbyMr.PainlevécanbeexplainedquiteadequatelybySpecialRelativityitself,butonlyontheconditionthatwemaintainanabsolutevalueforchangesinvelocity,whichispreciselyoneoftheresiduesofan-cientmechanics.ItwouldbeeasytodemonstratethatinGen-eralRelativity,theparadoxcanbeexplainedevenmoreeasily,andthistimewithoutpreservinganythingremotelyresembling

�. See chapters V and VI of my little book: Einstein and the Universe.

absolute motion. But this demonstration would requiremorespacethanIhaveavailable,andbesides,theques-tionwasnotevenbroughtupattheCollègedeFrance.

***

When the evening session of Wednesday April 5thopened,Mr.Langevinfirstaskedthatthosewhointendedtointervenenotspeaklongerthantwentyminuteseach.Twentyminutes,timedonmywatch!headdedamongstthelaughs.Weshallneverknowifthisonlyalludedtothepropertimeofeachsystemofreference,orifitwasrathera consequence of the practical necessity of definingthingsbyapossiblyarbitrary,butunivocalunit.Thesec-ondhypothesisislessflatteringforclockmakers,butthefirstisquitedifficulttoadmit.Because,ifeversomeob-serverswererigidlyattachedtooneandthesamesystemofreference,itisobviouslythose,who,thatevening,sit-tingcloselypiledtogetherinacontinuousmassonthesmallstepsoftheamphitheaterofphysics,werecoordi-natingall theirminds’ tensorsonuniqueaxesallcon-vergingintoEinstein’sbrain.

AfterEinsteinandMr.Painlevéhadreachedanagree-ment on the concluding statement by Mr. Langevin; aconcludingstatementthatIreplicatedaboveandwhich

wasnecessarytomakeinordertoclosethedebateofthepre-cedingsession,thewordwasgivenforMr.EdouardGuillaume,aSwissphysicist,tospeak.Inthepreviousdays,mostnewspa-pershadpublishedawireannouncingthat thisphysicisthaddiscoveredblatantcalculatingmistakesinEinstein’stheory,andthatheintendedtorevealthem,corampopulo,[beforethepub-lic]at theCollègedeFrance.Thesemistakeswouldnaturallylead to a complete collapse of Einstein’s synthesis, the totalbankruptcyofthisLawofScience.Tobehonestwithyou,allofthosewhohadfollowed,withfullknowledgeofthefacts,theseriesofanalyticaldevelopmentofEinstein’stheory,thosewhoknewthatafterathoroughstudy,Mr.Hadamard,theprofoundmathematician and successor of Henry Poincaré, had pro-claimed thatmathematically speaking,Einstein’sconstruction

Swiss physicist Charles-ÉdouardGuillaume(1861-1938), who received theNobelPrize inPhysics in1920 for his discovery ofanomalies in nickel steelalloys.

French mathematician Félix Éd-ouard Justin Émile Borel (1871-1956).

AdrawingbyLucien JonasofEinsteinandPainlevédiscussing themovingclockproblem,onMay28,1922.


hadamostperfectandrigorouscohesion,withoutanylogicalflaw,oranyformaldefect;those,Isay,weresomewhatsurprisedbythenewstrumpetedinthepressbytheonewhowould,innotimeflat,makemincemeatoutofthepoorEinstein.

Thus,Mr.Guillaumetookthefloorandstartedwithaloudcalltoattention:“LadiesandGentlemen.”Then,hewenttotheblackboardwherehehadpinnedsomecleverpinkandbluegraphicsaheadoftime,andhebegantolineuphisformulas.Afterafewmoments,itbecamecleartoeveryonethatthiswasnotgoingtobetheday,northeindividual,thatwouldforceEin-steintobitethedust.Whentheoratorwasdone,ithadtakenlessthantwosecondsforthosewhohadunderstood,andalltheassistantsagreed,toshrinkbackthisloudlytrumpetedinter-ventiondowntoitsmodestproportions.ItwasMr.Borelwhointerpretedtheunanimousopinion(sincethethingwassosim-ple,thattherewasnotasingleelementarymathematicsstudentwhowouldnothavebeenabletopassjudgment)anddeclaredthat “the whole argumentdoesn’tholdwater,becauseitisnotpossibletofirststartbywritingequationsonRel-ativity and then introduce,solelybymanipulatingthoseequations,aseriesofforeignpostulates which contradictthesystem.”Theerrorwassoobvious,asitfollowedfromtheprincipleofhomogenei-ty, that it was necessary todismiss it with a one liner.Refuting a scientific con-structionbyfirstintroducingelementswhichitrejects,iseasy, but it proves nothing.Speaking in his turn, Mr.Langevin concluded bythesetextualwords,whichbuttressedademonstrationthatwasasbriefasitwasclear,relativetoasideissue:“Themisunder-standingresultsfromthefactthatMr.Guillaumedoesnotun-derstandwhatalightwaveis.”AsforEinstein,smiling,hetookrefugeinacharitableabstentionbypretendingnottohaveun-derstoodanythinghisopponentwastryingtosay.Thisishowthismorecomicalthanpainfulincidentended.

Wethenreturnedtoseriousmatters.Mr.Langevinfirstex-posedhowhehadcometoestablishtheformulasofthenewdynamicsby simply starting fromGeneralRelativityand theprinciple of the conservation of energy. I have previouslysketchedforthispublicationtheastonishingconsequencesofthenewmechanicswhichshowusthatmass—whichclassicalscience considered constant—increases and decreases withspeed,andthatenergyisendowedwithrealinertia.Ihavein-dicated—you will recall—some of the stunning verificationsthatthephysicsoftheatomandtheelectronhavebroughttotheserevolutionaryconceptions.

EinsteintookthefloortopraisethebeautyoftheworkthatledMr.Langevintothoseresults.Hehimselfcametothemin-dependently,butthroughamuchmorecomplicatedwaythatcalls uponnotions that are still somewhat unreliable and inwhichthefamousquantatheory,thisChinesepuzzleoftoday’s

physics,wasrequired.Inoneofhisusualhumorousandagnos-ticformulations,Einsteinconcluded:“Itisthusthatmechanicsisprofoundlychangedbythenot-yet-existingquantatheory.”

Thus,endedtheexaminationofthequestionraisedconcern-ingSpecialRelativity.

Allthatremainednow,wastodealwiththequestionsraisedbyGeneralRelativity.

ItwasMr.Hadamard,celestialmechanicsprofessorat theCollègedeFrance,whoopenedfirewithaquestionrelatingtotheformulabywhichEinsteinexpressesthenewlawofuniver-salgravitation.

Inthisformula,underthesimpleformthatSchwarzschildgavetoitandthatanswersallthepracticalneedsofastronomy,thereexistsacertaintermthatMr.Hadamardisverymuchconcernedwith;ifthedenominatorofthattermbecomesnull,meaningifthistermbecomesinfinite,theformulanolongermakessense,oratleastonecoulddemandwhatisitsphysicalmeaning.5

Mathematicallythistermcannotbecomeinfinite;butphysi-cally,practically,couldittakeplaceinnature?NotintheSun’scase,butpossiblyinthecaseofastarthatwouldbeinfinitelymoremassivethantheSun.

Einsteindoesnothidethefactthatthisveryprofoundques-tionissomewhatembarrassingtohim.“If,”hesays,“thistermcouldeffectivelybecomenullsomewhereintheuniverse,thenitwouldbeanunimaginabledisasterforthetheory;anditisverydifficulttosayaprioriwhatwouldoccurphysically,be-causetheformulaceasestoapply.”Isthiscatastrophe—whichEinsteinpleasantlycallsthe“Hadamardcatastrophe”—possi-ble,andinthiscasewhatwouldbeitsphysicaleffects?

Ithoughtitwouldbeusefultointerveneatthispointinthediscussion,andInotedthat,althoughweknowofsomestarsmuchlargerthantheSun(suchasBetelgeuse,whosediameterequals300Suns),forthefewstarswhosemasseswehavebeenable todetermine,wefind that theyarenevermuchgreaterthanthesolarmass.

Additionally,itseemedtomefromtheworksoftheEnglishastronomerEddington,thatwhenastar’smasshasatendencytoincreasemoreandmorebygravitationalattractionofoutsidematter,theinternaltemperatureofthismassincreasesgreatlyandtheradiationproducedtendstothrowoutward(accordingto theMaxwell-Bartolipressure)anynewadditionofmatter,andtobalancetheattractiveeffectofgravitation.Therefore,itwouldbeintheverynatureofthingsthataninsurmountablelimitbereachedintheincreaseofmassofastar.SuchastarcouldnevergrowmuchgreaterthanthemassofourownSun.Therefore,theveryphysicsofthingswouldpreventtheHad-amardcatastrophe fromeverhappening,because thecondi-tionsofexistenceofstarsthatwouldhaveincomparablygreatermassesthantheSuncouldnotbeproduced.

Einsteinrepliedtomethathewasnotentirelyreassuredby

5. For the reader who wants more specifics, I allow myself to indicate that Ein-stein’s gravity formula is the following:

ds2 = dt2(1 – a/r) – r2(d2 + sin d2) – dr2/(1 – a/r)where ds is the geodesic element traversed in the universe by a gravitating point. r designates the radius vector of this gravitating point with respect to the mass’s center and a is a length proportional to this mass and which, in the Sun’s case, is equal to about 3 km. We see that when a becomes equal to r, the last term takes on an infinite value, and Mr. Hadamard is then asking what would actually happen in reality.

Frenchmathematician JacquesHadamard(1865-1963).


thesecalculations that involve severalhypotheses.Hewouldmuchpreferanothermeanstoescape“themisfortunewhichtheHadamardcatastropherepresentedforthetheory.”Effectively,inthefollowingsessionofApril7th,hebroughtuptheresultofacalculationhehadmadeconcerningthisfinepoint.Hereiswhatthiscalculationshows:Ifthevolumeincreasesindefinitelywithoutincreasingitsdensity(thiswouldbethecaseforasphereof water) it happens, well before the Hadamard catastropheconditionscouldbemet,thatthepressureatthecenterofthemassbecomesinfinite.Intheseconditions,giventheGeneralTheoryofRelativity,theclocksmoveatzerospeed,nothinggoeson,itisdeath;andthereforeanynewchangecapableofbring-ingtheHadamardcatastrophehasbecomeimpossible.Einsteinaskedifitmightnotbethecasethat,followinghisexpression,“theenergyofmatteristransformedintoenergyofspace,”thatistosay,whenmassistransformedintoradiation.“ThatisallIcansay,”heconcluded,“becauseIdon’twanttomakehypoth-eses,”whichsoundedliketheverywordsofNewton.Mr.Had-amard in theseconditionsdeclaredhimself satisfied,andbe-lievedimpossiblethecatastrophesogreatlydreaded.

SuchwasthediscussionsurroundingoneofthemostcuriouspointswhichwereraisedattheCollègedeFrance.Allwouldagreethatitdidnotlacktaste,norinsightfulpenetration.Itwell

characterizedtheidealatmosphere,saturatedwithanenthusi-asm for pure truth and detached from the contingencies inwhichthenoweternallyfamouscontroversies,tookplace.

DuringthelastdiscussionsessiononApril7th,thequestionoftheHadamardcatastrophegaveMr.PainlevétheopportunitytoaskEinsteinsomequestionsregardinghisgravitationalandsimilarformulaswhichnowallowustoexpressnewphenom-ena(theadvanceoftheperihelionofMercury,thedeviationoflightbygravity)observedinthefieldsofcelestialmechanicsandoptics.

Whatfollowedwasanextremelybrilliantandsprightlydis-cussion,attimessoanimatedthateverybodywasspeakingatonce.Atacertainpoint,whileMr.HadamardandMr.Painlevéwere exchanging the mostspirited and contradictoryargumentsabout themean-ing of the stated formulas,we suddenly saw Mr. Brill-ouin(whohadgivenupanyattemptatinsertingasinglewordedgewisebetweentherapidfireofthetwoantago-nists)leaptotheblackboardwithapieceofchalkinhishand,andshout:“Sinceyouarespeaking,Iwillresorttowriting; because the sim-plestwaytomakeaquadra-tureisstilltowriteit!”Inthismanner,hewasabletocap-turetheattentionofabreath-less public without theslightestunsealingofhislips.Itwasreallyaverybeautifulbattleand a rewarding sport event. Moreover, the two adversarieswerevyingincourtesywitheachothersomewhataggressively,andwecouldhear,atacertainpoint,Mr.PainlevéshoutingatMr.Hadamard:“Ican’tseehowthediscussioncanbenefitany-onebybeingconducted in thismanner;butgoon, Ibegofyou”;andthenextmoment,heapologizedbysaying:“Pleaseforgivemefornotmakingmyselfclear,but....”Whileallthewrittenandspokenargumentsdashedandclashedagainstoneanother,quicklyandsharplyfillinguptheroomwithtumult,andtheboardwithelegantintegralswiththeirnecksinclinedlikewhiteswans,Einsteinsatinthemiddleofthetempest,smil-ingandremainingsilent.

Then,suddenlyraisinghishandasaschoolboyrequestingtheteachersattention:“MayIalsobepermittedtosayalittlesomething?”heaskedsoftly.Everybodylaughed.Einsteinspokeinthenowrestoredsilence,andwithinafewminutesevery-thingwasmadeclear.IbelievethisishowonecansummarizetheessentialpointsprovidedbyEinsteinandwhichdefinitelysettledthemainobjectionsraised.

Aboveall,peoplewantedtoknowwhatthequantitiesofEin-stein’sgravitationalformularepresented,andespeciallythera-diusvector,thatistosay,thelinejoiningtheSuntoeachplanet.

Newton’slaw,thefoundationofalltraditionalcelestialme-chanics,expressesarelationlinkingthemassesoftwostars(orcelestial bodies) and their distance. Let’s leave aside, to notoverloadthisexposé,allthatconcernsthemassandlet’scon-

Betelgeuse,intheconstellationOrion,is theeighthbrighteststarinthenightsky.Nordmannpointedoutinthediscussionthatithasthediameterof300Suns,althoughhesaidthatthefewstarswhosemasshadbeendeterminedwerenevermuchlargerthantheSun’smass.

Frenchphysicistandmathema-tician Marcel Brillouin (1854-1948).


sideronlytheirdistance.Inordertomakeexactcalculations,wemustspecifyatwhichmomentweconsiderthedistance.Classicalscience,withitsapriorinotionofauniversalandab-solutetime,ignoredthisdifficultyand,ifconsiderablemistakesdidnot follow, itwasonlybecauseof theslowspeedof theplanetsrelativetothespeedoflight.Moreover,whenclassicalastronomersdeterminebytriangulationtheradiusvectorofaplanet,andtranslatetheirdesignonpaper,theytracearectilin-ear triangle,aEuclidean triangle,because they suppose thattheirlineisrigorouslystraight.Butsincelightisslightlycurvedbygravity,itisnot.Thus,smallbutnecessarycorrectionsaretobemadewhenwewanttodefinethelinelinkingtwocelestialbodies, of which classical science was unaware. Moreover,classically,itwassupposedthattheradialvectorsweremea-suredwithidenticalrulerslinedupfromendtoend,andwhoselengthsweresupposedtobethesame.Thereagain,wedidnotdothenecessarycorrectionthatfollowsfromtheapparentcon-tractionof the rulers causedby speed, due to theparticularpropagationoflightrays.

Inaword,themagnitudeswhichareusedinthenewlawofgravitationareconcretemagnitudes.Forexample, theradiusvectorjoiningaplanetandtheSunmustbeconsideredtobemarkedoutbyidenticalrulers(naturallyassumedtobesubjecttoelasticandthermaldeformations)alignedinthedirectionofthelineofsight,stationarywithrespecttofixedstars,andsub-jectedtothegravitationalactionoftheSun.Whenastoneisthrownintheair,attheinstantwhenitceasestoascendandisabouttobegintofall,itisentirelysubjectedtotheeffectsofgravity.Therulersthatconstitutetheradialvectorunderconsid-erationmustbeconsideredasbeinginananalogoussituation.Totheserulersaresupposedlyattachedidenticalclockswhichare,also,ideallysubjectedtotheactionoftheSun.Undertheseconditions, the astronomical data are defined in a perfectlyconcreteandobjectivemanner.“Thereisnothingleftbutrulersandclocks,therearenolongerobservers,andallthatissubjec-tivehasbeeneliminated.”

Thisis,touseEinstein’sexpression,acertain“absolute”man-nerofdefiningmeasuredmagnitudesinastronomy,sinceitisnolongernecessarytorelateittoaparticularobserver.

Such are the concrete, objective, measurable quantitieswhichenter,withoutambiguity,intoEinstein’sgravitationalfor-mula.Bythismathematicalmetamorphosis,bythesechangesofvariablethatarecalledpointtransformations[mappings],wecancertainlyfindothermoreorlessdifferentformulasforgrav-itation,butthesetransformationschangenothingoftheobserv-ableandobjectivethingsaswehavejustdefinedthem.

Thereis,therefore,forEinstein,onlyoneuniqueformulaes-tablishing an unambiguous relationship between measuredquantities: it is thatwhichMr.Painlevécalledironically“theclassicalformula,thealreadyclassicalEinsteinianformulaofgravitation.”

Inaword,itisalwaysbettertogiveameasurablemeaningtosymbolsthatareintroducedinformulas,andtoneverlosesightofthephysicalsignificanceofthesesymbols:aphysicalsignifi-cancewhichdoesnotobjectivelychangewhen thesymbolshavebeentransformed.

Thesesameremarksareapplicabletotheinterestingobser-vationsthatwerepresented,attheendofthesession,byadis-tinguishedmathematicianMr.Leroux.Here,onceagain,Ein-

stein strongly insistedonunderscoring the fact that theonlygeometricalfiguresthatheconsidersinspacearethosereallytracedoutwithrulers,andnottheidealizedfiguresofthepure-lyformalgeometries.

“Wecanalwaysdefine,”heconcluded,“butwemustdefinephysically.”

Thus,thecycleofthesememorablediscussionswasconclud-ed.Andif,asstatedbyMr.Langevininclosingthem,wehadnottackledallofthequestionsthatcouldhavebeenraised,atleast,allofthequestionsposedreceivedasatisfactoryanswer.

ThetheoryofEinsteinemergedfromthistournamententirelyunscathed,andEinsteinhimselfcameoutofitgreaterthanbe-fore.AsMr.Painlevérelatedtomewithamostappropriateil-lustration, theworkof the famousphysicist stoodfirmlikeaperfectlycoherentandinflexiblegraniteblockthatdidnothaveasingleflaw.Relativityisabrickwhosecohesioncannotbeim-paired,asystemwithoutlogicalcontradiction,freeofallambi-guity,andwithoutanyinternaldefects.

However,eventhoughheconcededonthedetails,Mr.Pain-levéstillrefusedtoacceptthedoctrineasawhole.Hewasin-capable,asheconfessed,oftakingdownsuchamajesticandpracticaledificeasthatofclassicalscience.Forhim,ifIdaresay,thecuberestsonitsvertex;forothers,myselfincluded,itrestedunshakableonitsbase.Everyonecan,dependingonhisinclinations,eitherdistancehimselfwithprudence,asonedoeswhenpassingunderanoverhangingledge,oronthecontrary,makeuseofitasapedestalcapableofsupportinganexactim-ageoftheworld.

***

The discussion session that was held at the Sorbonne, onThursday,April 6th, under the auspices of the FrenchPhilo-sophicalSociety,wasnotinanywaytobedismissedasbeingoflesserimportancethanthephysical-mathematicalcontrover-siesattheCollègedeFrance.

Although the philosophers already had the opportunity todiscusstheTheoryofRelativity,notablywithMr.Langevin,“theapostleofthisnewgospel,”theyneverthelesswerequitenu-merousatthismeeting,wherethediscussionwastotakeplaceinthepresenceofthemonsterhimself.

AfteragoodopeningaddressfromthePresidentoftheSoci-ety,Mr.XavierLéon,thedebategotstartedwithaprofoundandremarkableexposébyMr.Langevinwhichcouldhavebeenen-titled:“WhyphilosophersshouldbeinterestedintheTheoryofRelativity.”Theknowledgeablephysicistdescribedwithmas-terfulclaritythekeyelementsofmethodologyandepistemol-ogythatestablishedthestrengthandappealofEinstein’swork.

Someday,IplantoreturntothispenetratingcommentaryonrelativitygivenbytheFrenchscientistwhobestmasteredit.Itdeservesbetterthanasummaryofafewlines.

The discussion that followed, and in which a number ofmathematiciansparticipated,made itclear that, strictly fromthestandpointoflogic,theentiredoctrineofrelativitywasco-herent,andwas freeofany internalcontradictions.Thishadalreadybeentheimplicitconclusiveassessmentfromthedis-cussionattheCollègedeFrance.

Afterthemathematicians,thephysicistsenteredinturnintothediscussion,introducingdiversequestionsposeddistinctly,whichledEinsteintogivehisopiniononseveralveryinterest-


ing points on cosmology, on geometry, and notably on thequadratureofthecircle.Iwillcomebacktothisinafewdays.

Following the scientific community, the philosophers tooktheirturnataskingEinsteinanumberofquestions.TheghostofKanthavingbeenevoked,EinsteindidnothidethefactthathewasdefinitelyopposedonseveralpointstotheideasheldbytheKönigsberg philosopher,forwhomabsolutespaceandabsolutetimewereapriorinotionsalreadyex-isting inside of us. TheTheory of Relativity as-serts the opposite, and,better yet, demonstratesit.

Even thoughEinsteinmight otherwise havesome admiration forKant, he apologized forhavinga somewhatper-sonal view of Kantianideas by saying: “EverymanhashisownKant,”(a statement which, an-otherarguedhadbeenapun dating back to ...Plato), but by stating injest:“EverymanhashisproperKant.”6Thisgainsitsfullestmean-ingwhenweremindourselvesthat:“propertime”isoneofthe

6. [Translator’s note] “Chacun à son Kant à soi,” or “Chacun a son Quant-à-soi) could be heard as “Everyone has his own Kant” or “Everyone has his own res-ervations.” “Quant-à-soi is an expression meaning to be reserved, not express-ing your feelings or your ideas.

mother concepts ofrelativity.Einsteinre-marked elsewherethattwowaysofcon-ceiving things in themost opposite wayimaginable is eitherfrom the standpointofKantianapriorism,or from the stand-point of Poincaré’sconvenience princi-ple. “All I can say,”added Einstein, “isthat between thesetwolinesofthinking,onehastochooseac-cording to experi-ence.” We presumethathedoesn’tconsiderthekindofexperiencethatwouldbefavorabletotheapriorismofKanttobeofgreatinterest.

Finally,afteraremarkableexposébyMr.Le-Roy, Mr. Bergson was asked to speak. He re-countedinhisusualengagingandpictorialway,

hisownideasofthenotionoftime,thathehad,asweknow,soprofoundlypondered.TheBergsoniantime,which,ifImaybesoboldtosayisasortof“propertimeofoursoul.”Thisfeelingofourinnerpassageisalso,insomeway,thefeelingoftheflowofourenvironingmatter.Oursurroundingscoincidewiththefluid-ityofour inner life.Butwheredoes theextensionofoursur-roundings end?Very far fromus,wecan imagineother con-sciousnesses, as links across the universe, and beyond theselinks,asortofuniversalconsciousness,thatwouldbeastheirintegral,andtowardwhichthetotalityofthephenomenawouldbeflowing.Thus,theBergsoniannotionofdurationwouldbedissolvedintheendintoasortofuniversaltime.Mr.Bergsonwishestobelievethatthereisnoantagonismbetweenthisman-nerofseeingandtherelativisticconceptionoftime.Ifwecannotdemonstratetheconcordanceofthetwoconceptions,wecouldnot,withoutadoubt,determinetheirdiscordance.Mr.Bergsonthinksbesidesthis that therecouldbeanincommensurabilitybetweenpurelyqualitativeintuitivetime,andquantitativerela-tivistictime.Inconclusion,hedoubtedthatRelativitywouldbeabletocompletelyignoretheintuitivepointofview,especiallywhenitinvolvesthenotionofsimultaneityofthephenomenainwhichheestimatedthatoursensationshavearoletoplay,onewayoranother.

Inhisresponsetothepointsraisedabove,EinsteindoesnotshareinanyoftheviewpointsofMr.Bergson.Hemaintainsthatthetimeofthephilosopherscannotdifferfromthetimeofthephysicist:Itisthesame.Oneneedsvalidation,assuredly,inthedefinitionoftime,startingwithintuitivetime,whichisthesenti-mentoftheorderthatisgiventousandinwhichourstatesofconsciousnessproceedinsuccession.Twoindividualswhoareinagreementwitheachotheralreadyconstituteafirststepto-wardsasenseofobjectivetime;because—atleast,Einsteinaf-firmsthatheisconvinced—,thereareobjectiveeventswhicharedistinctfromsubjectiveevents.Asfarasthe“simultaneity”of

The Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Einsteinattheblackboardduringhis1922lectureattheSorbonneinParis.

Frenchphilosopherandhistorianofphilosophy Xavier Léon (1868-1935).

German philosopherImmanuel Kant (1724-1804).“EverymanhashisownKant,”Einsteinquipped.


twoeventsisconcerned,Einsteinrecalledthat,foralongtime,theywereconsideredpracticallythesamefortwoneighboringindividuals,becauseofthegreatmagnitudeofthespeedoflight.But,whenweanalyzethatnotionmoreclosely,andtakeintoac-countthatthepropagationoflight,asrapidasitis,isnotinstan-taneous,wecometotheconclusionofRelativity:thatsimultane-ityisanotionthatvariesfromoneobservertoanother.AccordingtoEinstein,thereisnothinginourconsciousnesswhichindicatestousthesimultaneityofthecontemporaneityofevents:thesearelogicalconcepts,notpsychologicalconcepts,andtheyareim-mediatelygiven.Ifthephilosophersareabletoconceiveofanabstracttime,asortofextrapolationoftheirstateofconscious-ness,thereis,aswell,anabstracttimeforthephysicists:Itistheabsolutetimeofclassicalscience.Inaword,Einsteinthinksthatthephilosophersdon’thavetheirveryowntime.

