Abstenince Education

A recent study reports that more teens are having sex than ever before and and that this is evidence that abstenince education is not working. However, I interpret the data differently. (1)Our nation is reaping the consequences of the sexual revolution. Now, it has become not only socially acceptable to have pre-marital sex, but it is expected. Some would suggest giving up and simply instituting a risk management strategy.

Despite this most recent data, recent CDC data shows that up to 2004, the teenage pregnancy rate continues to decrease and is now 1/2 the rate it was in 1994. (2) CDC data also show that in 2005 “The birth rate for teenagers declined 2 percent in 2005, falling to 40.4 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 years, a 35-percent drop compared with the most recent peak in 1991 (61.8), and the lowest ever recorded in the 65 years for which a consistent series of rates is available” (3) However, the same report also shows that children born to unmarried women as a whole hit record levels and increased 4 percent overall. (4) So, it seems clear that sex, pregancy, and birth by unmarried women is becoming more and more common for all age groups. Yet, despite this, the rate of teenage pregnacy and and birth is down.

Now my point is that if we were passing out condoms in schools, those against abstenince education would be patting themselves on the back saying, “see, our way works. Teen pregnancy and birth is down.” Yet when it come to abstinence only, they measure it’s success by a different standard.

Sex outside of marriage is morally wrong and should be illegal (not criminal). We have rights in this country so long as they do not violate the rights of others. I believe and so does the LDS church that all children have the right to be born into a family with both a mother and a father. This is the ideal and not always possible, but our laws should reflect our ideals and not the least common denominator. Sex out of marriage should be illegal (not criminal) even in the age of contraception. All contraception have documented failure rates even when used as directed. Furthermore, illegitimacy is the biggest single contibutor to poverty, government dependence, drug-use and crime.

Teens and adults are both mostly ignorant about birth control. The practice of cloitus interruptus and rhythm method is widespread and obviously ineffective. But, data also show that teens using the pill, and condoms are not much more effective. The reasons teens can't be told to put their faith in birthcontrol is because they are not mature enough to use it consistently. Also, studies show that teen sexual activity is highly associated with alcohol consumption which further impairs judgement. Therefore, it would be wrong to promise a teen that if they depended on the pill or condoms they will be safe, because we would be expecting them to do something that many teens are just not deveopmentally ready to strictly follow. A law of child development states that you cannot teach a child something that they are not developmentally ready to learn.

I think a good compromise would be to teach abstinence education and then focus on the limitations of various birth control methods. Condoms only protect an individual from most STD’s in most situations but they have a high failure rate because of their documented highly erratic pattern of usage. The documented bc failure rates do not take into account the human element. Other studies looking at real-life bc failure rates are consistently and significantly higher than those published on the box.

Some of the more effective methods of bc (depot, patch, and ring) which take the human element out of the equation do not protect from STD’s at all. Therefore, these methods are likely contibuting to the lower rates of teenage pregnancy but STD’s and ectopic pregnancy are off the charts. STD's and ectopic pregnacy can be lifethreatening and in can rob women of their ability to bear children later in life. Also, my wife points out that many teens she knew actually got pregnant on purpose for various insecure and immature reasons.

Opponents of abstience education say that it is somehow dishonest to expect kids to put their trust in abstience. However, we forget that abstience education has worked for generations. The problem now is that now the social landscape is changed. Parents church and school is having a hard time competing with a oversexualized pop culture and internet. On the other hand, the data shows that it would be dishonest for us to expect kids to put their faith in condoms and other forms of birth control. So, the only honest choice we are given is to clean up our media, pop culture, internet and continue to teach abstienence and review the actual failure rates of various bc methods.

Instinct vs. Conscience

Some economists hold up the capitalistic, free-market economy of supply and demand as a perfectly self-regulating system. Any perceived failings of our economy are due to artificial government regulation. On the other hand, a total deregulation of the free market would be harmful to many individuals. Healthcare is a good example. If doctors were completely deregulated, people would have to die for the consumers to learn which doctors were qualified and which were not. This economic regulation argument parallels the nature nurture debate that influences many other social issues in our society today. This article will attempt to define human instinct and conscience in order to better understand the arguments on issues such as: gay marriage, illicit drug legalization, poverty, welfare, and health care.

Our brains are designed with complex pathways to assure our survival and the survival of the human species. The brain accomplishes this through a system of sensation rewards and punishments. Our brains are designed to interpret our environment and judge whether that environment is safe or harmful. Our brain takes in all sorts of information: temperature, vibration, position, texture, sight, sound, taste, and smell. If our brain determines our environment to be dangerous or damaging, then it will generate an unpleasant, noxious, or painful sensation. Our brain is also set up to generate powerful sensations of reward, joy, happiness, well-being, laughter, and pleasure when our brain interprets our environment to be favorable to our survival and our ability to pass on our genetic material.

