In the fall of 2003, defense industry reporter Sharon Weinberger was sitting through yet another Capitol Hill briefing on Pentagon weaponry, when a fellow in the back of the room mentioned something called a “hafnium bomb.” Weinberger had never heard of it. So she turned around and asked the guy what the hell a hafnium bomb was.
The question started Weinberger on a two-year “journey through the Pentagon’s scientific underground.” By the time she was done, Weinberger had run into eavesdropping kittens, wormhole builders, antimatter rocketeers, psychic CIA agents, intelligent designists, and cold fusion true believers. But most importantly, she became deeply intertwined with a far-flung coalition of Defense Department-backed scientists who believed that they could construct nuclear hand grenades out of bits of the radioactive isotope hafnium-178 — despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s all chronicled in Weinberger’s fascinating, disturbing, wickedly funny new book, Imaginary Weapons.
Weinberger’s story centers around Carl Collins, a Texas scientist turned nuclear Don Quixote, who convinces Pentagon and Energy Department officials to spend millions on his jousts with the laws of physics. The fact his windmill-tilting relies on a second-hand X-ray machine, taken from a dentist’s office, doesn’t seem to matter. Or that his Romanian wife has a sketchy choke-hold over the hafnium supply. Or that every scientific panel the Pentagon assembles calls Collins’ work bunk. Or that no reputable physicist can replicate his hafnium experiments.
Luckily for Collins, “no one remembers the failure,” Weinberger quotes Darpa chief Tony Tether as saying. “That allows us to try again and again Darpa is Groundhog Day. We do things over and over again.” For years, it seems, Tether and others in Defense Department woke up every morning convinced that the Russians were about to have a hafnium bomb. It took a near-Herculean effort to finally persuade them that it might not be true.
In the book and over the next few days, in a series of exclusive posts for Defense Tech Weinberger shows how dangerous the amnesiac attitude is for the nation’s security. But God, is it good for readers. Weinberger is a master observer, capturing the sights and sounds surrounding the inanity and near-insanity of military fringe science, from the puffed-up research claims to the hushed denials, based on questionable secrecy. Scientists wax poetic about the beauty of mushroom clouds. Google searches for hafnium turn up an Alabama physicist, who sees the isomer’s intricacy as a sign of intelligent design. Supposedly landmark experiments are commemorated by stryfoam cups marked “Dr. C’s memorial target holder.” Imaginary Weapons can lay the physics on a little thick for the lay reader, at times. But mostly, accompanying Weinberger on her trip through the Pentagon’s pseudo-science netherworld is madcap, farcical fun. Here’s an excerpt:
Hafnium went to the Pentagon by way of New Mexico, helped along by a cadre of believers in the Air Force. One of those, of course, was Forrest “Jack” Agee, the Air Force scientist in charge of funding basic physics. He was the man who, in 1999, started funding Collins, while also publishing with him.
In early 2004, I went to visit Agee at his office in Arlington, Virginia.
Standing in front of the nondescript building that housed the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, I stopped for a moment to take in the gray faade that showed little sign of military occupancy. Office workers shuttled in and out of the multistory building, and it wasn’t until I arrived at the Air Force’s floor that a halfhearted attempt at military security was on display. A sullen woman reading a copy of People shoved a red badge at me, barely glancing at my press credentials.
Agee, once described to me as the eminence grise behind isomers, smiled as I entered his office and extended his hand like a caretaker greeting a mourning relative on their way to buy a casket. It was the last time he smiled. With dark-tinted glasses and a dour demeanor, Agee did not seem like the type of military official to give interviews, and I was surprised, in fact, that he had agreed to speak to me at all. Maybe he was surprised, too, because as soon as we sat down at the small oval table in his office, he immediately looked uncomfortable. Seated at the table, I noticed that Agee had a corner office, but with the windows blocked at every angle by adjacent buildings, casting the room in a permanent gloomy haze.
To Agee’s right sat a public affairs official, and to his left, a security officer, who as Agee explained, was there to make sure he didn’t say anything classified.
What secrets could accidentally slip out, I wondered?…
When I asked him about the controversial nature of the [hafnium] work, particularly the scientific debate around Collins’s hafnium triggering experiment, Agee frowned deeply. “I know that work is going on around the world in this area,” he said. “We are familiar with a number of countries that are pursuing this.“
Agee paused for a moment to clear his throat and glanced out the window with its plaintive view of the next buildingperhaps thinking about the legions of foreign countries that could be eavesdropping on our conversation about dreaded isomer weapons.
