Is Our World a "Fluke" of Nature?

One of the most important scientific questions that we have not yet answered is : Why are we here? Or of even more importance: how did we get here? And, indeed, if you delve very deeply into the question you soon find that the odds against us being here are incredibly large. One of the major things that showed us this is known as the anthropic principle. It was put forward by Brandon Carter in 1973, and it has continued to cause controversy and confusion amongst physicists and astronomers ever since. It is simply stated as: If the fundamental constants of the universe were different – even by an infinitesimal amount – we would not be here. The earth might exist (or it might not), but it wouldn’t support life as we know it.

What do we mean by fundamental constant? It turns out that our universe has several of them and they include the mass and charge of the electron, the gravitational force (referred to as G), and various ratios between them.

A few of the questions we cannot answer are: Why is the mass of the proton exactly 1,835.153 times the mass of the electron? Furthermore, why is the mass of the electron what it is? In addition, there is the charge of the electron; it’s exactly equal, but opposite to the charge of the proton. Why does it have this charge? And inside protons are particles called quarks. Why do they have charges of 1/3 and 2/3 that of the electron? And why is the gravitational constant exactly equal to 6.6738 ´ 10 ̄ ¹¹?

We can’t answer these questions, but what is more important is that the anthropic principle says that if they were different – even by an infinitesimal amount – life would not exist on Earth. Life, in effect, is tuned to them. At the present time we have no idea why this is true. A number of well-known physicists, however, have speculated that when we finally get a " Theory of Everything" we will know the answer. Some have suggested that all we really need is a quantum theory of gravity (at least it would be a first step). But things look pretty bleak at the present time that we’ll achieve such a theory. Most of the work in this direction at the present time is going towards what is called " String Theory." According to this theory the universe consists of many more dimensions than the usual four that we observe – possibly 10 or 11. And these extra dimensions are curled up so we can’t observe them. The biggest problem with string theory, however, is that, unlike most theories, it doesn’t make predictions that we can check. In addition, the strings themselves are so tiny we’ll never be able to observe them.

So there appears to be a quandary. The anthropic principle seems to show us that life on Earth is a fluke of nature; in short, it predicts that only one in hundreds of trillions of stars have a planet that could support intelligent life. This appears to indicate that we are the only planet that contains intelligent in our galaxy. Furthermore, we know that reserves on our planet will only allow us to exist for a few thousand years more (with luck maybe a little more) then there will be no intelligent life in our galaxy.

But for years we have assumed (and it appears to be true) that if the conditions are just right on a planet of the right size in regard to temperature, proper atmosphere, proper energy sources and so on, that life (and even intelligent life) should arise. Furthermore, in recent years we have discovered a large number of planets in our neighborhood of space, and some have relatively ideal conditions for life (not as good as Earth, but reasonable). What does this mean?

An Amazing New Discovery -- We Hope

It might seem strange that a number of fundamental ideas, or theories, about the universe have been around for many years, but still haven't been proved beyond a doubt. One of the major ones is the Big Bang theory, in other words the idea that the universe began as an explosion 13.8 billion years ago -- in particular, that it began as a tiny point that expanded very rapidly. Another fundamental prediction is that the universe is filled with gravitational waves -- waves that are emitted when matter is accelerated. It was predicted by Einstein many years ago. And in the 1980's an inflationary version of the Big Bang theory was put forward. It assumed that in the very early stages of its expansion the universe exceeded the speed of light.
     A team of researchers headed by John Kovac of the Harvard=Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has recently made a discovery that could prove that all three of these ideas are indeed valid. Their experiment was set up at the south pole, and it consists of an instrument for measuring minute distortions in the cosmic background radiation that permeates the universe. And indeed they have found a small ripple that may have been produced in the early stages of inflation shortly after the Big bang began. If it is verified it will be a momentous discovery, and indeed several teams are now trying to repeat it.

Ultimate Questions About the Universe

I was watching a program about String Theory on Nova the other night, and it made me think about my views on it. It is the present attempt to bring all of physics together into a unified theory, and it still has some serious problems. I'll get to them later, but first let's look at where the real problems in relation to the universe are. As you would expect, they are with the very largest things in the universe (or, in essence, the universe itself) and the smallest things.
     The largest things center on the overall structure of the universe and its beginning. the biggest problem here is the immensity of the universe. Where does it end? How big is it? And there's the age old problem that if you say that you have determined where it ends, someone is always going to ask what is on the other side of the "end." Einstein solved this problem to some degree by showing that space is curved (by the matter in it) and therefore it has no end. It would be great if this was all there was to it, but we know the universe is also expanding -- all the galaxies are moving away from one another -- so the universe is also getting bigger. But what is it expanding into -- empty space? This, of course, doesn't make any sense. The answer is that its the space between the galaxies that is expanding, and the galaxies themselves are not expanding.
     This still doesn't answer the question: Where is the end of the universe? Does it go on forever? What, in fact, does "forever" mean?
     One answer is that because of the finite speed of light, as we look out into the universe we are looking back in time. We therefore do not see distant galaxies are they are now; we see them as they were many years ago, and the further you look out, the "younger" they appear. And since we have considerable evidence that the explosion that created the universe took place at a specific time -- namely, about 20 billion years ago (there's still lots of controversy about its true age). This means that if you look 20 billion years back in time you will see the "beginning," or in essence, the  Big Bang. And since nothing existed before this time, we will see "nothing" past it. So far, it doesn't seem like we are "seeing" this point in the universe, even with our largest telescopes.
     What does this mean? We're not sure, but it is obvious that there's still a lot we don't know about the universe. And we certainly don't have a theory that explains everything, and somehow I'm a little leery about whether we will ever discover a real, ultimate, theory of everything.
     Anyway, let's turn to the other end of the scale, namely, to the smallest things in the universe, and it's pretty obvious we have an equally serious problem here. There's no doubt that we have learned a tremendous amount in the last few years, but we still haven't answered the question: What is the "ultimate" building block of the universe? In other words, what is the smallest unit that is not composed of some other kind of sub-particle? At one time we thought atoms were the smallest unit, then we discovered they were made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Then things got even more complicated: we discovered that protons and neutrons were made up of quarks. This was a good discovery, however, because it made things a lot simpler. So many new particles were being discovered that scientists had no idea how they "fit together" or were related. Things didn't make a lot of sense. Quarks changed this, and made a lot more sense of things.
     But there was another problem: most particles interacted. In other words, there were forces between them. Then physicists noticed that these forces were actually due to the exchange of particles between particles, and this gave us a few new particles which we called gluons, photons and gravitons. And again we have a problem that is similar to the one we mentioned about the universe,namely, when you have any type of particle you can always ask what it is composed of. We do, however, have something that helps here; it's called the "Uncertainty Principle." It tells us that as we go to smaller and smaller distances we eventually reach a region that is "fuzzy." In a sense, everything goes out of focus and we can see no further.
    Let's go back to String Theory now. It assumes the basic unit of the universe is a tiny, tiny string that forms a loop. These strings are billions of times smaller than the smallest particles we can see, or even test indirectly. And the problem with this is that we are dealing with things on such a small scale when we talk about strings, we will never be able to test the theory. It's out of our range, and always will be. And therefore there's nothing we can ever do to prove t right or wrong. We have to ask therefore if it's really a "theory" in the usual sense, or is it just a "philosophy." It is, indeed an very elegant piece of mathematics, but does elegance make it right?  I don't think so

Why is There So Much Excitement About the "God Particle"?