Our brain also has intricate chemoreceptors that monitor the amount of water, salt, and sugar in our bodies. If we are dehydrated our body will generate a thirst sensation. If we are low on salt, we will have the sensation known as the “munchies.” If our blood sugar is low and we are burning reserve fat and glycogen in our liver and muscles then we will feel hunger.

All of these sensations also stimulate a complex array of behaviors and reflexes. If we feel pain, we automatically withdraw from the stimulus. If we are cold we will start to shiver to generate more body heat and seek shelter. If we are hot our bodies will sweat and we will seek shade. If we are fighting an infection, we generally will feel tired and “malaise” or ill-feeling, and want to rest and sleep more in order to devote more energy to fighting the infection and healing.

Because our species requires sex between the genders to procreate and because the creation of social bonds with other humans can be beneficial or harmful to survival, our brains are designed to recognize and interpret a complex assortment of interpersonal and empathic information such that we can guess how another person is feeling. Our brains are designed to recognize language, facial expressions, body position and other forms of non-verbal communication. Our brains also create a complex array of sensations and feelings as rewards and punishment. Feelings such as jealousy, envy, hatred, heartbreak, guilt and shame can be as noxious and unpleasant as “somatic” physical pain from a burn or cut.

Human instinct is not infallible. Therefore, relying on our human instincts alone is not enough. In one example, it is clear that while working outside on a hot day, a person cannot rely alone on his or her sense of thirst to prevent dehydration. Human science has discovered that it is best to drink so many ounces of fluid with electrolytes each hour to prevent heat illness or death. This small example suggests another important aspect to behavior.

Humans are notoriously unpredictable. Many people in many situations do things they don’t want to do. Freud called this influence the “superego.” Others more commonly refer to the superego as the conscience. In contrast, Freud referred to the animal appetite or instinct as the “id.” What is conscience? Some experts would interpret the conscience as just an extension of the id. This familial protective instinct is used to explain charitable or altruistic behavior. Because family members carry similar genetic information, a person my feel influenced to help and protect them. However, I don’t think this explanation completely explains why people would send money to help children in foreign countries and not tell others about it. When I talk about conscience, I am not talking about the religious notion of the Holy Spirit. I am talking more about what the Bible refers to as the Light of Man or Light of Christ. Conversely, when I talk about the id, I am not talking about demonic temptation. I am referring to what the Bible refers to as the natural man, or appetites of the flesh.

So, what is the conscience or the Light of Man. Is it a real influence on behavior? I say yes. Many look at the conscience as a manifestation of nurture, or rather, a reflection of the morals and norms of society. When a person goes against the norms and values of society, the body can generate severe and powerful feelings of depression, guilt, shame, and worthlessness. This influence has been pointed out as playing a role in the high suicide rate of homosexuals in Utah. In response, gay-rights activists are seeking for more tolerance in the Utah community. This example would tend to support the idea that conscience is a powerful influence transmitted and acquired by our social environment through teaching and example.

In light of this destructive example of conscience, should conscience be suppressed and Darwin reign supreme? I think not. Because we all know that unbridled passions can equally be destructive. It is human nature to be generally lazy, self-serving, and intolerant. Somewhere along the way, a human ancestor discovered upon the concept of sacrifice, which is to set aside what you want now and work for something better in the future. The most successful humans of our species are able to visualize the end reward and the steps necessary to arrive at the end goal. Our society calls these people CEOs, presidents, visionaries, seers, or prophets. Others who follow these leaders may not have the same vision as their leader but are asked to work towards the goal based on faith and trust. However, the best workers are able at some point to arrive at the point where they share the vision of their leaders.

It should also be pointed out that new genetic and social science has discovered that instinct and conscience or nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive. Our environment can change our genetics and visa versa. If fact, new research is verifying that human baby brains are set up to acquire and incorporate information from their social environment from birth. Whooping Cranes are an excellent example. Whooping cranes are the tallest bird in North America but unfortunately they are an endangered species on the verge of extinction. The only few thousand birds remaining spend their summers in Canada and migrate in the fall to winter in South Texas. A new program is being developed to establish new breeding grounds and new wild populations for the cranes. A group of scientists is currently raising cranes in Wisconsin and then imprinting the young birds to follow an ultra-light aircraft with is then used to lead the cranes to new winter breeding grounds in Florida. This crane experiment illustrates the relationship of instinct and conscience. Bird migration has always been a mystery. How do animals learn to migrate back to the exact place where they were conceived? This crane experiment suggests that they imprint and follow someone who knows the way.

