Vol. 23, No. 12 - Access to Energy Newsletter

Two weeks ago, my 20-year-old son Zachary remarked that he thought the first human mission to Mars would be undertaken by free enterprise - not government. It is clear that he would like to make the trip. (He also wants to bury a small nuclear reactor here on the farm, so that we can have easy access to energy for our various activities.)

I replied that he was probably right, but that we would need to wait until the price of a Mars mission became a little lower. This, I estimated, might not be too long a wait given the example of the cost of strategic missile defense, which has dropped so low during the past decade that deployment is now almost entirely a political issue.

We then discussed the "Mars Direct'' proposal made by Robert Zubrin and his co-workers at Lockheed Martin Astronautics, P.O. Box 179, Denver, CO 80201. (Literature is available from that address, or, if you want an excellent summary, the audiotape of Zubrin's lecture at last year's DDP meeting in Grants Pass is available from DDP at telephone (520) 325-2680.)

Zubrin estimates that five teams of four people each can make round trips from Earth to Mars, with 500-day exploration stays on Mars for each team, at a total cost of $30 billion expended at a rate of $3 billion per year over a ten-year period. Ten rocket launches are required (five with robots and five with human passengers); the required technology already exists and has been extensively tested and used for other purposes; and no intermediate projects such as space stations or moon bases are required. The space ships go directly from Earth to Mars and return.

A key idea in the "Mars Direct'' proposal is the use of a small nuclear power plant producing only 100 kilowatts - approximately the same as the combined electric service capacity of two ordinary American homes for which, in Cave Junction, we would pay, at full capacity and today's rates, about six dollars per hour. This power plant is used to convert CO 2 in the Martian atmosphere and liquid hydrogen brought from Earth into methane, oxygen, and water. The chemical plant itself is trivial, as Zubrin has illustrated by building a full scale working unit for a total cost of $37,000.

Six tons of hydrogen suffices for 108 tons of methane and oxygen, which provides fuel for internal combustion engines used to explore Mars and rocket engines for the return trip to earth. Each proposed Mars rocket has a little less power than the rockets used for the Apollo Moon trips in 1969 and the early 1970s and is capable of delivering 47 tons to Mars during each six- to eight-month voyage. Zubrin even includes 5 kilowatts of solar panels to provide for life support functions on Mars if the nuclear generator fails to operate.

The first trip with humans (an initial robot mission sets up the chemical plant) occurs about $10 billion into the project. A very large part of this cost is allocated to hardware and fuel for the return trip to Earth. Ten billion dollars, I reminded Zachary, is still quite a lot of money to raise from private enterprise. His reply: "Why come back? Did the European families that settled North America have round-trip tickets?'' Without the round-trip ticket, the first Mars mission, augmented with human supplies for self-sufficiency, may be as low as $2 billion - eight dollars per American citizen - and well within the reach of private enterprise - if the people who earned that money can come to understand that this is a wise expenditure of their resources. Could we, for example, convince the advertising executives of American industries that a small portion of their budgets should be used for this purpose? That alone would pay the cost.

The usual arguments for such adventures would almost certainly fail. "Science will be advanced'' - who cares? Very few of our customers are scientists. "Technology will be advanced'' - great! The politicians and enviros have our customers scared of the technology we have now. Who wants more? "We'll finally learn for certain whether there is or has ever been life on Mars.'' This argument fails, too, but it contains a clue to the solution of our problem.

Whether or not there is life on Mars now, there should be life there now - human life - family life. America was settled by courageous families who desired no return ticket. They brought with them only those possessions too valuable to leave behind - their husbands, wives, and children, and the tools they expected to need to provide for those husbands, wives, and children.

Very few Americans alive today will ever go to Mars. If, however, a Mars mission were launched with two or more families on board (with the adults selected for appropriate technological abilities and their children of varying ages), virtually everyone in America would go to Mars - vicariously. The lives of these families during the trip and during the succeeding years of their adventures on Mars would be the greatest human interest event of the century (until, in later years, so many other families joined them that Mars became routine.) What American company would be willing to admit that they had not helped with this adventure?

But this is dangerous, right? That's why 10,000 families would volunteer to make the trip. If the first families died (perhaps a 10% chance), the second mission of families would set up an appropriate monument to them on Mars and then work even harder to succeed.