With the recent announcement that the "God particle" (which physicists refer to as the Higgs particle) has been discovered, people around the world have wondered what is going on. Scientist say it's a tremendous discovery. So, how important is it? It appears to be a significant breakthrough, but there's no doubt the discovery will be difficult for the average person to comprehend, and it's not likely to have any serious effect on their life (like the discovery of a new vaccine for cancer). But it is important in our understanding of the universe. Let's look at why this is so.
     It's best to start with what we know about the universe. Basically, it consists of particles -- electrons, protons, neutrons and so on -- that are held together by various forces. There are, in fact, four of these forces, and you're likely familiar with at least three of them. They are: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. The gravitational force holds material bodies such as yours and the Earth together; in other words it stops you from flying off into space. And it also holds the moon in orbit around the Earth. In the same way, the electromagnetic force holds atoms together -- it holds the electrons in orbit around the nucleus. Without it, all atoms would fly apart and we wouldn't be around.
     The third of the forces is the strong nuclear force. It holds the particles of the nucleus, namely protons and neutrons, together. This brings us to the fourth force, the weak nuclear force, and it's likely the one you are most unfamiliar with. Furthermore, it's more difficult to explain. The best way to do this is say that it is the force that is responsible for radioactive decay, but it also plays an important role in the universe in relation to such things as supernova explosions.
     In addition to the four forces of nature we have dozens of particles, and it's the combination of particles and forces that makes the world, and the universe, go around. They are, in fact, the two basic components of it. If you can explain everything about them you know everything about the universe. I won't try to describe all the particles in detail as there are too many. Some of the major ones, however, are: electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and photons. What physicists want to know is how all these particles and forces fit together. They would like a theory that would explain everything, and this theory would, of course, have to explain both the tiniest things in the universe and the largest (such as the overall structure of the universe).
     There is, unfortunately, a serious problem at the present time. We have an excellent theory of the tiniest objects in the universe (and how they interact); it's called quantum mechanics. And we have an excellent theory of the very large things in the universe; it's called general relativity. The problem is that the two theories have almost nothing in common. Scientists would prefer a theory  -- one simple theory -- that covered everything from the very smallest to the largest: a theory of everything.
     So far, the best they have been able to do is what is called the "Standard Model." It explains most of what is not covered by general relativity, and it does a fairly good job. In essence it covers everything except gravity. But the Standard model has problems. One of the most serious is that all the particles described by the theory have to have mass (we know they have mass -- we can measure it). Actually, there's one particle that doesn't -- it's called the photon and it's the particle of light. To get around this problem, a "special particle" was invented, and with it everything within the Standard model was great; in other words, there were no problems. The particle that gave all these other particles mass was suggested by Peter Higgs in 1964 so it was called the Higgs particle, or more exactly, the Higgs boson. So, if the Standard model was to be an acceptable model, the Higgs boson had to exist. All scientist had to do was find it. But again there was a problem. It's predicted mass was so great, there was no way with the accelerators of the day that it could be created. As time passed, however, larger and larger accelerators were build, until finally they got up to the required energy (or mass). And finally in July, 2012, Gianotti, Heuer, and Incandela of Australia (using the huge accelerator called the Large Hadron Collider at CERN) announced that they had found the elusive particle.
     Is it definitely the Higgs boson? Further work will no doubt be needed to prove it, but most physicists are confident. Then, of course, we still have the even greater step: bringing gravity into the theory.
   

The Overwhelming Probability of Life Elsewhere in the Universe

One of the greatest mysteries of the universe is whether or not there is life -- in particular, advanced forms such as ours -- elsewhere in the universe. The discovery of another planet with an advanced civilization on it would be the greatest discovery ever made on Earth. It would, in fact, be difficult to imagine what its consequences would be. This may not happen in the next few years but there's no doubt that it will eventually happen. (It will be difficult for us to communicate with them because of the tremendous distances involved.) The reason we are so sure of this comes from the data that the spacecraft Kepler  has collected and is still collecting. It's object is to find Earth-sized planets around some of the nearby stars and determine as accurately as possible how many of the billions of stars in our galaxy may have Earth-like planets. And it has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. As of January, 2012, it has discovered 2326 candidates, with 207 of them are similar to Earth in size.(There's no doubt that this is a monumental discovery.)
     For life to arise on a planet we not only need a planet similar in size to Earth (mostly because of problems with gravity) but we also need the planet to be in the ecosphere or life-zone of the star. In addition, the star should be similar to our Sun. Of the 207 Earth-like planets discovered, 48 appear to be in the life-zone of their star.
     It's important that the planet be in the life-zone because water would be in a liquid state most of the time in this zone -- and this is critical. There's no doubt that life needs water to survive. but would life form naturally if water was there? If there was an atmosphere composed of the proper chemicals it would (methane and ammonia would be needed, but they are very common). Scientists showed many years ago that with the proper atmosphere, proper temperatures and liquid water, a very elementary form of life would evolve naturally. From there it would no doubt evolve to a higher form of life. It would take a long time -- millions of years -- but there's no doubt that it would occur. After all, the universe has been around for billions of years.
     With only 48 good candidates, you might think that the probability of it occurring in them is pretty low -- and indeed it is. But with the data that the Kepler team has, they have been able to show statistically that 5.4 % of all stars in our galaxy have Earth-sized planets. Furthermore, they showed that 17% of all stars have many planets orbiting them. And with over 200 billion stars in our galaxy that gives a lot of Earth-sized planets -- about 10 billion. For most people, 10 billion is hard to visualize so I'll give you a simple picture. It's about equal to all the grains of sand in all the beaches on Earth. I think that should convince you that it's a lot.
     If only a tiny fraction of these planets -- say, one in hundreds of thousands -- had a planet similar to Earth -- we'd still have millions of planets out there like us.
     And this isn't the end of it. So far I've only talked about our galaxy -- the Milky Way. It is only one of billions of galaxies in the overall universe. There are, in fact, galaxies as far as we can see, and we know we're not seeing the end of the universe. We may only be seeing a small fraction of it. So, needless to say, it's a big place with an incredible number of planets similar to Earth. On the basis of this, what's the chance we are the only advanced civilization in the universe? I would say it is zero, or very close to it. As hard as it may be to believe, there has to be millions (and possibly many more) of civilizations in the out there similar to us.
  