ThisdoesnotmeanthattheTheoryofRelativityisincompat-iblewiththeBergsonianconceptionoftime.Einsteinbelievesthatany reasonablephilosophical system, that is to say, thatwhichisacoherentsystem,isalwaysnecessarilyinaccordwithnaturalandphysicalscience.Herewehavetheindependentvariables,asthemathematicianssay.

In short, a scientific theory is not a philosophy, but it issomethingwhichphilosophymust take intoaccount. If theTheoryofRelativity isexact,anyconsistentphilosophywill

havetoputitselfinagreementwithit;butbyitself,itdoesn’tconstituteaphilosophy.

In response to a question whichwas posed by Mr. Meyerson abouttheideasofMach,Einsteinwasledto give more precision to his con-ception of science. Although heagreeswithMachthatscientificcon-ceptsmustalwaysagreecompletelywithobservabledata,he refuses toadmit that science only consists ofsimple relationships between thefacts.Forhim,ascienceisasystem,that is to say, a logically deducedsynthesis,not simplya“catalogue”offacts,asMachwouldclaim.

***

Andnowletusendeavortoconclude.Ofallthesediscus-sionsinwhichpassionwasnotatallabsent—andthatpleasedEinstein,becauseheknewthatyouonlypushonsomethingthatoffersresistance—ofalltheseintellectualshockswherethecalmmasteryandlucidlogicofthenewNewtonevinceditself,theTheoryofRelativitycameoutintact.

Inordertosummarizetheresultsofthecontroversy,itseemedtomethatthebestwaywastomakeuseofSocrates’methodofmidwifery.Hereyouhavethosequestionswhich,Ithink,canbeaskedinordertospecifythemostimportantpoints.

1.IsittruethattheTheoryofRelativity,maintainsallthean-cientandconfirmedresultsfromclassicalscienceand,inpar-ticular,ofmechanicsandastronomy?Isittrue,consequently,thatrenouncingtheclassicalmodelinordertoadopttheEin-steinianmodel,isinnowayarenunciationofanyoftheleastsolidconquestsoftheformer?

2.Isittruethattotheseacquiredresults,thatitincorporatesandpreserves,Relativityisaddingnewresultswhichithasfore-seen,whichclassicalsciencehadnotforeseenandcouldnothaveforeseen,andwhichhavebeenexperimentallyverified?

3.IsittruethatRelativity,inauniquesynthesis,unitesdo-mains,likemechanicsandgravitation,andlikeopticsandme-chanics,whichusedtoobeydisparateandsometimesirrecon-cilablelawsofclassicalscience?

4.Isittruethattheprincipalcriterionforthevalueofascien-tifictheoryistheprincipleofsimplicity,andthatamongallthepossibletheoriesofthesamephenomena,theonewhichap-pliestheleastnumberofhypothesesandwhicheliminatesthegreatestnumberofoccultandnon-measurableassumptions,ispreferable?Isittruethatinthisregard,classicalscienceisnotonparwiththeTheoryofRelativity?

5.IsittruethatRelativityexplainscertainfactswhichseemcontradictoryinclassicalscienceandwhichthelatterhasnotyetsucceededinexplaining?

Ifallthisistrue,—andwhocouldthinkotherwise—wemustlogicallyconcludethattheTheoryofRelativityistheonlytheo-rywhichgivesacompleterepresentationandanexplanationofknownfacts,andwhichhasallowedustogofurtherstillinfore-seeingnewphenomena.

Neverbeforehasthehumanspiritcraftedaframeworkmoremagnificentinitssimplicity,andmoreexactlyattunedtothena-tureofreality,fromwhichtounderstandthemysteriousimageoftheworld.Neverhastheeternalsphinxbeenenchainedbylinksmoresolid,moresupple,andwhichfollowwithsuchharmoni-ousprecision,thelinesofitssuperbanddeceptivebody.

***

And yet .... And yet, beyond the penetrating, subtle, andscholarlyquestionsthatwereaskedintheserecentdiscussions,noonethoughtofraisingafewotherswhichseemparticularlytroublingtome.Oneday,whenEinsteinscoldedmeinafriend-lywayfor“theflowers”thatmyadmirationhadsometimeslav-ishedonhiswork, Ipromisedhimtoalwayshavehenceforthsomecriticismsmixed-in.Inordertobefaithfultothatpromise,butaboveallbecauseitisimportanttoneverforgetthateveryhumanworkisperfectible,IaskpermissiontopresentheresomeremarksthatIdidnotthinkshouldhavebeenbroughtupattheCollègedeFrance,becausetheycouldnothaveresultedinanypositiveornegativeassertion,butonlyinafeelingofdoubt.

TheessentialexperimentalfoundationofRelativityresidesinthecontradictoryfactsthattheMichelsonexperimentandanalo-gousexperimentshavedisplayed.ThesefactscorrespondwithotherexplanationsbesidestheEinsteinianone.Whetherweac-knowledgetherealityof theLorentzcontraction(andthefactthatallbodiesarecomposedofelectronsmakesthishypothesisacceptable),orwhetherwereturntoapossiblenewemissiontheoryoflight,orwhetherweaccepttheexistenceofanaccom-panyingflowofLorentz’setherintheneighborhoodofmassivebodies;thefundamentalfactsofRelativityimplyotherexplana-tionsof that theory.Granted, theresearchers, if thereareany,haveyettobringusresults.Butthesimplefactthattheseotherexplanationsareaprioriconceivable,makesanexperimentaldeparturefromtheTheoryofRelativityadebatableproposition.

Inaword,thedisconcertingfactswhichareatthefoundationofthetheoryofEinsteincanhaveotherresultsthanthattheory.

EmileMeyerson(1859-1933)wasaPolish-bornFrench chemist andphilosopherofscience.


Therearecertainlyverystrongargumentsthatleadustorejectthe“absolutespace”ofNewtonapriori.ButiftheprivilegedspaceofclassicalscienceisnothingbuttheimmovableetherofLorentz, one can reconcile the relativist’s agnosticism withthisether,andsavetheprinciplesbyassumingthatourwholeUniverseisabeautifulbubbleofmovableetherinanether-lessassemblage.

Inaword,theexperimentalstartingpointofRelativitycanappearlesssolidthanitsexperimentalendpoint,itself,marvel-ouslypowerful,which restson theastronomicalandopticalobservationsthateveryoneknows.Classicalcelestialmechan-icswillhavetoundergoareadjustmentinordertoadaptitselftothesenovelties,butitisnowheredemonstrated,apriori,thatthisreadjustmentcouldnotbeaccomplishedwithintheframe-workoftheoldsystembasedontheetherofLorentz.

Iknow thatnoneof theseargumentsareveryconvincing;thatsofartheyhavemerelybeendefeats.But,themerefactthatthey suggest the possibility that conclusions other than Ein-stein’smaybedrawnfromtheexperimentalfacts,givesustherighttoreservejudgment,untilalltheotherattemptedtheories,whichareboundtobemade,havebeenprovenfalse.

However,bethatasitmay,thereisstillsomethinginfinitelytroublingintheEinsteiniansystem.Thissystemisadmirablyco-herent,butitrestsonaparticularconceptionofthepropaga-tionoflight.Howarewetoimaginethatthepropagationofarayoflightcouldbeidenticalforanobserverwhofliesawayfromit,andforanobserverwhorushesforwardtomeetit?Ifthisispossible,itisinanycaseinconceivabletoourcustomarymentality,andnomatterhowhardwetry,wecannotmakethemechanismandnatureofthatpropagationintelligible.

Itmustbeconfessedthathereliesa“mystery”whicheludesus.ThewholeEinsteiniansynthesis,ascoherentasitis,restsonamystery,exactlyliketherevealedreligions.Classicalscienceatleastappearedtobebasedonclearandsimplenotions.Wearenowtoldthattheyneverexisted,or,atleast,thattheyweremerelymetaphysical.Thefuturewilltellwhetherornotwewillbeable to re-establish themin their reality,bymeansof theLorentzianether,andofthenon-absolute,butprivilegedspace,thatitmaydefine.

Ifthatoccurs,thefoundingnotionsofclassicalsciencewillceasetobemetaphysical;buttoday,asmetaphysicalasthey

maybe,theyseemclearandconceivable,ifnotmeasurable.Onthecontrary,theEinsteiniannotionofthepropagationoflightstillremainsinconceivable.

Certainly,therehastobesomeprofound,substantialreality,whichissubtlyconcealedinthestillelusiveroleplayedbythenumberexpressingtheinvariablespeedoflight.Thismustbethecase,simplyjudgingfromthestunningandverifiablecon-sequencesthatEinsteinhasbeenabletoderivefromthismys-teriousfoundation.

Simplysaid,thefoundationsofclassicalscienceliebeyondthegraspofoursenses,butnotbeyondthepowersofourimag-ination;while thebasisof theEinsteiniandoctrine is,on thecontrary, perceptible, though unimaginable. Therefore, wewouldbejustifiedinhesitatingtochooseoneovertheother.But,acomparisonoftheconstructionofthetwosystems,theirrespectivevolumes,andtheunequalvastnessofhorizonsthattheyopenupontheuniversallandscape,necessarilyforcesustoleantowardthelatter.

ThetheoryofEinsteinisamarveloustreethathasgrownfar-therandhigherthananyotheridealflowersofhumanthought.SimilartothepalmtreesoftheWadiintheSahara,thissingulartreeemergedfromashadowywell,inwhichinvisiblelife-givingwatersings....

Newton’sviewofabsolutetimeandspace,expressedinhis1686Principia,wasoverturnedbyEinstein.InsetisthepersonalcoatofarmsofSirIsaacNewton.

“ThetheoryofEinsteinisamarveloustreethathasgrownfar-therandhigherthananyotheridealflowersofhumanthought,”Nordmannconcludes.Here,EinsteininBerlinin1922.


President Franklin Roosevelt’s TVA brought themost backward region of the country into themodernage,settinganexamplefortherestofthe

country,andprovidingarecordofrapiddevelopmentthat the restof theworld rushed toemulate.TheTVAtamedrampagingrivers;replenishedthedepletedfarm-land;mechanizedagriculture;builtdams,powerplants,libraries, and educational facilities; trained and em-ployed legions of unskilled and skilled workers; and

The Development Program That Transformed A Region and Inspired the WorldbyMarshaFreeman

TVA

NorrisDamontheClinchRiverinTennesseewasthefirstmajorTVAproject.

ROOSEVELT’STVA


helpedwinWorldWarII.America,andtheworld,hadseennothinglikeitbefore.

Today,westillenjoythebenefitsof theTVA,especiallyitsplentifulandcheapelectricity,butournation’seconomyover-allisawreck,farworsethantheDepressioninheritedbyRoos-evelt,andwithouteventheproductiveindustrialbasethatex-istedinthe1930s.

Theremedyisathand.ThepathwayoutofthecurrentthreattotheveryphysicalexistenceoftheUnitedStatesanditspeo-pleistoputintoplacethefinancialreorganizationoftheecon-omy,throughanewGlass-Steagallpolicy,toenableagreatin-frastructure project that will demand the rebuilding of thephysical economy, transform the population both materiallyandculturally,andenablelong-termscience-driverprojectsforfuturegenerations.

The1964NorthAmericanWaterandPowerAllianceproj-ect(NAWAPA),reformulatedbyeconomistLyndonLaRoucheandhiscolleaguesinexpandedform,cantransformAmerica,theglobaleconomy,andtheBiosphere.1Apartfromdeliver-ingwaterfromAlaskaandCanadatowater-starvedregionsoftheAmericanWest andMexico,NAWAPAwill create newwaterways from the Great Lakes to the Pacific and ArcticOceans,unleasha renaissanceofnuclearpowerandhigh-speedandmaglevraildevelopment,andquicklycreate4mil-lion new skilled jobs and job-training opportunities in theUnitedStates.Itwouldincludemajorinfrastructuredevelop-mentprojectssuchas theCongoRiver/LakeChaddevelop-mentproject,thehugeEurasianLand-Bridgeprogram,andaBeringStraitbridge/tunnelandDarienGapdevelopmentproj-ectthatwouldeventuallyconnectEurasiatothetipofSouthAmerica.ByextendingthereachofscienceanddevelopmenttotheArcticregions,NAWAPAwilllinktheEarthtoitscosmicenvironment.

ThisarticlewilllookatthehistoryoftheTennesseeValleyAu-thority(TVA),createdin1933byPresidentRooseveltnotonlytoprovideimmediateeconomicrelief,but,moreimportant,toreturntheU.S.economytoanAmericanSystemapproachofpermanent“internalimprovements.”TheTVAaimedtolaythebasis for economic development for “generations yet tocome.”

Althoughitsactivitywascenteredintheseven-statewater-shedof theTennesseeRiver, theTVAwasnevera“local”orevenregionalproject.TheleadpersonalitieswhocreatedtheTVA,protectedit,andmadeitasuccess,camefromNebraska,NewYork,andtheMidwest.Thematerialsneededforthecon-structionprojectscamefromacrossthecountry.

TheorganizersoftheTVAgavetheagencyandtheregiontheresponsibilityofbecomingaleaderinscienceandtechnology,inagriculture,mappingandgeographicanalysis,forestry,man-ufacturing,andnuclearandfusionenergy.Fromthetimeitbe-ganpouringconcretetobuilddams,theTVAwasamodelforworlddevelopment;aninspirationtoothernationswhosepeo-plealsolivedinthe“thirdworld.”ThegoaloftheleadersoftheTVAwastocreatesuchprojects“inathousandvalleys.”

ThehistoryoftheTVAisalsoinstructiveasamicrocosmofthetragichistoryofthesecondhalfofthe20thCentury.While

1. Articles, maps, and interviews on NAWAPA can be found here.

theTVAoperatedunderthevisionandprotectionofPresidentFranklinRoosevelt,itmetitsgoals.Butinmostofthesucceed-ingdecades,theTVAcameunderattack,bytheBritishEmpireanditssatrapsdirectly,andbytheparadeof“left”and“right”freemarketeers,budgetbalancers,financialinterests,andenvi-ronmentalists.

BuildingaNationIn 1824, Secretary ofWar John C. Calhoun sent President

JamesMonroeareportrecommendingtheimprovementoftheTennesseeRiveratMuscleShoals,aspartofanambitiousplanforasystemofintegratedroads,canals,andriverstoconnecttheeasternpartofthecountrytotheopeningwest.SurveysoftheOhioandMississippiRiverswereauthorized,whichfoundthatthemajorobstacletoconnectingthe600-mileTennesseeRivertotheOhioandMississippiRiverswasthe37-milestretchofrap-idsandirregularrockformationsatMuscleShoals,Alabama.

Akeyobstacletomovingforwardwasremovedbya1824SupremeCourtopinion,writtenbyChiefJusticeJohnMarshall,establishingexclusivecontroloverinterstatenavigationtotheFederal government. In the decades that followed, three at-temptsweremadetobuildcanalsatMuscleShoals,toenablenavigationfromtheeastcoasttotheMississippi,allofwhichfailed.

In 1916, the National DefenseAct authorized theWilsonDam, two nitrate munitions plants, and two steam-poweredelectricplantstobeconstructedatMuscleShoals,forWorldWarI.WilsonDamwasbeguntwoyearslater,butwasnotcom-pletedbeforetheendofthewar.Constructionofthedamwashaltedin1921,andwasfinallycompletedin1925,buryingthetreacherousshoalsunderanewlake.TheWilsonDamcomple-tionthenmadeitpossibletoplantousetheotherinfrastructurethathadbeenlaidatMuscleShoalsbutneverputtouse.

Butin1928,PresidentCalvinCoolidgeusedapocketvetotostopabillthatwouldhavedonejustthat.

The development of the wasted Muscle Shoals region be-cameapassionofGeorgeNorris,aRepublicanSenatorfromNebraska,whohadbeenborninOhiointheearlydaysoftheCivilWar.In1921,NorrisbecamechairoftheSenateCommit-teeonAgricultureandForestry.WhenPresidentWarrenHard-ing,eagertoprivatizeFederalprojects,hadstoppedthecon-struction of Wilson Dam, Henry Ford offered to buy thepropertyfor$5million.

ThePassionofGeorgeNorrisIn1926,Norriscounteredtheprivatizationdrive,byintro-

ducingabillforacomprehensiveplanforFederalfloodcontrolanddevelopmentoftheTennesseeRiverandtheValley,greatlyexpandingtheMuscleShoalsproject.Thenin1931,PresidentHerbertHoovervetoedthebill,whichhadpassedtheSenateina2:1votetheyearbefore.Hooverdescribedtheoperationofpublicutilities, ingeneral,as“degeneration.”This,while theFederalTradeCommissionwasinvestigatingthe“roaringtwen-ties”privateutilities,fortheirinflationofcapitalvaluesthrough“watered stocks,” theconcentrationof control throughpyra-midingholdingcompanies,andothercrimes.

By1933,138legislativeproposalshadbeeninitiatedtode-veloptheTennesseeValley,nonehavingsucceeded.

Meanwhile, in 1929, then-New York Governor Franklin

http://www.larouchepac.com/infrastructure


Roosevelt proposed that the State builddams and power plants on the St. Law-rence Seaway to produce electricity. Hewasangeredbythegrossprice-gougingbyprivate power companies, which werechargingNewYorkStatecustomerssever-altimesmorethantheirCanadianneigh-bors. Senator Norris took notice of thisproposal.

InDecember1932,justweeksafterwinningthePresidentialelection,President-electRooseveltinvitedSenatorNorristoac-companyhimtoMuscleShoals.RooseveltcouldimmediatelyseethepotentialofdevelopingtheTennesseeValley,tellingthepressthatthis“greatexperiment”couldprovide200,000jobs.MuscleShoals,Rooseveltsaid,wouldbecome“partofanevengreaterdevelopmentthatwilltakeinallthatmagnificentTen-nesseeRiverfromthemountainsofVirginiatotheOhio,”forthebenefitof“generationstocome,”and“millionsyetunborn.”

OnApril10,1933,RoosevelttransmittedaMessagetotheSeventy-ThirdCongress:“ArequestforLegislationtoCreateaTennesseeValleyAuthority—ACorporationClothedwith thePowerofGovernmentbutPossessedoftheFlexibilityandIni-tiativeofaPrivateEnterprise.”TheTennesseeValleyproject,ifenvisionedinitsentirety,thePresidentexplained,

transcendsmerepowerdevelopment;itentersthewidefieldsoffloodcontrol,soilerosion,afforestation,elimina-tionfromagriculturaluseofmarginallands,anddistribu-tionanddiversificationofindustry.Inshort,thispowerdevelopmentofwardaysleadslogicallytonationalplanningforacompleteriverwatershedinvolvingmanyStatesandthefuturelivesandwelfareofmillions.

FDRproposedthattheTVA“shouldbechargedwiththebroadestdutyofplan-ning ... for thegeneral social andeco-nomicwelfareoftheNation.”

TheActcreatingtheTVAgavethenewagencysweepingpowersandchargeditwithresponsibilitiesfornationaldefense,agriculturalandindustrialdevelopment,flood control, and navigation, also forthe Mississippi River Basin. The TVABoard was authorized to contract withcommercial producers for the produc-tionoffertilizers,toarrangewithfarmersforlarge-scalepracticaluseofnewfertil-izer;toproduce,distribute,andsellelec-tricpower.Theboardwasauthorizedtoissuebonds for$50million, “fully andunconditionally guaranteed both as tointerest and principal by the UnitedStates, [for] the economic and socialwell-being of the people” living in theTennesseeValley.

TheFatherofPublicPowerOneofthemostimportantactionstak-

enbyFDR,wastheappointmentofDa-vid E. Lilienthal to the three-manBoardofDirectorsoftheTVA.BorninMorton,Illinois,in 1899, Lilienthal went intolaw.Inhistwenties,hebeganhiscareerlitigatingagainsttheprivateutilitymonopolies,andhe was 34 when he becameone of the three Members ofthe Board of theTVA. Lilien-

thalservedaschairmanoftheBoardfrom1941to1946,over-seeingthemobilizationoftheTVAduringWorldWarII,whichincludedtheconstructionof12damsinfiveyears.Itwas,atthattime,thelargestengineeringandconstructionprojectinU.S.history,exceedingthePanamaCanal.

DavidLilienthal’svisionfortheTVAwasasanagencyforso-cial change.More than justprovidingfloodcontrol, electricpower,shipping,andrecreation,theTVAwouldbringtheresi-dentsoftheValleyintothemodern,scientificera.Withaman-datefromthePresidenttopromotethegeneralwelfare,Lilien-thalmeteachchallengeintheValleywithasolution.

InJanuary1933,justmonthsbeforehewouldjoinTVA,Lil-ienthalgaveaninformalspeechaboutitintheSouth.

MoretodaythanamereopportunityfortheFederalGovernmenttodoakindturnforthepeopleinonesmallsectionofacoupleofStates...itisanopportunitytoaccomplishagreatpurposeforthepeopleofmanyStates,and,indeed,forthewholeUnion.

Theplanningforregionaldevelopment,hesaid,isanoppor-tunity“notjustforourselvesbutforthegenerationstocome.”

In1944,inhisbook,TVA:DemocracyontheMarch,Lilien-

TVA

President-electRooseveltandSenatorNorrisvisitMuscleShoalsinDecember1932.InApril1933,thePresidentsentamessagetoCongresscreatingtheTennesseeValleyAuthority.

Agreatexperimentforthebenefitofgenerationstocomeandmillionsofyetunborn.

—FranklinRoosevelt,December1932


thal sumsuphis belief, devel-opedafteradecadeattheTVA,that:

Thereisalmostnothing,howeverfantastic,thatgivencompetentorganizationateamofengineers,scientists,andadministratorscannotdotoday.Impossiblethingscanbedone,arebeingdone,inthismid-twentiethcentu-ry....

Nolongerdomenlookuponpovertyasinevitable,orthinkthatdrudgery,disease,filth,famine,floods,andphysicalexhaustionarevisitationsofthedevilorpunishmentbyadeity....[T]hequantityofelectricalenergyinthehandsofthepeopleisamodernmeasureofthepeople’scommandovertheirresources,andthebestsinglemeasureoftheirproductiveness,theiropportunitiesforindustrial-ization,theirpotentialitiesforthefuture.Akilowatthourofelectricityisamodernslave,workingtirelesslyformen....

WhenDavidLilienthalcametotheTennesseeValley in1933,only threeoutofeveryone-hundredhouseholdshadelectricity.Theaver-agefarmer’sincomewas$639,whilethenationalaveragewas$1,835, nearly three times as much. Per capita income was$168. More than 300,000acresoffarmlandhadbeendestroyed, and 4.5 millionacres were on the decline,becausefarmersweregrow-ing soil-depleting cashcrops—particularly cottonand tobacco. Erosion wasspreading, driven by defor-estation, planting on hill-sides, and the stripping ofnutrientsfromthesoil.Morethanamillionacresoftop-soil had disappeared. Fireshaddestroyedthreequartersofamillionacresofforests.

Malaria was endemic inmorethanhalfoftheValleyarea,withinfectionratesofupto60percentinsomere-gions,affectingupto30per-

cent of the total population.There were 7.6 deaths per100,000 population from ty-phoid and 79.4 deaths per100,000 population from tu-berculosis.Smallpoxwasstillathreat.Theaverageexpenditureper child for education wasabout$23.

This would quickly change.On the day the TVA Act wassigned into law by PresidentRoosevelt, less than one hun-dreddaysafterheassumedof-fice, people danced in thestreets of Muscle Shoals, andcelebrated with fireworks. InthedepthsoftheDepression,inone of the most depressed re-gions of the country, peoplenowlookedtowardtheirfuturewiththebeliefthatbettereco-nomictimeslayahead.

ElectrificationforAllThefirstchallengefacingthe

TVA was to gain control overtheTennesseeRiveranditsma-

jortributaries.Aseriesofdamswouldbe constructed, but these would notjustbefloodcontroldams,orirrigationdams,orhydroelectricpowerdams,ornavigation locks and dams—theywouldbealloftheabove.Manyengi-neersinsistedthatsuchmulti-purpose

damscouldnotbebuilt.TVAhiredthosewhobelievedtheycould.

OnOctober1,1933,thefirstdayofthenewfiscalyear,andlessthanfivemonthsafterthePresidentsignedtheleg-islationcreatingtheTVA,shovelswereintheground,with the startof constructionofNorrisDamon theClinch River. In its first 20 years, theTVA built 20

TVA

DavidE.Lilienthal,TVAchairman:“Thereisalmostnothingthatgivencompetentorganization,ateamofengineers,sci-entists,andadministratorscannotdotoday.”

“Akilowatthourofelectricityisamodernslave,working

tirelesslyformen.”

TVA

In1933,theaveragefarmer’sincomeintheTennesseeValleywas$639peryear,aboutathirdofthenationalaverage.


dams.Thisrequired113millioncubicyardsofconcrete,rock,andearth,or12timesthebulkofthesevengreatpyramidsofEgypt. The TVA employed nearly 200,000 people over thecourseof itsfirst20years,andapprenticeprogramscreatedskilledcraftsmanoutofsharecroppers,andmechanicsoutoftenantfarmers.

TVA’sdamscanstore22millionacre-feetofwater,enoughtocoverthestateofIllinoistoaneight-inchdepth.Thecomple-tionofthedamscreatedanavigablewatertransportationarterystretchingfrom Western Virginia to the OhioRiver, and connecting the EasternUnited States to the Mississippi andtheGulfofMexico.Theplacementofdamson the larger tributariesof theTennessee River greatly reducedflooding, and also helped regulatewaterflowinboththeOhioandMis-sissippiRivers.

But unquestionably, the contribu-tionthatthedamsmadetotheTennes-seeValley that was felt most by thelargestnumberofpeoplewasthepro-vision,forthefirsttime,ofelectricity.In1933,only3percentofthefarmsintheValleyhadelectricpower.Ayearlater, theTVA had 18 megawatts ofelectricgeneratingcapacity.By1942,therewasanearorder-of-magnitudeincrease in generating capacity online—1.37 gigawatts. In 1934, theTVA had 6,507 retail customers. In1942,therewerenearlyhalfamillion.Therewerezeromilesoftransmissionlinesbeingbuiltin1934.From1938to 1942, approximately 5,000 mileswerebuilteachyear.