He cleared his throat again, and then continued: “It was a surprise that Japanese torpedoes worked in a shallow harbor in 1941. We were technologically surprised by that and with awesome impact. So, the fact that there are countries other than ours that are working on this, well, we better be able to know what this is about whether we ever find an application for it or not, in case others find that.” ?
I was struck that just about every government scientist I’d met had described their job as preventing “technological surprise,” but something like the isomer weapon was only a threat if it worked, or had a reasonable chance of working, I pointed out An expert panel of scientists had essentially said the hafnium bomb couldn’t work, or at least had about as much a chance of being a bomb as a jelly donut. Was there really any legitimate fear of isomer bombs raining down on the United States anytime in the near-to-distant future?
Agee scoffed.
“We rely on more than just a few days’ review by some panelalbeit populated by smart people,” he said.
UPDATE 06/14/06 12:06 PM: Carl Collins drops by to respond, here.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
If you’re referring to the element, I believe it’s spelled hafnium.
Derf. Fixed.
The hafnium controversy has actually been quite a big concern among the scientific Defense related circles. Here’s a background on the issue.
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug05/pdfs/07_05.4.pdf
Basically, the concern was this: Hafnium has a high amount of energy stored in it’s nucleus, which is released extremely slowly over a very long halflife. If you could find a way to get all that energy released instantaneously, you’d have an extremely powerful weapon on hand, in addition to basically a nuclear battery. A scientist in the early 90′s reportedly was able to achieve this by bombarding Hafnium with high energy x-rays. But the study went unnoticed until later, when it became a big concern for the Defense Department. The possibility that such a simple procedure could result in such a powerful reaction was a definite national security risk. So they tried to duplicate the study’s results at LANL, but were unable to even come close, and eventually dismissed it as a non-threat. Pretty cool stuff though.
Are you sure you’re referring to an isomer of hafnium? Isomers would be something else…isotope perhaps.
I should clarify. The reference is to nuclear isomers, not chemical isomers.
Stimulated energy release from Hafnium looks like a non-starter, but it works well enough (though less spectatcularly) with other isomers.
It’s just a question of how much you can get.
More fun ! Checkout URL:
http://www.imaginaryweapons.net
This is a very important book. This military should not be wasting tax payer’s money on obvious crackpot nonsense.
I have just finished reading the book Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger and I so much wish I could agree that it is an important book. It is not an important book. Unhappily it is a busted flush. It is so full of mistakes and third hand hearsay that there is a danger that it is a red herring that will send us all off in silly directions and dead ends.
John Walker over at Fourmilab in Switzerland first caught onto this pointing out that the poor usage of language and grammar such as sites instead of cites and wonder instead of wander made him wonder why it was published so carelessly. It was already established that she put the nuke dump in the wrong state. At http://www.imaginaryweapons.net they claim some important incidents Sharon Weinberger emphasizes so much in Imaginary Weapons are simply fantasies, completely made up. I know one person mentioned in the book as a critic of Hafnium and I asked for confirmation of the incident involving that person. They evaded as much as possible and finally just refused to talk about it.
I think we had better be a bit careful embracing Imaginary Weapons so uncritically.
I am very sorry to say that I believe we must consider Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger as a possible fraud. If you Google on Imaginary Weapons you can find a significant number of blogs, interviews and technical evaluations of the material offered as truth in the book, some are even posted overseas. As more copies of the book are read, comments are shading from how wonderful and how wickedly funny and how important to know that the Pentagon wasted 5 seconds of expenditure examining the possibility of a Hafnium bomb to why such a potentially important message was delivered in such a flawed package as Ms. Weinberger did in Imaginary Weapons. If you do search you will find Stephen who warns us of the danger of such uncritical acceptance of what Ms. Weinberger has written so carelessly. He points the way to a site from which free copies of nine different technical publications by that obscure Texas professor can be downloaded to see what was actually claimed. I did that and I could find no mention or picture of a bomb or a grenade. There was only a lot of technical detail telling how to repeat the experiments
Hi Tom L.