The Exercise "Miracle"

There are numerous benefits of exercise, but there's one that is so great that it can only be classified as a "miracle."  Exercise breaks down cells in your body, which may seem like a bad thing, but it's not (it's actually a great thing). Your body clears out the broken down cells, and builds new one. And if you exercise, it senses that your muscles need to be be rebuilt stronger, and it makes them stronger. Exercise is therefore one of the best ways to build and maintain a stronger and healthier body.
     It may seem strange, but your immune system is at the forefront in this change. You no doubt thought that your immune system's main job was to protect you from disease, and indeed  it does, but it's also involved in muscle building. So let's begin by looking at your immune system. I'll try not to get too technical. It actually consists of two systems, referred to as the innate system and the adaptive system. The innate system gives the first line of defense against foreign invaders such as bacteria, viruses and so on. When it detects a foreign particle it swings into action, triggering inflammation that walls off the invaders. The adaptive system is a backup system. If the innate system fails to contain the invaders, it comes into play. It calls up white blood cells called B and T cells to attack the foreign particles. And one of the most amazing things about the B cells is that they have a memory. After the invaders have been overcome, they study them and learn how to deal with them the next time they invade. They're now ready for them; they know what they look like and can attack them immediately.
     But let's go back to the innate system again. The two major particles of this system are called macrophages and dendritic cells. They secret tiny proteins call cytokines which play a vital role in the immune system. They are "messengers" that direct and oversee most of what goes on.
     So how does all this relate to building better muscles? The answer is that exercise and body building stretches and tears muscle cells, breaking them down. They die and have to be replaced, and it's the cytokines that direct and control the reconstruction process. There are actually several types of cytokines; one of the largest group is known as interleukins.
    Okay, let's go back and see exactly what happens when you exercise. With the accumulation of dead cells, one type of cytokines, called inflammation cytokines call in white blood cells to begin the demolition. During this stage the old cells are cleared out and everything is readied for the next stage. In this next stage another type of cytokine called growth cytokines go to work. They make the new muscle cells bigger and more powerful than the ones they are replacing. I'm assuming, of course, that your muscles were exercised relatively hard before all this began. How hard does this exercise have to be? I think it's safe to say that it has to make you huff and puff a little. In essence, you have to challenge your muscles. If you don't, your old, dead cells will be cleared out, but your new cells won't be build bigger and stronger.
     So it's easy to see why exercise is so impotant.

A Theory of Everything: Is it Possible?

I was watching a program on Nova (TV) the other day about the universe, and it made me think again about how vast and complex our universe really is. There seems to be no end to it -- at least we can't find an end. And even "empty space" is much more complex than we thought. It's certainly not empty and we're still not sure what all it contains in the way of "strange" particles.
     Einstein showed us that space is curved by matter and that helped clear up a few problems. But it also created a few new ones. Are we ever going to be able to completely explain everything about the universe? It always seems that when we finally explain something that has puzzled us for years, the solution creates more problems. Somehow I think this will continue on indefinitely. I'm convinced, in fact, that we'll never be able to explain everything. We may come close, and things will no doubt continue to get more and more complicated, but there will always be problems left to solve. In a sense it would be a shame if we did discover a theory that explained everything. It would mean we would have no new problems to work on. Somehow I don't think we'll ever have to worry about this; I don't believe it will every happen.
     Furthermore, I'm just as convinced that there is other life in the universe beyond Earth -- in fact, I'm also convinced that much of this life is advanced (as advanced as we are). We are finding large numbers of planets around nearby stars, and with 200 billion stars in our galaxy, there has to be millions and likely billions of planets out there. And beyond our galaxy there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies with just as many stars as our galaxy. The probablity that some of them have advanced life in them is overwheming. After all, all you need is the proper conditions for life to form; they include water in liquid form, a satisfactory atmosphere and moderate temperatures. If I had to guess I'd say there are  millions of advanced civilizations out there somewhere. Anyway, it's interesting to think about.

Can Dreams Make You Smarter and More Creative?

To answer this we have to look at what sleep is, and what it involves. To most of us it seems that we lie down at night, lose consciousness, then wake up in the morning, and that's all there is to it. But there's actually a lot more to it than this. One of the reasons we know this is because of a machine called the electroencephlograph that records EEGs, or "brain waves." If the electrodes from this machine are attached to your head they give a record of the "neuron firing" that is going on in your brain as you sleep. And this record gives us impotant information.
     Your brain generates several types of waves. They are referred to by the first letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha, beta, gamma and theta. These waves tell us that your body goes through five stages when you sleep -- all the way from light sleep, through deep and very deep sleep to what is called REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. And it's during REM sleep that you dream.
     We refer to the above as "stages" of sleep, and your body goes through these five stages in about 90 minutes. Since you sleep for 7 or 8 hours you pass through four or five of these stages every night, and during each of the REM stages you dream for about ten minutes. This means you dream for about an hour every night; the only dream you ever remember, however, (assuming you do remember it) is the last one just before you wake up.
     So, what is the importance of dreaming, and is it good for anything? It might surprise you, but it can be helpful in your life. Research has shown that sleep is particularly important in consolidating new learning. In other words, if you "sleep" on something that you just learned, it will help you remember it. In essence, it will drive it deeper into your memory. The important thing, however, is that as much of your sleep as possible be REM sleep. Indeed, the more REM sleep you get after learning something, the better you will recall it later.
     But not only does REM sleep help you learn faster, it is also helpful in relation to creativity. It's well-known that people who go to sleep after trying unsuccessfully to solve a problem, frequently wake up with the solution.
     Can you take advantage of this? Indeed, you can. You can, in fact, learn to use REM sleep to both increase your creativity and to learn faster. Four steps are important in accomplishing this.
   1. Write down your problem, or summarize what you want to learn better.
   2. Review and think about it before you go to bed.
   3. Think about it again when you are in bed, just before you go to sleep. Let it sink into your
        subconscious.
   4. When you wake up in the morning, write down your dream before you forget it.

Do Music Lessons at a Very Young Age Help Students Academically later on in School?

One of the things that parents of young children frequently ask themselves is: What can I do to make sure my children are as successful as possible at school and university? Is there, in fact, anything I can do? Children's brains develop very rapidly during the first few years of their life, and the environment and so on they are exposed to at this time definitely has an effect on how well they do in later life. An entire industry has, in fact, grown up around the idea that we can, in fact, do things that will help. Hundreds of thousands of "Baby Einstein" books and other items are sold every year. And for a few years it was thought that if young children were exposed to Mozart sonatas it would make them smarter. In addition, software called "Fast ForWord" was also developed that claimed to give children an advantage when they went to school. Studies eventually showed that most of these things had little effect. But the one thing that was definitely helpful was musical training at an early age. Listening to music was not as effective as some had hoped, but playing and practising a musical instrument at an early age had a definite effect on the developent of the brain. Scientists are still not sure exactly why this is so, but they are in agreement that there is an effect. In fact, it doesn't matter what instrument you play; the piano, violin and guitar all seem to have the same effect. Studies have shown that the key is concentration on the acoustical sounds as they are played. For some reason this helps with the development of language comprehension and in the development of cognitive skills such as memory.

Barry Parker, Ph. D.  author of "Learn form Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow"

What Lies Beyond the Edge of Our Universe?

Ir might seem that we can see out to the "end" of the universe with our largest telescopes. But we can't. It's important to remember that because light has a finite speed (186,000 miles per second), as we peer out into space we are actually looking back in time. Even when we look at the surface of the sun, we see it as it was eight minutes ago, because it takes eight minutes for its light to reach us. As we look at nearby galaxies we see them as they were millions of years ago -- not as they are today. Because of this, and the fact that the universe (according to the Biog Bang hteory) has a finite age, we only see out to a distance of 42 billion light years. There is, in fact, no way we can see beyond this distance. Does this mean there is "nothing" beyond this distance? No, it doesn't. It's quite likely that there is more universe -- more galaxies, more stars, more planets, and more aliens beyond it. But they are  in another universe as far as we are concerned.

How many of these "other universes" exist? There may well be an infinite number; astronomers still do not know.

Barry Parker, Ph. D., author of "Learn from Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow"

Does a Universe Without Any Life in it Make Any Sense?