AnoverridingmandateoftheTVAwastoprovidereli-ableelectricpowertotheentirepopulation,atthelowestpossiblerate.Inordertodoboth,theapproachoftheTVA

wastoencouragethemaximaluseofelectricity.Overmostofitshistory,TVAelectricrateshavebeenabouthalfthenationalaverage,whileannualusepercapitaisabouttwicethenationalaverage.

AbouthalfthefarmsintheValleyhadelectricitybythestartofWorldWarII,butmostfarmersdidnotknowwhattodowithit.TheTVAsentoutconvoysoftrucks,withthehelpofstudentsfromareacolleges,andsetuptentsinruralareastodemon-

TVA

ErosionwaswidespreadthroughouttheTVAarea.Morethanamil-lionacresoftopsoilhaddisappeared.

TVA

OneofthegoalsoftheTVAwasfloodcontrol.

TVA

ShovelswereinthegroundtostartconstructionofNorrisDamlessthanfivemonthsafterFDRsignedthelegislationcreatingtheTVA.


strate the use of electrical appliances. Lilienthal persuadedPresidentRoosevelt toformtheElectricHomeandFarmAu-thority,whichprovidedlow-interestloanstostimulatethesalesofelectricappliances.TheTVAinduceddealerstoarrangestoredisplaysofappliances,andTVAeconomistsvisitedhomestodiscusstheiruse.In1938,salesofhomeapplianceswere$1.61million.By1941,saleswere$18.5million.

Butthedams,electricitytransmissionsystems,thenewroads,railtracks,andnewtownscouldnotbebuiltwithapopulationsufferingfromdisease.Malariawasattackedbyreducingthemosquitopopulation,becausetherewas(andstillis)noeffec-tive vaccine. By 1934, working with county health depart-ments,theTVAprovidedtyphoidshotsatdamworksites,andmadetheshotsmandatoryforallTVAemployees.Afteranepi-demicofsmallpox,oneofthebiggestkillersintheSouth,broke

TVA

TheCivilianConservationCorpscamp#19nearNewTazewell,Tennes-see, in1933,with the foundation for thewinterbarracks in the fore-ground.TheCCCworkedonreforestationintheClinchRiverwatershed,aboveNorrisDam.

TVA

A1934paradeinTupelo,Mississippi,tocelebratethecity’scontractwiththeTVAforelectricpower—TVA’sfirstsuchcontract.

TVA

StringingpowerlinesintheTennesseeValley.Startingin1933,theTVAbegantobringelec-tricitytoall,building5,000milesoftransmis-sionlineseachyearfrom1938to1942.

TVA

TheElectricHomeandFarmAuthori-tygavelow-interestloanstopeopleinthe valley, to help them purchaseelectricapplianceslikestoves.

TVA

Bythelate1930s,theTVAwascirculatingabout13,000booksamonth.

TVA

TheTVAsprayedagainstmosquitoestostopthespreadofmalariaandin-oculated half a million peopleagainstsmallpox.


outinAlabamain1938,theTVAofferedfreesmallpoxshots.By1951,TVAhadinoculatedhalfamillionpeopleinthere-gion, helping to produce a regional revolution in publichealth.

In1933,theValleyhadmanytotallyisolatedcountieswithpopulations in the thousands, with no railroad service, nonewspapers,noradio,andnopubliclibrary.AstheTVAsentarmiesofworkers in to remoteareas tobuild thedamsandpowersystems,itdecidedtoprovideaccesstobooks,forthe“welfareandwellbeing”of theworkers,and their families.TVAsetuprurallibraries,locatedinstores,postoffices,andgasstations.Bookmobilestravelledthecountryside.Bythelate1930s, TVA was circulating about 13,000 books a month.WhentheconstructionofTVA’sdamswasal-mostcomplete,DavidLilienthallobbied—andsecured—statesupportforthecontinuationofthelibraries.

ReclaimingtheLandIn1933,theprimaryeconomicactivityofthe

Valley region was farming. Immediate mea-sureshadtobetakentorestoretheproductivityoftheravagedland.

Teams of chemists and chemical engineerswereassembledtobeginoperationofaphos-phate-based fertilizer production program, totakefarmingoutofthe19thCentury.Twohun-dredTVAexpertsfannedoutacrosstheValley,tomeetwithfarmers,introducingthemtosci-entifically based modern farming methods.Thousandsofdemonstrationfarmsweresetup,with TVA donating its new phosphate-basedfertilizer,andthedemonstrationfarmeropen-inghisfarmtosharehisresultswithhisneigh-bors. In 1935,TVA produced 24,000 tons ofconcentrated superphosphate, which grew to

136,000tonsby1953.TVAfertilizer,whichwasshippedalloverthecountry,accountedfor24percentofnationalfertilizerproductionbetween1934and1955.By1941,47stateshadtestedtheTVAfertilizer,and27wereconductingtestdemon-strationprograms.

TheTVAprogramhadadramaticimpactworldwide.Itises-timatedthat2-3billionpeople,ornearlyhalftheworld’spop-ulation,arealive todaybecauseof thedevelopmentofsyn-theticfertilizer,morethan70percentofwhichwasdevelopedatTVA’s National Fertilizer Development Center, in MuscleShoals,Alabama.Aninvestmentof$41millionthrough1981returned$57billiontoU.S.agriculture.Fertilizersarerespon-sibleformorethanathirdofU.S.cropproduction,according

TVA

TVAagriculturalprogramsbroughtTennesseeValleyfarmersintothe20thCentury.Particularlyimportantwastheintro-ductionoffertilizer,whichwasshowcasedondemonstra-tionfarmsandinteachingfilms.Thisphotoisofatestfield,showingitsuseinproducinggroundcover.

TVA

ThefirstCCCgroupassigned toTVA toconcentrateonerosioncontrolandtreeplanting.By1944,theTVAhadplantedmorethan150milliontreesintheValley.

TVA

TheCopperBasininsouthernTennesseewasadesolatedesertafter90yearsofcopperminingkilledoffvegetationanderodedtheland.Today,morethan90percentoftheareahasbeenreforested.


totheInternationalCenterforSoil Fertility and AgriculturalDevelopment at MuscleShoals. Dr. Norman Borlaug,father of the “Green Revolu-tion,”whichsavedmillionsintheThird World from starva-tion,wason theboardofdi-rectors of TVA’s InternationalFertilizerDevelopmentCenterfrom1994to2003.

The only bona fide deserteastof theMississippi in the1930swastheCopperBasininsouthernTennessee,whichismore than50 squaremilesofdesolation. Ithasbeencom-pared to the Dakota Badlands, the Gobi Desert, and theMoon.

Ninetyyearsofprocessingtheminedcopperthathadbeendiscoveredthereinthe1840s,hadkilledfloraandfauna,andpartsoftheOcoeeRiver.Nearly35,000acreswerecompletelybare,losingnearly200tonsofsoilayear,andsiltingtheriverwhereTVAhadthreedamsandreservoirs.By1944,theTVAhadplantedmorethan150milliontreesintheValley.Todaymorethan90percentoftheCopperBasinhasbeenreforested.

By1941,theTVAwaswellonthewaytotrans-forming theeconomy,and livesof thepeopleoftheTennesseeValley.Butitsgreatestchallengewastocome.

WinningtheWarItisreportedthatnotevenTVAChairmanLilien-

thalknewwhatwasgoingoninthebuildingsatthe“Clinton Engineering Works,” not too far fromTVA’sKnoxvilleheadquarters,in1943.Seeminglyovernight, new facilities, housing, and a wholenew townhadsprungup inOakRidge,Tennes-see.

WhenthedecisionwasmadebyPresidentRoos-evelttoembarkupontheManhattanProjecttode-velop anAmerican nuclear weapon, there weretwo prerequisites for success: the best scientificmindsthenationcouldmobilize,andavirtuallyunlimitedsourceofreliableelectricalpower.ThePresidentturnedtotheTVA,givingwhatbecametheOakRidgeNationalLaboratorythetaskofpro-ducingthenuclearmaterialsforthebomb,enrich-inguranium,andthenseparatingtheplutonium.EnricoFermiwhohadbuiltthenation’sfirst“graph-itepile”reactorinChicago,thenbuilttheGraphiteReactoratOakRidge,whichproducedtheworld’sfirstsustainednuclearreaction.Afterthewar,thisreactor produced the world’s first medical iso-topes.

EvenbeforetheUnitedStateswasfightinginthewar, in preparation, President Roosevelt askedCongresstoapprovefundingforDouglasDamineastTennesseein1941.Oppositiononthepartofthe Congress ended with the bombing of Pearl

Harbor.DouglasDamwascompletedinarecord-breaking12monthsand17days.Duringthewarmobilization,theTVAbuilt10dams,working24-hours-a-day,utilizingthreeshifts,andfloodlightsatnight.

Since1935,theAluminumCompanyofAmeri-ca(Alcoa)hadbeenbuyingTVApowerforitsfac-torynearKnoxville,whichwas then the largestaluminumplantintheworld.In1941,asWorldWar II loomed, Alcoa gave the government itsFontanaproperty,aprimesiteforadam,andthebill authorizing construction of the dam wassignedjust10daysbeforePearlHarbor.TheFon-

tanasitewaslocatedintheremoteSmokyMountainsofNorthCarolina,andinordertobuildthedam,arailroadwasbuilttotransportsupplies.Almostovernight,theTVAerecteddormito-ries,houses,trailers,andtentsfortheworkersandtheirfami-lies.Ahospital,bank,library,postoffice,andschoolswerebuiltfromscratch.

Inadditiontoaluminumforplanesduringthewarmobiliza-tion, theValleyprocessedmetals, food,fibers (foruniforms),timber, and chemicals, and manufactured ship boilers, gasmasks,andexplosives.The fertilizerplants inMuscleShoals

U.S. Army

AerialviewofthemassiveK-25plantonthe Oak Ridge reservation, which usedthegaseousdiffusionmethodtoseparateuranium-235 from uranium-238 for thewareffort.BeguninJune1943andcom-pletedinearly1945,theK-25plantem-ployed12,000workers.

TheTVA was crucial in the war effort,supplyingtheenormousamountofelec-tricityrequiredbytheK-25plant,alongwith materials and manufactures, andpreparingsurveymaps.WithouttheTVA,theUnitedStatesin1941wouldnothavebeenpreparedtofight,theFederalPowerCommissionstated.TVA

Anestimated2-3billionpeoplearealivetoday

becauseofthedevelopmentofsynthetic

fertilizer,morethan70percentofwhichwasdevelopedattheTVA.


suppliedtherawmaterialsforthousandsoftonsofmunitions,inadditiontothefertilizertohelpgrowfood.

In1943,theU.S.ArmyaskedtheTVAforhelpinpreparingsurveymapsofenemy-heldterritory.Thefirstassignmentwastomap30,000squaremilesofNazi-occupiedFrance,basedonits experience in mapping theValley.TheArmed Forces ac-quired470TVAmappingexpertsandtechnicians.TheTVA,to-getherwiththeU.S.GeologicalSurvey,developedadvancedmappingtechniquesandmademapsfromaerialphotographsofahalf-millionsquaremilesofforeignterritoryduringWorldWarII.Anestimated70millionofTVA-producedmapswereusedtopreparefortheNormandyinvasioninJune1944.

Afterthewar,theFederalPowerCommissiondeclaredthatwithout theTVA, theUnited States in1941wouldnothavebeenpreparedtofight.

ButsomedidnotappreciatetheTVA’ssuccess.OneyearafterFDRcreatedtheTVA,theAuthorityhadfivelawsuitspendingagainstit.By1938,TVA,likeotherofFDR’sNewDealprograms,hadbeenattackedonconstitutionalgrounds,in41le-galcases.DirectlegalexpensestotheTVAwere$518,159.Revenueslostfromthedelayofhydroelectricprojectsbecauseofsuchlegalbat-tlesamountedtonearly$5.5mil-lion.Thechallengeswouldeventu-allygoallthewaytotheSupremeCourt.

For20years, theTVAhad suc-cessfully beaten back attacks bytheprivateutilitiestostopitsdamandpowerprograms,andby“freemarket”-advocatingCongressmen.Under theprotectionofPresidentRoosevelt, the TVA had accom-plishedwhatonlyahandfulofvi-

sionarieshadbelievedwaspossible.After thewar,andwithPresident Roosevelt gone, TVA would face its most seriousthreatyet.

‘CreepingSocialism’In1952,forthefirsttimeintheTVA’sexistence,therewasa

RepublicanPresidentheadedfortheWhiteHouse.PresidentEisenhowerdescribedtheTVAas“creepingsocialism,”andin-structedhisnewTVABoardchairmanto“disbandtheagency,”astheCongresstriedtodismantlewhatwasleftofFDR’sNewDeal.ThestupidityofaccusingTVA“socialism”ofsquelchingprivateenterpriseintheregion,wasdemonstratedbythefactthatmorethanahalf-millionjobsinbusinessandindustrywerecreatedintheregionbetween1933and1950.

ItfelltoTVAchairmanGordonClapptodefendtheveryex-istence of theTVA. Clapp was hired by theTVA in its firstmonths,whenhewasjust27.AWisconsinnative,hebecameDirectorofPersonnel,thenin1939,hebecameGeneralMan-ager,becomingChairmanin1946afterDavidLilienthalwastappedtoheadthenewAtomicEnergyCommission.Clapp’sphilosophical approach, which cohered entirely with Roos-evelt’sandLilienthal’s,wastodeveloptheresourcesoftheVal-leytoraisethelivingstandardofthepopulation,notsimplyto“builddams.”TheRepublicanstriedtomakethecasethatTVA’sworkwasfinishedbecausethedamshadbeencompleted.

TVAChairmanClapppointedoutthehypocrisyoftheAd-ministration’ssupportfora“TVAontheJordan,”asanimpor-tantpeaceinitiativeintheMiddleEast,andthesimultaneousattackontheTVA,athome.TocountertheerroneousassertionthatFederalfundstoTVAconstitutedunfair“Federalaid”tooneparticularregion,Clapppointedoutthatmorethanhalfofthe$1.4billionthattheTVAspenttobuyequipmentandmaterials,wasspentoutsidetheTennesseeValley.Tenyearsearlier,DavidLilienthalhadexplainedthatthetensofthousandsofelectricranges,waterpumps,andrefrigeratorspurchasedbypeoplein

theValley,werenotmanufacturedthere,but inplaces like theGen-eralElectricfactories,inSchenect-ady,NewYork.

Throughout the Eisenhoweryears, the debate raged over cut-ting domestic spending, and theTVA’s budget dropped drastically.Finally, in 1959, although Con-gresswasunabletokilltheAuthor-ity,alawwaspassedamendingtheTVA Act, which authorized theTVA to sell bonds on the privatemarket to finance its operations,andremovedfundingforitspowerinvestments from Federal appro-priations. It further required theTVAtopaybackinannualinstall-mentstotheTreasury,fundsprevi-ouslyinvestedbyCongress,alongwithanannualrateofreturnontheoutstanding investment that hadbeen made over the previous 20years! Since 1959,TVA’s massive

ORNL

General LeslieGroves (left) andDavid Lilienthaldiscuss thetransferofresponsibilityforatomicenergyresearchanddevel-opmentandweaponsproductionfromtheArmytothecivilianAtomicEnergyCommission,whichLilienthalwasappointedtohead.

TVA

GordonClappsucceededLilienthalasTVAchairmanin 1946, having worked at the TVA from its firstmonths.


electricpowerdevelopmentprogramhasbeenself-financed.Afterthewar,demandforresidentialelectricityaloneroseby

60percentfrom1945to1947.GordonClappproposedthatacoal-poweredsteamplantbebuilttohelpmeetthefast-grow-ingelectricneedsoftheValley.Congressopposedit,insistingthatcoal-firedplantswouldcompetewithprivateutilities.AftermanytripstoWashington,toarguehiscase,Clappgotapprov-alforthecoalplant.“IfTVAeverceasestobecontroversial,itwillceasetoexist,”hestated.Later,thisdefenseofTVA’sbroad-estpurpose,settheprecedentforleadingtheTVAtothefore-frontoftheageofnuclearpower.

TVA’sWorkWillNeverbeDoneOnMay18, 1963, President John F.Kennedy travelled to

MuscleShoals,Alabama,forthe30thanniversarycelebrationoftheTVA.AmongthedignitariesrecognizedfromthepodiumwasGovernorGeorgeWallace. (Thismusthavebeen some-whatawkward,notonlybecauseofPresidentKennedy’sstandoncivilrights,butalsobecausetheTVAwasraciallyintegratedandunionorganized,fromitsearliestdays.)

“Thereweremanywhostillregardedtheundertakingwithdoubt,somewithscorn,somewithoutrighthostility,”PresidentKennedysaidoftheTVA:

Somesaiditcouldn’tbedone.Somesaiditshouldn’tbedone.Somesaiditwouldn’tbedone.Buttoday,30yearslater,ithasbeendone.

Despitearecordofsuccess,TVAstillhasitsskepticsanditscritics.Therearestillthosewhocallit“creepingsocialism.”Therearestillthose,andsomeofthemfrom

Massachusetts,whosaythatthisassetservesonlythevalley....

Byworkingtogether,wehaverecognizedthatarisingtideliftsalltheboats,andthisvalleywillnotbeprosper-ousunlessothersectionsofthecountryarerich,norwillothersectionsofthecountryberichunlessthevalleyisprosperous.Thatisthelessonofthelast30years.

Finally,therearethosewhosaythatTVAhasfinisheditsjobandoutliveditschallenges.ButalloftheessentialrolesofTVAremain.

ThePresidentthencitedtheregion’simportanceforatomicenergy,commerce,andopeningnewfrontiers:

Inshort,theworkofTVAwillneverbedoneuntiltheworkofourcountryisdone.

FranklinRooseveltcamefromHydePark,NewYork,morethan1,100milesfromthiscommunity.GeorgeNorriswasnotarepresentativeofthisState.HecamefromMcCook,Nebraska,alsomorethan1,100milesfromthiscommunity.

ThePresidentcontinued:“GeorgeNorris’sfavoritephrasewashisreference,andhisdedicationto‘generationsyetunborn.’Soletusall...resolvethatwe,too,inourtime,30yearslater,will,ourselves,buildabetterNationfor‘generationsyetunborn.’”

HarnessingtheAtomThepromiseofthequantumjumpinenergyfluxdensitypos-

sible throughnuclear technologywasnowheremoreaggres-

TVA

PresidentKennedyspokeatMuscleShoalsonMay18,1963,theTVA’s30thanniversary.“Letusallresolvethatwe,too,inourtime,30yearslater,will,ourselves,buildabetterNationfor‘generationsyetunborn.’”


sivelypursuedthanintheTennesseeValley,andnotjustfortheUnitedStates.

In1963,astheTVAwasdevelopingitsplanforgoingnucle-ar,OakRidgeNationalLaboratoryscientistPhilipHammondsuggested that fresh water, so desperately needed globally,couldbeproducedeconomicallybyusingtheexcessheatfromnuclearpowerplantsfordesalination.LaboratorydirectorAl-vinWeinberg,amemberofPresidentKennedy’sScienceAdvi-soryBoard,promotedtheidea,asawaytomakethe“desertsbloom.”

Thenextyear, theterm“nuplex”wascoined, fornuclear-centered agro-industrial complexes, to describe the multi-purposepotentialofnuclearenergy.In1964,OakRidgeLabo-ratory staff members travelled to India, Israel, Puerto Rico,Pakistan,Mexico,andtheSovietUnion,tohelpplandesali-nation projects. In 1965, 100 researchers at the Lab werestudyinghowtoapplynewtechnologiestonucleardesalina-tion.

BecauseofitslocationwithintheTVAservicearea,thenu-plexresearchcarriedoutduringthe1960sattheLabbynucle-ar scientists, chemists, materials specialists, agricultural ex-perts,andengineerscouldbeputtothepracticaltest.In1971,forexample,itwasdecidedthattheTVA’sBrownsFerrynuclearreactor,thenunderconstruction,wouldincludeademonstra-tiongreenhouse,whichwouldusethewasteheatfromthenu-clearplanttogrowfood.

In1966,theTVAannouncedplanstobuild17nuclearplantsatsevensitesinTennessee,Alabama,andMississippi.Thiswasslated to be the largest nuclear construction project in theworld.Constructionbeganthenextyearontheworld’slargestnuclearpowerplant,atBrownsFerry,justwestofHuntsville,Alabama.Sevenyearslater,thefirstgeneratingunitwentintooperation.

Atthesametime,the1973warintheMiddleEast,organizedandprovokedbyBritish andBritish-controlledfinancial andpetroleum interests, createdan“energycrisis” in theUnitedStates,whichsawthepriceforoil,gasoline,andcoalquadru-ple,virtuallyovernight.Theskyrocketingcostofenergyandtheoveralleconomiccontractionledtoadropinenergyconsump-tion.Thiswasfollowedbythesecond“oil”crisisin1979andfurthereconomicdecline.Asenergyconsumptionfell,doubtwas raised that more generating capacity, meaning nuclear,wouldbeneeded,evenbytheTVA.

Inthemidstoftheseconcocted“energycrises,”theelectionofJimmyCarterasPresidentin1976broughtanewlineofat-tackupontheTVA,thistime,fromtheso-called“left.”

AttackoftheEco-FascistsIn1977,JimmyCarterappointedS.DavidFreeman(norela-

tiontothisauthor),aschairmanoftheTVA.AttheendofhistenureattheTVA,in1984,Freemanwouldbragthatheover-sawthecancellationof8oftheTVA’splanned17nuclearpow-erplants.

In 1978, Freeman told the Christian Science Monitor that“conservation”wouldbeoneofTVA’smajorgoals.Freemanhadbeenthedirectorofthe$3millionFordFoundationEnergyPolicyProject,between1971-1974,whichpromoted the in-saneideathatenergyefficiencyandcuttingbackonconsump-tion,couldbeamajor“source”ofpower.(laterdescribedas

“negawatts”).FormerTVAchairmanAubreyWagnerdescribedFreeman’sapproachasmakingelectricityuse“asin.”

FreemanwastheprincipalarchitectandpromoterofCart-er’santi-humanenergyandenvironmentpolicies.HewassenttotheTVAexplicitlytoopposeconstructionoftheClinchRiv-erBreederReactor and thecompletionof theTellicoDam.ClinchRiverwasnotneeded,andwasabadinvestmentFree-man counseled.There were nonproliferation concerns, andthedemandforelectricitywaslowerthanprojected,hesaid,somorenuclearplantswerenotneeded.Further,Freemanad-visedthatthebreedermustbeableto“compete”withsolarenergy.

In June 1978, Freeman’s second assignment was fulfilled,whentheSupremeCourtstoppedtheTellicoDamproject,ontheLittleTennesseeRiver.This,underaprovisionofthe1973EndangeredSpeciesact,whichprotectedthetinysnaildarterfish, whose habitat was threatened by the dam.TheTellicoDam,whichhadbeenfirstplannedin1939,wasthenhaltedwhen95percentcomplete,aftertheTVAhadspent$109.4mil-liontobuildit.Itwasfinallycompletedin1979,whentheU.S.Senatevoted toexemptTellicoDamfromtheEndangeredSpeciesAct.

Playingon themedia-induced irrational fearsofnuclearenergyaftertheMarch28,1979accidentat theThreeMileIslandnuclearplantinPennsylvania,FreemangaveaspeechinOctober that year, stating thatmillionsofAmericansareconcernedaboutsafety.Whileprofessingtobe“pro-nuclear,”Freemanannouncedhispolicytolimitconstructionof fu-tureTVAnuclearplants to thesevensiteswhereTVAwas

Video image from Institute of International Studies, University of California at Berkeley

S.DavidFreeman,appointedbyPresidentCartertoheadtheTVA in1977,made“conservation”aTVAgoal.Healsoop-posedtheClinchRiverBreederReactorandthecompletionoftheTellicoDam.


already building reactors. “I really don’t know for surewhethernuclearpowerissafe,”hesaid.

Then, to “save” energy, Freeman’s TVA started deliveringwoodburningstovestopoorerfamiliesintheValleyin1978,alongwithasmokealarmandafireextinguisher!TheTVAgave20-yearlowinterestloanstobuyandinstallsolarwaterheaters,andloansforatticinsulation.

RatherthanfighttheMalthusianswhoweremakingpoliciesin the Environmental Protection Agency, that, if enforced,wouldhave shutdownall ofAmerican industry, Freemannegotiateda“deal”withtheEPA,whicheventuallycosttheTVAmorethan$6billionforpollutioncontrolsatitscoal-burningplants,noneofwhichwouldhavebeennecessary,hadthenuclearprogramcontinued,andthecoalplants,re-tired.

WhenhewasnotreappointedtotheTVABoardbyPresidentReagan in 1984, Freeman continued his destructive career,whichincludedoverseeingthedevelopmentofthePowerEx-change(spotmarket)andIndependentSystemOperatorfortheStateofCalifornia,intheearly1990s.“Ithoughtderegulationmightwork,”Freemansaidin2001,asrollingblackoutshittheState.

InJanuary2009,astheTVAwasrestartingworktocompletethenuclearplantsthatS.DavidFreemanhadstalled,Freemanapparentlyfinally“gotit.”Hesaid:

ItriedrealhardtomakeTVAmoreenvironmentallysensitive.But...IfeltlikeIwasahearttransplantthatgotrejected....Theorganizationitselfnevergotoveritslow-costpowermissionastheoverridingmission.

Thankgoodnessforusall!

Nuclear:ASlowClimbBackAspartoftheeconomicfalloutfromThreeMileIsland,all

fiveofTVA’soperatingnuclearreactorswereshutdownin1985forafewyears,toupgradesafety.AsRonaldReagan’s1980sworeon,andtheeconomydidnotimprove,workwasstoppedonTVA’sBellefonte1and2units(88percentand57percentcompleted), andWattsBarunit2 (60percent completed) in1988.Butstaffwerekeptonsite,whiletheunitsweredeferredindefinitely.Thebillionsofdollarsthathadbeenspentfornu-clearconstructionwasnowdebtbeingcarriedandservicedbytheTVA,asadeadweight.