Too bad you had not the courage to use your real name so we might have had a significant discussion. Since you didn’t, the only way I can start is to repeat, “Come on, lighten up a bit.” It appears that you are really uptight about this, so much so that you are willing to ignore Sharon Weinberger’s many, many inaccuracies, uses of uncorroborated hearsay of hearsay, and probably that utterly ridiculous tale of the interception of 3 kg of (ground state) Hafnium, shining in the moonlight at the Bulgarian border crossing at Ruse. Ever seen Hafnium shine? You would be the first, and what use or point is a slug of ground state Hafnium in Bulgaria? Do you think that has something to do with me also? (That’s a joke!)
You come on rather strongly, if you are a stranger, Tom L. Why would you suppose that I had, or have, some responsibility to try to guess why some other folks’ experiments would not work. My wife, Doina, already gave a lay explanation about trying to “bake the cake in 1.8 seconds at 350,000 degrees.” That was pretty clear, I thought. It is not my responsibility or fault that those who want to do the experiment differently get a different result. Anyway, many other confirming experiments did succeed. The DARPA confirming experiment called TRIP did work, several times, as was disclosed in a FOIA response to Sharon Weinberger; but she hid that information, of course. A summary of the confidences of the various experiments has been available for over a year and can be seen by all at:
http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Hafnium_isomer_triggering.htm
Finally, Tom L., there are 9 free reprints of my recent articles published in peer-reviewed journals that can be downloaded at URL: http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/isomer/isomerPubl.htm
Bloggers have done this and have found no mention and certainly not any drawings of bombs or grenades. Just because Sharon Weinberger “says so” does not make something true, nor does it make me father of the Hafnium bomb. (Usually it is just the opposite).
Tom, “Get a life,” as the good advice goes, and if you are unable to do that, get better informed; be more critical of what you find in your readings of the likes of Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger.
Carl
Tom L.
Good Gad, your feelings were hurt by the statement on the http://www.imaginaryweapons.net site where you were cited as not being a member of the “Best and Brightest!” If you had just communicated your upset I could have tried to get that part deleted or rephrased – but then you know my strong commitment to facts and actual data. When they asked me, I had to mention that in a 40-50 year career you seemed to have published in a peer reviewed journal only one “real” article that was not a conference proceeding, namely, Nucl.Instrum.Meth.OOOOOO, 1995. (Please note, I have redacted enough in order to respect your “simple fear of potential harassment.” Actually, not being myself a member of the “Best and Brightest,” I do not know the requirement for membership, but maybe one real publication is enough.
Yes indeed, your personal opinion does not matter to me, (it is cute and profane, true your style and proves the efficacy of my advice. You did lighten up!) However, for the fellow-bloggers trying to sort this out, I have to highlight a few points.
As I said before, Sharon Weinberger forced out of DARPA an FOIR about TRIP. The FOIR told that the Rusu dissertation, that had become the “gold standard” for Hafnium triggering experiments, was fully confirmed. (Dr. Rusu was one of my excellent PhD students, and one who CAN reproduce Hf-isomer triggering.) Now, we can individually decide whether to believe or not believe the DARPA FOIR statements given to and concealed by Sharon Weinberger. I happen to believe the confirmation, you do not. The difficulty is that none of us can see the TRIP data or read of the results. I guess it depends upon the definition of a “black program,” but I would say a program is black if the results cannot be published or examined by anyone without a security clearance and if the budget is unknown. (Ms. Weinberger writes that $5 Million is currently available for continuation of that TRIP work in 2006, but she is so unreliable, that means nothing).
So, “Tom L.,” I congratulate you and Sharon Weinberger on your achievement in forcing the Hf-isomer triggering issue into the realm of “black programs.” Hafnium isomer triggering goes on in good health, but without the involvement of you or me. Rather a relief; and if you stop humming and wish to learn more you can observe it is no longer 2004, but 2006, and there are some really exciting publications we have in the open literature, published before the program went “black.” Anyone interested in progress since 2004 will have to order reprints from the publishers, as is the custom for new publications.
Anyway, I will do my best to fix your hurt feelings and get the statement about your not being one of the “Best and Brightest” out of sight.
Carl
My negative review of Imaginary Weapons was another of the ones rejected over at Amazon. Now, that’s past and OK, because we can understand that Amazon is trying to sell books; and by now, others have raised the same thing that I was aiming at then.