From these explanations it seems clear that nature and nurture, instinct and conscience are critical in the survival and fitness of the human species. Therefore, any arguments that would emphasize one influence over the other are false arguments. Examples of these arguments are found on both sides on every issue: “just let the free markets work,”
“It’s not personal, it’s just business,” “I can’t help it, I was born this way,” “if it feels good, do it,” “just do whatever makes you happy,” “what’s right for one person isn’t right or another person,” and “I deserve it because I earned it.”

Social scientists are discovering a troubling shift in the rising generation. Past generations were guided by the values of honor. In a so-called honor generation, individuals find self-worth and importance by contributing or being part of something bigger and more important than themselves. This is called being “internally motivated” or having an “external locus of control” or just simply being unselfish. Experts are seeing evidence that generation X and generation NEXT are becoming more and more selfish. The rising “Me Generation” (of which I belong) seems to be obsessed with acquiring more wealth, fame, power and glory as it can get however it can get it. Lying and cheating in school, business, and in our personal relationships is almost become a virtue. On the other hand, the concept of an honor generation can go too far the other way. No one wants to go back to the age of duels and honor suicide. But it is my opinion that the pendulum has swung too far away from honor and selflessness.

An interesting argument to support same-sex marriage, adoption of children, and invitro-fertilization is that a more diverse social arrangements would make our species more fit according to the laws of natural selection. However, these social arrangements are against the traditional foundation principles of our society and therefore, against the conscience of a majority of people. Supporters of alternative lifestyles and families support a change in society morals and values claiming benefits according to instinct at the expense of conscience. Both are important. Conscience is not necessarily unchangeable. But, to warrant a change, they would have to prove a benefit to society with real outcome data such as better health, increased wealth, and psychological wellbeing. I have yet to see such data to support a change in our traditional values.

In conclusion, as we engage in the discussion of social issues such as legalizing marijuana and abortion I would hope that we would get past the simple arguments that instinct trumps conscience or conscience trumps instinct and talk about the real benefits or risks, pros and cons are with regard to the issues.

Thoughts on Nuclear Energy

Uranium is a naturally occuring element in the Earth's crust. It is already ratioactive and is continually degrading spontaneously to form all sorts of radioactive byproducts such as radon. Uranium exists in two main forms or isotopes: 99% U238 and <1% U235. U238 is a stable isotope and not considered radioactive. U238 is denser than Lead and just slightly less dense than gold and is used by the millitary as "depleted uranium" as tank armor and in armor peircing shells.

U235, on the other hand, is the highly radioactive fissionable isotope. If you just get enough U235 together in one place at one time the spontaneously splitting atoms of U235 will give off extra neutrons which in-turn cause more U235 to split, resulting in an uncontrolled chain reaction giving off enormous amounts of heat and light. After reaching "critical mass" the U235 would create a blinding blue flash of light and then vaporize and explode into the familiar mushroom shaped cloud. However, this reaction would only be about 1% efficent because the vaporized metal would quickly dissipate; breaking the chain reaction.

Nuclear bombs are designed to be more efficent by using a polonium/berylium core to add extra neutrons to the reaction and U238 shielding. In a more controlled setting, if you simply purify U235 into a 6-8 sub-critical fuel rods and just get them close together they will get hot, make steam, which is used to make electricity. It's just like how the Shankarah Stones in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom glow when they are next to each other. It really is that easy, but you wouldn't want to hold hot U235 fuel rods.

Neutron absorbing control rods are placed in-between the U235 rods to absorb extra neutrons and prevent the core from getting so hot the fuel rods melt down, flow together into a super-critical mass and explode into a hiroshima-like mushroom cloud, or vaporize all the tritiated heavy water and blow the roof off the building that is housing the reactor (Chernobyl).

A new design of nuclear reactor called the pebble-bed reactor uses spheres of U235 encased in a shell of neutron shielding/slowing material (boron). The reactor is run by simply adding more or less spheres to the bottom of the heavy water tank. The shielded spheres are designed such that even when surrounded by other spheres, they can never get hot enough to melt down. They will heat up and make steam, but thats it. More pebbles makes more steam, and more electricity, but the U235 spheres will never get so hot that they melt.

U235 should be considered a clean way of producing electricity bacause it does not create more ratioactivity. U235 is already in the ground and highly radioactive. Using it to generate electricity requires processing it and concentrating it and then having to dispose of the same amount of radioactive material that was originally mined out of the Earth. Using heavy water (D2O) to cool and shield the reactor does create some tritium but its is reliatively short-lived.