WiththeascensionoftheNewtGingrichneo-conservatives,astheRepublicanPartygainedtheCongressionalmajorityinthe1994election,deregulationoftheelectricutilityindustrybecamethelatestattack,notonlyonpublicpower,butonvir-tuallyanykindofpower.TheindustrywouldbeturnedovertothelikesofEnron.In1995,HouseSpeakerNewtGingrichsetupaHouseprivatizationtaskforce,butlostaproposaltopriva-tizetheTVAbyavoteof284-144.“Therearethosewhowouldprivatize theGrandCanyon if theygotachance,” remarkedTVAchairmanCravenCrowell.

Threatsweremade,andpressurewasputontheTVAtobereadyto“compete”withderegulatedprivatecompanies.Thou-sandsofTVAemployeesandcontractorswerelaidoff,manyofwhomtheTVAhadtriedtoretaininthenuclear/constructionfield,astheagencysoughttoreduceitsdebt,whichwascom-ingperilouslyclosetoitsCongressionallymandated$30bil-lionlimit.

In1996,CrowellsaidtheTVAwasseekingcompetitivepro-posalsonoptionstobuypower,“asanalternativetobuildingplansorcompletingunfinishednuclearunits.”(In1994,asimi-larrequestforproposalsresultedinpurchaseagreementcon-

TVA

ConstructionisnowunderwaytobringtheuncompletedWattsBar2nuclearplantintooperation.


tractswithEnron,whichtheTVAendedupsuingin1999fornon-deliveryofpower.)

Butthismadnesscametoascreechinghalt inearly2000.TVAchairmanCrowellobserved:“It’sinterestingtonotethatTVAwastemptedtofollowCalifornia’sexample—relyonthemarketplaceforelectricityratherthaninvestingcapitalinnewgeneratingcapacity.”GoodthingtheTennesseeValleyisn’tSili-conValley,wasonecomment.

Withdemandrising,andthecollapseofthe“freemarket”inelectronsaftertheimplosionofEnron,theTVAhadonlyonevi-ableoptionformeetingthecomingincreaseddemandforbase-loadpower:torestartthenuclearbuildprogram.ThatisexactlywhattheTVAdid.In2002,theBoardvotedtospend$1.7bil-liontoreturnthedormantBrownsFerryunit1toservicewithinfiveyears.Andfiveyearslater,inMay2007,BrownsFerryunit1wentintoservice.Itwasthefirst“new”U.S.nuclearreactorinthe21stCentury.

InJuly2006,theTVABoardauthorizedanevaluationofthecostandscheduletofinishthenearlycompletedWattsBar2nuclearplant,andapproved$20millionforthestudy.ThenextSummer,theBoardapprovedthecompletionofWattsBar2,atacostof$2.49billionover54months.Morethan2,300con-structionworkerswerehiredbytheendof2009.

Twoyearsago,theTVAallocated$10millionforastudytoseeifoneorbothofthemothballedtwinreactorsattheBelle-fonte site should be completed. In August 2010, the Boardunanimouslyapprovedspending$248millioninthenextfiscalyear,todeveloptheplantofinishUnit1,whichwouldcostupto$4.7billion. It hadbeenmore than80percent completewhenconstructionwasstoppedinthe1980s.

In2005,theTVA,cameundertheprovisionsoftheSarbanes-Oxleylaw,whichhadbeenenactedin2002inresponsetotheEnrondebacle.TVAchairmanCrowellcharacterizeditas“the

first steps toward privatizationofTVA.”ItmandatedregulationbytheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,forcingawrite-offofbillionsofdollarsofnuclearplantassets,and“allowed”TVAto borrow money from banksandfinancialinstitutions.

Today,theTVAisbuildingtheonlynuclearplantintheUnitedStates.

AModelforWorldDevelopment

It had always been the in-tention of President FranklinRooseveltandDavidLilienthalfor theTVA tobe amodel forother nations, where peopleweresuffering fromthecondi-tionsofpoverty thathadbeenendemic to theTennesseeVal-ley before theTVA. As wouldlater be the case for the suc-cessful effort of the United

StatestolandamanontheMoon,theeconomicandculturaltransformationofa“ThirdWorld”regionofAmerica,washeldingreatadmiration,andwasAmerica’smosteffectivepresenta-tionofitselftotherestoftheworld.(Infact,stagesofthehugeSaturnVrocketsthatwouldtakementotheMoonwereassem-bledatNASA’sMarshallSpaceFlightCenterinHuntsville,Ala-bama,andshippedtoFloridathroughthelocksatTVAdams).

By1944,DavidLilienthalwrote,the“morethanelevenmil-lionpeoplewhohavevisitedtheTVAinrecentyears,”havein-cludedanagriculturalcommissionerfromNewDelhi,agroupofSwedishjournalists,aBrazilianscientist,aCzechelectricalexpert,IsraeliPrimeMinisterDavidBen-Gurion,IndianPrimeMinister Nehru, and President Gabriel Gonzales Videla ofChile.

TheTVAalso functionedas a “trainingground for foreigntechnicians,”hereported,including

twoscoreengineersandagriculturalistsfromadozenrepublicsofSouthAmerica;asimilarcontingentfromChina....TherehasbeenagroupofRussianengineersworkingwithTVAtechniciansonLendLeasehydro-electricplantsthatin1944willbeproducingpoweronstreams“somewherebeyondtheUrals.”

David Lilienthal reported in his 1944 book, that SupremeCourt Associate Justice William O. Douglas spent summerstravellingonhorsebackinremoteareasofAsia,andDouglasrelatedthat

ADruzechieftain,southofDamascusinquiredaboutit[theTVA].IwasaskedaboutitmanytimesasItraveledthelengthoftheTigrisandEuphrates....BelowBaghdadIsaw50,000peoplehomelessbyreasonofaflood.They

TVA

BrownsFerrynuclearplantunit1wasbroughtintoservicefromitsdormantstatein2007.


toohadheardoftheTVA,andwantedoneforthemselves.

Inthe1953revisededitionofhis1944book,TVA—Democracy on the March, which had been translatedinto14languages(withmorethan50,000copiesincir-culationinChinesealone),DavidLilienthalsummarizedsomeofthepotentialregionaleconomicplansunderdis-cussion forTVAsaround theworld.Nomajor regionwouldhavebeenleftuntouchedbyTVA-inspireddevelopment.Proj-ectswereoutlinedfortheValleyoftheNileRiver,embracingmore thanamillionsquaremiles,with reaches in toSudan,Egypt,Ethiopia,Kenya,andUganda.Partsofthethen-BelgianCongoandTanganyikawerealsoincluded.TVA-modelledproj-ectswereconceivedforNigerandUganda(theAfricanTVA).

ThehistoricTigrisandEuphratesRiversenterIraqfromTurkeyandSyriatothenorthwest,andflowsoutheasterlyacrossthecountry,toemptyintothePersianGulf.TheIraqplan,tode-velop this potentially fertile region, Lilienthal reported, “hasbeendescribedasaprojectthatisessentiallyanexpansionandadaptationalongthelinesofTVA.”ExtensiveworkwasdonelaterbyDavidLilienthal,personally,andhisD&RCorporationinIran.

“TothenorthwestofIndiaandPakistanbeyondthefamousKhyber Pass lies the extremely mountainous country” ofAf-ghanistan,Lilienthalwrote.Thereareplans,theformerheadofTVAstated,todeveloptheHelmandRiveranditstributary,theArghandab,forpowerandirrigation.JamesB.Hayes,aformer

TVAprojectengineer,wastheprojectchieffortheAmericancontractorwhoworkedonthe1950sAfghanproject,Lilienthalreport-ed.

For India, inaddition to twoprojectsal-readyunderwayalongTVAlines,LilienthaloutlineddevelopmentprojectsontributariesoftheGangesRiver.TheSutlejDevelopmentprojectwouldincludea560-foot-highdam,electricgeneratingcapacity,anda1.5mil-lion-acreirrigationarea.

Today’sdestroyednationofHaiti,whichisaboutonefourththeareaoftheTennesseeValley,hadplanstodeveloptheArtiboniteValley,Lilienthalreported.In1952,theIn-ter-AmericanInstituteofAgriculturalScienc-es,foundedinCostaRicain1942byPresi-dent Roosevelt, put forward a plan for a“littleTVA”intheValley.Itencompassednotonlyaseriesofpower,floodcontrol,andir-rigationprojects, but also industrial devel-opmentandexpandedpublichealthanded-

ucation.In1946,LilienthaltravelledtoMex-

ico, where he encountered formerTVAengineers,andyoungMexicanswhohadtrainedwith theTVA.Con-structionequipmentstillhad the let-ters“TVA”onthetrucksandgondolas,he observed. The Papaloapan Com-mission,oras itwas referred to, the“MexicanTVA,”developedaplantobuildfourdamsforfloodcontrol,andthe integrated expansion of naviga-tion, industry, agriculture, irrigation,andpowerdevelopment.

Theunderdeveloped“vacation”ha-venislandofPuertoRicohadplansin

theearly1950sfora“junior-sizedTVA.”Fourdamswerepro-posedforpowerandirrigation.Thechiefengineerfortheproj-ectwasCarlBock,formerlywiththeTVA.

In1942,thegovernmentofPeruaskedtheU.S.tosendex-pertstothatnationtosuperviseaprojecttodevelopDuckCan-yon,formedbytheSantaRiver.This“AndeanTVA”wasover-seen by three engineers—civil, construction, and electrical—whowereallformeremployeesoftheTVA.SpecialistsfromtheChileanDevelopmentCorporation,whichwasestablishedin1939,trainedattheTVAfor6to12months.ExtensiveplansforColombiaandBrazilwerealsodeveloped.

Inthe1930sand1940s,theTennesseeValleywasatraininggroundforvisitingexpertsfromabroadwhocouldbringinte-gratedregionaleconomicdevelopmentplanningbacktotheirnations.Inthe1950s,theexperiencedtechnicalmanagersoftheTVAwerereadytofanoutacrosstheglobetohelptheseprojectscometofruition.

In1945,DavidLilienthalwasdistraughtatthedeathofPres-identRoosevelt.Althoughhecontinuedingovernment,asheadofthenewAtomicEnergyCommission,Lilienthalcouldseeno

TVA

TVAchairmanDavidLilienthalwithavisitingChineseengineer,discussing theTVAandpotentialprojects fortheYangtzeRiver.InsetisLilienthal’s1944book,Democ-racyontheMarch.


way that theTrumanAdminis-trationwouldcarrytheTVAto“thousands of valleys” aroundtheworld.Infact,Truman,wasbusyhelpingWinstonChurchillreestablish theBritishEmpire’scontrolovertheverynationsintheMiddleEastandAfricathatLilienthal had hoped to helpdevelop.

In1955,LilienthalandGor-don Clapp formed the Devel-opmentandResourcesCorpo-ration, to “provide planningand administrative services inresource development alongTVA lines.” With experiencedexperts from the TVA, and acadre of young, eager engi-neers,D&Rworkedaroundtheglobe over the course of thenext20years, to replicate the successof theTVA.

TheTVAontheJordanTheareaofwhatwascalledPalestineinthe

1940s,isslightlyover10,000squaremiles,oronequartertheareaoftheTennesseeValley.Inthemid-1950s,themenwhohadplayedkeyleadershiprolesintheTVApresentedaplanforintegrateddevelopmenttotheregion’snationsandtotheUnitedNations.TheproposalwastobuildaseriesofdamsontheupperJordanRiv-eranditstributaries,whichwouldstorewateranddivert resources intoanetworkof irriga-tioncanals.Tocompensate theDeadSea forthe loss of these waters, seawater from theMediterraneanwouldbeintroducedatapointnear Haifa, and conducted through tunnelsand canals down the below-sea-level Jordandepression,totheDeadSea.

It was estimated that 660 million kilowatt-hoursofelectricityperyearcouldbeprovidedbythedams,andmorethen600,000acresoflandcouldbeirrigatedforcultiva-tion.Inthemid-1950s,GordonClapp,whohada21-yearca-reerasgeneralmanagerandchairmanoftheTVA,headedtheU.N.EconomicSurveyMissionfor theMiddleEast.Thenet-workofwaterprojectsrequiredtheparticipationofSyria,Leba-non, Israel, and Jordan. Only such a multinational projectwouldbreakthedeath-gripontheregion,stemmingfromtheBritish-FrenchSykes-PicotAgreementof1916.InanticipationofthebreakupoftheOttomanEmpireafterWorldWarI,West-ernAsiawassecretlypartitionedbythesecolonialpowersintospheresofinfluenceandcontrol,throughwhichtheBritishstilltodaykeeptheentireregiononthecuspofwar.TheTVAontheJordanwasnotstartedin1954,andtwoyearslater,theBritishthrewtheregionintotheSuezcrisis.

In1990,duringthebuild-uptotheGulfWar,economistLyn-donLaRoucheresurrectedhisearlier,1974plan for regional

economicdevelopmentplanning,his“OasisPlan”fortheMid-dleEast.Bythattime,withthepossibilityofusingthemostad-vanced nuclear energy technologies for regional economicprojects,LaRoucheproposedthatwaternotonlybecapturedanddiverted,butalsocreatedthroughtheuseofhigh-tempera-turenuclearreactorsfordesalination.Theseprojects,andpeaceintheregion,stillawaitrealization.

TheChallengeoftheYangtzeOneofthegreatestlegaciesoftheTennesseeValleyisthe

roleitplayedinthetamingofChina’sYangtzeRiver.AsDavidLilienthalremarkedindescribingthechallengeinthe1950s,“Thetermsgiganticorcolossalarenotinappropriateforthisplan,whichdwarfs theTVAbycomparison.”Withina300-mileradiusoftheproposeddamsite,morepeoplewouldbeaffected than live in the entire United States, he said.TheYangtzeRiver,more than3,500miles in length, is the thirdlongestriverintheworld,withadrainageareathatisnearly

National Archives

BureauofReclamationengineerJohnLucienSavage(center),wasinvitedtoChinabyChiangKai-shekin1944.Savage,whohadworkedonmanyTVAdams,madeadetailedproposalin1945fortheYangtzeRiverdevelopment(below).Butittookuntil1992fortheThreeGorgesDamprogramtogetunderway.


20percentofthelandareaofChina.Plans todam the river toprevent itsperiodiccatastrophic

floodingandbringelectricpowertoanisolatedandbackwardpopulation,wereputforwardbySunYat-sen,thefoundingfa-therofmodernChina,asearlyastheseconddecadeofthe20th

Century.AmassivefloodontheYangtzein1931tookthelivesof145,000peopleandanequallydevastatingfloodfouryearslater,killednearlyasmanypeople.

In 1939, China’s ambassador to the U.S., HuShih, suggested toTVA Chairman Lilienthal thattheTVAshouldhelprebuildChinaafterthewar.During thewar,engineers fromChina’sNationalResourcesCommissionvisitedtheTVA,andaTVAengineerwasanadvisortoChina’sWarProductionBoard.InJuly1944,theResourcesCommissionofChina met at the headquarters of theTVA.Thatyear,JohnLucienSavage,amasterbuilderfromtheU.S.BureauofReclamationwhohadworkedonanumberofTVAdams,wasinvitedtoChina.SavagelaidoutadetailedandextensiveplanfortheYang-tzeRiverprogram,andrecommendedthetrainingofChineseengineersattheTVA.

Nearthewar’send,PresidentRoos-evelt dispatched representatives toChina, who brought with them theTVA’splans,aChinese translationofLilienthal’s 1944book, andoffers ofcooperation. But the death of Roos-evelt,andthecivilwarinChina,de-layed for decades what, finally, in1992,becametheThreeGorgesDamdevelopmentproject.

In1980,theyearafterthere-estab-lishmentofdiplomaticrelationswiththe People’s Republic of China, theUnited States and China signed a“ProtocolonCooperationonHydro-electricPowerandRelatedWaterRe-source Management.” Unfortunately,theteamdispatchedbyPresidentCart-ertoChina,todiscussjointprojects,includedhisTVAChairmanandMal-thusianfanaticS.DavidFreeman,whoboasteduponreturn:

Ithinkourdelegationsucceed-edinkillinga700-foothighdamontheYangtzeRiverthata

bunchofengineerstherehadbeeninlovewithforthepast20years.

IntheSpringof1981,a10-mandelegationfromtheReaganAdministration’sBureauofReclamationwasinChinatostudytheproposedThreeGorgesProject.ButwiththeadventoftheClinton/GoreAdministrationin1993,the“environmental”lob-bynowhadacatbirdseat in theVicePresident’soffice,andAmericanfirmswereforbiddenfromparticipationinthisvastproject.Nevertheless,both theChinese,andtheTVA,perse-vered.AsPresidentClintonworkedtoimproverelationswithChinain1998,doinganend-runaroundeco-saboteurAlGore,TennesseeGovernorDonSundquistandTVAChairmanCrow-ellorganizedaconferenceinBeijingon“EconomicOpportu-nitiesThroughWaterandEnergy.”ItwasfacilitatedbyClinton’sAmbassadortoChina,JimSasser,aformerTennesseeSenator.

In1998,aCooperativeAgreementwassignedwithChinafortheTVAtoreviewChina’smasterplanfordamsanddevelop-

ForahistoryoftheThreeGorgesDam,see“ThreeGorgesDam:TheTVAontheYangtzeRiver,”byWilliamC.JonesandMarshaFreeman,21stCentury,Fall2000.Atext-onlyversionisavailablehere.

TheMekongRiver:PresidentKennedytriedtorecruitDavidLilienthalintoadiplomaticpositiontodevelopa“SoutheastAsianTVA”here.

Ourdelegationsucceededinkillinga700-foothighdamontheYangtzeRiverthatabunchofengineerstherehadbeeninlovewithforthepast20years.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Three_Gorges.html

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Three_Gorges.html


mentoftheHanRiver,thelargesttributaryoftheYangtze,whichisoneandahalftimesthelengthoftheTennessee.InadditiontodecreasingtheflowtotheYangtzeforfloodcontrol,theplanisforachanneltobebuilttodivertsomeoftheexcesswaterfromtheHanRivertothedrynorth,andtoBeijing.

TheThreeGorgesDamisnowproducingpower,controllingfloods,andallowingnavigationalongoneoftheworld’sgreatrivers,thanks,insignificantpart,tothemodelthatwasprovid-edbytheTVA.

TheWarWeCouldHaveWonIntheearly1960s,theKennedyAdministrationtriedunsuc-

cessfully to recruitDavidLilienthal toadiplomaticposition.OfferinghimtheambassadorshiptoThailand,UnderSecretaryofStateChesterBowlestriedtotempthim,bysuggestingthatthejobwouldhelpto“createtheatmosphereandsteambehindthedevelopmentof theMekongRiver,abigSoutheastAsianTVA.” History would have been written differently, had thatprojectbecomethecenterpieceoftheJohnsonAdministration’spolicyinVietnam,ratherthanthedeploymentofhundredsofthousandsoftroops.

TheMekongprojectwasunfortunatelyconceivedofbytheWhiteHouseprimarilyasa“postwar”reconstructioninitiative,althoughtherewereattemptstouseitasaninstrumentofrec-onciliation.DavidLilienthalmadefourtripstoVietnamduring1967-1969tomeetwithofficialsthere,surveythearea,andde-velopaplan.Finally,inApril1970,Lilienthal’scompany,D&RCorporation,seeinglittleprogress,endeditspresenceinSouthVietnam.Lilienthalpresenteda600-pagereport,“ThePostwarDevelopmentoftheRepublicofVietnam,”totheVietnamesegovernment,andthentoPresidentNixonin1970.

TheVietnamWardidmorethansacrificethelivesofmorethan58,000AmericansandmillionsofVietnamese.Itdestroyedmuchof themoralfiberof thisnation,pushed theeconomydowntheroad to thephysicalwreckage ithasbecome,andkilledthemosteffectivesciencedriverforthefuture,thepost-Apollospaceprogram.

FDR’sLegacyIntheFallof2005,afterthedevastationofHurricaneKatrina,

whichstruckthepoorestregionoftheUnitedStates,proposalswereputforwardonhowtorebuildtheGulfstates.ExecutiveIn-telligenceReviewexaminedtheeconomicprofileofthemostaf-fectedstates,mappingtheregioncounty-by-county.ThestudyfoundthatonlytheTVAregionhadalmostnocountiesof“per-sistentpoverty,”definedashavingpovertyratesof20percentforadecadeormore.2FDR’sboldinitiativeofthe1930shadful-filleditspromise.Reflectingthatachievement,LyndonLaRouchecalledatthetimefora“Super-TVA”torebuildtheGulf.

AftertheelectionofBarackObamain2008,hysteriabrokeoutamongthethird-generationWallStreetneo-imperialists,inthefootstepsofthosewhoopposedFranklinRoosevelt’sfightagainstfascism,atthepossibilitythattheincomingDemocraticPresidentmightbecome“anotherFDR.”3Abarrageofbooks,

2. “Super-TVA Needed, Not Halliburton Profiteering,” Paul Gallagher, EIR, Sept. 16, 2005.

3. See, “Fascists, Then and Now, Stalk the FDR Legacy,” by Jeffrey Steinberg and John Hoefle, EIR, Feb. 27, 2009; and, “Amity Shlaes’ Not-So-New Ameri-

articles,TVcommentaries,andeditorialsburstuponthescenetotrytoconvincepolicymakers,andtheAmericanpeople,thatRoosevelt’sNewDealwasafailure.TheTVA,which,alongwithSocialSecurity,isthemostenduringlegacyofFDR,wasaprimetarget.4

Infact,therewasnothingforthesefoolstoworryabout.Pres-identObamahadnointentionofbecoming“anotherFDR.”In-steadhecontinuedtheBritish/Bushpoliciesofhyperinflation-ary bank bailouts, endless wars, and the increasingimpoverishmentoftheAmericanpeople.

In the1930s, theTVA reshaped the seven-stateTennesseeValleyandtransformeditspopulation,usingelectricityasanengine.NAWAPAwilldirectlyreshapeacontinent,drivethemostdramaticchangeineconomicpolicysincetheNewDeal,andpushthefrontiersofscienceinthepolarregionsandourconnectiontospace.LikeFDR’sBrettonWoodsagreement,anewglobalfinancialarchitecturewillenableothernations—mostimmediately,Russia,China,andIndia—tojointhisglobalreconstructioneffort.NAWAPAwillbethetruelegacyofPresi-dentRoosevelt’sTVA.

can Fascism,” by Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR, March 20, 2009.

�. The year 2009 saw the revival of William Chandler’s 198� book, The Myth of the TVA, which tried to use statistical hocus pocus to “prove” the TVA had failed.

The author in the turbine room at the TVA’s ChickamaugaDam.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_30-39/2005-37/pdf/25-27_36_feattva.pdf

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2009/2009_1-9/2009-8/pdf/52-57_3608.pdf




GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

United Nations Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon andTuiloma Neroni

Slade,Secretary-GeneralofthePacificIs-landsForum,haverecentlyclaimedthatserious sea-level-rise problems occurbothinTuvaluandKiribati.Thisiswhattwomisguidedpoliticiansmaysay.But,wemustask,whatisthereality?

The answer is clear and straightfor-ward:Thereisnosea-levelrisegoingonnow,norforatleastthelast18years,ei-ther inTuvalu or in Kiribati. Over andover again, I have tried to demonstrate(Mörner2007,2010,2011)thatsealevelisnotinarisingmodeinTuvalu,judgingfromtheonlyobservationalinformationthereis:thetidegaugerecords.

The same documentation has beenmadebyothers,especiallyNewZealandclimatescientistDr.VincentGray(2010).This is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2,wheretherearenosignsofanysealevelrise.

So, ifourobservational facts say thatthereisnoriseinsealevel,whyarepeo-plecontinuingtodrivethesea-level-rise

illusion.Itdoesn’tbecomebetter(rathertheopposite)ifyouarethesecretary-gen-eralfortheUnitedNations,orthePacificIsland Forum. It is simply wrong. Butwhatisworse:Itstealsthelimelightfromrealproblemsintherealworld.

ThesameistruefortheislandnationofKiribati.ItliesinanareaoftheSouth-west Pacific where satellite altimetryproposesasealevelriseintheorderof5 mm/year. Gray, in a 2010 article,showedthatthisindeeddoesnotconcurwiththelastSEAFRAMEtidegaugere-cord from Kiribati (Figure 3), a recordthatspans17years.Theobservedmea-surementsdonotrecordanylong-term

TheMirageofRisingSeaLevelsAnon-problemthatisstealingthelimelightfromrealproblemsintherealworld.

byNils-AxelMörner

Amisguidedpairofdiplomats:BanKi-Moon(left)andTuilomaNeroniSladeindiscussionsatarecentPacificIslandsForuminAuckland,NewZealand.

Pacific Islands Forum

Figure1TIDEGAUGERECORDFORTUVALU(1978-2007)

ThetotaltidegaugerecordforTuvalufrom1978showsthatsince1985therearenosignsofanysea level rise.ThreemajorENSOeventswithsignificantdrops insea levelarerecordedin1983,1992,and1998.ENSOrefers toElNiño/LaNiña-SouthernOscillation,asomewhatperiodicclimatepatternthatoccursacrossthetropicalPacificOcean.Source: Mörner 2010

GLOBALWARMINGUPDATE


sealevelrise,justastability.Vanuatuisanotherfamoussiteinthe

sea-leveldebate.Here,too,thereisato-talabsenceofindicationsofanysea-levelrise over the past 17-18 years (Mörner2007,2011;Gray2010).

Thelistofsiteswithnoobservedsea-levelrisecanbeenlargedoverwiderar-eas (the Indian Ocean with places liketheMaldivesandBangladesh)andevenwiderareasallover theglobe.Not theleast of these is Northwestern Europe,whereitallcanbeputtoatest,eveninVenice.

Obviously,thereisamajorclashbe-tweenscenario-basedcomputersimula-tions and reality, in the form of mea-sured data and observations in natureitself.Therefore,logically,therearesci-entific reasons to turn away from thepropaganda, andconcentrateall atten-tionandinterestonobservationalfacts.Inthiscase,thosefactsgiveaveryclearand irrefutable message: There is noalarmingsealevelriseeitherinTuvaluorKiribati.