A different concern bothers me and I want to share it here. These new blogs emphasize that DARPA was forced to respond to a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) made by Weinberger; and I have seen a copy of the DARPA response. It says the “TRIP test” independently confirmed the Hf-isomer triggering experiment.
In the TRIP test DARPA had demanded a confirmation of the “Rusu PhD dissertation,” because it was accepted as “the gold standard for Hf-isomer triggering proofs.” While some claim that the peer review process is flawed for publishing articles, stronger standards exist in the Universities. We cannot access the now-black data and results of the official TRIP test, but we can easily get a copy of the gold standard.
At the bottom of the URL:
http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Hafnium_isomer_triggering.htm
is the information for ordering a copy of that so-called gold standard for isomer triggering. I got one and it is a bigger book and much better written than Imaginary Weapons; and coming from a non-profit source it is a much better value for the money. Ordering information is given at the target of the link at the bottom of the URL. When you have a copy in hand, you will see that it is crammed with experimental detail; and we must remember that it was examined and passed by the University of Texas Graduate Faculty. It is an impressively solid work and if TRIP reproduced that; then Hf-isomer triggering is proven.
I guess the question is whether we can believe the FOIR response. Honestly, I have to say that I cannot believe that DARPA would send a false report to an obviously hostile FOIR demand from Ms. Weinberger.
I strongly recommend those really interested buy the gold standard Rusu dissertation and not Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger.
Sharon: re: no 4. and anonymity.
The sad fact is, at least in some cases, people are doing so because they haven’t a clue as to what’s okay to say. using their own real names.
Pathetic.
democracy yeah yeah. Dream on yall.
Another Weinbergerism !!! There is no such thing as TRIPP. In the course of HF-isomer triggering there were HIPP meetings and a couple of successful TRIP experiments, there was no TRIPP anything.
We could define “Weinbergerism” as an impassioned military assault with dud ammunition – and to think she is editor-in-chief of a once respectable defense magazine.
Hi Leul,
I like it !
Let’s polish it a bit more and define Weinbergerism as “a fanatical assault with dud ammunition”.
Cheers,
Andarte
Dear Ms.Weinberger,perhaps you may want to read Belic et al.Phys Rev Letter 83 p 5242(1999)”Stuttgart group”, they seem to think it is possible.
Best Regards
Please, “A.N.,” don’t try to get away with more misdirection. Everyone in the field knows the Belic work has nothing to do with Hf. The paper, if you actually *read* it, concerns tantalum. As in “not hafnium.” As in, “everyone — including Belic and his group — acknowledges that there is no theoretical or experimental basis for imagining any possibility of a chain reaction, or even net energy release.” And I’m close to quoting Belic verbatim on this. Next, I’m expecting you to re-invoke NEET. To head you off at the pass, I’m giving you homework. Do some calculations. Then verify that there’s a several-order-of-magnitude gap to be bridged before you’re even allowed to utter the acronym. If you get a different answer, send a correspondence to Tkalya. Evgeny will set you straight.
Ad hominem attacks, attempts at misdirection, and generally sleazy tactics have no place in science. As your intellectual father has advised repeatedly, lighten up, people. If there’s a real effect, real scientists will be able to verify it. It’s that simple.
Thus far, *no* independent confirmation exists. And all independent reviews so far have been very critical of Collins’ work. Don’t forget: The DOD’s own IDA review roughly coincided with, and perhaps precipitated, the breakup of Collins’ research group, with Carroll now distancing himself from that work. Collins’ emotional behavior has not aided the case for hafnium triggering.
Just do the science. Results speak eloquently for themselves, and have a persuasive power far in excess of whining. So far, the best assessment is that it is ganz falsch.
If you do a quick Google search, it’s apparent that Ray Mebert is not a cartoon character. He is the name of a human character, played by the cartoonist, Scott Adams.
But I guess, to you, the distinction between a cartoonist (real human) and a cartoon character (imaginary, non-human) is as unimportant as that between an independently peer-reviewed scientific paper, and a letter from an administrator. Or that between a real experimental result, and a pathological artefact.
Das ist ganz falsch. Ich habe richt.
There are several common characteristics among crackpots: They resort to ad hominem attacks, they speak the language of the subject (while betraying a total lack of understanding), and they suffer from a persecution complex.