An interesting question. Would a universe without any life in it make any sense? It doesn't seem like it would. Why would it be here? What would its role be? We can take this one step further. Considering how unbelievably large our universe is, does it make any sense that we are the only life in it? We know that life will evolve naturally if the conditions are right. All you need is proper temperatures, a reasonable atmosphere with oxygen and water, and life would eventually appear. It would be a long way from advanced life as we know it, but still it would be life. Furthermore, we know that this life would evolve and develop into a higher form. With survival of the fittest this only makes sense. But I'll admit it's a long ways from very primitive forms of life to an advanced form like us, but time is on the side of the advancing forms. Millions, even  hundreds of millions of years are but a blink of the eye when we're talking about the universe. What does all of this mean?

We have discovered dozens of planets in our tiny corner of the universe, and some of them have conditions that are "almost" satisfactory for life. If we extrapolate this to the rest of our galaxy with it 200 billions stars we should have at least hundreds of millions of planets, and if only one in a thousand have conditions satisfactory for life we'll still have thousands of planets that could contain life.
And I'm talking only about our galaxy. There are at least 200 billion galaxies out there. It's unlikely that we will every be able to communicate with the life in other galaxies because of their tremendous distances, but that doesn't mean that they're not there. And, of course, there is the possibility that one day we'll discover a way to get through to them. Anyway, it gives you a lot to think about.

Barry Parker, author of "Learn from Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow

Was the Universe Created Just for Us?

One of the really interesting questions in science and religion is "Was the universe created just for us?" Years ago when the Bible was written, and for many years after, it was blasphemous to even pose the question. Everyone believed the universe was created for us -- there was no question about it. Furthermore, we were the center of the universe -- everything revolved around us in more ways than one. As astronomy developed and we learned more and more about our universe, however, it became obvious that we were not the center of the universe, and it now seems very unlikely that the universe was, indeed, made just for us. The main reason we can say this is that we now know how big the universe is, and we know we are a mere speck in it. Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm sure most astronomers would agree with me) the probability that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe is very large -- close to 100 percent.

We also have to ask that if God created the universe just for us, why did He make it so big? It is, indeed, so big, that we haven't really found an edge to it yet. And there's the problem that if we did find an "edge" we would have to answer the question "What is on the other side of this edge?"
To give you an idea how big our universe is, consider the following. We live in a galaxy we call the Milky Way, and it has approximately 200 billion stars in it (about equal to all the grains of sand in all the beaches on Earth), with our Sun being an average-sized, relatively cool star. And the overall universe has at least 200 billion galaxies in it (one for each of the stars in our galaxy). Of course, we're not sure  how many galaxies there actually are out there -- but we know it is at least 200 billion. And that makes it a pretty big place. This brings  us back to the question: Was the huge universe created just for us? It 's hard to believe that it was. Let me know if you think differently, or have a good argument for the fact that it was.


Barry Parker:  Webpage: Barryparkerbooks.com. My most recent book is "Learn from Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow"

Another Important Question: What Happens if We Do Find Intelligent Life in Space?

If we do, indeed, find intelligent life in space, what impact will it have on us? In particular, what will it mean for religion? Will it make any difference? Somehow I think it will have some impact. I'm convinced there are probably millions of civilizations out there somewhere that are just as advanced as us, and if we find one relatively close to us it will be proof that my assertion is true. So, what do we need for a civilization like ours? First of all we need a reasonably sized "habitable zone." This is the zone around the star where the temperatures are satisfactory for life most of the time. Our habitable zone ranges from about the orbit of Venus out to that of Mars. and luckily for us, we're right in the middle of it. We also need a planet that is about the size of earth. If it's too large, gravity will overwhelm anything there. It can be about three times as large as Earth and still be habitable. We have, indeed, found a few planets that satisfy these criterion. One of the best is Gliese 58id; it orbits a relatively small star (compared to our sun) called a red dwarf, that is about 20 light years away from us. The major problem is that it is like our moon in that it keeps the same face pointed at its star, and under normal conditions this would cause severe temperature problems. There are indication, however, that it has an atmosphere that might allow water to stay liquid and if so, some form of life could exist there. It's not likely to be an advanced form, but even a primitive form would give us hope that there's other life out there, some of which may be intelligent. It's interesting that Stephen Hawking has recently stated that if we do find life out there, we should keep quiet. I'm not sure I agree. But, of course, Hawking has also said recently that he doesn't believe there is a heaven.

Barry Parker, author of "Learn from Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow. Website: barryparkerbooks.com

The "Ultimate Questions" About Life and the Universe

As a scientist I've often thought about some of the "ultimate questions" (as I like to refer to them) related to life and the universe. They are questions that are very difficult to answer, and indeed, most of them may never be answered. Nevertheless, they're worth thinking about seriously. (Some of them have to do with religion, and I don't want to step on anyones feet. If it appears that I have, I appologize)

I'll list several of the major ones I can think of, and I'm sure there are many more. I'll also comment on some of them, and will write longer blogs related to them later.

Here goes:

1. Are we really at the center of the universe?
      By this I mean: Was the universe created just for us?  This, of course, was the belief many years  
      ago, and many people still believe it.

2. Why is the universe so big (if it really was created just for us)? Indeed, does it even have an end?

     We are really a very insignificant speck in the universe. There are more stars in our observable
      universe than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in the world. And many of these stars
      have recently been shown to have planets.

3.  Does a universe without life make any sense?

     To me it doesn't. If there were no life in the universe -- what would it be here for?  Are we the only
      life in it? It seems unlikely.

4.  Is it possible that the universe just came into being on it own?

     We know for a fact that it is 15 -20 billion years old. So what was here before it existed? Also, is it
     possible that there is no "supreme being"  (i.e. God) behind the making of the universe? It seems
     impossible, but we have to ask if it is possible (by the way, I'm not an atheist).

5.  What would the discovery of other advanced life in the universe do to our views on life, religion,
     and the universe? What would it mean? What would their beliefs and religions be like?

6.  Are the "God" of the Bible and the "Supreme Being" that created the universe the same?

    You can no doubt think of many other questions of this type and I'd like to hear them. I think this is a good start, however.


  Barry Parker, author of "Learn from Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow"
                        Website: Barryparkerbooks.com

Getting the Most Out of Life

An amazing number of people just drift through life, dragging themselves through each day with little energy, joy or excitement. And needless to say, that's not the way to live. You should get as much joy out of life as possible. You should live it to the fullest. and there's a lot of things you can do to achieve this. I discuss most of them in my recent book "Learn for Yesterday, Live for Today, Hope for Tomorrow." The title is quite apt in this modern age with all the pressures we have from the fast pace of life. "Live for Today" is an excellent motto -- it implies that you should strive to live life to the fullest each day. And live one day at a time -- don't worry about what is going to happen in the future. That's not to say you shouldn't prepare for the future -- you should. But the critical thing is to be happy today, and completely free of stress. Read more about it in my book.

Write What Comes into Your Mind

I have several books I like to read for inspiration. One is Natalie Goldberg's book Writing Down the Bones. Some of the things she writes about seem a little strange when you first look at the titles of some of her chapters. For example, one is titled "Be an Animal;" another is titled "Don't use writing to get love." I'm not sure what these have to do with improving your writing, but almost anything she writes is interesting to read. The main thing she emphasizes in her book is that you shouldn't have to struggle to write. It should come easy, and of course, the more you write the easier it gets. So it makes sense to do a lot of writing. It's easy to say " Just write what's on your mind." But there are times when your mind is pretty blank. Nevertheless, doing a lot of what I call "free writing" is extremely helpful. It helps you overcome any "blockage" you might have. All writers want to sit down and have the words "flow out." They don't want to spend a lot of time staring at a blank page. That can be frustrating. And there's no doubt that the best way to make sure this happens (most of the time) is to write a lot. And don't worry about what you should write about: just write what comes into your mind.

