Tag Archives: Nanotechnology

Reason for everything, BioAPI and Chemtrails Pt. 3 – references in the Media

And now continues the BioAPI series with references in the media. This is a hard topic to swallow and could be hard to comprehend, but this is very important thing to understand the situation we have on our hands today with chemtrails and nanotech.

—-

You are about to embark on the most interesting read of your life; an accumulation of movie clips and real life examples that will for sure make you recognize that something has changed. Figuring out exactly what has changed is the purpose of this web site.

The movies obviously contain many clips to condition the audience to believe or not believe something (for example to smoke cigarettes). Some call this marketing, others refer to it as a form of brainwashing over time. Sometimes it’s obvious and right in your face, other times its extremely high level and so subtle you cannot even begin to catch it if you do not know what and why you are looking for it. The examples below attempt to tie your BioAPI nano-implants together with the movies while showing the possible outcomes and possibilities the implants can provide once installed. Again, many concepts are specific in nature (eg. to discredit a side effect) while others are broad in nature (as in what is happening in general). There are also a few more media examples on the Direct-to-Speech (real life mind control examples) page. Each clip by itself could be dismissed, in aggregate you will see they cannot.

The clips for Gamer (2009) and Ultrasonic (2012) are now a must watch. And a cure/antidote is covered in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012) as well as End of Watch (2012).

Bandits (2001)

There are a few side effects associated with phase 1 and especially phase 2. In order to condition the public to dismiss health oriented side effects as inconsequential anomalies they use the movies like always.

One significant but not serious side effect of phase 2 is when the scent neuron’s get encapsulated they alter the ability to smell slightly. In fact the encapsulation of any neuron/synapse for any organ involved in sensing (skin, tongue, scent, etc.) will be slightly compromised in some capacity.

Typically people will say they smell a burning (feathers or smoke) smell. This clip demonstrates how they condition the public, specifically connecting anyone who smells burning, in this case feathers, with someone who must be crazy. It’s spread out through the whole movie and is the purpose of the entire movie itself. Notice the movie shows Billy Bob Thornton thinking he smells burning feathers, then clearly shows him (towards the end of the move and clip) acting crazy and stupid flopping around on the floor. The audience obviously takes away from that burning smell = crazy person. Classic movie psyop. Keep in mind all movie psyop’s like this are subtle, you have to keep the larger picture in mind to recognize what’s actually happening which in this case is the fact that they are trying to discount the side effects associated with contracting the nano-tech disease (phase 2).

Contracted (2013) provides a complete and excessive overview of the contraction of phase 2 and the implication of the physical side effects there from.

Toxic Skies (2008)

Toxic Skies is a poor quality chemtrail propaganda movie. It’s specifically about chemtrails but you have to look closer to see what the outcome of the patients are to figure out what is happening. It reflects that they are trying to kill people (or who they – not the doctors – decide are useless eaters). As in all movies such as this it starts off as a plague or biological threat. Four or five people from various walks of life are presented as patients in the movie who contract the unknown disease. The only one that dies is the one that simply watches TV and is presumed not to care about life. Therefore people who understand what is happening will see chemtrails = kill useless eaters. Everything else in the movie is irrelevant.

So in an overview the people running The Program are deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. This is happening every day right in front of you.

See the clip for A Serious Man (2009) for another example on how they are judging you as they see fit. Also see Meeting Evil (2012). Also see Control Factor (2003).

The Crazies (2010)

This movie holds back nothing. Some clips show an overall high level meaning and you have to look for, The Crazies slaps you right in the face.

In this clip at the beginning of the movie a so called crazy person comes out of the bush with a shot gun. Not knowing what to do the cop has to shoot the guy, no one questions even for a second what happened, I mean it was clearly the guy was drunk right? Wrong.