BanKi-moonandhiscolleaguefromthe Pacific Islands Forum should bothfeelashamedoftheirclaimsandstate-mentswith respect toTuvalu andKiri-bati.

Nils-AxelMörnerisarenownedocean-ographicexpertwhohasstudiedsealev-elanditseffectsoncoastalareasforsome45years.HerecentlyretiredasdirectorofthePaleogeophysicsandGeodynam-icsDepartmentatStockholmUniversity,andcanbereachedatPaleogeophysics&Geodynamics,inStockholm,[email protected].

References______________________________V. Gray, 2010. “The South Pacific Sea Level: A reas-

sessment.” SPPI Original Paper, pp. 1-2�.N.-A. Mörner, 2007. “The Greatest Lie Ever Told.”

First Edition (Stockholm: P&G) Also, “What Sea Level Rise?” 21st Century, Fall 2007, pp. 25-3�.

N.-A. Mörner, 2010. “Some Problems in the Recon-struction of Mean Sea Level and Its Changes with Time.” Quaternary International, Vol. 221, pp. 3-8, doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.10.0��

N.-A. Mörner, 2011. “The Great Sea Level Humbug: There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise.” 21st Century, Winter 2010/2011, pp. 7-17.

Figure2SEAFRAMETIDEGAUGERECORDFORTUVALU(1990-2010)

TheSEAFRAMEtidegaugerecordfromTuvalu,showingnosignofanyongoingsea-level rise. SEAFRAME, or Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic MeasuringEquipment,isanetworkofmonitoringstationsthroughouttheSouthPacificre-gionthatprovidesdataonsealevel.Source: Adapted from Gray 2010

2.4

2.1

1.8

1.51990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

MeanMean

Figure3SEAFRAMETIDEGAUGERECORDFORKIRIBATI(1994-2010)The SEAFRAME tide-gauge record from Kiribati documents that there is nolong-termsea-levelrise.Itshowsonlythestabilityofthepast17years.Source: Adapted from Gray 2010

Put global warming on ice —with 21st Century Science & Technology’s

SPECIAL REPORTThe Coming Ice Age

Why Global Warming Is A Scientific Fraud

This authoritative, 100-page report (November 1997) puts climate science in proper perspective: Based on the past several million years of climate history, the Earth is now coming out of an interglacial period and entering a new ice age. Partial contents: • Orbital Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Earth’s

Climate by Rogelio A. Maduro • The Coming (or Present) Ice Age by

Laurence Hecht • An Oceanographer Looks at the Non-

Science of Global Warming by Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D.

• Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D

• What Man-Induced Climate Change? and • What You Never Hear about Greenhouse

Warming by Hugh Ellsaesser, Ph.D. • Global Warming, Ozone Depletion—

Where’s the Evidence? by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Ph.D.

• Global Cooling and Scientific Honesty by Lee Anderson Smith, Ph.D. and C. Bertrand Schultz, Ph.D. $25 postpaid

Order from

21st Century Science & Technology P.O. Box 16285 Washington, D.C. 20041or online at www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

Back Issues of21st CENTURYSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

are available at $5 each postpaid ($8 foreign).

Send check or moneyorder, U.S. currency only

21st CENTURYP.O. Box 16285 Washington, D.C. 20041

Or order online atwww.21stcenturysciencetech.com

Index for 1988-2005 available on website

GLOBALWARMINGUPDATE

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf


The34thannualInternationalMeetingon Radiation Processing, held in

MontrealJune13-16,2011,broughtto-

gether leaders in science, industry, andgovernment from around the world todiscusstherecentbreakthroughsinradi-ation-based technologies. The focus oftheconferencewasthecivilianapplica-tionofX-ray,gammaray,andelectron-beamtechnologiesasappliedspecifical-ly to thedomainsof foodpreservation,

healthcare,andlifesciencesmoregen-erally.

Thisyear,asdailynewsreportsremindus,thereisanevengreaterurgencytoin-creasingthefoodsupply.Twenty-fiveto50percentormoreoffoodcropsarelostto insects, fungi, and other spoilagearound theworld. Food irradiation canbegintoreversethis,especiallyinthede-velopingsector.

Foodproductionhasbeendecimatedbyyearsofimperialmonetaristpolicies,and shortages have been compoundedby extreme weather patterns; growinganti-science, eco-fascist hysteria in the

generalpopulation;andspeculation.Although the ability to control the

electromagneticspectrumisarelativelyrecent breakthrough for humankind, ithasanimportantandeverincreasingrolein improving the productive powers oflabor, and humanity’s mastery over theuniverse.Thecreativeapplicationofourunderstandingofradiationfortheinter-estsof thecommongoodhasbeen theprimaryvariablebehindtheamazingin-creasesinpopulationpotentialoverthiscentury,andthefoundationuponwhichthecontinuedincreaseof thatpotential

intotheunboundeduniversenowrests.

Today, increasing world foodproduction is essential to preventthe looming mass starvation anddeath,andthisabsolutelyrequiresradiation-based technologies. TheLaRouchemovementhascalledfordoubling world food production,alongwithanewfinancialarchitec-ture (including a return to Glass-Steagall)thatisnecessarytomakethis happen. We can succeed increatingthenecessaryhigherplat-formsofhumanpotentialonlyontheconditionthattheembraceandexpanse of radiation-based tech-nologiesoccurgloballyandswiftly.

Inthisspirit,wespokewithmanyconferenceparticipants, andherewepresentexcerptsfromsomeofthesediscussions,alongwiththreelongerinterviews.

ToDoubleWorldFoodProductionProliferateRadiationTechnologies!byMatthewEhret-Kump

NUCLEAR REPORT

NUCLEARREPORT

Ruth Brinston/IMRP

AtechnicalpresentationattheIMRPconference.

INTERNATIONALMEETINGONRADIATIONPROCESSING


Dr. Young-Jin Kim isVice President of theKoreaAtomicEnergyRe-searchInstitute(KAERI)and Director Generalof Advanced RadiationTechnologyInstitute,Re-publicofKorea.Thein-terview took place onJune14,2011attheIn-ternational Meeting onRadiationProcessing inMontreal, Canada. Kimwasinterviewedby21stCentury correspondent Matthew Ehret-Kump.

***21st Century:Youmentionedthevery

interesting industrial-science complexthatwillbeconstructedinSouthKoreanearyour facilities.Whatdoes theKo-reanAtomic Energy Research Institutehopetoaccomplishwiththisplan,bothforSouthKoreaandtheworldatlarge?

Kim:TheKoreaAtomicResearchInsti-tute is the sole instituteconcernedwiththeresearchanddevelopmentofnuclear

technology.Itislocatedin Daejeon, where thescience park was al-ready formed some 30years ago, when ourgovernmentdecided toinstalltheAdvancedRa-diation Technology In-stituteinJeongeupcity.Thisisaroundone-and-a-halfhoursdrivingdis-tancesouthoftheDae-jeonheadquarters....

Abouttwoyearsago,itwasdecidedthatJeongeupcity,whichis1,000yearsold,wouldbethelocationofanindustrialcomplex,andnowtheyare preparing the land, so that compa-nieswillbuildtheirfactorieshere.

About10years ago,our governmentmade a plan to improve the regionaleconomy and make it grow in tandemwith the central capital in Seoul, theSeoulmetropolitanarea.Seouliswheremostofthemoney,mostofthejobsandthecompaniesarelocated.Soourgrowthpatternisquitebiased.

In the countryside, agricul-ture is the most important in-dustry.Doyouknowhowdiffi-cultitistogainanyeconomicbenefit by growing rice, corn,orvegetables?Sothisistheareawhere we were located fiveyears ago. This institute wascreatedfiveyearsago,aftertheprevious five years had beenused to make special laws aswellastheplanning;finallythisinstitute was founded andopenedin2006.

Wedoalotofresearchanddevelopmentintheareaofin-dustrialmaterialsaswellasen-vironmental technologies. Oureffortsarealsoonthebiotech-nologies using irradiation. Wehaveonedepartmentwherewecanuseradiationtomakemu-tations,sothatwecandevelopnewplantsandnewflowers.

21st Century:Yousaidthattherearealready similar industrial sciencecom-plexesthroughoutSouthKorea,butthatthisoneisunique.How?

Kim: It isuniquebecause thisone isbasedonradiation.Theother industrialcomplexes are mostly electronics, carmanufacturers, steel manufacturers, in-formation technologies. Those are justsome examples, but this is unique be-cause the radiation technologies arebasedonmanydifferentkindsofradia-tion instruments, such as the cyclotronemissions,gammarays,electronbeams.These beams are used to produce newtypesofmaterial,ornewradioisotopes,andnewmaterials.

For example, for artificial hip-joints,wehavenewpolymersthatcanbemadeharder and have a greater longevity.Thesearemadeusinggammarays.Alsohydro-gelsforburn-wounddressings.Wealsomakespacefood.Wesentourfirstastronautusing theRussian rocket,andshecarried this irradiated foodup,andtheyhadapartyinspace.Soourresearchareasarequitediverse.

KAERI

NUCLEARREPORT

INTERVIEW:DR.YOUNG-JINKIM

UniqueNuclearCenterIsaBackboneforIndustrialGrowth

KAERI

Dr.Young-JinKim

Illustrationoftheindustrialsci-ence complex for radiation-basedtechnologies,beingcon-structed near the AdvancedRadiationTechnologyInstitute.


21st Century:Youmentionedthatthisresearch facility is working to attractvariouscreativemindsfromacrossEur-asia, to collaborate together to shareideasanddiscoveries.

Kim: Yes, that is our goal. But rightnow,wewillbedesignatedasanIAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency)trainingcenter,andregionaltrainingcen-ter for the Regional Cooperation AreathatcoversSouthEastAsia.Thismeanswewillbetrainingandeducatingthesci-entists from Southeast Asian countrieslikeIndia,Pakistan,Indonesia,Malaysia,Thailand,Vietnam,and some inChina,Ukraine,andMongolia.

Thosescientists fromabout20coun-triescomeovertoourinstitutetogetoneto two weeks in training courses, andthentheyreturntotheirhomecountries.TheprogramisdeterminedbytheIAEA.Theydecidedwhichprogramswouldbeplannedforthisyear,thentheyinformedussothatwecouldprepare.Theydecid-edthelecturers.Wearealsopartofthelecturersforthisprogram.Therestoftheworkwillbedonebyus.

Weareauniqueinstituteforradiationtechnology in Korea.We were able tosuccessfully develop about 30 goodproducts,andwewereabletogivethemtosmallandmediumcompaniessothattheycangrowwithourtechnology.Fromnowon,wewillgiveourtechnologicaloutputtothecompanieslocatedhereintheindustrialcenter.

21st Century:Sothereisanimmedi-atetechnologysharingthatwilloccurinsuchanenvironment.

Kim:Yes,sowearethebackboneforthegrowthoftheindustrialcomplex.

21st Century: It would seem that itwould affect agriculture aswell, sinceyouareinaveryruralenvironment.

Kim:That isright,but theagricultureportionisverysmall.

21st Century:Willyoubeinvolvedingeneticmodification?

Kim:No,ourworkisnotgeneticmodi-fication,itisactuallymutation.Thisisnotthesamething.Mutationisanaturalphe-nomenonthatoccursinnature.Take,forexample,certainflowers.Innature,whenmutationoccursthecolorschange.Oncethishappens,wetakethesenewspecies,sothatwecanfurtherdevelopthem.

Nowconsistency isavery important

NUCLEARREPORT

KAERI

MatthewEhret-KumpinterviewingDr.Young-JinKimatKAERI’sexhibitboothattheInternationalMeetingofIrradiationProcessing.

factor,becausewewillneedtoproducetheexactsamecolorofflower,andthisprocesscanbeacceleratedbyirradiatingthespeciesofflowers,orgrains,orsomeotherthing.Sothisisanartificiallydrivenmutation.1

21st Century:It’slikemakingnature’snaturalevolutionoccurfaster.

Kim:That’sright!Exactly.Thisisoneoftheexamples:[pointingtoflowersinex-hibitbooth]This isournationalflower,

1. S.Y. Kang, D.S. Kim, and G.J. Lee, “Genetic Im-provement of Crop Plants by Mutation Techniques in Korea,” , Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 7-15, December 2007. http://mvgs.iaea.org/pdf/PMR2007120103.pdf

KAERI

TheAdvancedRadiationTechnologyInstituteinJeongeup,whereDr.Kimisthedirectorgeneral.TheInstitutewillbedesignatedasanIAEAregionaltrainingcenterforSouthEastAsia.


the Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus).Wehavedevelopedaverysmallone,sothatwecankeepit.Thisisanewbreed.

21st Century:Isthisutilizingthegam-maraytechnology?

Kim:That’sright.Alowlevelofgammarays.Becauseifyouuseahighlevel,theseeds will die. Right now we use onlygammarays,butwewilleventuallyalsouseelectronbeams.

21st Century:Canyoumentionsomeexamplesofhowthistechnologyinagri-

culture benefits a na-tion?

Kim:Well,Koreasome-times suffers from typhoons and hurri-canes.When there are heavy rains andheavywinds,theproblemisthatthericeprobablycannotwithstandthem,andthestalkscollapse.Thecropproductionwilldecreasequitesignificantly.Butwiththegamma-ray induced mutations, we cancreatespeciesofcropsthatcanwithstandheavywindsandrains.Thisisonearea.

Anotheris thatyouwanttoproducefoodwhichhasbettertasteandismorenutritious. In this way, this technologycanbeusedveryeffectively.

21st Century:TheLaRouchepoliticalmovementhaspromot-edthepolicyofdoublingworldfoodproductionverysoon.Andwithanincreasingworldpopu-lation this is verynecessary. Itseemslikeyourprogramwillbe

very necessary as amodelforothernationsto follow if we are tomeetthischallenge.

Kim: Yes. That’sright. There are threewaysofbreedingnewtypes of species. Thefirstistheconvention-al way called cross-breeding.The secondis the radiation-in-duced mutation, and

thethirdisgeneticmodification.Thesedays, theAmericans,especially

Cargill,whichisthemostpowerfulindus-try,createstheseGMPs(geneticallymodi-fiedproducts).Todayabout50percentoftheworld’sbeansaregeneticallymodifiedorganisms,GMO.ButEuropeansstronglyobjecttoit.TheydonotwanttogetGMOcrops imported to their countries. Ourgovernmenthasthesamestance,butmostoftheimportedbeansareGMO.

Now ... the radiation-induced muta-tionsareverysafe,becausethisisjusttheacceleration of naturally occurring phe-nomena.Sowearepushingourgovern-ment to increaseourcapabilityofusingthistechnology.Overtheyears,wedidnothaveaplantosecureandprotectourowncrops.Significantamountsofournationalcropsarealreadygone—stolenbythein-dustrializedcountries.Thisisthecaseformostoftheunderdevelopedcountries.

21st Century: I know that there has

NUCLEARREPORT

KAERI

KAERI’sgammairradiatorand(inset)thecobaltsource.

KAERI

Thegammaphytotron,wheregammaraytechnol-ogyisusedtocreateartificialmutationsinplants,such as new flower colors of more nutritiouscrops.

KAERI

Researcherscheckingongammatreatedplants.


beenacallinternationallyinrecentmonthstoputacaponfoodprices,whichareartifi-cially rising due to specula-tionandbiofuels.Andtodosoasacollaborativeeffortofnational governments whichactnowtoprotecttheirpop-ulations from the collapsingspeculative financial system.This sounds like somethingthatwouldbeverynecessaryforSouthKoreatoparticipatein,withChina,Russia,India,and various other nations,liketheUnitedStates.

Kim: Yes, that’s right. Butthe real problem is that thebig companies have alreadysecured thedifferent cropsof somanytypes from the underdeveloped coun-tries. We were a very poor countryabout40-50yearsago,sothat’swhywedidn’t knowhow toprotectourselves,becausetherewasnopersonwhowasconcerned about this, or thought thatthiswasveryimportant.Nowadays,ourgovernmenthasrealizedthatthisisveryimportant, andweneed toprotectourowncrops.

21st Century:Absolutely.Foodsover-eigntyistherightofeverynation.

Kim:Yes,thatisthecase.Sothisisonearea,andabiologicalresourcetoo.

21st Century:Andnuclearenergyaswell.

Kim:Yes.You know Korearanks sixth in the world intermsofnuclearenergy.Thir-ty-fivepercentofourelectric-ity comes from nuclear, andnow our government hasplannedtoincreasethatto45percent.

21st Century:EvenwithallofthefearandhysteriabeingcreatedaroundFukushima?

Kim: Oh yes. That’s right.Our energy dependency isaround97percent.Weimportoil, coal, and everything, soweonlyhavea3percentcon-trol of our own energy. Wealsoproducearound30per-centofourownfood,and70percentisimported.

Nuclearenergy isconcentratedener-gy,meaningyoudon’tneedmuchland.So nuclear energy for Korea is not achoice. It is one of the most importantstrategiesforsurvival.Otherwisewehavenochoices.Thatiswhyourgovernmentispushingveryhardthesedays.BecauseoftheFukushimaaccident,theanti-nu-clearactivistsandenvironmentalgroupsstronglyopposeit.

21st Century:Well,they’rebeingfedwithalotoffearfulpropagandathathasnoconnectionwithscience.

Kim:Youareright.Buttheproblemisthat public acceptance is most impor-tant,andthepublicdoesn’tbelievesci-entiststhesedays,allovertheworld.

NUCLEARREPORT

21st Century:Doyouthinkyour government has beendoingagoodjobateducatingthe population of South Ko-reaonthenecessityofnucle-arenergy?

Kim:Wedo....

21st Century:Because thegovernmentshavecomplete-lyfailedinEurope.

Kim:Ourgovernmentspon-sors nuclear public relationsinstitutes,andtheseorganiza-tions continue educating thepublic, starting with the pri-mary schools. So this is thecurrent situation, but still,somepeoplearenot familiar

with the science and engineering, andtheytendtolistentotheanti-nuclearac-tivistsbecausetheyalwaysuseverysen-sationalissues,eventhoughtheyarenottrue.Theysaythatbecauseofthenuclearplants nearby, that the baby cattle arebornwithnobrains.That’spropaganda.

21st Century: Ifanyoneisbornwithnobrains,it’sthosepushingthispropa-ganda.

Kim:That’s right!But this is thecase.Anditisalsothecasethatwehaveaverydifficulttimetopreparethespentfuel,tostoreit,andthisiscurrentlythebigissue.

21stCentury:Doyouhaveanypolicytoreprocessthespentfuel?Isthatana-tionalintention?

KAERI

TheseedstorageroomattheAdvancedRadiationTechnologyInstitute,wherenewseedsarebankedforresearch.TheInstituteispushingtheKoreangovernmenttoincreasetheuseofradia-tion-inducedmutation.

KAERI

Newricecultivarsbredbyradiationtowithstandheavywindsandrains.

Kim:Wenowhaveonebigprogram, which is the sodi-um-cooled fast reactor.2 Thefastreactorisfueledbyrepro-cessed fuel. For this we aredeveloping pyroprocessing.3

2. A National Historic Engineering Landmark: Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, June 15, 1979, is an informative pamphlet trac-ing the historical process which led to the construction of the first nuclear re-actor capable of producing more fuel than it consumes.

3. Kee-Chan Song, Hansoo Lee, Jin-Mok Hur, Jeong-Guk Kim, Do-Hee Ahn and Yung-Zun Cho, “Status of Pyroprocessing Technology Develop-ment in Korea,” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol. �2, No. 2 (April 2010).

http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/communities/history/landmarks/5543.pdf

http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/communities/history/landmarks/5543.pdf


This technology was also developed attheArgonneNationalLaboratory in theUnitedStates,30-40yearsago.

At yesterday’s keynote speech at theconference,oneoftheprofessorstalkedaboutpyroprocessing.Thefirstpowerre-actorofthistypewasEBR-1,theExperi-mentalBreederReactor,firstdemonstrat-edattheIdahoNationalLaboratoriesin1951.

Thiswasthefirstfastneutronreactorthat produced power, electricity. AfterthattheybuiltEBR-2,whichhadaround100 megawatts electric power. EBR-2used a metal-type fuel and a sodiumcoolant.TheEBR-2 researcherswantedtodemonstratetothepublicworldwide

that they had successfully de-velopedthesodium-cooledfastreactor. They also wanted todemonstrate that, even in themostseriousaccidents,theEBR-2 could be safely shut downwithoutanysignificantradioac-tivity release to the environ-ment.

Asthespeakerexplainedyes-terday,oneofthemoreseriousaccidentsisthelossofcoolant.So, in testing the EBR-2, theystoppedtheprimarypump,andthey showed that the tempera-ture goes up slightly and thencomesdownveryquickly, andthenthereactorstaysinastablecondition.

The other serious accidentwhichtheEBR-2isabletohan-dleisthefailureofthesecond-ary heat exchanger, so that the reactorheat inside cannot dissipate beyond alimittotheoutside.

21st Century:Soitslikeamelt-down-proofsystem.

Kim: Just like that.Theproblemwiththe Fukushima accident in Japan, wasthattheylostthecoolingcapability.Withthe EBR-2, they deliberately created aloss of power in the coolant primarypump,andthendemonstratedthatevenwiththereactorinthiscondition,itcanbeshutdownwithoutanyproblemsverysafely.

But togetback toyour21stCenturyabout reprocessing: theproblem is that

theKoreangovernmentisnotallowedtoreprocess.

21st Century:Whynot?Kim:Becausethat’sthepolicyofthe

United States. Even though we havedevelopedthispyroprocessingfurther,we recently had an agreement. TheUnited States does not think that thispyroprocessing-reprocessing technol-ogy is “proliferation resistant.” TheUnitedStatesandotherindustrializedcountriesareworriedabout theprolif-erationofnucleartechnologiesbecauseof the nuclear bomb, that a countrycouldmakeanatomicbomb,likeNorthKorea.

NUCLEARREPORT

Korearankssixthintheworldfornuclearenergy, with 35 percent of the nation’selectricitycoming fromnuclear.ShownareKorea’snuclearplantsites.

INL

Korea’ssodium-cooledfastreactor,nowunderde-velopment,isbasedontheexperienceintheUnit-ed States with the EBR-II fast neutron reactor,which operated for 30 years and demonstratedthatthistypeofreactorcanbesafelyshutdownintheeventofaseriousaccident.Here,partofthenewEBR-IIdisplayatIdaho’sExperimentalBreed-erReactor-IAtomicMuseum.

CanadianNuclearAssociationTheWolsongNuclearPlant,oneofthefourCANDU-typereactorsoperatinginKorea.TheCANDUreactorusesnaturaluraniumasfuel.


That’swhytheykeepusfromactually handling the spentfuel. So we have changed itfrom reprocessing, to the re-useofspentfuel.Yesterday,thespeaker mentioned that theCANDUreactorproducesalotof spent fuel (four timesmorethanthePWR,PressurizedWa-terReactors)becausetheCAN-DU doesn’t use any enrich-ment; it uses only naturaluraniumasthefuel.

21st Century:It’sironicthathereinCanadawherewehavethis capability, we have notproduced a reactor since the1980s.

Kim: I know! We actuallyhavefourCANDUreactorsop-eratinginKorea.

21st Century:Well, it seemsCanadahasalottolearnfromSouthKorea’sex-perience,andothernationsdotoo.

Kim:Yes,that’swhywehave21nucle-arpowerplantsinoperation.Ofthat,4areCANDUS,and17arePWRsofdiffer-ent companies.The first 4 PWRs wereconstructedbyWestinghouse.WeevenhadFrenchPresidentMitterrandvisitourcountry tosellus theirPWRs.Thedealwasthatweweretobuytheirpowerre-actors, and they would return our oldcultural records, which were stolen bytheFrench.

21st Century: Really!? The Frenchstoletheseancientbooks?

Kim:Yes.Inthelate19thCentury,theFrenchnavyactuallyinvadedKorea.

21st Century:Ididn’tknowthat.AndtheytooktheseculturalheritagepiecestoFrance?Andso,inagreeingtoatech-nologytransfer,theyalsoagreedtore-turnthebooks?

Kim:But,itdidnothappen.Mitterranddidnotkeephispromise.Nowearlythisyear, France allowed the return—onlease!

21st Century:You’resofortunate!Youget to borrow your own cultural heri-tage books.... Well, Mitterrand had ahistoryofbeingaskunk.

Theworldhasalottolearnfromtheexperience of South Korea right now,

andwehopethatgreatercollaborationoccurs.

Kim:Ihopesotoo.BecausetheKore-ansarespecialinthesensethatthepar-ents are always eager to educate theirchildren,andeducationisthefirstprior-ity.Always.Parentswillselleverythingtokeeptheirchildreninschool.TheyevensendtheirchildrentotheindustrializedcountriesliketheUnitedStates,orJapanorEurope,andthisisoneofthestrongestaspectsoftheKoreaneconomy.

We emphasize education and thatmeanswebuildahigherlevelofhumanresources.Ithinkthatthisisthemainrea-sonthatKoreawasabletodevelopveryquickly.

21st Century:Well, the children arethefuture.

Kim:Anotherthing,isthatwekepttheConfuciantradition.

21st Century:You didn’t go toTao-ism?

Kim:No.That’swhywehaveagreatdealofrespectforourparents,goodfam-ily unions, and relations, internationalcooperation.

WehadacollaborationwithAECL(theAtomic Energy of Canada Limited) tobuildamultiplepurposeresearchreac-tor,theHanaro,with30megawattsther-malpower,aworld-classresearchreac-tor.Thiswasinthemiddleofthe1980s.IcameheretoMontrealtwotimes.

Atthattimewedidn’thaveanyofthe

infrastructure for basic sci-ence.Thiswasourfirst highflux research reactor,andwesuccessfully developed andconstructedthe30-MWHan-aro. Hanaro means unity inKorean, or uniqueness, be-causethisHanaroistheonlyoneinoperationanywhereintheworld.

Even though the fuel bun-dles were originally devel-opedbyAECL,allotherworkwasdonebyourselves!Now,at that time, Nordion had aplantobuildtwo10-MWMa-plereactors....TheCanadianfirmNordionisoneofthebigguys in radioisotope produc-tionandexport.