Writing a book? Make sure it will sell.

Writing a book is easy. The hard part is writing one that will sell. There's no doubt that there is a certain satisfaction that comes with writing a book and having it published, but if the book doesn't sell you will soon get disillusioned. The work isn't over when the book is finished; you have to do a lot of things to make sure it sells. But there is also a lot you can do while you are writing the book. "Write a Book That Will Sell" will help make sure it sells.

Brain Tumors: Are they initiated by Cell Phones?

The controversy over the dangers of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones has been in the news off and on over the last few years. A number of studies appear to have shown that they are safe and there is no danger from using them. In particular, there is little or no chance of them causing cancer. This conclusion, however, may be premature. First of all, it is impossible to prove that cell phones can't cause cancer, and one of the reasons is that cancer takes years to develop; in most cases it was inititated 20 years or more before it actually appeared. Most of the studies that have been done have been surveys of people who have used cell phones for several years, checking to see how many of them have developed cancer (or other diseases) and comparing them to the general population. In many ways the present situation is similar to that for smoking during the 1950's and 1960's. It didn't seem that many people were being hurt by it, at least not over the short term, and everyone was sure (particularly, the cigarette companies) that cigarettes were safe and didn't pose any serious health hazzards. How wrong we were!

Because of the announcements that have been made over the last few years, research on the hazards of cell phone radiation in the US has dropped to almost zero. Interestingly, though, research in other countries is still going on, and it is showing that the problem is, indeed, worthy of a closer look, particularly in light of the recent increases in brain tumor rates in the US. They have increased by over 25 percent since 1975; by 2001, in fact, 185,000 Americans had some form of brain cancer, and it has been estimated that this will increase to 500,000 new cases per year by 2010, and to one-million by 2015.

Background on Cell Phones

Why are cell phones dangerous? To answer this it is best to begin by looking at how they work. When you receive a call, an electomagnetic signal is beamed from the nearest cell phone tower.(These towers now dot the landscape, so you're never very far from one.) This signal is picked up by the antenna on your phone. (As an aside I should mention that this signal is 10,00 times stronger at the antenna of your phone than it is if you were standing 35 feet from the base of the tower with the transmitter 35 feet up.) And of particular importance, the antenna on your phone is only a few inches from your brain so that 70 to 80 percent of the energy of the signal is absorbed by your skull, with much of it penetrating through to your brain. Furthermore, if you happen to be in a car, the intensity of this radiation is much greater.

One of the main arguments against the dangers of cell phone radiation is that the signal is low energy radio frequency (RF) radiation, and this energy is too low to have any effect. Although the signal is in the radio frequency range, it's actually microwave radiation -- the same type that is used in your microwave oven, and it also very close to the frequency of radar radiation.
The central argument along this line is that although these waves are used for heating (as in a microwave over) the energy of the phone waves is too low to heat tissue. And that is true; they are at least a thousand times weaker than microwaves oven radiation. But it's important to remember that low energy microwaves are chosen for cooking because they easily penetrate food, not because they are highly energetic. Another argument on their safety is that they are not ionizing, so they cannot knock electrons from atoms and cause such things as free radicals (which can do a lot of damage). Again, that is true, but as any physicist will tell you, you don't need ioizing radiation to do a lot of damage. Non-ionizing radiation is quite capable on its own.

Details on Power and frequency

This section may sound a little technical in places but it will help you understand the electromagnetic waves a little better so I hope you'll stick with me. Electromagnetic waves (or radiation) range from very short-wave gamma and x-rays through to very long wave radio waves. In between we find ultraviolet, visible light, infrared and microwaves. Radio waves have a wavelength from a few meters up to hundreds of kilometers (or miles, if you prefer). Microwaves have a wavelength of the order of one to ten centimeters; x-rays, on the other hand have a wavelength of approximately one nanometer, which is a billionth of a meter. So it's obvious that the range is exceedingly large. In the same way, the frequencies (vibrations per second) of the waves also vary by a large amount. The short wavelength waves have high frequencies and the long wavelength ones such as radio waves have low frequencies. As it turns out, frequencies are also related to energy: the higher the frequency, the higher the energy. This means that X-rays have lots of energy while radio waves are low energy.

Microwaves, which are the ones we are interested in, have relatively low energies. They are, in fact, right next to infrared in the electromagnetic spectrum (the spectrum of all radiations) and as you likely know, infrared radiation is heat. The infrared radiation from the sun supplies us with the heat we need to exist.

When we talk about microwaves we usually use their frequency rather than their wavelength. It is given in terms of Hertz (Hz), which is the number of vibration per second, or more exactly, in megaHertz (MHz or a million Hz). The range of frequencies that cell phones use extends from about 850 MHz to 1900 MHz. And let me emphasize that there's no doubt that high intensities of microwaves are dangerous -- extremely dangerous (they will fry you). So the question we need to ask is: are the microwaves in a cell phone powerful (energetic) enough to cause damage? They are, indeed, low power devices. The early analog devices used about 1.3 watts and the more recent digital phones use about .2 to .6 watts. This is obviously a lot less than the 60 watt bulbs you have around your house, and miles less than the 600 to 1100 watts that your microwaves oven uses. But is it enough less?

Another unit that is important in relation to cell phones is the SAR, which is short for Specific Absorption Rate. It is defined as the relative amount of microwave energy absorbed by the head of the user of the cell phone. The FCC limits the SAR elvel in cell phones to 1.6 watts/Kgm, which is relatively low (but there is some evidence that it is too high).

Why is Radiation Dangerous

This is obviouly a central question? So let's get to it. As it turns out, different types of radiations are dangerous in different ways. Everyone know that x-rays are dangerous. They are highly energetic, highly penetrating, and can easily pass through your body. And while they're passing through they also pass through a lot of the cells and DNA in your body which is, of course, bad news as they can easily break up DNA and even if they don't, they can cause "mutations" or defects that change the "code of life" contained within the DNA.

So x-rays aren't something we want around us. What about the other types of radiations? In the center of the electromagnetic spectrun we have ordinary light (it may be a surprise to you that ordinary light and x-rays are basically the same thing, but with different wavelengths), infrared and ultraviolet. For the most part they aren't terribly dangerous, but high intensities of infrared can burn you and ultraviolet... well, it can be dangerous, and you can get a pretty good dose when you get a suntan (so be careful). But we're mainly interested in microwaves so let's get back to them.

As I mentioned, microwaves are used to heat things (as in a mocrowave oven) so let's look at this first. Our first question, then, is: Are the microwaves from a cell phone powerful enough to seriously heat the region near the ear where the phone is placed? It's easy to show that it isn't, and it would be great if that was the end of the story. But it isn't. It is possible that damage can occur in other ways, and because of this we have to look at the effect of microwaves on three things in our body:
Our DNA
The cellular function of our cells
The neurons and so on in our brain

Let's look at our DNA first.