This is what I call Direct-to-Motor-Control, or to a greater extent Paralleling. A handler is actually controlling the guy like a robot. The nose is bleeding because the guy is trying to fight it or at least the mind control is getting to extensive resulting in synapse damage. He doesn’t want to raise the shot gun so there’s conflict within whatever cortex controls motor functions resulting in synapse damage. Ultimately the BioAPI wins and the guy has to do what the handler is forcing on him. This forced and conscious motor control is only possible with phase 2 of the BioAPI. The nose bleeding is also shown in The Box (2009). The Box (2009) is purely about the BioAPI and the implications of being tested and judged. Another aspect of the BioAPI allows the subjects memory to be suspended first which is extremely effective because now the subject now has no idea what he is doing and thereby cannot fight it at all.

Then to prove the point the scene jumps to a satellite/command center style clip which is a reference that everything is controlled from a single command center, then of course the final dot – chemtrails. More or less, this clip is real, and is the only clip or movie reference in existence (Update 2012-08-04: also see Ultrasonic (2012) which also connects all three dots – in Ultrasonic’s case concentrating on mind control delivered by chemtrails as opposed to body control as shown with The Crazies). In the clip it flashes this satellite style reference, this is only symbolic, it is not a satellite that does the controlling of people. The actual communication with the BioAPI/implants is much more advanced and may involve quantum entanglement. This is beyond the scope of this site and is unnecessary to understand what is happening.

Greenberg (2010)

Greenberg is a movie that specifically references phase 2. Some of the side effects demonstrated in the media show people who get phase 2 have sores on their skin or feel sick in some way. Also see the Family Guy clip for another example of this. This is true but in varying degrees, and is useful to demonstrate what is happening to people in the know.

In this clip Ben Stiller has the chance to run off to Australia with some hotties. But as he’s leaving they clearly show the one blonde slut is sick. She’s coughing and has a sore on her skin, so Ben Stiller immediately bolts. This is a direct reference of someone with phase 2 and therefore the entire BioAPI in the movies.

About 5 minutes before this scene Ben Stiller also makes a reference to hurting people, he says it twice for no reason (@ about 1:33:00 in the movie, not the clip). Why? I mean teams of writers pour over these movie scripts before they are finalized and all they come up with is “hurt people, hurt people“? It’s easy to understand when you see the big picture.

Also see the page on morgellons with the clip for The Informers (2008). Also see the clip for Transformers 3 (2011).

Hanna (2011)

This movie is the only movie I can find that shows what I call Direct-to-Speech in action, or to a lesser extent suggesting something so someone’s subconscious. A handler (the women behind the glass) dictates to the other women (the one talking to the girl) what to say. Now everyone that watches this clip will say of course, the second women talking to the girl has an electronic earpiece in her ear – that’s just it, she doesn’t (note that in the context of the movie she might as well have an earpiece in, but that’s not what we’re looking at here, we’re looking for the double meaning). Note you should look at the real life mind control examples to put this in a better context.

Now this is partially symbolic and very high level, but does demonstrate what can and is happening to phase 1 individuals (such as yourself). The amazing part is the second women is not aware she’s being told what to say or do. This is the most amazing aspect of the BioAPI, everything else pales in comparison to this and is extremely difficult to accept or comprehend. So the thoughts the second women (talking to the girl) is having are not her thoughts. What she’s saying to the girl is suggested or inserted into her mind in real time, which she believes are her own thoughts and acts or talks accordingly. They make fun of this in The Simpsons clip here.

There’s actually a lot happening in this scene. For example to show the two women are connected somehow (for example paralleling, or simply thinking with someone including talking for/through them as in a direct-to-speech concept) they show both women having red hair. Coincidence? Not if you know what to look for. Note how they zoom in on her mouth @1:04 when she says ‘just arrived from Prague‘, they are trying to reflect it’s not necessarily her voice speaking it, is being echoed through her.

Also see the clip for Metropia (2009). Or for that matter the recently added nice dog scene in Ultrasonic (2012) for another demonstration on exactly how it works in (would be) real life.

Update: This clip has been largely superseded by Control Factor (2003).

 

…these are not the droids you’re looking for…

 

Doomsday Book (2012)

This clip is new as of July 24, 2012 and put here because I’m running out of space on the other pages. The clip quality might be a little degraded, I’m trying to keep these clip files small for bandwidth reasons now.