The reasonwedecided tocollaboratewithAECLonthat

project is because in the early 1980s,Nordion askedAECL to build radioiso-tope-onlyreactors,reactorsthatarededi-catedtoproducingradioisotopes.SowechoseAECLbecausetheirplanwastwoyears ahead of us.That means, if theymadeamistake,wecouldlearnitrightaway,andthatwouldbeaverysafewaytodevelopourownreactors.

Now,theproblemwasthattheirplantwasdelayedanddelayed.So,wehavenoreference.

21st Century:Thatmadeyouthepio-neersallofasudden.

Kim:Yes.Webecamethepioneers,andthecontracthasbeenchanged.TheinitialcontractreadthatallresponsibilityforthedevelopmentwasonAECL,butjustthreeyearslatereverythinghadchanged.Thatmeanswearenowonourown,andAECLis only supplying some major compo-nents and collaborating in some areas,butisnotthemaincontractor.

Wetookaround10yearstocompletethis project successfully. Hanaro wascompleted in 2005, 10 years from itsstart. However, because this was ourfirst research reactor, our regulatorybodydidnotallowustooperateitatfullpower.Soourplaninitiallywasthatwewould operate the plant at 10 mega-watts,andthenbyshowingourexperi-mental data to our regulatory bodies,thatwewouldbeabletoincreaseitan-other5megawatts. It tookalmostnineyearstocometothefinalstage.

NUCLEARREPORT

AECL/CANDU

KoreannuclearoperatorstrainedonthisCANDUsimulatorinCanada.


21st Century:What’sthefullpo-tential?

Kim:Fullpotential is30mega-watts.Butnowthereactorisnotatfullpotential,butratheratwhatiscalleddesignpower.Designpow-ermeansthatwecanincreasethepowerbeyondthe30-MWlimit.Ifwecanproveexperimentally thatwe can operate the reactor at 35MW,thenwecanincreaseit.

Designpowernowis30mega-watts.Wecanrunthisat30mega-wattsfor24hoursperdayforuptothreeweeks,with10daysformain-tenance and refueling. So all to-gether, we operate for about 230days per year, continuously 24hours,andthisisquiteanachieve-ment.Now,initially,afterwecon-structed the reactor, there was noexperimental facility whatsoever!Nothing.Sothenin2005,ourgov-ernment decided to give us themoney to build the necessary in-struments,meaningittookanother10yearstoinstallalltheequipmentforbasicscienceandindustrialap-plication.Iwastheonewhomadeaplantobuildwhatyoucall thecoldneutronsystem....

Cold neutron means that the wave-lengthsarealmostnanoscale in size.Aneutronbehavesboth likeaparticleaswellasawave.Coldneutronscanbeap-plied to characterize nanomaterials aswellasbiomaterials.Forexampleifyouhavetotransferamedicinethroughthemembrane.

Theadvantageof thecoldneutron isthatitsenergyisverylow.Theenergyiscomparabletotheexcitationoftheatom.Thiswaywecaninvestigatethecharac-teristicsofthedynamicpropertiesofthematerials.Thecoldneutronresearchfa-cilitiesareavailableonlyinsomecoun-tries, suchas France,whereCadarachehasthemostpowerfulresearchreactor;andGermanyaswell,locatedinMunich.Japan has it. The National Institute forStandards andTechnology has it in theUSA, andalso theOakRidgeNationalLaboratory.And those are the only na-tionsthathaveit.

21st Century:Wehavebeenadvocat-ingformanyyears,thatamuchbettermetricforeconomicvalueisnotdeter-minedbymarkets,butratherbyisotope

production.We’veproducedvariouspa-persaroundtheideaofanisotopeecon-omy.Thatthebestwaytomeasurethehealthandwealthofanationisbyitsca-pacitytoproducethegreatestdensityofisotopesandbringthemintouseinhu-mansociety.

Kim:MaybeyoucantalktotheNor-dionpeople,becausetheAECLgaveup.They successfully constructed two 10-MW Maple research reactors, but theycouldn’t get a license from thegovern-mentregulatorybody,becauseofsomesafetyproblems.Theytriedtosolveitforfiveorsixyears,andthentheygaveup.Theyannouncedthattheywouldn’tcon-tinue this process, and are now underlawsuitfromNordion.

21st Century:Well,lookatthemessoftheChalkRiverisotopeproductionreac-tor,andthatwasa1950stechnology.

Kim:ThatistheNRU,theNationalRe-searchUniversalreactor.Itgavethemaproblembecauseitwastooold.Theop-erationwasnotstable,anditwassome-timesoutofservice.

Therewasanotherisotopeproductionreactor located in Petten, the Nether-lands,whichwasalso50yearsold.Ithadaproblemintheprimarycircuit,andso

theyhadtoshutdownthatreactorforal-mosttwoyears.

Thatmeantthatthesupplyoftechne-tium-99mwas veryunstable.4And thatlackofmedicalisotopesiswhywehadtroublesinthemedicalsectorinthediag-nosisofcancers.ThatiswhytheOECDcalled all of itsmember countries, andhad a discussion on resolving these is-suesabout threeyearsago.At theend,theOECDgaveeachcountrythedutytoproduce a certain amount by 2016,whichisfiveyearsfromnow.

Wehadourquota.Soourgovernmentdecidedtobuildanewresearchreactormainly to produce radioisotopes. Thegovernmentapprovedtheplanthisyear,andwecanstarttheconstructionofthisnewresearchreactorasofnextyear.

21st Century:I’msurethatthecollab-oration between the western nations,andeasternnationsaroundthesegreatendeavorswill only improveaspeoplecomebacktoreality.Sothankyouverymuchforgivingmeyourtime.

�. For more on this, see the interview with Dr. Guy Turquet de Beauregard, “We Need to Expand Med-ical Isotope Production!” in 21st Century, Winter 2009-2010, pp. �6-50.

NUCLEARREPORT

KAERI

The30-megawattHanaroresearchreactor,usedforproducingradioisotopes,wasdevel-opedwithCanada’sAECL,andcompletedin2005.BecauseCanadadiscontinueditstwosimilarMaplereactors,KAERIispioneeringthisnewdesign.Hanaronowhastheinstrumen-tationforuseofcoldneutrons.Constructionforasecondresearchreactorforisotopepro-ductionwillbeginnextyear.similarreactors.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_2009/Beauregard_Interview.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_2009/Beauregard_Interview.pdf


Dr. Arun Sharma is the head of thefoodtechnologydivisionoftheBhabhaAtomicResearchCenterofIndia.Hehasmore than300publications innationalandinternational journals,andin2006,hereceivedtheIndianNuclearSociety’saward for outstanding achievements inthefieldofradiationandradioisotopeap-plications.This interviewwithMatthewEhret-Kump took place at the Interna-tional Meeting on Radiation ProcessinginMontreal,June14.

***21st Century: Can you describe for

our readers what food irradiation is,how it is different fromchemical foodtreatments, and why it is so necessaryfornationstoattainfoodsecurity?

Sharma:Foodirradiationisaphysicalprocess.The U.S. Food and Drug Ad-ministration treats it as an “additive”process,butitisactuallyaphysicalpro-cessbywhichthecontrolleddosesofra-diation are applied to commodities.Commoditiesareexposedtocontrolleddoses of radiation to achieve certainobjectives, such as food safety, foodsecurity, or to overcome quarantinebarriers.

Ionizing radiations achieve theseob-jectivesbyinactivatingDNA,thegeneticmaterial, of microorganisms or insectsthat contaminate food, or, at very lowdoses,bypreventingordelayingphysio-logicalprocessessuchassprouting,rip-ening,andsenescenceoffreshfruitsandvegetables.

Ionizing radiationsused forprocess-ingfoodincludegammaradiationfromradioisotopessuchascobalt-60,orelec-tronsgeneratedthroughmachinesourc-escalledelectronaccelerators,orX-rays.When electrons fall on certain targetssuch as tantalum or tungsten, they getconverted into X-rays. So, one can usegamma rays from radioisotopes, and/orelectronbeamsorX-raysfrommachinesources.

When you say chemicals these aremainlyfumigants.Fumigantslikemethyl

bromide, and ethylene dibromide areused forkilling insects in storedgrains,cereals,and theirproducts,or in fruits,bothfreshanddry.Ethyleneoxide(ETO)isusedfordestroyingmicroorganismsinfoodstuffs.

There are problems with chemicalmethods. The biggest problem is thatthey are not environmentally friendly.Since they are halogenated (chlorine-andbromine-containing)hydrocarbons,theyreactwithozone.Also,theyleaveresiduesonfoodmaterialswhichcouldbe carcinogenic or harmful to humanhealth.Therefore, governments aroundthe world have plans to phase themoutby2015undertheMontrealProto-col, and irradiation is a good alterna-tive.

Moreover, irradiation is a cold treat-ment. It is also called cold pasteuriza-tion.

21st Century:Whatdoesthatmean?Sharma: That means that it doesn’t

raisethetemperatureofthecommoditybeingprocessedby it.Thecommodityretains its fresh, or as it is, character.Unlike heating, it doesn’t change the

textureorflavoroffood,whereas,ther-maltreatments,asyouknow,changeitcompletely.

Chemical treatments also sometimeschange some of the characteristics offood like color, besides being harmful.So,irradiationisaveryfriendlytreatmentforagriculturalcommodities.

21st Century: Can all food productsbeirradiated,oronlysome?

Sharma:Inprinciple,youcanprocessmostfoodsbyirradiation,bymanipulat-ingtheconditionsofirradiation.Ingen-eral, to achieve objectives mentionedabove,thefoodisexposedtodoseslessthan10kGy(1grayis1jouleofenergyabsorbed in 1 kilogram of food), thatcan be applied under ambient condi-tions.

Tosterilizecertaincategoriesof foodlikemeatproducts,andmakethemam-

INTERVIEW:DR.ARUNSHARMA

ProducersandConsumersBenefitFromFoodIrradiationTechnology

Nordion

Aninteractiveillustrationofagammarayirradiator(usingcobaltasasource).Theproductmovesonaconveyorbeltpasttheirradiationsource,whereitreceivesapre-programmedandtimedexposure.

NUCLEARREPORT


bient stable (for example, astronautmeals), doses of radiationmuchhigherthan10kGyareused,andtheprocessiscarriedoutatverylowtemperatures,toeliminateunwantedchangesinfoodfla-vorwhileachievingthedesiredobjectiveoftotalsterility.

Thisisonetechnologythatallowsyoutoprocessmostofthefoodcommodities;butcertainfoodcommoditiesaretreatedinabetterwaywithotherprocesses.Oneexample that can be given is milk andmilkproducts.Irradiationisnormallynotusedhere,becausewealreadyhavether-mal technologiesworkingverywell formilkandmilkproducts.Andalso,someoftheseproductsmaybeverysensitivetoradiation-inducedoxidativechangesaf-fectingflavors.

Irradiationcanbeaveryeffectivewayof ensuring food safety and security, incommoditieslikespices,grains,cereals,dryfruitsandvegetables,andfreshpro-duce.

21st Century:Foodspoilageisagreatproblemintheworldrightnow.Wehave

twophysicalproblemswhicharecom-pounded. On the one hand, we havebeenloweringpercapitaproductionofagriculture in recent years, but at the

sametime,muchofwhatwehavepro-ducedhasgone tospoilage. Ifa large-scale irradiationprogramwereappliedmoreseriouslybynationalgovernments,how much food could be saved fromfood spoilage globally, more generally,andIndiamorespecifically?

Sharma:Foodspoilageisamajorprob-lemindevelopingcountries,mainlybe-causethemeanstostorefoodinaproperway—like cold storage facilities, silos,appropriateoradequatepackaging—arenotavailable.Sometimes,evenroofedorindoorstorageisnotavailable,andoftenthegrainsinjutebagsarestackedinopenfieldswithatarpaulincover.Thisresultsinalotofspoilage.

It is well documented that spoilagecanbeashighas50percentinsomeofthefreshproducelikefruitsandvegeta-bles,andashighas25-30percentince-realsandgrains.And,lookingatthecostofthesecommoditiesintoday’smarket,andcalculatingforthevolumesattoday’sprices, the figures could be mind-bog-gling—runningintobillionsofdollarsinlosses.

Itisworthpreventingthespoilage,andusingittoupliftthesegmentofpopula-tion forwhich food isnotquite afford-able,andthoselivingbelowthepovertyline.So,thereisalottobegainedbytheuseofappropriatetechnologieslikeirra-diation toprevent spoilageandmakingfood available to the underprivilegedsectionofoursociety.

University of California at Davis

Illustrationofanelectronbeamirradiatorplant.Theproductmovesonaconveyorbeltandpassesunderamachine(inset)thatgeneratesandaccelerateselectrons,bendingthemtoscantheproduct.

BARC

TheBhabhaAtomicResearchCenterismultidisciplinaryandpursuesthefullrangeofnuclearscienceandengineeringtechnologies.BARCwasfoundedbythegreatIndianscientistDr.HomiBhabhain1944,justaftertheannouncementofthediscoveryoffission.Fouryearslater,IndiasetupitsAtomicEnergyCommission.Aresearchreactorbeganoperationin1956.

NUCLEARREPORT


21st Century:Inyourconferencepre-sentation you mentioned that eventhoughIndiawasthelargestproducerofspicesintheworld,onlyamere2,000

tons were irradiated. Could you saysomethingmoreaboutthat?

Sharma: Well, you see this irony inspice irradiation. The fact is that ulti-

mately, irradiation, like anyother tech-nology,isneedbased.InIndia,asinstitu-tionalcookingisrathersmall,andthereareonlyafewlargefoodservicecompa-nies,mostofourspiceconsumptionisatthehouseholdlevel.Thetraditionalcook-ingmethodswherespicesareuseddur-ingcookingandtemperingtakecareofmostoftheresidentspicemicroflora,andnomajorsafetyissuesareencountered.

Butwhenthesespicesaretobeexport-edtobeusedininstitutionalcooking,oruseddirectlytospiceorgarnishcookedfood, the foodsafety issuesassumeim-portance. Microorganisms and patho-gens inspicescan livehappilyorevenoutgrow in cooked food,posinghealthriskstoconsumers.Therefore,thereisaneed for spices to be free of microbesand to decontaminate them by a coldtreatmentlikeirradiation.

InIndia,irradiationcouldbeusedforanother purpose, that is for preventingstoragelossesinspicesorretainingtheirquality.Therearespoilagelossesinspic-estoo.Manytimesthespicesgetinfestedwithinsectsthatboreintothemandre-duce their quality. Sometimes, duringstorage,spicesalsogetinfectedwithtox-in-producingfungi,andmaygetcontam-inatedwithcarcinogenicmycotoxinslikeaflatoxin, and these spices would notpass the testofquality forhumancon-sumption.

Therefore, I think there is a need forapplyingthistechnologyinIndiatooforimprovingstorageofspices,andnotas

IRRI

Foodirradiationcanmakeabigdifferenceindevelopingcountries,whereproperstorageisnotavailable,andfoodspoilagecanbeashighas50percent.Here,grainstoredintheopeninjutebags.

Exportedspicesareirradiatedabroad,butIndiawouldalsobenefitfromspiceirradiationdomestically,Sharmasays,topreventlossinstoragetoinsects,fun-gi,andothercontaminants.Here,spicesinMapusaMarket,Goa,India.

Irradiationhelpspreservecommoditiesliketheseinstorage,whichmeansmorefoodavailable forhumanconsumption.At left,nonirradiatedcomparedwith irradiated(right).

NUCLEARREPORT


muchasafoodsafetymeasureasisdoneintherestoftheworld.Therefore,spicesexportedfromIndiaaremostlyirradiatedabroadratherthanathome.Soitispure-lydrivenbytheperceivedneed.

21st Century: Many people have ar-guedagainsttheideaofhavingamassirradiationprogrambecausetheprocesshasatendencytoraisethepriceofthefood,sinceitisstillatastagewhereitisveryexpensive.Whatwouldyousayinresponsetothiscritique?

Sharma:Seeagain,theincreaseinthecostoffoodbythisprocessisrelative,inthesensethatifyouhavelargethrough-puts—that is, ifyouhaveeconomiesofscale—thentheprocessingcostsareveryinsignificant.Infact,wehaveworkedoutthesecosts,andmostofthetimetheycanbelessthan5percentofthecommoditycost. That is insignificant compared tothegainsyouhavewiththeapplicationofthetechnology.

Thosegainscanbeintermsofsavingthecommodity,orintermsofimprovingthequalityofthecommodity,orintermsofgainingmarketaccess.And,thosegainsaretremendouslylargecomparedtotheprocessing costs that you incur.And, ifyou use the facility at the designedthroughputlevel,youwillalwaysbenefit.

21st Century:Andeverytechnologyatitsearlieststagesisalwaysexpensive,butaswesawwiththeexpansionofnuclearenergyinthe1950sand1960s,throughgovernmentsofferingnationalinsentives

andpropermissionorientation,thepricewouldobviouslygodown.

Sharma:That’s right. As you use thetechnologymoreandmore,intheexam-ple you have cited of nuclear energy,whereover theyears, thecostsandthetime of installation of nuclear powerplantshavedrasticallycomedown.Asaresult, the cost of generating electricityfrom nuclear plants has also reduced.Thisultimatelybenefitstheconsumer.

Similarly,here,as foranyother tech-nology,when it improvesorusedonalarge scale, the cost definitely comes

downand additionally, its employmentpotential also increases. Those are thebenefits of using the technology on alargecommercialscale.

21st Century:Forallofthistohappenthough,atthispoint,whenyoulookatthe speculative monstrosity that theworldeconomyhas tended tobecomeoverthepastdecades,itwillbeveryim-portant for nations to clean things upandreturnbacktoasaneeconomicpro-gram,wheremoney isaservantof thepeople and not of speculative financeformiddlemenwhohavenointerestinthegeneralwelfare.

Sharma:Yes,youareveryright.Theac-tualbenefitsofthetechnologyshouldgototheprimarygrowers,theprimarypro-ducers,andtheconsumers.Themiddle-men? Of course they are a part of thestakeholderchain,buttheyshouldnotbethe major beneficiaries of this supplychain.Thatishoweveryonecanhaveawin-winsituation.

Basically,theprimarygrower,andtheconsumershouldbenefitlargelyfromthetechnology. Of course, the middlemenand tradershave their stakes.Wedon’tdenythemtheirroleanddue.Ithinkitisgood for the countries and the econo-mies if theprimaryproducersandcon-sumersbenefitfromthetechnology.

21st Century:That’sagoodlesson!

USDA

A2007pressconferenceinWashington,D.C.celebratingthefirstimportsofirradiatedIndianmangoes.TheUnitedStatesbansimportedtropicalfruitthatisnotdisinfested.

Government of India

Ademonstrationirradiationfacilityforspices,beganoperationatVashi,NaviMum-bai,inJanuary2000.

NUCLEARREPORT


PhilippeDethieristhemarketingman-agerofIBA,aBelgium-basedinternation-alcompanythatsuppliesionbeamaccel-eratorsandassociatedtechnologies.HewasinterviewedbyIlkoDimov.

***21st Century: Can you tell us what

yourcompanydoes?Dethier:IBAsuppliesparticleacceler-

atorsformultipleapplicationsincludingmedical device sterilization, polymercrosslinking,andfoodirradiation.

Whenitcometofoodtreatment,irra-diation technologies are clean alterna-tivestotraditionalfumiganttechnologiessuchasethylenedibromide(EDB),meth-ylbromide,ethylenedichloride,andhy-

drogenphosphide,whicharepesticidesbannedinmanycountriesforhealthandenvironmentalreasons.

Therearethreemainirradiationtech-nologiesforfood:electronbeam,X-ray,andgammaray(orcobalt-60).IBAisac-tiveinirradiationtechnologiesbasedone-beamorX-rayaccelerators,usingelec-tricityasthesourcepower.Whetheryouchooseoneortheothertechnologyde-pendsontheproductsyouareprocess-ing.

E-beam is very efficient but has lowpenetrationproperties,andissuitedforbulk processing of small-dimensionproducts.The main difference betweenX-rayande-beamisthatX-rayhashigh-

penetration.Suchhighpenetrationprop-ertiesallowtreatingproductsonpallets,whichistypicallywhatthefoodindustryrequires.

HereatIMRP2011,weareintroduc-inganewtechnology,highpoweredX-rays,abletotreatfoodonpallets,withatechnology that is fully powered withelectricity.

21st Century: So the sourceoftheX-raysisnotradioactive?

Dethier: Exactly. E-beamandX-raygeneratorsarepow-eredwithelectricity,soifyouswitch off the machine, youhavenomoreirradiationgen-erated.Andthat’swhywebe-lieve it is the future,notonlyfromasafetypointofview,butalso from an economic pointofview.If,forexample,afoodproducer wants to treat foodonlyduringpeakseason(let’ssay three or four months oftheyear),youcancomplete-lyswitchoffthemachinedur-ing the off-peak season andstopyourcostsrelatedtoelec-tricity.

Withirradiationtechnologiesbased on radioactive sources,such as gamma irradiation, ifyouclose the facility for threemonths,yourgammasourceisstill decaying (losing activity),whichrepresentsacostwithoutanyproductbeingtreated.

21st Century:Sothisisgood,becauseitresolvesmanyques-

INTERVIEW:PHILIPPEDETHIER

ParticleAcceleratorsHaveAdvantagesforIrradiation

IBA

Philippe Dethier: “E-beam and X-raysourcesarepoweredwithelectricity,soifyouswitchoffthemachine,youhavenomoreradioactivitygoingaround.”

IBA

IBA’sRhodotronTT1000,whichisnowoperatinginaSwissmedicaldevicesterilizationplant,hasmultiplebeamlineswhichallowtheenergytobetailoredtotheproduct,usingX-raysore-beams.

NUCLEARREPORT


tions regarding proliferation,terrorism, and all this crazystuff.

Dethier: Exactly. X-ray sys-temsdonotrequireradioactivesources.Electricity isavailableallovertheworld....

21st Century: Right nowthere is a foodpoisoningepi-demicinEurope,inparticularinGermany,wheremanypeo-plehavediedfromE coli.Howcan your machine treat thisproblem?

Dethier: Irradiationtechnol-ogiescanindeedhelpinsani-tizingfood.

Food irradiation is all aboutmanagingthedoseyouadmin-ister to your product. Productirradiation is never perfectlyhomogenous because of thenon-homogenous density ofthe product and the varying distancesfromtheproducttotheirradiationsource.Thekeyparameterstoconsideraremini-mum dose and maximum dose. Inacti-vatingaspecificpathogenwillrequireagivenminimumirradiationdose,whichdependson the resistanceof the targetpathogentoirradiation.

Ontheotherhand,authoritiesregulatethemaximumdosewhichcanbeadmin-istered.Toohighdosemayalsodeterio-rateproductswhichhavelowresistancetoirradiation.

So thewholegame is tofindagoodbalancebetween theminimumdose tokillthepathogen,andthemaximumdosewhich is allowed by authorities andwhichwillnotdamagetheproduct.

Forexample, let’ssay to inactivateaspecificpathogenIneed400gray,1andauthoritiesallowirradiationwithamaxdose of 800 gray.You now have yourmaximumandminimumdoseandcandecide which technology you want tousetotreatyourproduct.

ThebigadvantageX-raysofferistore-ducethemin/maxdosetotheminimum,comparedwithotherirradiationtechnol-ogies.

Otherirradiationtechnologies,suchas

* One gray is the absorption of one joule of energy, in the form of ionizing radiation, divided by one kilo-gram of matter.

gammairradiation,cannotgoaslowinthe min/max ratio—meaning that for agiven minimum dose (dictated by thepathogen resistance to irradiation), themaximum dose in the product will bemuch lower when using X-rays thanwhen using other irradiation technolo-gies.

21st Century:Isyourmachinealreadyinoperation?

Dethier: Many X-ray systems are inproduction around the world, but wehaveinstalledthefirsthigh-powerX-raygenerator recently in Switzerland.Thatsystemisnowinoperation,anditscon-figuration is optimized for medical de-vicesterilization—butthetechnologyisthesameasforfoodtreatment.

The technology is available and ma-ture,sinceitisbasedonwell-provenac-celerators;butweexpecttheindustrytorequire some time before being con-vincedbyitsefficiency.

21st Century:Canyousaysomethingmoreabouttheeconomiceffects?

Dethier:Ithinkitwouldmoreinterest-ingtoaskwhatistheexpectedcostpertonoftreatedproduct?Expensewillbe-comelessofabarrierasirradiatingfoodwillbecomecheaperthanthe70euros($101)to120euros($172)permetrictonitcostsnow.

CostsdependsofcourseonthevolumetheX-raytreatmentfacilityhandles.Thebiggerthefacility, the more economiesofscalesandthebetterpricescanbeachieved.

21st Century: One of theproblems we have right now,forexampleinAfrica,isthatupto50percentofthefoodtheyproduce gets destroyed bybirds,bugs,anddisease.Whatwouldanirradiationplantcostforadevelopingnation?

Dethier:There are multipleapplicationswith food irradia-tionwhichcanhelpdevelopingcountries.Someofthemare:

• Inhibition of sprouting inpotato,onion,orgarlic.

• Phytosanitary treatmentfor insect disinfection on ex-portedproducts,suchasgrains,

papayas,mangoes,avocados,etc.• Delayingofmaturation• Controloffoodbornepathogensfor

beef,eggs,flounder,crab-meat,oysters,etc.

• Shelf-lifeextensionforchickenandpork, low fat fish, strawberries, carrots,mushrooms,papayas,etc.

21st Century:Are there any govern-mentagenciesinEuropeannationsthatare studying the applications of yourtechnologyandthatcouldpotentiallybeabletoputitinoperation?

Dethier: We are talking to severalcompanies evaluating the possibility toopen new X-ray facilities for food pro-cessing.Forthemoment,themaininter-est is for phytosanitary applications,wherefoodexporters(mainlytotheUnit-edStates)arelookingforalternativestocomply with the U.S. import regula-tions.