Damage to DNA
DNA is a long complex molecule that is composed of two strands, one wound around the other like a spiral staircase. The backbone of the DNA chain is made of phosphate and sugar, and projecting out from this backbone are one or other of the base units adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, which we usually refer to by the letters A, T, G, and C. The two stands of DNA are held together because A bonds only with T, and C bonds only with G. This means that when they are separated and you look down one strand you see a sequence such as ATTGGCTAA and so on. This is the "code of life," and it contains all the information that is need to sustain and duplicate the cell that the DNA is in.

Cells divide only when they receive a signal from a growth factor that circulates in the blood stream, or from cells they came in contact with. When a cell receives a message to divide it goes through what is called "mitosis." Many reactions are involved in this process and everything has to take place correctly for the cell to divide properly. All in all, it's a complicated process, and if the DNA becomes damaged or mutated, it will not occur properly. Several types of mutations are possible: breaks, electrons or protons getting in the way and so on. One of the major problems is what are called free radicals; they are oxygen atoms that are lacking an electron, and are looking around to steal one. If they get near a DNA molecule while its strands are separated and steals one it can cause problems; even worse, it might decide to attach itself to one strand of the molecule, and if it did, the code of life would be changed at that point, and it would stay changed for all future copies.

All of the above are caused by radiation, but not necesarily by microwaves. The probability that microwaves could cause strand breakage is small; it usually takes more energetic radiation. Furthermore, microwaves can't create free radicals; ionizing radiation is needed for that. But that isn't the end of the story. For now, though, let's look at cellular function

Cellular Function

The DNA within the cell also controls the various functions of the cell, and one of the most important of these functions is how the cell reacts to objects and other cells that come in contact with its surface. To deal with them it has "receptors" on its surface; they determine whether or not to let something pass through. Nutrients are, of course, needed to sustain the cell and keep it healthy and they must pass through. But there are millions of dangerous things such as bacteria, toxin and viruses that try to get in continuously. The receptors have to make sure they don't get in. And as long as they are in good shape they do a good job.

These receptors also play another important role: they can shut down cell division. Normally, cell division will continue until something tells it to stop. One of the things that stops it is when the dividing cell comes in contact with another cell (maybe of a different type); the receptors on the cell sense that the division should stop and they send a signal to the cell. Stop and start signals are contolled by certain genes (a stretch of about 100,00, DNA unit that are associated with one another). As long as the receptors and this gene are working well, everything goes along smoothly, but if either becomes damaged... I don't think I need to draw you a diagram of what might happen.

So, what has all this have to do with microwaves? Plenty. Studies have shown that micowaves (even though they are of relatively low energy) can trigger the receptors on cells, causing a series of biochemical reactions. And this can cause the cell membrane to become less permeable. We're still not sure how great the effect is, but it is possible that it might restrict the nutrients that are coming into the cell (and the the wastes that are suppose to go out). Furthermore, it might also trap free radicals inside the cell where they can do even more damage than they normally would. I should mention that the body has a mechanism for getting rid of free radicals and most of the time it does a good job. It usually manages to get rid of 99.99 percent of them, but it's the few that are left that are the problem.

Not only can the few that are left cause mutations in the cell, but they usually also attack the mitochondria of the cell. They are the "power stations" of the cell; in other words, they generate the energy needed to run the cell. So we obviously don't want things disrupted by having too many free radicals inside the cells.

Cancer
This brings us to the question: Can microwaves cause cancer? And it's obviously a very important question. As we saw, several other types of radiations definitely can cause cancer, but what about microwaves? If you've followed the news over the last few years you've no doubt seen reports that there is no evidence that cell phone radiation can cause the dreaded disease. There is, however, a problem with most of these reports. As any scientist (who has worked on cancer) or statistician can tell you: there is no way that you can prove that microwaves, such as those emitted by cell phones, do not cause cancer. (One of my favorite books, in fact, is "How to Lie With Statistics," and most of the evidence is from statistical surveys). Microwaves may be low energy and incapable of ionizing atoms, but they are very penetrating and at high enough intensity, they can easily fry tissue. One of the major problems is that cancer takes so long to develop after it is initiated. It can easily take 20 years or more to make itself known. Although it may seem so, no one "suddenly" gets cancer. It has been festering and developing in their bodies for years.

Another problem is that the process that leads to cancer is very complicated (and I'd like to emphasize the word "very"). A single mutation within a DNA molecule in your body will not lead to cancer. If it did, you'd be in serious trouble, because thousands of mutations occur every day; fortunately most are repaired by your body --but not all of them by a long shot. Cancer is caused by a certain sequence or array of mutations, and unfortunately we don't know exactly what this array or sequence is. Certain genes are obviously more important than others in this respect, and they are the ones that turn cell division on and off. Basically, cancer is cell growth that has somehow got out of control, probably because a gene that was suppose to control it became mutation (but remember that each gene has approximately 100,000 DNA units in it).

It took years to show that smoking, and various carcinogens such as asbestos, caused cancer. Tobacco companies argued for years that if cigarettes were bad for your health the effects would show up within a few years, and there didn't appear to be any serious effect. Well we all know what happened to that argument. The effects did come -- it just took a little time. What is time going to tell us about cell phone radiation? And I'm not finished yet ... some of the most serious effects may come in something I haven't mentioned yet.

Our Brain

From what I've said so far, it might seem that the weak spot in our body for microwave damage is our DNA, but this is not necessarily true (but, of course, almost everything in our body is made up of DNA). Cell phone users hold their phones to their ears, with the antenna only a few inches from their brains, and everything that goes on in our body is controlled by our brain. Furthermore, it is controlled by electrical signals and to some degree by electromagnetic waves similar to microwaves. And one of the first things anyone learns in a physics class is that when electromagnetic signals and electical currents come together, they interact (and change).

We normally refer to the main signals in the brain as electrochemical signals because part of the transmission is a result of chemicals, nevertheless, most of the signal is electrical. Within the brain there are billions of nerve cells, with each of them reaching out to other cells to create an unbelievably intricate and complex network (much more complex than any electrical network in man-made electrical devices). Electrical and chemical impulses travel along these cables and allow us to think, learn, move, and sense the world around us. These nerve cells are called "neurons," and inside the neuron cell body is a nucleus and various types of biochemical machinery for maintaining the cell. Fibers called axions and dendrites extend out from the cell body; they are the cables that carry the electrrical messages.

But I said there are also waves similar to microwaves in the brain, and indeed, there are. We usually refer to them as "brain waves." They can be monitored using an electoencephlograph; it records what are called EEG's. The frequency of these brain waves depend on whether we are awake or asleep. They are named after the letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha, beta, gamma and so on, and their frequency varies slightly. When you are awake, your brain emits beta waves; they have a frequency of 8to 25 Hz. When you start to fall asleep your brain emits alpha waves; finally as you fall asleep, they change to theta waves of frequency 6 to 8 Hz. With deeper sleep they change to delta waves of frequency 1 to 3 Hz.

The one we are mainly interested in are the beta waves that are emitted when we are awake. As I mentioned earlier, electromagnetic waves interact, so we have to ask: Do microwaves interact with them? It's easy to see that there is a big difference in frequency (microwaves have a frequency of 850 to 1900 Mhz), so any interaction would be small (but it shouldn't be completely ignored). On the other hand, as it turns out, there are waves about the same frequency as brain waves that are emitted by cell phones. The first type is referred to as TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) waves. All cell phones have a system that allows several users to share the same frequency channel by dividing the signal into different time slots. In this system the users transmit and receive signals in rapid succession, one after the other. In this way, more people can communicate with the base station simulataneously. The result is a low frequency pulsing of the signal at 8.34 Hz (which is very close to that of beta waves). The second type is referred to as DTX (Discontinuous Transmission) waves; they occur because cell phones use an energy-saving pulse transmission; when you are listening to someone, your transmission mode is turned off. It has a frequency of 2 Hz.