Previously on the FAQ page I listed several triggers which install phase 2. One of them was red meat. I gave no reference, proof or evidence whatsoever. Now over 8 months later this movie is the missing puzzle piece for red meat (also see Harolds Going Stiff (2011) below) . Just because something might not add up or lacks evidence on this web site does not mean it’s wrong, it simply means we have not found that piece of the puzzle yet as I will now demonstrate.

This movie is out of South Korea and is not one single movie, instead it is three separate short films with each short being roughly forty minutes in length. What they have done here is brilliant. The first short is a typical bad zombie apocalypse movie. The second short is about the morals of robots as people, the third is largely irrelevant. The key is the first short and more importantly its immediate connection with the unrelated second one. I’ll explain more below. During a normal day an apple for whatever reason biodegrades wrong and spawns a virus which turns everyone into zombies. That’s the movie; ridiculous on its surface. Now let’s take it apart…

In the beginning of the movie and clip they focus on an apple as it rots. He throws it out with the trash as expected (@ 0:30) and the apple degrades wrong (@ 1:00 in and around). Humorous zombie apple now. They show the apple becoming feed for livestock (shown in the movie but not shown in the clip much other then @ 1:12). They then focus heavily, very heavily on red meat (@ 1:18 thru 3:29) as people eat it. Specifically as disgusting as possible complete with a cow being slaughtered at 1:14. This is intentional. Notice at 2:26 he pulls an apple peel out of his mouth. Why? Keep reading. People then get sick (examples @ 3:30 thru 4:00) as they turn into zombies from eating the red meat contaminated by the zombie apple; I mentioned before what they are doing is partly biblical, they love to throw the bible out as an excuse to hurt people, even if you have never harmed a fly in your entire life. Then at 4:10 the zombie apocalypse strikes. The two main characters as zombies now find each other wandering around (@ 4:30). Then they drive it home – the apple as a metaphor (remember when he pulled the apple peel out of his mouth @ 2:26) and contaminant for red meat becomes symbolic for the trigging of phase 2 through the eating of red meat. Why? How? She gives the apple to him (@ 5:29) and he eats it. It’s intentionally disgusting, you are supposed to be turned off by it [Update: this is a critical concept to explore so I’ve elaborated on it below in the Sidebar – Subtle Distraction Psyops]. Then right after he eats the apple they zoom right in on her or a zombie eye – what do they show you? What’s in her eye (@ 6:10 thru 6:14)? A chemtrail nano-fiber. They are clearly showing you. This is the end and climax of the movie too which doesn’t make sense unless you know why. And it’s not even the kicker…

The first short then ends (@ 6:33) and in the movie (not the clip) they show a biblical quote (screenshot here) which essentially translates to God telling Adam not to eat the apple. Because again, from the movie, the apple becomes symbolic of red meat and is thereby telling you eating the apple [and therefore red meat by metaphor] is bad [and now via nano-tech will turn you into a robot]. The second short starts, and is about robots. What a coincidence – because very early in this second short (within 30 seconds) the technician from the robot corporation is walking down the hall with the monk and they clearly and intentionally show his corporate logo on his uniform (@ 6:55 thru 7:04). The corporation name is UR (Robotics). Get it? [You] [are] the robot. They mention the corporation name a few times in the short and show it on his briefcase too (@ 7:12). Only people that know what is happening will see and bridge the connection from the first short (zombie’s representing phase 2 via nanotech spiked red meat) to the second short (turning you into a complete robot) like this. The fact that they are back-to-back but independent (as in separate) short films is intentional and a brilliant idea. Note the cover image (screenshot here) on the front page of this web site, the robot from the second short has “UR” stamped right on it.

To summarize, consuming (probably cheap) red meat can (will) turn you into a robot by the installation of phase 2. That is what this movie(s) is telling you. Note you already are a robot with phase 1, but phase 2 is the full BioAPI and allows for extended functionality such as manipulation of feelings, direct-to-motor control, etc. Also notice the parallel between this clip and Vexille (2007). Both clearly show you a nano-fiber then shortly after tell you that you are the robot (in the Vexille clip @ 1:26 – ‘the virus [cyber-virus/nano-tech] gradually progresses through the body until it finally reaches the brain; at that point we become perfect androids…’). I’ve said it a few times throughout this site, stay focused, because you are the base model surrogate.