Would you like to devastate the opponents of nuclear power? People learn by example. "The Mars families use nuclear power.'' Would you like to bury the purveyors of socialism? "The Mars families were sent by free enterprise.''

Would you like to obliterate the professional antitechnologists? "No magazine issue in America is complete without an update on the Mars families and their use of technology to tame Mars.''

Would you like to reawaken American family traditions and reverse the decline in family life? "If those families on Mars can overcome the obstacles they face, surely so can we.''

We cannot change human nature. Moreover, history teaches and reteaches us the horrible consequences that accompany the descent of human civilizations into domination by human vices and failings.

The way to avoid such horrors is to conduct our affairs in such a way that the virtues of the human spirit are predominant. One such virtue is our spirit of adventure, the desire within each person to be a part, during his short life, of a least one great undertaking. If Ameri-can families go to Mars - now - and live there, the spirit of every person they leave behind on Earth will be able to go with them.

The greatest scientific discoveries are often those that merely simplify a large number of facts and observations that were previously considered very complicated - and only approachable by extraordinary and very sophisticated means. There is a logical tendency for scientiststo attempt such simplifications of new problems by means of techniques that have proven successful in solving previous problems.

This is especially true in medicine because medical science involves the study of such extraordinary, beautiful, and yet complex phenomena that often only a small fraction of the needed facts are actually known, so each subject initially appears to be a frustrating morass of suppositions and beliefs connected by small glimmers of actual concrete facts. Since biochemical, bacterial, viral, and genetic explanations have worked well in the solution of some medical problems, there is a tendency to believe that these disciplines hold the solutions to all medical problems - and to believe this at the expense of other approaches that should be given more consideration.

This is especially well illustrated by the career of Dr. Milne Ongley, a British physician who has spent more than 40 years studying mechanical damage to joints and the spine as causes of human ailments.

After completing his formal medical training, Dr. Ongley worked for three years at St. Thomas's Hospital in London (1953-1956) with Dr. James Cyriax, the father of orthopedic medicine. He then entered medical practice in New Zealand in 1956, where he worked for 15 years until coming to the United States in 1972.

Most of Dr. Ongley's patients in New Zealand were either athletes or industrial workers with physical injuries. This simplified things for him, since he could usually be quite certain that the symptoms and signs exhibited by his patients were the result of mechanical problems. Gradually, he developed very great skill in the use of the diagnostic procedures that he had learned from Dr. Cyriax - procedures which are based upon functional examination of the various components of the patient's body and upon the usual information available from x-ray examination and, now, other modern imaging techniques.

The diagnosis of mechanical injuries to the knees, the elbows, the back, the neck, the joints of the hands and feet, and other such structures is not as easy as one might expect. Many of the essential tissues cannot be seen directly by x-ray examination. The positions and health of these tissues must be inferred from the positions of the bones and other dense structures in various states of flexion and from the symptoms and signs exhibited by the patient. Many years of diagnostic experience are required before a physician is skilled in these techniques, and, even then, additional confirmatory tests are sometimes necessary.

Accurate diagnosis is, of course, only the first step. Treatment is the next. Dr. Ongley specializes in the treatment of mechanical injuries without surgery - techniques that do not require hospitalization or general anesthesia and can be performed in an ordinary doctor's office.

There is an ethical rule in medicine which is expressed as "first, do no harm.'' Each physician endeavors to help his patient by means that, at the very least, are unlikely to make his condition worse. Since surgery, especially that involving general anesthesia and regardless of the wonderful skills that surgeons have developed, is inherently a dangerous, expensive procedure that can inadvertently harm the patient, medical ethics requires that non-surgical approaches be exhaustively considered before surgery is carried out - except, of course, in immediately life-threatening circumstances where time is a critical factor.

Obviously, some injuries are so severe that surgery is ultimately required, but a surprisingly large proportion of mechanical injures do not require surgery and can be more successfully cured without surgery. This is especially so with the use of specialized techniques that Ongley and his predecessors have developed.