You presume a lot in saying that Ms. Weinberger’s book is a discredit to scientists. I know many scientists. They are all cheering the book. But again, why does that matter? All along, I’ve been saying that real science will sort it out. The only ones displaying irrational emotionalism have been you and your alter egos. Just reread the posts here. Ask strangers which posts appear to be written by the unhinged.
Again, keep it simple: Wait for the real scientists to do the job of science.
Whether W. Pauli is a pseudonym or whether my real first name is Wilhelm or Wernher shouldn’t matter, now should it? Again, your emotionalism discredits you. Stick to facts. Relax. Lighten up. Watch some sitcoms. Get outside.
‘Nuff said. You have grown tiresome, and are fundamentally beyond education.
Your German is incorrect.
The rest is incorrect also.
Imaginary Weapons is a fraud and a shame to the author. If there are real scientists who cheer it, then it is a shame to them too.
Allegations of fraud are a very serious matter. As you have offered no proof, one must presume that you have none.
I join Mr. “Pauli” in leaving this place. You can lead a nutjob to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
Indeed! Some of the proof is posted at http://www.imaginaryweapons.net. The Chief Counsel of the Chicago Office of the DOE wrote that Esen Alp completely refuted the slanderous story of the actions that Sharon Weinberger attributed to him on p. 205 of Imaginary Weapons.
Another Weinbergerism – that’s a “fanatical assault with dud ammunition”.
This is not just a Weinbergerism, it is fraud.
Strange that those who accuse others of fraud are actually the ones with a truth problem. The “Esen Alp” affair is entirely one of Collins’ doing. If anyone committed a slanderous act, it’s Collins himself! Here is the relevant email. Carl/Doina/”Ingeborg”/Andarte/Leul (have I missed any of your aliases?) can scream fraud all day long, but it just calls attention to their own continued campaign of distortions. With ethics like that, no wonder their scientific work is being questioned.
Naughty, naughty! Bad scientist! Bad scientist! >
Received: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:11:49 -0400
Received: ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:11:49 -0400
From: “Carl Collins”
To: “mstickley”
Dear Martin,
Your kind words and enthusiasm continue to sustain us; and we =
Greatly appreciate them. However, I am wondering if somehow you are being “kept in the dark” as far as concerns the depth of the terribly unprincipled actions of the “opposition.” I attach a message from Dr. Yoshitaka Yoda, whom you remember meeting at SLS. As a beamline scientist, I rank his ability far above that of anyone at Argonne.
The individual referenced by Yoshitaka is Esen Alp, a senior manipulator at Argonne claiming to be a scientist. Please notice the dates. The Post Article was published on March 28. Before April 6, Esen Alp had hand-carried a copy to the Director of SPring-8 in order to block our further experiments there. Recall, at SPring-8 we had been getting the time for free and Yoshitaka Had agreed to build the shielding against ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) at their expense; and in time for our next (free) experiments. Now we will not have shielding and I suppose we will lose the time. Also, we do not have the money for 2004 yet – another problem.
My reading of the FAR and DFAR regulations is that the actions of Esen Alp constitute a crime that requires us to report such interference in Defense contracted work that impedes the work and raises the price. The unprincipled actions of Esen Alp have certainly committed that action. To whom do we report that; or am I incorrect in understanding it to be a crime?
We are working upon access to an alternate site, but surely will have to pay; and have not received guaranteed access as soon as this Fall.
I am preparing ASAP, a more realistic proposal to you for movement toward a definitive experiment; and ask you again to please wait to send “the letter” until you have the chance to consider what I assert is a more workable scientific alternative.
Very best regards,
Sincerely,
Carl
I wonder why Sharon Weinberger did not check with Mr. Alp BEFORE publishing a story about him in Imaginary Weapons. She is supposed to be an investigative reporter and Editor-in-Chief of a once respectable magazine.
The e-mail you reproduced was issued out by Sharon Weinberger yesterday and dutifully distributed by her apologists who seemed to miss the whole point. Whether you wrote it in 2004 or whether Collins wrote it in 2004 it was an uncorroborated source of gossip. In the two years since 2004 she did not even take the trouble to ask Esen Alp if he did it.
In the same alibi yesterday Sharon Weinberger wrote “Here’s Collins’ email that was quoted in the book (and I
Diogenes says “The Esen Alp affair is entirely one of Collins’ doing” – along with global warming, no doubt.