Sidebar – Subtle Distraction Psyops
It is important to note the significance of how disgusting the apple eating was in this clip @ 6:04. Why would they do that? What is the point? It is psychological. The purpose of instances such as this are to discount the significance of something else during or immediately after what you see. To be clear – you are disgusted by what you see and remember it. You focus on that because that is what is most prevalent. Your attention is captivated to some degree and you are distracted and thereby unable to notice the significance of what is truly important which in this clip is the nano-fiber(s) in her eye shortly after. So the viewers perception is being split, most people will give their attention to the apple eating, a few (self thinkers) will not and wonder what the strange white fibers in her eye are all about. This is the 99% vs. 1% being playing out right in front of eyes. This is the knowledge over ignorance paradigm.Another accurate example is how Leonardo DiCaprio mentions insects in the brain in the Shutter Island (2010) clip; your mind immediately focuses on how disgusting that concept is and thereby discount the clicking in the brain comment. Then when a clicking sound is heard/felt in your cranium you are much more likely to dismiss it.

Another example is in the movie (not clip) for Black Limousine (2010). At roughly 1:20:27 in the movie they show Arquette looking out his window watching a very hot women undress (screenshot here) for a few seconds. Then very shortly after they show the talking gibberish scene. It is the same principal in action, your mind obviously focuses on the women, even well after the camera pans away; and your attention thereby becomes diminished when they (in this case) show an example of what they can do in real life which is make people talk gibberish using the BioAPI/nano-implants.

Another less significant example is in the clip for Ultrasonic (2012). In the nice dog scene the dog only has three legs. Why? What? They couldn’t find a normal dog? Again, it’s intentional to pull your attention away from the scene in general because it could be one of the most important scenes in a decade if you know why.

An extreme example can also be seen in Rise of the Zombies (2012) with the baby stomping scene.

Textually, spelling mistakes and insults accomplish the same psychological effect; your simple sheep mind is turned off by speling mstakes and again discount the relevance and accuracy of the overall message. Most people cannot get by a single spelling mistake whether it’s intentional or an honest mistake. Ironically the smarter someone is the better it works on them.

Harolds Going Stiff (2011)

Harolds Going Stiff (2011) is a humorous zombie movie where people are going stiff and then turning into zombies. This British movie provides us with another direct reference connecting phase 2 with the consumption of red meat such as with the above clip for Doomsday Book (2012). In fact the first short for Doomsday Book (2012) and this movie are the same movie.

In the movie an old guy named Harold was the first to contract a zombie disease. About half way through the movie they simply tell you people are turning into zombies because they are eating a meat product called meat-a-rino as shown in the screenshot to the right. Harold is also shown to be eating them. It’s not a hidden reference at all, if you watch the movie they are outright talking about it. The guy in the screenshot to the right is being interviewed about it.

No clip is provided, but notice how Harold’s facial orifices are slightly bleeding as he turns into a zombie in the same capacity as Earthkiller (2011) @ roughly 0:55 in the clip and cover image. Also notice how Harold symbolically picks the red meat out of his sandwich and throws it away @ roughly 58:30 in the movie. This throwing away of the red meat is the equivalent of the biblical quote (screenshot here) from Doomsday Book (2012) above where God tells Adam not to eat the apple (apple = red meat by metaphor). Everything is clearly being told to you repeatedly.

A Little Bit Zombie (2012)

This movie is the Canadian version of Harolds Going Stiff (2011) above. As with Harold, a main character (Steve) is turning into a zombie after getting bit by a zombie mosquito. Eventually Steve wants to eat brains because he is a zombie, so they go to the meat shop. Notice the letters ‘EAT MEAT‘ are clearly and intentionally visible in the name of the shop.