For example, if a bone in the back or neck is malaligned (incorrectly positioned as a result of injury), Ongley first destroys scar tissue that has formed at the injury. Then he returns the bone to its correct position by manipulation. Finally, in a series of injections at weekly intervals, he introduces substances at the injury site that stimulate the regeneration of the normal tissues which maintain the bones in their correct position. During this period, the patient regularly performs exercises that involve a full range of motion of the damaged structures, so that the tissues formed will not later inhibit bodily movement.

This use of injected "proliferants,'' which are defined as substances that cause the growth of new tissue by the reproduction of similar cells, is a unique technique. This weekly injection process involves the induction of a repeated and controlled inflammatory response at the site of injury to cause increased normal tissue formation. Dr. Ongley discovered that it is essential for the treated joint to be exercised fully during the healing process to assure normal tissue growth.

Proliferants were originally developed by three American physicians, Dr. C. O. Rice (1936), Dr. George Schultz (who immediately adopted and extended Rice's original work in 1936), and Dr. George Hackett (1956). Each of these men induced tissue formation in their patients by injecting proliferants at the sites of injury. These original proliferants were, however, very painful. Dr. Ongley's contribution (in New Zealand in 1957) was to develop a proliferant solution that was painless when injected. This permitted patient compliance with repeated injections and with the necessary exercises following injection.

I know several men, for example, whose typical back injuries were corrected by Ongley more than ten years ago. In each case, the cure was safe, almost painless, and, most importantly, it was permanent. Anyone who has chronic pain in any of his joints or spine, especially if he is considering surgery, should at least consult Dr. Ongley first.

The proliferant solution Ongley uses is a mixture of 12.5% glucose, 12.5% glycerine, 1.25% phenol, and 0.25% (plain) xylocaine. In addition to the proliferant properties of this entire mixture, the phenol and xylocaine help prevent infection, and the xylocaine (an anesthetic) helps confirm the correctness of the injection site by relieving pain.

Numerous fascinating findings have followed from these simple techniques. For example, based upon 40 years of professional experience, Ongley has found that the majority of the simple broken bones that are placed in rigid casts during healing would be better treated by no casts at all. If proliferants are properly injected to speed healing and the motion of the limb is not impaired by rigid immobilization, the patient heals more quickly and with less likelihood of restricted limb motion. The broken bones to which this technique does not apply are largely breaks in load-bearing bones which cannot remain in place if the patient puts weight upon them before they are healed.

Ongley's techniques involving neck injuries are especially interesting. As most people know, the bundle of nerves by which the brain communicates with the rest of the body runs through the neck and down the back in the middle of a long structure of bones and tissues collectively known as the spinal column. There are 33 bony segments in the spinal column called "vertebrae,'' seven of which are in the neck. The spinal column provides flexible structural support for the head and body and also a protective sheath for this important bundle of nerves on which most bodily movement and sensation depends.

In many neck injuries, out-of-place vertebral structures or scar tissue formed at the site of injury press on the nerve bundle. Light pressure can cause such symptoms as tingling of the hands and feet. More serious pressure can damage motor nerves and impair bodily movement. Also, if spinal structures are improperly in contact with this nerve bundle, the chance that it will be seriously damaged in an automobile accident or other such event are markedly increased. The surgery necessary to correct this dangerous condition can often be avoided using Ongley's techniques. Moreover, surgery can lead to additional misplaced scar tissue and recurrence of the condition.

Fewer people know that the vertebral bones and surrounding tissues in the neck also provide a channel for a very special pair of arteries known as the "vertebral arteries,'' which provide blood for the spinal tissues, the brain stem, and critical parts of the back part of the brain. Since the vertebral arteries supply blood to the most critical areas of the central nervous system, they are encased in the spine for special physical protection.

Figure 1 shows the better-known right carotid artery that lies near the front of the neck and supplies blood to the front parts of the brain. Also shown is the right vertebral artery winding its way through the vertebral bones of the neck. A similar left view of the head would show the left carotid and vertebral arteries. Figure 2 shows these two pairs of arteries as seen from the underside of the brain - one pair supplying blood to the front of the brain and one pair to the back. These figures are from Gray's Anatomy, 28th Edition, published by Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1966.

The arteries of the brain are connected in such a way that they can sometimes supplement one another and thereby overcome minor restrictions in one artery by circulation through another artery. The brain, however, requires so much oxygen and nutrients that any significant restriction, while perhaps not fatal, may have harmful consequences.