In recent years much of the interest in the brain and microwaves has been in relation to the blood-brain barrier. To understand this barrier we have to begin with blood vessels, in particular, capillaries. They are made from thin, flat cells called "endothelial cells;" these cells join together and roll themselves into long tubes that become arteries, veins and capillaries. Because of their structure, they are "permeable," in other words, they allow molecules of various types to get through (and restrict others). This is particularly important in the case of capillaries, which deliver nutrients to all parts of the body, and also carry toxins, bacteria and viruses away from the cell for disposal. In the brain the endothelial cells overlap each other creating a very strict barrier that allows light weight molecules through, but restricts all heavy molecules. This barrier protects the brain from chemicals and other harmful substances in the blood, but lets the light-weight nutrients and other needed molecules such as oxygen through. If problems occur in this barrier, the brain is susceptible to many different types of infection that can be serious.

Can micowaves affect this barrier? Studies in Sweden have shown that they can. In particular, one study showed that they can increase the permeability of the capillaries enough to allow albumin through (it normally doesn't get through). Other studies have verified the results.

Before I leave the brain I want to mention some studies briefly (several others will be discussed below). Several studies have been made on whether brain tumors occur more frequently near the ear where the cell phone is used and the result is that there is a definite correlation. Brain tumors do occur more frequently here.


A Look at Some of the Studies

As I mentioned earlier, there is still considerable controversy as to the danger of cell phones, and this is to be expected (the cell phone industry is huge -- hundreds of millions of cell phones are sold around the world every year). Many reports of studies have been published emphasizing that cell phones are safe, but in most cases they admit that more study is needed. The FCC, for example, issued the statement, "If there is a risk from these products ... it is probably very small." Other reports say "They appear to be safe ... but the final word is not yet in." On the other hand there are a large number of reports that indicate there may be a serious danger. The following is a sample of some of these reports.

In 20002 F. Marinelli of the National Research Council in Italy reported that microwaves similar to those from cell phones appeared to promote the growth of cancer cells. In particular he showed that after an exposure of 48 hours (which should have been a lethal) the exposed cells began replicating furiously. He suspected tht the radiation was damaging the DNA, which in turn, was causing the rapid increase in growth.

Dariusz Lesjczynski of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety authority in Helsinki, Finland, showed that one hour exposure to cell phone radiation caused human cells to shrink. Lesjczynski believes this could have a serious effect on the blood brain barrier.

David de Pomeria, a molecular biologist at the University of Nottingham, showed that there was clear evidence of non-thermal effects of microwave radiation on nemotode worms. When exposed to the radiation their fertility was increased, opposite to what would be expected from heating. Dr. de Pomeria believes that cell phone radiation can damage DNA indirectly without heating the the cell it is in.

Dr. Gerard Hyland of Warwick University in England published a paper listing numerous studies that showed that microwaves have a large range of non-thermal effects such as DNA strand breakage, chromosomal Aberration, and the promotion of cancer.

A Swedish report in 2006 from the National Institute for Working Life stated that people with 2000 hours of time on a cell phone had 3.7 times the risk of developing brain cancer compared to those that did not use cell phones.

Dr. Henry Lai, a bioengineer at the University of Washington, who has studied the effects of microwaves on cells for years, reported that brain cells are definitely damaged by microwaves at levels far below the government safety levels. He stated that 'radiation from cell phones may also damage DNA and cause cancer."

In 2001 a research group in Australia led by P. Finch showed that cell phone frequencies well below that accepted safety levels could stress cells in a way that could lead to cancer.

Risks for Children are Much Higher

Children are at much higher risks than adults, and the reasons are numerous. To make things worse, children and young poeple are the fastest growing group of cell phone users, and the main ones being targeted by telephone companies. Even very young children now us cell phones daily.

One of the reason for their increased susceptibility is that they have much thinner skulls, and as a result the radiation penetrates to the brain easier. Furthermore, the absorption of radiation is greatest in an object about the size of a child's head because of "resonance." In addition, the nervous system of a child is still developing, and therefore it is more susceptible to the effects of radiation. This also applies to their immune system.

Finally, children are more susceptible because brain tumors usually take at least 20 or 30 years to develop, and they will be using cell phones over much of their life. Most adults will only be using cell phones over part of their life. Most countries (other the the US) are now recommending limited use of cell phones by children.

What You Can Do To Minimize Danger

1. When using a cell phone, keep the antenna as far away from your head as possible. Extend it out and hold it away from your head. (Intensity of radiation drops off rapidly with distance.)

2. Limit the time of your conversations on a cell phone. Use conventional phones for long conversations.

3. Do not use cell phones in a car (the power is amplified considerably).

4. Check the SAR level of your cell phone (it varies from company to company). Make sure it is as low as possible.

5. Stay away from cell phone communication towers.

6. Keep your distance from people talking on a cell phone (it's like second-hand smoke).


Background on Barry Parker Ph.D.

Taught electromagnetic theory for 30 years at undergraduate and graduate levels at university .

Research on quantum tunneling and mutations in DNA including several scientific papers.

Taught biophysics for several years at university.

Author of "Feel Great Feel Alive" and 22 other books.

website: BarryParkerbooks.com

High Gas Prices: Is it Greed?

You shake your head. You filled your car only a few days ago and since then the price of gas has increased by nearly 20 cents a gallon. You can't believe it. How is this possible? And needless to say, for most people it's extremely annoying. When is it going to end? Who's responsible for it? There's no doubt the somebody is making a lot of money, and they don't seem satisfied; they want to make even more. Who is to blame?

Let's start with a Gallup poll that was taken in late 2007 to see what most Americans think about it. First of all I should mention that two-thirds of the respondents said that they are being seriously effected financially by the increases. What surprised me is that this is only two-thirds. And, as you might expect, it's those in the lower income brackets that are affected the most.

According to this poll, Americans gave the following reasons for the increase (the numbers to the right are percentage of people that gave the response)

Oil and gas company greed 34
Problems with refineries/not enough capacity 16
Iraq war 13
Increased demand (not enough conservation) 10
Politics/government 9
No regulations on oil companies 5
Other 13

Are these numbers valid? To get a better handle on the problem let's begin with the major factors that contribute to the cost of a gallon of gas. They are (numbers to the right are approximate percentages of the total):

Getting the crude oil out of the ground 55
Refining the crude 16
Selling (retail) and distributing 9
Taxes (federal and state) 20

Although gas taxes have increased by about 5 percent over the last few years, it's fairly obvious that the last two items in this list have not contributed significantly to the recent price increases.

This takes us to the second item on the list, namely, refining the oil. Problems with refining can, indeed, cause a jump in prices; we merely have to go back to the Katrina disaster to see its effects. Katrina put several refineries on the Gulf Coast out of operation, causing a drop in production, and as a result prices rose. But as the refineries came back on line, prices dropped. To my knowledge, there have been no serious problems with refineries over the past year or so (as the prices have skyrocketed) so it's hard to blame them. It should be noted, however, that few new refineries have been built in the US in the last few years, and this is no doubt part of the problem.