Now the actually connection or metaphor connecting zombies with red meat is not as stark as with Harolds Going Stiff (2011) or Doomsday Book (2012) above, but it’s there. As they enter the meat shop they look up to show this completely out of context and irrelevant sun burst, if you watch the movie you’ll be like ‘why‘? ([Update 2012-11-17] I’ve added a clip to the right of the sunburst and crEATive MEATs sign) It’s the same principal outlined in the above Subtle Distraction Psyops, but the inverse. It’s like a red flag for the 1%. Then in the red meat shop the butcher serves both red meat and brains. Red meat & brains (for zombies as in phase 2) are thereby subtly connected, if anything because they are buying red meat and eating brains at the butcher [red meat] shop. So red meat = brains [and thereby zombie -> phase 2].

Note how the zombie killer is eating red meat, in this case bacon, through the whole movie, and also notice who the actor is (Stephen McHattie from Pontypool (2008)). Both Harolds Going Stiff (2011) and this movie are cinematically terrible, that’s not the point. Your suppose to understand that. They are released to communicate this message. And the sign does say EAT MEAT as opposed to NOT EAT MEAT. Your suppose to have the intelligence to catch the inverse when applicable and apply it when presented with additional information or movies that reflect the same related theme as I’ve shown. In this case EAT MEAT = Zombie. And zombies are typically placed in the context of phase 2 as shown on the cure page.

Reason for everything, BioAPI and Chemtrails Pt. 2 – Physical Nano-Fiber/BioAPI Examples

Now we add another chapter to this important serie of documents. If you want proof you got it…

Physical Nano-Fiber/BioAPI Examples

This web sites not bother with the scientific details or patents behind the actual nano-tech. I, like yourself I’m sure are not a nano-tech engineer. If you want details you can read for the next ten years if you want. Patents are easily found for all of this. They want and need you to focus on the super technical nonsense, look past it; the closer you look, the less you will see.

To summarize from the FAQ page – chemtrails spray the entire planet with nano-fibers which you breathe in. These fibers contain (nano) components which construct and install nano-implants which the aggregate of constitutes what is commonly known as a Biological Application Programming Interface allowing for complete monitoring & control of all body and mind functions in a given host (you, and everyone on the entire plant). Below are the basics, which is all that’s required for a broader understanding of these nano-fibers. The first few examples show an actual payload within a fiber (which would be used in the installation of a nano-implant for example). The colored fibers are just examples of what else can be seen, and the last example is a petri dish of nano-fibers from an average person such as yourself. The fiber images are about 200x magnification, any standard microscope will let you see these fibers. You can view these fibers yourself right now if you want. They are all around you, you are even breathing them in as you read this. Some fibers move on their own, they sort of wiggle, yet have no organelles proving they are not organic or biological in nature.

All of these fibers are in your body and brain. All fibers and constructs are viewable with the naked eye (just barely) under a proper wavelength of blacklight. For more information on the nano-fibers and how to extract them from your body refer to the bottom of this page for nano-fiber extraction details.

For an impressive prologue to this you can refer to the Gamer (2009) clip in which you are told exactly what they are doing and demonstrates it for all to see. I like the Technotise: Edit & I (2009) clip too.

Nano-fibers are now directly shown and referenced in clips for Doomsday Book (2012) and Vexille (2007). Chemtrails as the source of mind control is shown in Ultrasonic (2012) and The Crazies (2010).

Also see The Host (2013), where they outright show you a pretty good representation of the nano-fibers. See the last sample of nano-fiber images below for the picture of this in real life.

This is the most amazing picture you’ll see in your life. This is a phase 2 subject with a nano-camera in the left eye. Only viewable with the proper wavelength of blacklight. Everyone on the planet has a basic set of nano-implants that allows them to be tracked and mind controlled on demand; people who contract what I call a phase 2 will have additional implants that allows them to be body controlled as well as a whole host of other functions. Your body is turned into a robot against your knowledge and against your will. The aggregate of these nano-implants constitutes what is commonly known as a Biological Application Programming Interface. Check the media page for upcoming references concerning the ocular implant, specifically the Order of Chaos (2010) clip, or even the Minority Report (2002) description for that matter. [Update – you could review the Minority Report description, I’ve expanded on these eye references]

Note the pink circle referencing the implant in the large image is not actually the camera, it’s just a side effect (fibers and implants glow under UV light) of the camera implant installation for this individual. The camera is too small (micro-size) and can’t be seen, but it can be felt – some more thoughts and information on the ocular nano-implant are available.