U235 is very difficult to separate from U238. It requires very expensive and sophisticated gas-diffusion ultracentrigation techniques. However, at the same time, the process of separating the U235 isotope from U238 is very clean and generates almost no waste. The leftover U238 is used as tank armor. On the other hand, if you take that same non-radioactive U238, and put it in a reactor next to U235, it will capture a neutron and become the unstable and highly radioactive element plutonium (Pu239). This is much easier to separate from U238 with solvents but much more problematic. If you use solvents to separate U238 and Pu239, then you are left with hundreds of thosands of gallons of solvent with traces of Pu239 in it.

The Savannah River Site in CSRA Central Savannah River Area on the border of South Carolina and Georgia is one of the country's centers of plutonium production. Since the cold war, the site has been innundated with thousands of barrels of left-over solvent with radioactive residue known as "mixed waste." The site has pioneered a process of vitrification or "glassification'" in which the solvent is slowly and gently evaporated off and the remaining radioactive sludge, residue, and/or precipitate is encased in glass which is then encased in concrete which is then encased in a stainless steel jacket.

Although innovative, the production of plutonium from U238 is creating additional radioactive material from matter that was not originally radioactive. However, Pu239 will continue to be produced because it is the preferred fissile material used in US atomic warheads. It is my opinion that Atomic energy from processed, concentrated U235 using the new pebble-bed reactor design is both safe and enviromentally friendly. Absolutely no carbon dioxide or other polutant (except tritium) is produced in the the reaction. I encourage the US to focus more on Uranium-based reactors over Plutonium-based atomic energy.

Nano-Secret of Damascus Steel

Brief History of Tool-Making:

Stone Age: [sticks & stones] not easily shaped and not durable (pre - 4000 BC).
Copper Age: easily shaped but not durable (4000 BC - 3000 BC).
Bronze Age: [copper + tin] easily shaped and more durable (3000 BC - 1000 BC).
Iron Age: [wrought iron, steel, and cast iron] more difficult to shape, very durable (1000 BC - present).

There is new evidence that since the discovery of Iron, ancient blacksmiths were making cast iron and steel. Carbon (charcoal) is freely soluble in molten iron. The difference between wrought iron, steel, and cast iron is simply the carbon content. Wrought iron, or pure iron has less than 0.5% carbon. Iron is more mallible than cast iron and steel but lacks tensile strength. Consequently, it is easily worked and shaped, but not very durable. Ancient steel could be made by simply mixing the right amounts of molten wrought iron and cast iron.

Cast iron has a carbon content of greater than 2%. Carbon creates a crystaline matrix within the metal, giving iron structure and greater tensile strength. Due to cast iron's high carbon content, it is very hard. Cast iron is so hard that is is almost impossible to work and shape. Therefore, molten cast iron is poured into molds and tools are cast in their final shape. Unfortunately, although carbon makes cast iron hard, it also makes it brittle. Consequently, like diamonds, cast iron can be cut or sheer if struck in just the right way. Consequently, cast iron tools are not durable either. Steel is the perfect balance of strength and durability. Steel generally has a carbon content between 0.5% and 1.5%. Metallurgists have been experimenting for 3000 years to make steels with higher ductial or tensile strength by varying the carbon content and adding other metals (alloying).

Damascus or "wootz" steel is the literal holy grail of metallury. It has a carbon content greater than 2% but unlike cast iron, it retains its steel-like flexibility. During the first century AD, India was the world leader in steel making. They developed a recipe for steel called "wootz" which was exported all over the ancient world. Wootz was made in a ceramic crucible in a type of blast furnace which produced steel ingots about the size of a small loaf of bread. These ingots (billets) were exported and worked or forged into tools, swords, and machine parts. Damascus was a major importer of wootz which was used to make the legendary Damascus saber.

The Europeans experienced the superior strength and duribility of Damascus steel during the crusades. Demascus sabers had a mysterious grey swirl pattern on their blades. Unfortunally, the recipe for making wootz was lost some time in the 18th century. There are many knifes, swords, and rifle barrels which claim to be made from Demascus steel. These "knock-off" products reproduce the swirl pattern in the steel by a process of fold-lamination, forge-layering, and pattern-welding the steel on itself. Although this technique recreates the intricate swirl pattern, it usually makes the steel much weaker. This "Damask"or "bulat" steel should not be confused with true Damascus wootz steel.