This leaves us with the top item on our list, namely, getting the crude oil out of the ground. And this takes us to oil companies and the countries exporting the oil. Let's begin with the oil companies. Anyone who has been reading the news lately knows that their profits have increased dramatically. Over the last few years, in fact, their profits have nearly doubled each year.

ExxonMobile reported revenues of $405 billion in 2007, with a profit of $41 billion. Chevron reported $214 billion in revenue, with a profit of $19, and Conoco/Phillips reported $187 billion in revenue and $12 billion in profit. These profits are the highest of any company in the U.S.

Oil companies argue that they need high profits so that they can search for more oil, and indeed this is a large expense, but this search has been going on for years, and we have to wonder why a sudden increase in price would be needed to sustain it now. Amazingly, despite their profits, oil companies are still being given tax breaks and grants as an incentive to search for more oil. With all the money they are making, why would they need them? Somehow, it makes more sense to introduce a windfall profit tax on them.

The real problem, however, is not the oil companies. They have some control over the price of gas, but the real control is in the hands of the crude oil suppliers. Before I look at them, however, let's look at some of the other reasons for the spiking prices. I'll list them, then discuss each of them below. They are:

1) The increased demand by developing countries such as China and India.
2) Most of the oil that was easy to get at has been used up. Furthermore, most of the oil presently being pumped is very deep in the earth.
3) In addition, much of the oil we are now pumping is not high quality oil(compared to oil closer to the surface) and it requires more refining.
4) The price of oil is closely tied to the value of the dollar. As the American dollar slides in value, it buys less oil from abroad.
5) Turbulence in the middle east and Venezuela are a problem.
6) Major oil producing and exporting countries such as Mexico, Iran, Russia, and Indonesia are using more and more of their own oil domestically, and are exporting less.

There's no doubt that China, India and other developing countries are using much more oil than they did a few years ago, and it is having an effect. In fact, it's likely to have an increased effect as more and more cars are built around the world. China's demand, for example, increased by about 7 percent in 2006, and even more during 2007, and it will no doubt continue to increase. At the same time, America's demand has remained approximately level, but it, of course, uses much more oil than any other country. With the continuing increase around the world, problems are inevitable. As everyone knows, there is a limited supply of oil left in the ground, and as the demand increases it will be used up at an ever increasing rate. At some point in the future something has to give, and it will. And we'll have to shift away from oil as a major energy source (I'm sure I didn't have to tell you this).

In addition, it is getting more difficult to find oil, and most untapped deposits are very deep in the earth. A bright spot, however, is the huge deposit in the form of tar sand in Alberta, Canada. According to some reports, there is at least as much oil in these tar sands as there is in Saudia Arabia, and possibly as much as all conventional reserves left in the world. A tremendous amount of money is now going into developing the technology to extract it, but there are serious problems with regulations and environmental issues that are delaying things.

Fourth on our list is the problem of the falling value of the American dollar (compared to other world currencies). It has an effect because most of the world's oil sales are made in U.S dollars, and when it weakens, it buys less. Because of this, several OPEC countries are now asking to be paid in Euros rather than American dollars. The falling American dollar, however, may not be as much of a problem as it appears. It is important to separate the nominal and real values of currencies; in other words, their face value and what they can purchase on the world market, and it has turned out that the purchasing power of the American dollar has not decreased as much as it might seem, compared to other currencies.

Fifth on our list is the Iraq war, and the huge debt that has resulted because of it. How much of an effect does it have? According to the Gallup poll quoted earlier, most Americans believe it is the third most important thing that has led to the increase. Let's look at some of the effects of the war. First of all, our huge debt is one of the main things that is responsible for the falling dollar. In addition, it has had an impact in that it has cut off much of Iraq's oil reserves, and it has curtailed it for years. Another problem caused by the war is that terrorists and other factions are continually attacking the oil pipelines, trying to disrupt production, and they have been fairly successful. Closely tied to this is the fact that the war has significantly increased the number of terrorists around the world. Furthermore it has severely tarnished our reputation around the world. Need I say more.

Anyway, let's turn to the major reason for the increase.

OPEC
Surprisingly, the major reason for the rapid increase is rarely mentioned in the press. Perhaps it's because they have us "over a barrel" and we do not want to make them mad at us. I'm referring to the group of nations that is mainly responsible for setting prices, namely OPEC.

OPEC was created in 1960 by the nations Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Their stated purpose in coming together was to form a cartel that could unify and coordinate policies, and one of their major policies was oil prices. In reality it's goal was to secure and keep oil prices as high as possible.

OPEC now has several other member nations, including Algeria, Angola, Equador, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (since the war, Iraq is no longer an active member). Its headquarters is in Vienna. And there's no doubt that it is a powerful cartel. It controls 36 percent of the world's oil production, and controls two-thirds of the world's remaining oil reserves (not including the Alberta tar sands).

OPEC can significantly increase the price of gas by merely curtailing production, and it has done this in the past. In 1967 (shortly after the Arab-Israeli war) several Arab members stopped shipping oil to countries that supported Israel (including the U.S.), and this caused an immediate jump in prices. OPEC can also decrease oil prices by increasing production. At the present time most OPEC countries are close to their optimum production rates. One that isn't, however, is the largest producer: Saudi Arabia. It could increase production, but it knows that this would decrease prices, so it has refused. We don't have much leverage on it, but we do supply it with a large amount of military equipment, and it has been suggested that we should threaten to cut this off if they don't increase production. Is this a good idea? I'll leave that up to you.

Let's turn now to OPEC profits. According to estimates, they earned $675 billion in revenue in 2007, and will bring in about $863 billion in 2008 This is considerably larger than the revenue of U.S. oil companies, and they don't have to do anything to get it. In other words, they have no expenses. Somebody has pointed out that at this rate they are making enough money to buy an American company the size of General Motors every six days. This is obviously a huge flow of American money out of the U.S. to the middle east.

Finally I should mention that a number of experts have pointed out that if OPEC didn't exist, oil prices would be much lower. The various OPEC countries would then have to compete against one another.

Is it greed? I'll let you make up your mind, but I'm sure I know what you'll conclude.

Barry Parker. visit my website at BarryParkerbook.com

The New James Bond movie: Bond 22

Well it's underway ... so there won't be a long wait as there was after "Die Another Day." Thank Heavens! It still doesn't have a title but production started on January 7 at the Pinewood studios in London, and if all goes well the movie will be released on May 2, 2008. So get ready. It promises to be a big one.

Daniel Craig is again in the lead role as 007, but there will be a lot of new faces. Two new " Bond Girls" have been selected. They are the sultry Ukranian actress Olga Kurylenko, who will play opposite Bond, and the British actress Gemma Arterton, who will play an MI6 agent. The villains have also been selected; they are the French actor Mathieu Amalric, and the Swiss actor Anatole Taulman. And returning to her role as M is Judy Dench.

As you might expect with the tremendous success of Casino Royale, this is a sequel. Bond is out for revenge for the killing of his girl, and it promises to produce some exciting action. It will be filmed mainly in Siena, Italy, with scenes in London, and possibly Austria.

The Aston Martin DBS will be featured as Bond's car, but no one has said much about gadgets. And since there weren't any in Casino Royale, I expect this trend will continue. It would be nice, though to see a few. But I'm sure the action will make up for it.

So get ready!!