Interestingly they demonstrate this ocular implant in action and show exactly how they see what you see in Surrogates (2009) at about the 11:00 minute mark of the movie (the movie, not the clip – see the last cover image on the front page of this site). A monitor beside Bruce Willis shows a video cam of what his surrogate is seeing after he gives himself a glass of water. It’s real. This is how EVERYTHING YOU DO WILL BE RECORDED is true from A Scanner Darkly (2006).

In Warm Bodies (2013) they actually reference the exact location of the ocular implant when she is scanned at roughly 58:00 into the movie to see if she is infected or a zombie. The scanner hovers at and around this exact location. They even used the correct eye (left) for the scan.

Also now shown in World War Z (2013). The more mainstream a movie is the briefer the reference; this is the best example of that due to the fact that it stars Brad Pitt. As they come into the hanger at ~40:50 in the movie they quickly scan his eye to see if they are zombies. Correct idea, but wrong application – in real life the proper wavelength of light is elaborated on here.

 

This first example shows a fiber that was found in pond water if I remember correctly. This is the typical fiber you would breathe in while jogging or something. Notice the payload which seemed to shrink to nothing. It started to shrink as soon as I looked at it, or it sensed the light from the microscope. Seen at roughly 200x magnification in late 2010. The contraction timeframe was about 300 seconds.

 

A fiber with another payload. The next image is a larger version of this.

 

This example shows another payload, this time with some color for some reason.

 

For whatever reason some fibers are red or blue in color.

 

A red fiber.

 

This is an example of the most common fibers found. It’s transparent, longer and seems kind of benign. All fibers can be seen with standard cheap microscopes. Some fibers even move by themselves, they sort of twitch if you watch long enough.

 

The connecting proof of chemtrail nanofibers and your body being the target is this test here. Rinsing ones mouth out with red wine will extract the fibers from the oral cavity of the person. Viewing the extraction under a microscope and you’ll see the same fiber structure as fibers found in pond water or randomly elsewhere. 100% saturation. Note – a quick rinse doesn’t work, you have to let the acidity of the red wine soak into your mouth for a bit. The wine stains the fibers. Gargle, repeat a few times and you’ll start to see them. This image is in a petri dish.

This is exactly what they are referring/showing to you in The Host (2013), screenshot here. Also shown in Ender’s Game (2013), screenshot here.

Clifford Carnicom has pioneered the research (going as far back as 2003) connecting nano-fibers with Chemtrails, merely compare the structure of what comes out of your mouth with what is found outside in rain water. It’s the same thing. See below for a test you can conduct for yourself.

 

It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.

Henry David Thoreau


Nano-Fiber Extraction Test

I’d like to take a moment and expand on what someone should see if they actually wish to test themselves for this nano-disease. To make any connection at all you must recognize these Chemtrail nano-fibers as coming from your body which in a normal environment is completely impossible.

Everyone knows red wine stains absolutely everything. It’s a nightmare to clean. It should be no surprise that when dealing with co-polymer nano-fibers this red wine principal is no different. The test is basic. The purpose is to simply allow the red wine’s acidity to saturate your mouth and the nano-fibers will slowly be extracted and then stained by the wine. Why this actually happens is unknown by myself.

To being simply get a bottle or red wine as shown in the image to the left.
Poor a little into the sink. See anything? No. Of course not. It’s just red wine. Nothing to see here. Also check your mouth if you care, it’s clean. If not just brush your teeth.
Sip a little red wine, swish it around in your mouth for a bit, maybe gargle. Spit it out. What do you see? Some people will see nothing at first, the red wine has to saturate the oral cavity. Some people will immediately see small strange specs or fibers as shown. Now think for the first time in your life, I thought the wine and your mouth were pure and clean? Therefore this must be impossible right?
After repeating this test a few times, specifically gargling, you should start to see large globs of nano-fibers come out. They never stop. You can do this test for hours and more and more fibers will come out of your mouth.
A little disgusting yes, but necessary for demonstration purposes. Look at your tongue. Nano-fibers get caught in your tongue’s hairs (your tongue has hair obviously).