Additionally, traditional fumigationmethodsbasedonmethylbromidearebannedbytheMontrealProtocol.

Phytosanitarytreatmentrequirestypi-callyaminimumdose lower than400gray(dependingontheinsect)andmaxdoses less than 1,000 gray. The maineconomicadvantageofX-rayphytosani-tarytreatmentisthatitopensthedoortofoodproducersforexportinglocalpro-ductiontotheU.S.market.

Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M

Anelectronmicroscopeimageofgreen-leaflettuce,whererod-shapedE.colibacterianestleinsideaminuteporeinthe leaf called a stoma. Food irradiation technology canreachpathogenssuchasE.coliinstomas,butconvention-altechnologiescannot.

NUCLEARREPORT


Mr.PymerisgeneralmanagerofHar-wellDosimeters,Ltd.intheU.K.Hewasinterviewedby21stCenturycorrespon-dentIlkoDimov.

Question:Whatistheadvantageofir-radiationforthesterilizationofmedicalorotherformsofequipment?

Pymer:Medicaldevicesterilizedbyir-radiationtendstobedonebecauseitcanbedoneattheenduse,soitsafinal,ter-minalsterilizationsystem.Thegoodthingabout it is that it can be manufacturedandsealedandthenpackedintoitsship-pingquantities, and then irradiated. Sotheradiationpassesthroughthematerialandkeepsitintactandsterilewithinitsmaterial.Soas longas thebarrier—theseal—ismaintained,theirradiationpass-

es through the boxing and packaging,anddoeswhatitneedstodoinsterilizingtheproduct.

Question:Rightnow,youhaveahugedebate in Europe. Germany is movingawayfromnuclear,andItaly,hadaref-erendumafewdaysagoagainstnuclearenergy.Whatdoyouthinkaboutthis?Isthisfearjustified?

Pymer: ...The issue with nuclear, istheby-product,thefuel,thewaste.Canthat be managed? I’ve heard a keynotespeaker today who says “yes it can.” Itshould be managed, and they shouldbuildfastneutronreactorsthatwillhelp,andactuallyremovethewastethat’scur-rentlyintheworld,andgenerateelectric-ity.Sothat’sawonderfulthingtohearto-

day, but will the world say “yes, that’swhatwewanttodo,”orwilltheyjustfor-get about it and bury it under theground?

...[I]ftheycanuseittoprovidemoreelectricity, that would make perfectsense....

INTERVIEW:DAVIDPYMER

MedicalDeviceSterilization

INTERVIEWDR.JU-WOONLEE

EducatetheConsumer!Ju-Woon Lee is general manager of

the Advanced Radiation TechnologyInstitute at the Korea Atomic EnergyResearch Institute. His presentationattheconferencewasonir-radiating Korean seaweedsoupformealsinspace.HewasinterviewedbyIlkoDi-mov.

21st Century:WhatisyourmessagefortheNorthAmer-icanconsumerabout radia-tiontechnologies?

Lee: The German [anti-nuclear] strategy is a pity.Butanotherchanceiscom-ingtochangetheacceptanceoftheconsumers.Ithinkthateducation and communica-tion are very importantthings, rather than technol-ogy.

Radiation technology iswell documented and well

launched.Buttheimportantthingisthechoice of the market, and a lot of themarketisconsumers.

21st Century: In developing sectorcountries,whatisrequiredforfoodirra-diation,andhowisitbeneficialforcon-sumers?

Lee:Ithinktheadoptionof this technology is de-pendentonthesituationofeachcountry.The technol-ogy is used for both foodsafety and food security,which are both very im-portant for theprogressofthehumanbeing.

This technology is veryusefultomanageandmain-tain foodpreservation,andhygiene quality, and alsodeveloping other needs ofindustries.

But scientists in the in-dustry have to think abouthowtointroducethistech-nology,howtoeducateandcommunicate this technol-ogywithconsumers.

Harwell Dosimeters, Ltd.

DavidPymer

IAEA

Irradiationallowstropicalfruitstobepickedripebeforebeingir-radiationprocessedforexport.Theconsumerbenefitsbyhavingatastierproduct.

NUCLEARREPORT


Aselectionofresponsesfromconfer-ence attendees to Ilko Dimov’s“rovingreporter”questionsonradiation.

Question:Whatisthemostcommonmisconceptionpeoplehaveaboutfoodirradiation?

Onemisconceptionthegeneralpublichas, is not knowing the difference be-tweenradiationandradioactivity.There’sabigdifference!Whenweareusingra-diationinalloftheseapplications,thera-diation is imparted,andas soonas theprocessiscomplete,thereisnomorera-diation.

IfIirradiateaproduct,Igetthedesiredeffect,butIdon’thaveanyradioactivityintheproduct.Soifyouirradiateapoly-mer,orafruit,oramedicaldevice,youdeliver the radiation dose and it doeshavesomeeffect—killinginsects,orkill-ingmicrobialpopulations.Buttheradia-tion finishes as soon as the process iscompleted.

Therearerulesandregulationsinourindustry for the types of materials thatcanbeirradiated.Forexample,thehigh-er the atomic number of the materialthatyouare irradiating, thegreater the

chancethatyoucanturnsomethingra-dioactive.Andsothingslikecopperandsomeother thingscannotbe irradiatedwiththetypesofmodalitiesthatareusedhere.

Whatwearemeasuring(withdosime-ters)istheamountofradiationdosethatis delivered by the process; once thatmeasurement is confirmed, we knowhowmuchdoseisdelivered,andthereisnomore.

***Question: We constructed a cloud

chamberinourofficewithdryice,andinsidethechamberyoucanseethecos-micrays.Sowearebombardedwithra-diation.

Insomeplacesintheworld,theback-groundradiationmaybesixtimeshigherbecause of the rock formation, so thiswholeargumentabout“zero radiation”isnotpossible.

***Question:Whatisyourvisionforthe

future? Will we see more irradiatedproductsonthemarket?

That’sourhope.Buttheperceptionthepublichasisnotagoodone.Intheearlydaysofatomicenergy,Ithinkthegovern-

ments were afraid to letthe information get veryfar out, so they made itsortofsecretive....

And then people re-member Nagasaki andHiroshima, so there is“the terror” as we callit,whenwedoriskfac-toranalysis.Becauseinthe public perception,fearofdeathfromradi-ationissomehowmuchworsethanfromnaturalgas.

Ifanaturalgaspipelineblows up and kills 20people,itsjustan“unfor-tunate”incident,butif1personweretodiefromaradiation overdose, ohmy god, it’s so muchhigher in magnitude inthepublicmind.

So you have to dealwith this. How do you transmit theknowledge to the public in a way thatthey can perceive and understand thatthisissafe?

RadiationRoundup

Ruth Brinston/IMRP

ConferenceparticipantsattheIMRPexhibitionhall,wheremanyirradiationcompanieshadinforma-tionaldisplays.

For more on

Food IrradiationSeeThe Isotope Economy: Producing More and Better Foodby Marjorie Mazel Hecht

Summer 2008

21stCENTURYSCIENCE & RECHNOLOGY

Back issues are available at $5 each online at www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

NUCLEARREPORT


Officially, Monarsen is an“orphandrug,”lookingfor

aninvestortofundphaseIIclin-icaltrials.Butforthethousandsof sufferers of myasthenia gra-vis, Monarsen, which per-formedextremelywellinitsfirstclinicaltrials,isalifelinetobet-terfunctioningandabetterfu-ture.

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is adebilitating auto-immune dis-ease affecting neuromusculartransmission,andcausingspe-cific and progressive muscleweaknessandexhaustion.MGafflicts70,000ormoreAmeri-cans(theconservativeestimateoftheMyastheniaGravisFoun-dationofAmerica),and400,000people worldwide, anotherconservative estimate.Thedis-ease is undercounted becauseMG is difficult to diagnose:The symp-toms wax and wane, and vary in eachcase,oftenmimickingthoseofotherail-ments.

Thediseasetendstostrikewomenintheir20sand30s,andmenafter50,inallethnic groups.Theeye and facialmus-cles are commonly affected (drooping

eyelidsanddifficultyswallowing),oftenarms and legs, and in themost seriouscases,thepulmonarymuscles.

MGisusuallynotfatal,justdisabling.Manypatientscanachieveremissionandlessenedsymptoms,butcanalsorelapse.Althoughtheinitialcauseofthediseaseisnotknown, themechanismresponsi-ble for the weakness in the voluntary

muscles (the muscles that wecancontrol)hasbeenidentifiedas a disconnect between thenerve and the muscle:The re-ceptorforthechemicalacetyl-choline,whichisnecessaryfortransmissionoftheneutralsig-nal, is attacked at the neuro-muscular junction by antibod-iesproducedbythebody’sownimmunesystem.

These antibodies disrupt theneurotransmission, and themusclefailstocontract.Currentapprovedpharmaceuticaltreat-mentsforsymptomsincludethedrugMestinon(pyridostigmine),which inhibits the cholinester-ase enzyme that normallybreaksdownexcessacetylcho-line,thusincreasingtheamountand duration of acetylcholineavailable;andimmunesuppres-santdrugslikePrednisone,Cy-

closporine,andAzathioprine.Allofthesedrugshave long-termside-effects,how-ever.AndsomeMGpatientsbecomere-sistanttopyridostigmine.

BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE

HOPEFORMGSUFFERERS?

Monarsen:AnOrphanDrugInNeedofaSponsorbyMarjorieMazelHecht

Topandfrontviewofa3-Dmodelofthemuscle-typenico-tinicacetylcholinereceptor.Inmyastheniagravis,thebody’simmune system attacks the acetylcholine receptor thattransmitsthesignaltothemuscle.

PosteroftheMyastheniaGravisFoundationofAmerica.

LivingwithMGMyastheniagravisisfoundaroundtheworld,andinallethnicgroups,

buttendstooccurmoreamongyoungerwomenandoldermen.Thisarticlewasoccasionedbytheplightofoneyoungwoman,the

motherofthreechildrenundersix,andherdifficultiescopingwiththesymptomsofherrecentlydiagnosedMG.Howdoessheexplaintoheryoungstersthatshecan’tdothethingssheusedto—pickthemup,playwiththem,takecareofthem?Howdoesshekeepfrombeingdepressedaboutthefactthathersymptomsmayworsen,andthatthereisasyetnocureforMG?

Becauseshehashaddifficultywithallergicreactionstocertaindrugs,forher—andformanyothers—Monarsenholdsoutmuchhope.AsoneBritishMGpatientcommentedonthepromiseofMonarsen,“IfIhad20milliondollars,IwouldgivethemtoProf.Soreqstraightaway[fortheclin-icaltrial].Agoodmedicineformyastheniagravisisdefinitelyoverdue.”

BIOLOGYANDMEDICINE


In life-threatening cases, such as anMG patient who is unable to breathe,blood cleaning (plasmapheresis) is ashort-termtreatment,asistreatmentwithintravenousimmunoglobulins.Mostrad-ical(andcontroversial)isthesurgicalre-movalofthethymusgland,whichisbe-lievedtobeinvolvedwithMG.

An‘Antisense’ApproachMonarsen (previously known as EN

101), operates entirely differently fromthese conventional treatments. It is an“antisense”drug,whichworksbyinacti-vating acetylcholinesterase, the proteinthat breaks down acetylcholine, beforethe protein is synthesized. This allowsmoreof theacetylcholine to reactwiththereceptorsonthesurfaceofthemus-clecells.

It is called “antisense,” because itmakesuseoftheoppositesequence,or“sense,”oftheRNAmessengergeneas-sociatedwithacetylcholinesterase. (Seeinterview.)

Monarsen isbasedon the innovativeresearchworkofProf.HermonaSoreqatHebrewUniversity,whopioneeredanti-sensetechnologyandacetylcholinester-asebiology.Afteranimalstudiesshowedthat Monarsen successfully alleviatedMG symptoms in rats that were engi-neered to have MG symptoms, humantrialswereinitiatedin2002,toassessitssafetyandefficacy.

Theresultsofasmallclinicaltrialcar-riedoutinIsraelandtheU.K.,showedarangeof27.8to53.4percentsymptomimprovement—far better results thanthoseof thecurrentfirst-lineMG treat-ment with Mestinon. Mestinon (pyr-idostigmine)targetsthefinishedprotein,thus stimulating the body to producemore acetylcholinesterase, which “trig-gers abattlebetween thedrugand the

nervoussystem,”astheMonar-sen developer describes it. Incontrast,Monarseninhibitsthesynthesis of acetylcholinester-aseand“doesn’tcausethisvi-ciouscycle.”

Inaddition,Monarsencanbetakenorallyonlyonceaday,in-stead of several times daily forpyridostigmine;ithasafarlowerdose; and it has no significantside effects. These advantagescouldmakeadifference in re-turningMGsuffererstotheirfor-merlifestyleandemployment.

Thiswasthe“firstdemonstrationofthesafeandeffectiveuseofanorallyadmin-isteredantisensetherapyforaneurologi-caldisease,”accordingtothenowdefunctEsterNeuroscience,Ltd.,theIsraeliphar-maceuticalfirmthatconductedthetrial.

An‘Orphan’OrphanedAgainEsterNeurosciencessecured“orphan

drug”statusforMonarsenfromtheFoodandDrugAdministration thenext year,2003.Thisdesignationisgiventopoten-tiallybeneficialtreatmentsforsevereill-nessesthataffect200,000orfewerpeo-ple, and conveys to the developer taxincentives,areductionfromcertainfeesfor marketing approval, and marketing

exclusivityintheUnitedStatesforsevenyearsafterapproval.Esteralsoreceived“orphan”statusforMonarseninEurope.

Butasthenextclinicaltrialwasbeingorganized,in2007,EsterNeuroscienceswassoldtothesmallU.K.pharmaceuti-cal firm Amarin, which had initiallyagreedtodevelopMonarsen.Sadly,thecompany changed its strategy, anddropped Monarsen, leaving the orphandrugwithoutasponsor.However,asof2011,thedevelopmentrightsarebackinthehandsofHebrewUniversity’s tech-nologytransfercompany,Yissum,whichisagainactivelylookingforaninvestor.

And so, Monarsen’s fate depends onthewhimsofa“market”that invests itsmoneywhereitcanmakethemostprof-it,without regard to thehumanconse-quencesofnotdevelopingthisimprovedpalliativetreatment.

What about non-profit backing? TheMGFoundationofAmericahasruledoutsupport for clinical trials. When askedaboutMonarsen,foundationchiefexecu-tiveTorHoltan,toldmethattheMonars-enalternativewasnot“100percentprov-en yet” in terms of efficacy—a curiousresponse,giventhelessthanoptimalstateofthecurrentlyusedtreatmentsforMG.Mr.Holtanalsosaidthatthefoundation

MGoftenaffectstheeyeandfacialmuscles.ThedroopingeyelidofthisMGpatientistypical.

DIAGRAMOFNEUROMUSCULARJUNCTIONInanormalneuromuscularjunction,acetylcholinetransmitsasignalfromthenervetothemuscletocontract.Inamyastheniagravispatient,theimmunesys-temproducesantibodiesthatattachtothereceptorsforacetylcholineonthemusclecellsandreducesignaltransmission;musclesthenfailtocontract,caus-ingweaknessandfatigue.

Thecurrenttreatmentofchoice,thedrugpyridostigmine,inhibitstheenzymeacetylcholinesterasewhichnormallybreaksdownexcessacetylcholine.Incon-trast,Monarsenworksbyinterferingwiththesynthesisofacetylcholinesterase,thusallowingmoreacetylcholinetofunction.

Source: Pakistan Myasthenic Welfare Organization

BIOLOGYANDMEDICINE


didnotsupportdrugdevelopment,onlybasic research, and that the foundationhadverylittlefundingavailableingener-al,becauseMGisa“smalldisease.”

TheNationalInstituteofNeurologicalDisordersandStroke(NINDS)attheNa-tional Institutes of Health, which over-sees research on MG, along with hun-dreds of other neurological disorders,last year invested$11million intoMGresearch,andnowhastwoactiveclinicaltrials.NINDSprogramdirector,Dr.JohnPorter,toldme:

“It is NIH policy to not offer publicopinions on the potential for specifictherapiesthatareunderdevelopment,soI cannot comment on any strengths/weaknessesoftheexistingdataorontherationaleforMonarsenasaputativether-apeuticformyastheniagravis.”

“Manyputativetherapiesdofailinde-velopment,”Dr.Portersaid,“soitisimpor-tantthattheybetestedrigorously.NINDShas several mechanisms to support pre-clinicalandclinicaltherapydevelopmenteffortsinrarediseases,suchasmyasthe-nia gravis.... Like any candidate thera-peutic,thelaterstagedevelopmentcostsofMonarsenmayexceedNIHresources(NINDSaloneisresponsiblefor400-600neurologicaldisorders)andthedevelop-ers would also have to attract partners(venturecapital,Pharma)totheeffort.”

Atthistime,NIHisfundingtwoclini-cal trials for MG: one to determine

whether thymectomy benefits MG pa-tientswhoarereceivingPrednisone,andanothertotestadrugthatincreasesskel-etalmuscleactivation.

TheLargerPictureTheshorthistoryofthisorphandrug,

pointstothesadstateoftheU.S.health

system.Apromisingdruglanguishesforwantofasponsor’scapital,whilethou-sands of MG victims (not to mentionthose yet to be diagnosed) continue tosufferwith treatments thatare less thanoptimal andat the same time farmorecostly in human and monetary termsthanthefewmilliondollarsitwilltaketoconduct the next phase of trials forMonarsen. In addition, indications arethatMonarsenmightalsohavebenefitsforotherdiseases,includingAlzheimer’sandALS.

Inthelargerpicture,MGisstilladis-easewithoutacure,andwithoutaknowncause.Themechanicsofthesymptomat-icmuscleweaknessarenowincreasinglywell characterized; science researcherscontinue to probe these mechanics infinerandfinerdetail,asmedicalresearchandimagingtechniquesadvance.

In fact, MG is “the best understoodautoimmunedisorder,servingasamod-el for understanding not only autoim-munity,butalsosynapticfunction,”ac-cording toHenry J.Kaminski,M.D.,aprominentMGexpert.Sucha“model”servestohighlightwhat’smissing:Foradiseasewhosesymptomswerenotedinthe1600s(includingthefamouscaseoftheAmericanIndianChiefOpechanca-nough, who died in 1644), shouldn’twehavecomefurtherinlearningwhatinitiatesMG,andbeingabletopreventit?

Afanciful1624drawingdepictingJohnSmith taking King Opechancanough(1554?-1646)prisoner.Opechancanoughwas a tribal chief of the PowhatanConfederacyinwhatisnowVirginia.Adescription of his ailment includedthe drooping eyelid characteristic ofMG.

From Captain John Smith’s GeneralHistory,1624.

INTERVIEW:DR.HERMONASOREQ

TheDevelopmentofMonarsenforMG

HermonaSoreq,Ph.D., isaProfessorof Molecular Neurobiology at HebrewUniversity’sEdmondandLilySafraCen-terforBrainSciences.Shehaspublishedmore than 250 peer-reviewed articlesandsevenbooks,especiallyinthefieldofbrain-to-bodycommunication.Thepastpresident of the Israeli Society of Bio-chemistryandMolecularBiology(2000-2002)andthefirstelectedwomandeanoftheHebrewUniversity’sFacultyofSci-ence (2005-2008), Soreq collaborateswithtopscientistsworldwide,isamem-

beroftheEuropeanCom-munity’s advisory com-mittee on health-relatedissues, and a consultanttotheIsraeliMinistersofHealth,Commerce,andScience.

ShehasalsoreceivedmanyhonoraryPh.D. degrees and prizes for her work.With 12 patents, two recombinant pro-teins,andoneDNA-baseddrugatdiffer-entstagesofclinicaltrials,SoreqisalsoanAdjunctResearchProfessorattheArizonaStateUniversityBioDesignInstitute.

ShewasinterviewedinFebruary2011byMarjorieMazelHecht.

Question: How did the idea forMonarsencomeabout?

Soreq:Mostofmyresearcheffortsdur-ingmyacademiccareerwereaimedatthecholinergicsystem,andIwaspain-

Chryssa Panoussiadou

BIOLOGYANDMEDICINE


fully aware of the shortcomings of thesmall molecule inhibitors of acetylcho-linesterase (AChE) thatareavailable fortherapeutic indications in general, andforthetreatmentofmyastheniagravisinparticular: First, there are many variantAChE proteins with different biologicalproperties and functions, but the smallmoleculeagentsblockallofthemnon-selectively.

Second, exposure to these agents in-duces rapid overproduction of AChE,whichshouldbeavoided.Third,thesmallmoleculeagentsareneededinrelatively large doses and displayshort duration of activity. Since IhaveclonedthehumanAChEgene,Ithought that targetting the mRNAtranscriptcouldovercometheselim-itations—bevariant-selective,actinlowdoseandforalongerduration,andlimitthesideeffects.Allofthiscametrue.

Question:Monarsenmakesuseofa fairly new concept—antisensetechnology.Canyousaysomethingabouthowantisenseworks?

Soreq: Antisense sequences areinverselyorientedcomparedtotheir

mRNAtargets;theycanbindtheirtargettightly by forming hybridization bonds,likethetwoDNAstrands;andtheycanbothblockthetranslationoftheirtargetsintoproteinandinducethedegradationofthesetargets.Weprotectourantisenseagent by introducing methyl groups,which stabilize the molecule and pro-longthedurationofitseffect.

Question:HowisMonarsendifferentfromthecurrenttherapiesforMG?

Soreq:Youmaythinkofgeneexpres-sionasapyramid:onecopyofthegene(DNA), several hundred mRNA mole-cules per cell, and many thousands ofprotein product molecules.The currenttherapies, like most of the medicationsweknow,aretargettedtoblocktheac-tivesiteoftheproteinproduct.Thisisec-onomically unwise because you needmanymoredrugmoleculestoreachaneffective dose; but we did not knowenoughaboutmRNAuntillately,sothatthis traditional approach was the bestthatwasavailable.

Furthermore,manydifferent proteinsshare some structural features of theiractivesite,whichcausessideeffectsdueto the interaction of protein blockerswith other targets. But today, with theHumanGenomeprojectbeingcomplet-ed,weknow themRNAsequences forallofthehumangenessowecandesignantisensechains.Theirinteractionisfarmorespecific,avoidingsideeffects;theyneedtoblockfarfewermolecules,whichcanreducetheeffectivedosebyseveralorders of magnitude, limit the side ef-fects even further, and achieve betterspecificity.

Last,butnotleast,theycanblockonlythetargettedmRNAtranscript,avoidingundesirableeffects.

Question: How did Monarsen per-formintheclinicaltrials?

Soreq:Verywell indeed: It improvedthemyastheniasymptomsofprogressivemuscle fatigue at least as effectively asthe currently employed smallmoleculedrug,butat1,000-fold lowerdoseand

NORMALACETYLCHOLINERECEPTORSONMUSCLEInmyastheniagravis,thebody’simmunesystemdisruptstheacetylcholinere-ceptors(proteins)onthemuscle,whichnormallyreceivethesignalsfromnervestellingthemusclestocontract.Thiscausesmuscleweaknessandfatigue.Source: Muscular Dystrophy Organization

ANTISENSESEQUENCEBLOCKSTHEPRODUCTION

ACETYLCHOLINESTERASEMonarsen inactivates ace-tylcholinesterase, the pro-teinthatbreaksdownace-tylcholine, before theproteinissynthesized.Thediagram illustrates in gen-eralhowantisensemRNAworks.Source: Global Library of Women’s Medicine, DOI 10.38�3/GLOWM.1027�, 2008

BIOLOGYANDMEDICINE


forfarlongerperiod(24hours,unlikethemultipledailydosesneededwiththecur-rentdrug).Therewerepracticallynosig-nificant side effects, and the patientsseemedveryhappy.(Oneofthemwrotemethatheneverfeltthatwelleversincehewasdiagnosed,29yearsbefore....)

Question:SinceMonarsenappearstobe more effective in helping MG pa-tients, and does not have side-effects,what is holding up further trials andcommercialization?Whatarethechanc-esforspeedingupthisprocess?

Soreq:Iamauniversityprofessor,notapharmaceuticalcompany.Patentappli-cationsonthisinventionweresubmittedtotheauthoritiesbythetechnologytrans-fer companyof theHebrewUniversity,Yissum,whichholdstherightstothisin-vention.TherightstodevelopthisprojectwerethenlicensedtoaU.S.-Israelven-turecapital fund,Medica,whichestab-lishedastart-upcompany,EsterNeuro-science,todevelopthisinvention.

EsterNeurosciencecompletedtoxicitytestsandphaseIandphaseIIaclinicaltri-als, obtained an Orphan Drug approvalfor the use of Monarsen, and was thensoldtoAmarin,aU.K./Irishstart-upphar-maceutical company which planned toproceedwithphaseIIItrials,butthenwentthrough managerial changes and refo-cusseditseffortsoncardiovasculardrugs.

Consequently, Yissum requested—andreceived—therightstodevelopthisproj-

ect,whichhappenedveryrecently.Atpres-ent,Yissumseeksstrategicpartnerstocom-pletethedevelopmentofthisnewdrug.

Question: Is this the first drug youhaveworkedonusingthisconcept?HasEsterbeeninvolvedinproducingsimilardrugsforotherdiseases?

Soreq:ThiswasnotthefirstantisenseagentIusedforresearch,butthefirstonewhich reached clinical trials from mylaboratory,andtheonlyonetobedevel-oped by Ester. Because it is targettedagainstAChE,whichisinvolvedinsev-eral other diseases, theremaybeotherdiseaseswherepatientscanbenefitfromitsuse.

Therearemanymoreoligonucleotideagentsundergoingclinicaltrialsatpres-ent,fordifferentdiseases;andajointin-ternational academia-industry society,Oligonucleotides Therapeutics Society(OTS)wasestablishedtodevelopthisdi-rection,ofwhichIamoneofthefound-ing members. The current president isProfGuntherHartmannofBonnUniver-sity,Germany.

Question:HaveyoulookedintowhatcausesMG?Couldtherebebacteriain-volved?