An article in Nov, 06 in Nature finally unvails the secret behind Damascus steel. Scientists disolved samples of true Damascus steel in concentrated hydrochloric and sulfuric acid leaving only the carbon residue behind. They then studied the carbon residue using electron microscopy to discover that it was made up of carbon nano-tubes. So, unknowingly, the Muslims superior sabers advantage during the crusades came down to advanced nanotechnology. Instead of the high carbon content in wootz steel making it more brittle, the complex nano-structure within the metal served to make wootz steel 3-5 times more flexible and stronger than conventional steel.

Hobbiest and scientists are on the cusp of rediscovering how to produce wootz steel for the first time in hundreds of years. Several hobbiest have seridipitously discovered by adding impurities (vanadium, manganese, rare-earth, ect) and alternating heating and partial cooling during the the forging process is required to allow the carbon within the iron matrix to self-assemble in to these complex structures. Other researchers have sucessfully created and visuallized the formation of c60 or buckmisterfullerene structures. This metallofullerene-based or "rhondite" steel also exhibits superior strength and durability over coventional steels.

http://worldandi.misto.cz/_MAIL_/article/nsapr99.html
http://www.geocities.com/qasruf7/bulat.html

Sustain our Leaders

Look, our enemy is taking advantage of our disunity and inability to sustain our leaders. The church represents a pattern that we should apply to government and home. When the Quorem of the 12 and the 1st Pres decide an issue they hotly debate it before hand. Sometimes members are assigned to research and argue each side. Then the president makes the decision and everyone falls into line.

The decision to go into Irag has been made (inspired or not). We have the responsibility to sustain our president and the US military. They are doing the job they were trained to do. We shouldn’t feel bad that they are doing it, we should be grateful. The US military is never going to leave Irag. The miliatry is still in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Bosnia. We have been in Iraq since GW1, we are going to continue to be Iraq for a long time. Please stop steadying the Ark.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Representative Democracy. Pure Democracy is tyranny by the majority. We elected our leaders, we must support them once the decision is made. The debate about going into Iraq is over. Now is the time good citizens can discuss ideas on how to progress from here. If you have any great ideas please share them. There is not such thing as constuctive criticism; “critics are not builders.” We need ideas, not monday morning quarterbacking.

Obviously Kerry wouldnt have made a good commander-and-chief after his speech about “get an education or join the military”. That showed his true colors. He can’t blame alcohol either.
Remember the lesson of Acts 23:
“And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to bsmite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou awhited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? Then said Paul, I awist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

It is ironic that while we are fighting religious extremism overseas we face political extremism here at home. The Right NeoCons and the Left secular progressives are a threat. I consider Bush very moderate conservative but I don’t deny that there are Neocons in the administration that have a lot of influence.

God permits tyrannt over countries like Iraq, IRan, and North Korea because of the wickedness of his people. Like the Lamanites they are permitted to exist to stir us up unto rememberance of him until we repent. We in the US and Europe need to repent of our immorality. Most all of our social ills in our country stem from extra-marital sex, drugs, and alcohol and materialism. THis is exactly what makes good people in countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea mistrust us and gives power to their dictators. We will not solve these problems until we repent as a nation. George Bush isn’t the problem. We are the problem.

We should not see any conflict as a good guys vs bad guys thing (it takes 2 to tango). Each side may have something right that they are fighting for (or how could they get people to fight) and each side are partially in the wrong. Maybe one side is more wrong than the other. And sometimes war is justified. But that justification does not negate the consequences. We reap what we sow and in a perfect society there wouldnt be any war. I think it would do us good to look at how our actions contibute to the conflict instead at pointing fingers.

Both Iran, Palenstinians have elected anti-US governments. One must ask why? As far as North Korea is concerned, Kim Jong Il will be held accountable for sure. However, the North Korean people are reaping the consequences of our conflict with the Soviet Union after WW2. Because of the failings of the West, this created mistrust of the Russian people towards Western economy and they then could be fooled into accepting communism.

Support for this concept I obtained from the book “Biohazard.” Ken Ableck blindly set up a massive bioweapons program in the Soviet Union (weaponized anthrax, wheat rust, rice blast, tuleremia, small pox, etc, etc.). It wasn’t until he learned that Nixon stopped our bioweapons program in the US that he felt guilty for the first time and defected to the US. Unfortunately Russian biochemists have since taken their technology to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, North Africa, and Cuba (Raul Castro is in charge). Who needs nuclear weapons when a few liters of this stuff could kill more people.

If we don’t apply true gospel principles to politics and other issues we blog about. Then why have LDS blogs at all. We are no different from everyone else out there.