Diogenes needs a stronger lamp, this dim bulb isn’t doing the job. What fantastic illogic. I guess it goes like this. Two years ago Collins plots to trap Sharon Weinberger with a clumsy spoof email and the experienced investigative reporter “acquires” it and falls for it completely. She has no slightest suspicion during the next 2 yrs. What a devil of a guy!
Now, she finally decides to check, but once again there’s Collins ahead of her. The matter is settled by Esen Alp’s lawyers and Collins gets the confirming letter. The letter is posted on the internet. Poor investigative reporter, she needs these many apologists.
It’s all Weinbergerism – that’s a “fanatical assault with dud ammunition”.
Funny how the argument keeps shifting. First, loose allegations of fraud fly about. Then, when faced with contrary evidence, the argument becomes “she’s a sloppy reporter.”
Carl, we both *know* that you sent that email. Watch what you say next — your pants may catch on fire. And then you will indeed be responsible for abetting global warming.
Since that “Devil of a Guy” seems able to take it, I am going to go ahead and let your misidentification of authorship pass. Too bad for Collins, but then maybe he did write the email and so deserves some heat. As has been pointed out, it does not matter who wrote it. The result is the same. Sharon Weinberger cobbled together Imaginary Weapons from hearsay and gossip without checking her sources at all. If that email was her source for the Esen Alp story, then I pity her for career dreams in a field in which she is grossly inept. Send her a piece of junk and she incorporates it in her book, and then hides behind the nostrum, “original sources”.
However I am not going to let the rest of the nonsense you write go without correction. Since you are so obsessed with multiple pen names and psychobabble, it tells me that you are writing with several identities. It is not even a reach, because you use some peculiar font that maps ” as *.
As this first amendment exercise of everyone saying everything has developed, there was a healthy trend from fierce to funny. Indeed money was wasted, but actually very little. Even that bit succeeded in producing an impression that Hf-triggering has to be denigrated BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE TRUE. That is something to consider because some of the arguments are quite funny, such as the one that even a (physically) small device would be so radioactive that only a suicide bomber could use it. That was supposed to be an argument why no one could ever use it. Well, I think most people could think of some realistic examples along those lines. Or the argument that it was too expensive to make. Available publications (not from the Devil either) show that the many old cyclotrons aging away all over the world could be realistically renovated and put to work making the isomer in small, but enough, amounts. But, then the product would be even more expensive than gasoline and what bunch wanting to produce isomers in old cyclotrons could afford that kind of money?
Now, the movement of dialog from fierce to funny is well along and since the legals have taken briefs on some of the sides, soon Imaginary Weapons will dry up and blow away, all while denying Sharon Weinberger the martyrdom she seeks. The research on Hf-isomer triggering will continue at Argonne as it should, since the US has no better place. At the end of the day you will be the only one snarling and spoiling the fun.
If you would concentrate on the book and drop your tiresome personal vendetta, you could be more constructive in ways that matter.
I’m going against my better judgment now by rejoining this discussion. I know Noah likes a good argument, and I like Noah’s blog, so what the heck, I
What’s tragic is that, with every post, Collins just digs himself a deeper hole, then jumps down it. His juvenile, whiny posts have all of the intellectual profundity of “what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.” Carl — for your own sake, just stop! Lighten up!
Btw, Carl — if you had actually used computers for more than a polemical paperweight, you would know that the asterisk is used as a delimiter to identify boldface type in pure-ASCII systems that predate HTML (as in the ARPANET). It’s not a “font.” Other useful delimiters include the underscore, which signifies italics. There are also things called “emoticons,” which allow you to embed some crude graphics, such as smiley faces, winks, grimaces, etc. Don’t let your grad students do all the computer work. You’ll find that many people use asterisks. And underscores. And smiley faces.
;)
And oh. Your pants are on fire!
While I definitely do not support wasting DOD funding (I can not make a judgment either way on the topic of HF bombs as I am not informed on the issue to make such a judgment) I have done some background research on Sharon Weinberger and have come to observe trends in her reporting that lean towards left leaning advocacy journalism. I corroborate such a claim by pointing to the specifics of her academic training (B.A. from >>Johns Hopkins University<<) to her experiences in the state department an organization whose nature by definition leans to the left regarding international relations. I also point to the fact that Ms Weinberger writes for
This was aa great series of discussion-posts. It should have been on SCIFRAUD as well so I am making a referral from that list to this list.
SRD
http://www.bccmeteorties.com