As can be clearly understood from Figure 1, disruption of the spinal structure of the neck can result in impaired blood flow through the vertebral arteries. The joints in the neck, like those in the rest of the body, are relatively easy to injure, especially as the bones in those joints deteriorate with age. Such an injuries can lead to many "syndromes.'' A "syndrome'' is defined as "a group of symptoms and signs of disordered function related to one another by means of some anatomical, physiological, or biochemical peculiarity.'' Medical scientists simplify their communications with each other and with their patients by giving syndromes specific names such as, to give one example, "multiple sclerosis.'' Research scientists use the same names and often simplify their work by assuming (sometimes incorrectly) that each syndrome has a discoverable single cause and cure.

Although tens of thousands of research papers have been published by scientists documenting changes in the brain that correlate with age and with specific syndromes associated with degenerative diseases of the brain and nervous system, they rarely consider that these changes could be brought about by simple mechanical injuries or degeneration of the neck. This, however, has been Dr. Ongley's experience.

He has found that patients who have been diagnosed with, for example, multiple sclerosis (commonly thought to be a disease of biochemical or viral origin) often actually have dislocations in their necks which interfere with proper function of the nerves and the vertebral arteries. By non-surgical treatment of these mechanical problems, he has restored health to many such "multiple sclerosis'' patients.

Mechanical diseases of the joints and spine - some of which lead to pain and some of which lead to other symptoms not obviously related to skeletal problems such as visual or central nervous system malfunctions - afflict a great many people. Yet the field of orthopedic medicine, which involves the nonsurgical treatments that Dr. Ongley and his colleagues have developed, is largely overlooked. A few American physicians have been trained by Dr. Ongley and he himself currently treats patients in a new, modern hospital (owned and controlled by an American corporation, Group Med International) in Ensenada, Mex-ico, about 80 miles south from San Diego, California.

Prospective patients who wish to consult Dr. Ongley or be referred by him to a physician whom he has trained, physicians who would like to learn these techniques, or professionals desiring detailed technical information can reach him by telephone at his home in the United States near San Diego at (619) 468-0055 on Mondays thru Thursdays.

Why Ensenada? Get used to it. As the United States government (both the Democrat and Republican branches) continues its already well-advanced destruction of free enterprise in medicine, Americans will increasingly find that the best medical care lies beyond the borders of their own country - out of reach of the dead hand of government and, unfortunately, also out of reach of their medical insurance.

The United States government is currently on the verge of destroying its tiny $8.5 million dollar per year program for the development of small nuclear reactors of the sort needed for Mars exploration. The articles "Space Nuclear Power Programme at Risk'' by Tony Reichhardt, Nature 382, p 6 (July 4, 1996) and "End of Space Nuclear Reactor Program'' by Jocelyn Kaiser, Science 273, p 21 (July 5, 1996) report that continuation of the project is very unlikely.

The United States first flew a nuclear reactor in space in 1965. The Russians apparently developed the better models. The United States Defense Department purchased six Russian TOPAZ reactors in 1991 and began a joint testing project with Russian participation.

Progress, however, has been slow because, during the entire five-year, $80 million research program, these scientists have never been allowed to put nuclear fuel into the reactors. Electrical heating elements have been used to simulate actual operation.

The excuse given for this restriction is that nuclear reactors are unpopular. No federal agency, including NASA, which admits that such reactors will be required as power sources for any future large robotic spacecraft or for manned exploration of Mars, is willing to risk an-titechnology pseudoenvironmentalist criticism by supporting this project or allowing realistic tests of the already developed technology.

The United States National Research Council has concluded that, if this program is allowed to die, "an entire body of knowledge is likely to die with it.'' The political target is, of course, larger than mere space exploration. There are a multitude of Earth-based applications for which small, standardized nuclear reactors would be very useful.

A free-enterprise corporation with more faith in mankind than these governmental deadheads, should buy this hardware, hire the scientists and engineers who understand it, and continue to develop this technology. The future belongs to those who have confidence in the best qualities of the human spirit, and that wonderful future will come -regardless of politicking by the merchants of fear, envy, and doom.