Soreq: Myasthenia gravis is an auto-immune disease, where antibodies areerroneously formed against the musclereceptor foracetylcholine,which is theneurotransmitteractivatingourmuscles.Itisyetunclearwhethertheinitiationofthisdiseaseistriggeredbybacterialorvi-ralinfection,butthisisapossibility.

BIOLOGYANDMEDICINE

Did youmiss:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Nuclear_Medicine.pdf

Radioisotopes: The Medical LifesaversThat Congress is Suppressingby Christine Craig21st Century, Winter 2009-2010

Medical Isotopes in the 21st Centuryby Robert E. Schenter, Ph.D.21st Century, Winter 2008

NUCLEAR MEDICINETechnologies We Can’t Afford to Ignoreby Marjorie Mazel Hecht21st Century, Winter 2008

INTERVIEW / DR. GUY TURQUET DE BEAUREGARDWe Need to Expand Medical Isotope Production!21st Century, Winter 2009-2010

Hebrew University

Prof.Soreq(left)speakingatarecentconference.


BOOKS

TheHistoryoftheBiosphereCannotExcludeMankindbyAaronHalevy

Evolutionary History: Uniting History and Biology to Understand Life on Earthby Edmund RussellNew York: Cambridge University Press, 2011Paperback, 216 pp., $21.97

Edmund Russell’s book, EvolutionaryHistory, is written as an analysis of

man’s specific effect on “evolution inpopulations of other species which inturnhasshapedhumanexperience,”andtoforgefromthis,anewacademicfieldwhichuniteshistorywithbiology.“Oneof the central goals of this book,” hewritesinthefirstchapter,“istocontradictthesensemanyofushavethatevolutionissomethingthathappens,‘outthere’—well away from us in time, well awayfromusinspace,wellawayfromusasaspecies,andcertainlywellawayfromusasindividuals.”

Thisview,toexpandthestudyofhu-manhistory to includea knowledgeofthehistoryofthebiosphereanditschang-esoverbillionsofyears,isanaimwithwhich thegreathistoriananddramatistFriedrichSchillerwouldagree.AsSchil-ler wrote, “... the whole history of theworld at least would be needed to ex-plainthisverymoment.”Yet,inattempt-ingthis,Russellseemsdebilitatinglyun-awareofthegenesisandtheeffectsofthementaldiseaseknownasenvironmental-ism,whichplaguesourspeciestoday.

We live in a society todaywhichhasbeen effectively lobotomized. Very fewhumanbeingsrecognizethathumanbe-ingsaretheonlyspeciesonEarththatcanwillfullyexpresstheuniquecharacteristicofcreativity,andthepeoplewhoshouldbemostcognizantofthisfact,“scientists,”areoftenthemostignorantofit.Topro-posea“synthesisofmanandnature”today,without taking this qualitative differenceproperlyintoaccount,isflatlyuntrue.

To remedy this, Lyndon LaRouche’s“BasementTeam”ofresearchersisdevel-

opingtheconceptofbiosphericmanage-ment,whichisintendedtoreorientcur-rent liberal scientific methods to theproper self-conception of mankind ascreators.1 If mankind is to survive thiscurrent breakdown of the global finan-cialsystem,wemustconfrontthegreatfallaciesinthinkingwhichhavebroughtustothispoint.

EvolutionoftheBiosphereRussellbeginshisstudyfromtheworks

of Charles Darwin. “Evolution,” hewrites, “involves changes in inheritedtraitsorgenesofpopulationsovergen-erations.”Itcanresultfromanycause,in-cluding natural (i.e., animal: uncon-scious) or intentional (i.e., human:conscious).ForRussell,allformsofevo-lution, including man-induced evolu-

1. For more on the “Basement” work, see www.la-rouchepac.com/basement

tion,fallsomewhereinthesecategories.“Iliketothinkofthisbookasfollowing

in the Darwinian tradition, which partlyexplains my fondness for appealing toDarwin’s ideas,” he writes. Apparently,RussellisunconcernedthatDarwinseemsconsciouslytohavesoldhisownhuman-itytoservetheanimalkingdominstead.2,3

2. I.e., The British Empire! See, “The ‘No-Soul’ Gang Behind Reverend Moon’s Gnostic Sex Cult,” by Laurence Hecht, 21st Century, Fall 2002).

3. This statement on p. 26 of Darwin’s Autobiography, was written in 1876, when he was 67 years old, six years before his death:

“I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Word-sworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did. . . .

“My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive. A man with a mind more highly organised or better constituted than mine, would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.”

AuthorEdmundRussellhasa“fondnessfor Darwin’s ideas,” seemingly uncon-cernedaboutDarwin’slackofhumanity.Here,CharlesDarwininan1855photo-graphbyMaullandPolyblank.

BOOKS

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/wint02-03/Moonification.html

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/wint02-03/Moonification.html


Thefallacyofthisapproachfromtheoutset,isthatthereisnosuchthingasanindividualspecies.Asthe great biogeochemistVladimirVernadskyemphasized,allspeciesarean interconnected representa-tionsof thedevelopingbiosphereasawhole.4Eachindividualformof life represents a sort of door,through which the chemical ele-ments—specific isotopes, includ-ingthecosmicrayspectrum—passthrough. This is what Vernadskytermed“thebiogenicmigrationofatoms.”All lifemustbeobservedasasingledevelopingsystem.

Eachofthebiosphere’snewspe-cies is an advancement of formswith higher and higher biogenic-throughput into the livingsystem.Evolutionisaphenomenonofthesystem, as in the development oflife capable of living outside theoceans in the Ordovician, or theperiodofthedominanceofthemammals65millionyearsago;itcannotbeseenasalocalchangeinthesystem.Thispro-cessasawhole,strivingintomorecom-plexlifeforms,intomorespeciesdiver-sity, for over 4.5 billion years, reflectsthatwhichMosesMendelssohndefinesasbeauty:“Thestrivingforunity,ahar-monyinmultiplicity.”5

TheTriumphofMankind’sEvolutionUntil the turn of the 20th Century,

mankind’semergenceontheplanetwasunderstoodasthesummitofalltheprevi-ouschangesinthisevolutionaryprocessofthebiosphere.Russellcitesafewex-amples of this view: He reports thatThomasBellsaidin1837,thatdomesti-cationshowsthe“triumphofhumanartand reasonover thenatural instinctsofthe inferioranimals.”Yet in thechapter“Evolution Revolution,” Russell mocksthisviewofmanas“themasterbreedernarrative,”andposesafewcases,suchastheearlydomesticationofdogsandtheso-called agricultural revolution of10,000 B.C., where these processescouldhavehadlessintention,andmorechanceandaccident.

Dogs have been with mankind sincebeforerecordedhistory,sothegenesisof

�. The Biosphere, by Vladimir I. Vernadsky (1926).

5. Moses Mendelssohn, On Sentiments (1761).

thisrelationshipisdifficulttodetermine.AninterestingRussianexperiment,initi-ated by Dmitri Belyaev in 1958, tookmore than100wildSiberian foxesandselectively bred them on the basis of“tameness.”6Afteronlyadozengenera-tionsofthisbreeding,someunique,un-suspected,butwell-knowntraitsintheseanimals began to appear, as if miracu-lously.Thenewfoxesbegantohavemorecurlytails,morefloppyears,coatswithmorevariationincolor.Theybeganbark-ing (which foxes do not do), and theylooked for attention from their humancaretakers.Inshort,theyhadbeentamed,withinthelifetimeofonehumanbeing.

Later,itwasassessedthattheadrena-linecontentwasmuchlowerinthetamefoxesthanintheiruntamedcousins.Theconclusionreachedbytheteamwasthatthechangeintheadrenalineaffectedthechemicalbalanceintheothergenes,orcombinations thereof, and “this chemi-cal imbalance made some traits domi-nantandothersrecessive.”

ThenRussellsaysthe“masterbreedernarrative”compelsustobelievethisdo-mestication process as intentional andfull of imagination and pre-knowledge:Earlymanmusthave(1)understoodtheinadequacyofhisancestor’smethodsof

6. Conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, through the Institute of Cytology and Genetics-No-vosibirsk, Russia,

hunting; (2) must have imaginedthat he could domesticate a wildspecies (which had never beendone before); (3) “imagined traitsinwolves ... that theyhadneverseen”; (4) must have “believedtheycouldtamewolvesbyraisingcubsincaptivity,”etc.

ThisscenarioshapedbyRussellin a specifiably pessimistic bent,bringshim to theconclusion thatthis is all absurd. “In addition tocalling foralmostdivine foresightandskill,themasterbreedernarra-tive makes dicey assumptionsaboutwolfbiology.”

But the issue is not the pre-knowledgewhichmakesadiscov-ery; it is thehypothesisabout theuniverse which allows the un-known tobe tested.Anyonewhoknows Johannes Kepler’s work,knows that that is what creativediscoveryis,andthatitisaunique-

ly human ability!That is the differencebetweenmanandanimal.

IgnoringMan’sReasonInsteadofacceptingtheparadoxthat

all mankind has expressed a quality ofreason,Russellwrites: “Rather thanas-suming that people fifteen thousandyearsagousedbreedingtechniquescom-montoday,letusseehowdomesticationmighthaveresultedfromactionshunter-gathererstookforimmediategain.”

Russellnextforms“anothernarrative”inwhichheseesthewolveshidingout-sidethecampofnomadicman,pickinguphisscrapsontheside.Thosewolveswhohave thecourage tocomeupandgetclosertothemenseemtohaveanad-vantage, and they eventually get veryclosetomen,andeventually,theyweretamed by the benefits these specificwolvesreceived.Takingthis“morelike-ly”scenario togetherwith theevidencefrom Dr. Belyaev’s team, Russell writesthat “these findings, provide evidencethatpeoplecouldhavecreateddogsfromwolves, by piling chance on unwittingchance.”

Inanotherexampleaboutdomestica-tion,Russellposesthedomesticationofcottonandotherplantsinasimilarway:How?Mancouldhaveeatensomeseedsinhismealandthenexcretedthemnearthecampandthenextyear,whenhere-turned, he would find growing plants.Again Russell is viewing evolution and

BOOKS

Darwin’stheoryofevolutionwascaricaturedinPunchin1882,underthetitle“ManIsButaWorm.”

21stCenturyScience&Technology Summer2011 81BOOKS

domesticationasachangeinre-lationshipbetweentwofixedani-mal species, and he asserts thatdomesticationwhichbenefitsthedomesticated,occursbyplacingademandon thedomesticators,making them serve their partnerspecies. “Wemight say that do-mesticationdependsasmuchondomesticatingapopulationofhu-manbeingsasondomesticatingapopulation of non-human spe-cies,”hewrites.

Returning to the Vernadskianview, the universe is embeddedwith purpose, with intention.Russell’sfailuretorecognizethat,andhisinadvertentdeterminationtoattackitsmanifestationinman-kind throughout his book (as ispopularamongenvironmentaliststoday),isthesourceofhisfailuretograspthe higher role of man in the universeandourdistinctionassubduingtheani-mals,notbecomingthem.

MankindandtheBiosphereThemainpointofEvolutionaryHisto-

ry,isRussell’sattempttosolidifytheben-efitsoftheunificationofbiologyandhu-man history. Russell converges on thispoint,“asifbyaccident,”inassertingthateach stage of human development re-quirestheentirehistoryofalllivingspe-cies,allcivilizations,andtheirintercon-nectionsuptothatpoint.Hiscrowningexampleisthechaptertitled,“EvolutionoftheIndustrialRevolution.”ThereRus-sellarguesthattheinventionofthecot-tonginandthemanufacturingcapabilityof Britain (the “industrial revolution”)wasnotallthatshouldbecredited.Rath-er,thewhole5,000yearsoffarmingandbreedingofthecottonstrainwhichwascapable of withstanding the machinesalsoshouldbeincludedandcreditedfortherevolution.

“The agricultural revolution,” Russellwrites, “wasanevolutionary revolutionbecause itdependedondomestication,whichalteredinheritedtraitsandgenesofpopulationsandorganismsovergen-erations.Somostofrecordedhistoryisaby-productofanthropogenicevolution.”Therefore “anthropogenic evolution fa-cilitatedtheIndustrialRevolutionbyen-hancingthesuitabilityofcottonfiberforspinningandweaving.”

Russellrightlyarguesthat this ideaisitself a challenge to modern historians.

“Onemightchallengemypropositiononthegroundsofintentionality,sufficiency,orproximity,”hewrites,insteadoftakingthepoint toassert thisconnectionoverlongperiodsof timeasprescient inten-tions. Russell also rightly asserts that“whenpeoplemodifyorganismstopro-videhumanbeingswithgoodsandser-vices,thoseorganismsbecometools.”

Yetinallcases,Russellallowstheen-vironmentalistdogmaof “manasbeastcompetingwithbeasts”toruinhisother-wise useful ideas. Just before his con-cluding remarks,Russell states thathu-man-induced evolution of plants andanimalsshouldbeseenasmerelya“mu-tuallybeneficial,”agreement,“anadjust-ment...ratherthanonespeciesimpos-ingitswillonanother.”7

MankindIsanImmortalSpeciesThe conclusion of Russell’s book,

“...unitingtheinsightsofhistoryandbi-ologyinevolutionaryhistoryenablesustounderstandthepastmorefullythanei-therdisciplinedoesalone,”mightfinditsway into the future of human thought,butnotinthewaytheRussellwishesit.Onlyby rejecting theenvironmentalist-fascistideologycanmanunderstandhistrueroleontheplanet,andinthegalaxy.Whenhumansevolve,wedonotgrowextralimbsorwebbedfeet;weevolveintheculture, in themeansbywhichweperpetuateourspeciesatahigherquality

7 Shakespeare’s Edmund in “King Lear” should love to join this remark with his infamous, “Now, gods, stand up for bastards!”

andhigherdensityofpeople.This is theviewofVernadsky,

and of LaRouche’s “Basement”team,andonlyanunderstandingof this idea can bring about amoralandscientificviewofman-kindasbothalivingandaspiri-tualbeinginthisuniverseasweknowit.

We have arrived at a time inwhichthereisnolivingentityonEarthwhich is toosmall,or toolarge,forhumanitytobeabletostudyandinteractwithit.

We aid the growth of plantsbyhelpingthemdevelopcertaincharacteristics; we keep alivethose which would otherwisedie off, or produce little. Weprotect animals, develop theirbesttraitsforsurvival,andbring

them into a higher population densitythantheyevercouldachievealone.Webringnewspeciesintoexistencewhichwould take hundreds of thousands ofyears to develop otherwise. We can

AdomesticatedSiberianfoxattheInstituteofCytologyandGenetics (Novosibirsk,Russia) thathasbred tamefoxesforover50years.Russellquestionswhethermanintendedtodomesticatethefoxandwolf,sayingthatitcouldhavehappenedbychance.

NASA

Thereisnolimittothecreativepotentialofmankindortheevolutionofthebio-sphere!HerechildrenlauncharocketatAstroCampattheJohnC.StennisSpaceCenterinHancockCounty,Miss.


haveaneffectonwhatwedeemgood,aswellasbad,bacteria inagriculture.We exterminate diseases for ourselvesandour animal friends.Weplantnewforests,drainswampsandmarshes,cre-atenewwatersources,andbringriverstodesertstotransformthemintofertilemeadows.

Mantamesthewildnessofnaturetocreateaplaceforabetterpeaceofmind.Mankindupliftsall living thingson thisplanettoamoreimportantsignificancebyhisuseof them,andbrings lifeone

stepclosertoitsgoal:spreadinglifebe-yondthisplanet.

LooktotheFutureTheplace to trulybegin the studyof

humanhistory,isfromthefuture:Whatwillthehumanspeciesbedoingin100years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? Astherehasnotbeenalimittothehabita-tionofmaninanyrealmoftheEarthsofar,whichhasincludedshortforaysintonearby“space,”isthereanylimitonthepotential ofman to ferry civilization tootherplanets?TominetheMoonandto

harvesttheasteroidsforourresources?Tousethoserefinedmaterialstomanageasolar economy?To use that as a basisfromwhichmankindbeginstocolonizethegalaxy?Andthenbeyond?

No,thereisnolimittothecreativepo-tentialsofmankind!Thereisnolimittothe evolution of the biosphere whichmanshallbringwithhimashedevelops;and,therefore,thereisnoSecondLawofThermodynamics, andnoneed to con-tinuetotoleratethereligionofenviron-mentalism.

BOOKS

The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Defeat of Japanby Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C.New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011Paperback, 17� pp., $2�.99

It is easy to prove a point when youchoosetoignorethetruth.Whatisper-

hapsmostannoyingaboutWilsonMis-camble’s apology for theuseof atomicweaponson Japan is that itpurports topresent unbiased scholarship, claimingtohavecalmlyreachedthecold-blood-ed,but,ashesays,unpopular“fact”thattheatomicslaughterofJapanesecivilianswasnecessary toend thewarandpre-vent American and Allied high casual-ties,inwhatwouldhaveotherwisebeenaterriblybloodyinvasionoftheJapanesehomeland.

Miscamble’s work ignores whatevertruthmightinconvenientlygetinthewayof his clearly prejudged opinion of thevalidity of the “decision” to drop theatomicbombsonJapan.HereIwillmakeafewrelevantpointsthatindicatetheex-tentofhisscholarlylying.

Miscambleassertsatonepointinhisaccountofthedecision-makingprocessthatresultedinthebombing,thatTrumanandothers involvedweremerelycarry-ingoutwhatthedeadFranklinRoosevelthad“intended” inusing thebombasaweaponagainst Japan.Thereisnotoneshredofevidence tosupport thisasser-tion,andnoneispresented.

Instead, there is much evidence thatFDRhadonlyagreedtodevelopatomic

weaponsasapossiblecountertoaNazieffort to do the same, and that he hadneverseriouslyconsideredusingtheminEurope,especiallywhenitwasclearthattheNaziswerealreadyontheroadtode-feat and that their atomicprogramwasunsuccessful.

Miscamble’s lying assertion aboutFDR’sintentisfurtherweakenedbythemountains of evidence of Roosevelt’spursuit of a backchannel peace agree-ment with the Japanese, mediatedthrough theVatican, to which effort hedeployed trusted assets from Americanintelligencecircles.

ThosefamiliarwithFDR’sthinkingonthis matter—including some peoplewhomIspoketowhowerepersonallyin-volved—saythatifanything,FDRmighthave agreed to a demonstration of thepowerofthenewweapon,withoutusingitonJapan,tohelpstrengthenfactionsintheimperialhouseholdandgovernmentwho were seeking peace with honor.Miscamble somehow overlooked thisbackchannel.

TheauthormakesmuchofthefactthatsecretcodeinterceptsmadeitapparentlyclearthattheJapanesewouldnotsurren-derwithoutassurancesthattheEmperorcouldstayoninsomerole.Hecorrectlyattributes toTruman advisor Jimmy By-rnesthedemandforthecontinuationoftheunconditional surrender policy.ButMiscamble claims that because Byrneshadbeenanadvisor toFDR,he some-how channeled the late President andknewthathewouldhavenotgiveninonafuturerolefortheEmperorinadefeat-edJapan.

Mysourcestoldmethatifitwerere-quiredtoendthewar,FDRwouldhavefoundawaytoaccommodatethatJapa-neserequest(thewhichrequestwasulti-matelygiveninaprivateassuranceafterthebombshadbeendropped.And,thesesources said, that if that assurance hadbeengivenearlier,itmighthaveyieldeda peace without Hiroshima, negotiatedthroughtheVaticanbackchannel).

PreventingaU.S.-SovietAllianceMiscamblealsochoosestoclaimthat

becausethesimplebutevilTrumanwasnotcapableofconceivingagrandstrat-egy versus the Soviet Union, involvingthe atomic bombing of Japan, that noconsiderations to that effect were in-volvedin thedecision.That ispalpablenonsense,asseveralotherauthorshavepointedout (GarAlperowitz,TheDeci-sionToUsetheAtomicBomb,NewYork:VintageBooks,1996,forexample).

Churchill and the British, as well asmany of their counterparts on the U.S.side, were more concerned ultimatelyabout theeffectof thebombingon theSovietUnionthantheywereaboutitsef-fectonJapan.

Suchfactionswereinterestedinbreak-

IgnoringtheTruthabouttheBombbyL.Wolfe


ingapartthealliancethatFDRhadenvi-sioned between the United States andtheSovietUnionagainsttheBritishEm-pire—anEmpire,whichFDRoncetoldatrusted aide,would give theU.S.moretrouble than theNazis.This createdanenvironment in which the decision todropthebombwasmade,andit isab-surd to claim that Truman and Byrnes(whoMiscambleclaimswantedtodropthebombtojustifytoAmericantaxpay-ers thebillions that hadbeen spentontheproject!)wereimpervioustothis.

Perhaps themost ridiculousassertionbyMiscambleisthathehasfinallyputtoresttheargumentthatthedroppingofthebombwasmilitarilyunnecessary.Here-ports on Japanese troop movements inpreparationforapossibleAlliedinvasionof themainislands,andthenstates:SomuchfortheclaimthatJapanwasonthevergeofmilitarycollapse.

The esteemed professor misses thepointentirely:Japanwasadefeatedna-tionprior tothedroppingof thebomb.General MacArthur, and others whothoughtlikehim,didnotbelievethatamilitaryinvasionwasnecessary,asJapannolongerrepresentedamilitarythreattoanyone. Its supply lines to Korea andManchuriawere cut off, and it didnothaveon itshome islands sufficient fuelforthosefactoriesstillleftstandingfromthewitheringAlliedbombingattacks.

(Ithadbeenamistake,intheeyesof

manypeople,tohavemisdirectedbomb-ingawayfrommilitarytargetsintoaformof terror attacks on populations. In theend, thesehadnoeffectonending thewar, while the attacks on military andproductionfacilitiescutintoJapan’sabil-itytofighton,afactthatweighedheavilyonsanermilitaryleadersandmembersoftheimperialfamily,includingtheEmper-or,whodidnotwant toseehispeopleslaughtered.)

The fallacy-of-composition argumentofMiscamble, that thedroppingof thebombwasnecessarytopreventhighlev-elsofAlliedcasualties,assumesthataninvasionofJapanwasnecessarytodefeatthecountry.Itwasnot:Ablockadeofitsportsandcontinuedbombingofitswar-makingcapacity,wouldhaveeventuallydriven Japan to surrender on the sametermsas those that tookplaceafter theatomicbombing.

Such a strategy, as I have presentedpreviously(“ATragedyinThreeActs:TheBeastMenBehind theDroppingof theAtomic Bomb,” 21st Century, Summer2005) was consistent with MacArthur’ssuccessfulplanforbypassingandisolat-ingJapanesestrongpoints.TheU.S.inva-sionplanwasanexerciseinmilitaryandstrategicfoolishness.

In sum: Miscamble has presented anice story, all neatly tied together withabundantresearchandcitations.Theonlytroubleisthatitisanhistoricalfiction.

BOOKS

PresidentTruman(thirdfromleft)andSecretaryofStateJamesF.Byrnes(secondfromright)sawthebombingofJapanasageopoliticalmovedirectedattheSovietUnion.HeretheyposeatPotsdamin1945,withJosefStalin(secondfromleft)andothersattheconference.

HISTORY OF ROCKETRYAND ASTRONAUTICS

BOOK SERIES

AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICALSOCIETY HISTORY SERIES

For a complete listing of these excellentvolumes on the history of rocketry andastronautics, including brief descriptionsof each volume, tables of contents ofmost of the volumes and ordering infor-mation, please visit the following pagesin the book sections of our Web Site:

• http://www.univelt.com/Aasweb.html#AAS_HISTORY_SERIES

• http:/www.univelt.com/Aasweb.html#IAA_PROCEEDINGS_HISTORY_ASTRONAUTICS_SYMPOSIA

• http://www.univelt.com/htmlHS/noniaahs.htm

BOOKS ON MARSThese volumes provide a blueprint formanned missions to Mars and a contin-ued presence on the planetís surface,including what technology is required,and what kinds of precursor missionsand experiments are required. For moreinformation on the Mars books available,please visit the following page in thebook section of our Web Site:

• http://univelt.staigerland.com/marspubs.html

If you would like for us to send you moreinformation, then please contact us asfollows:

Univelt, Inc., P.O. Box 28130,San Diego, CA 92198, USA

Tel.: (760) 746-4005;Fax.: (760) 746-3139

E-mail:[email protected]

Web Site:www.univelt.com

Found! A verified electrical technique for the early detection of

cancer and human ovulation.The Collected Works on Field Theory includes studies that were previously lost, forgotten and ignored by the academic community. They reveal scientific secrets that will stand the pharmaceutical and medical industries on their ears.Several of the articles republished in this collection were retrieved from dusty Yale University archives dating back to the 1930’s*. They contain ground breaking research that could only truly be appreciated now 90 years later, revealing methods of early cancer detection and effective birth control that are both physically and chemically non-invasive.*These pre-1960’s papers, are not available digitally through the National Institutes of Health

Volume I

The Electro-Dynamic Theory of Life, H.S. Burr and F.S.C. Northrop (1935)

A Vacuum Tube Microvoltmeter for the Measurement of Bioelectric Phenomena, H.S. Burr, C.T. Lane, L.F. Nims (1936-1937)

Experimental Findings Concerning the Electro-Dynamic Theory of Life and an Analysis of Their Physical Meaning, F.S.C. Northrop and H.S. Burr (1939) (submitted 1936)

fifteen additional, related journal papers

Volume II

Electrodynamic Field Theory in Psychiatry, Leonard J. Ravitz (1950)

History, Measurement, and Applicability of Periodic Changes in the Electromagnetic Field in Health and Disease, Leonard J. Ravitz (1962)

five additional related journal papers

six papers relating field theory to human physiology

two papers of Einstein’s work on cosmology and the energy associated with elementary particles

one paper linking Northrop’s work on field theory to Pierre Teilhard’s hypothesis of radial energy

Author Darden Dickson edited this compilation of important philosophical and scientific papers that attest to “The Electro‑Dynamic Theory of Life”.

The two volume set is $160.One volume is $80.

E-mail: Darden [email protected]

21st Century Science- Summer 2011- The Universe is Creative

Documents

Transcript of 21st Century Science- Summer 2011- The Universe is Creative