The article by Poong Eil Juhn and Jürgen Kupitz in IAEA Bulletin 38, No.1, pp 2-9, available from the International Atomic Energy Agency, P. O. Box 100, A-1400, Vienna, Austria, reviews past and projected world growth of nuclear power generation.

As can be seen from Figure 3, reproduced from the Juhn and Kupitz article, the percentage of world-wide electricity production that is provided by nuclear power has risen from less than 2% in 1970 to 17% in 1994. Moreover, this rate of growth is likely to accelerate during coming years, especially in Asia (and possibly even in the United States as pseudoenvironmentalism wanes in influence).

The tax-financed research crowd that has been created by advertisement of a coming global warming apocalypse may soon be facing a more down-to-earth problem - unemployment. Too much good research is beginning to be published which indicates that greenhouse warming from human activities will be a negligibly small effect and, considering enhanced plant growth from increases in CO 2, is likely to be an overall beneficial phenomenon - and the press, even the New York Times , is beginning to pay attention.

Recent examples are: 1. "Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming?'' by the George Marshall Institute, 1730 M Street, N. W., Suite 502, Washington, DC 20036, which concludes that global temperature is now increasing at about 0.10 ºC per decade. 2. "Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880-1993: An Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection'' by W. H. Soon, E. S. Posmentier, and S. L. Baliunas, an Astrophysical Journal preprint available from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, which concludes that variations in solar activity have contributed at least as much to global temperatures changes as have greenhouse gas changes since 1880. 3. "A Skeptic Asks, Is It Getting Hotter or Is It Just the Computer?'' by William K. Stevens, The New York Times , pp C1 & C8, June 18, 1996, which reports the work of Richard S. Lindzen at MIT, who has concluded that global warming will be so mild as to be essentially a non-problem. While not endorsing Lindzen's conclusions, the Times gave him a fair hearing, a good picture, and 50 column inches. 4. The virtual panic set off in the global warming community by "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming''' by Frederick Seitz in The Wall Street Journal, p A16, June 12, 1996, which discredited the latest United Nations IPCC global warming report, is the most spectacular evidence that the global warming people are in serious trouble.

In this article, Professor Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute said, "In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.''

On one page, Science 272, p 1747 (1996), Constance Holden has provided both of our Stark Raving Mad winners for this month.

A presentation during World Animal Awareness week in Wash-ington, DC, June 20-24 was entitled: "In Defense of Disease - Disabling Science: How Negative Stereotypes of Illness Have Been Used to Promote Animal Experimentation.''

A furor, led by the Harvard Crimson student newspaper, erupted among 1600 seniors at Harvard University when it was learned that the 1996 commencement address would be delivered by scientist Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate and Director of the National Institutes of Health. Harvard had, it was widely noted, not stooped so low as to allow a scientist to address their commencement ceremony since Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, spoke there 51 years ago.

Commented physicist Leon Lederman, "Look, they've graduated already, maybe they just didn't want to know any more......''

Energy & Environment, Hopes, Hurdles by George M. Roy, available from Roy Publishing, 12098 Centerville Road, Chico, CA 95928, Telephone (916) 343-4511. This book is a good energy primer for the layman and contains many useful factual comparisons.

"Off-Resonance Conduction Through Atomic Wires'' by A. Yazdani, D. M. Eigler, and N. D. Lang , Science 272, pp 1921-1924. This article reports the measurement of the resistance of wires only one atom thick. The resistance of a single Xenon atom turns out to be 10⁵ohms and that of two xenon atoms is 10⁷ ohms.

"What a Waste. Recycling Is Garbage. Recycling squanders money and good will - and doesn't do much for the environment, either.'' by John Tierney, The New York Times Magazine, pp 23-29, 44,48,51, & 53, June 30, 1996. Access to Energy has previously called recycling, except for that spontaneously done by free enterprise for economic reasons, "interactive propaganda'' for the enviro industry.

"A Road to Hell Paved With Good Intentions'' by Thomas Sow-ell, Forbes, pp 60-65, January 17, 1994. Sowell points out that the discrediting of communism and socialism has not included discreditation of the collectivism that nurtured them. He urges that we all reread Frie-drich Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

"ROTC at a Turning Point'' by Fred W. Decker, Washington Inquirer, pp 7-8, July 1, 1996, available from 4455 Connecticut Avenue NW #330, Washington, DC 20008.