There you have it. Chemtrail’s spray nano-fibers. You breathe, eat and ingest these nano-fibers. It’s impossible not to. Could you put these nano-fibers from your mouth under a microscope? You could but it’s not realistic because they are all stained. It’s much better to get a sample of pond water or water from the street or sewer drain or leave a small dish of water outside for a while to get nano-fibers that are falling from the lower atmosphere after some chemtrail spraying.

Now what do they do? Why? Why on earth would this be happening? Brace yourself, you still have to think, I know it’s difficult but hang in there. Nano-fibers deliver nano-components as reflected above. These nano-components encapsulate neurons and bridge synapses throughout your body or to a greater extent install nano-implants. Again, for what? Why? To control you (for example Gamer (2009)). That’s why. To read your mind, thoughts, see what you see and hear what you hear. Essentially turn you into a cyborg, in standard computer science circles this would be called a BioAPI or wetware. It’s for mind control. Plain and simple. They even show you examples of what they can do in every day life, so continue on for several awesome media examples and real life mind control references. It’s all real, they did it all.

Thoughts on a possible cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

> Possible Cure

> Media References

Source

Reason for everything, BioAPI and Chemtrails Pt. 1

Now I start a series that I found I think is crucial info. It is about so called BioAPI, chemtrails, nano-fibers and how they are used to turn us into biological mind-controlled robots. Transhumanism to the core. So here is the part 1:

Preface

What the hell is happening… you must be thinking that, as well as being dazed and confused in the least which is the purpose of this web site. Your unfortunate lack of critical thinking skills leaves you without the ability to see the unseeable. You watch, but you fail to see. Fear not my less informed friend – whether your being chemtrailed, body/mind controlled, hearing voices or stalked by the public, this web site connects the final high level dots concerning this otherwise complicated puzzle of insanity currently before you. ‘Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead, and the White Knight is talking backwards’. This is what they are doing to you and your family, and this is how they do it.

Complete, high dexterity remote control of every single synapse and neuron for every person on the face of the earth and the greatest revelation in human history… your BioAPI.

Introduction

In 1999 the world changed. The money trust, the law (commerical code/contract law, applicability of public/statutory presumptions, etc.), technology (nano-tech), and the general direction of the planet completely changed. In order to even remotely grasp what is happening you must disconnect your mind from the last century’s way of thinking. Failure to change the way you think will preclude you from seeing reality accurately. There is no money anymore, taxes are a thing of the past and no written law applies to you.

So what we now have is a real brave new world. The purpose of this site is to simply show the extent at which they have leveraged nano-technology directly on you, how they control everyone on demand with it, and end the confusion around the subject of chemtrails and how they fit into the larger picture while showing how the media and movies are conditioning the mind of the general public.

The Reason For Everything

Let’s just get right to it. Forget everything you know. Here it is, the epitome of reality. This video is the best example that summarizes what’s happening or has happened in your body already. This is the most prevalent secret in the whole world because it has been forced onto everyone unknowingly.

 

What you see here is a nano-bot encapsulating a neuron or synapse (for example your purkinje neurons) or other nerve ending/bridge. It’s only a simulation, but accurately summaries everything that has happened in the past decade. This allows complete control of the host (your body) remotely as demonstrated repeatedly in the movies (for example Metropia (2009), Ultrasonic (2012)). A more sophisticated set of nano-bots would and very well has subsequently allowed for a complete and full BioAPI to be installed without the host (you) even knowing it. If you want to get technical your neurons have been encapsulated, your synapses have been bridged.

The basic idea consists of a set of nano-wires tethered to electronics in the main catheter such that they will spread out in a “bouquet” arrangement into a particular portion of the brain’s vascular system. Such arrangement could support a very large number of probes (in the millions). Each n-wire would be used to record, very securely, electrical activity of a single or small group of neurons without invading the brain parenchyma.
Source

What is the purpose of chemtrails

Chemtrails are a huge logistical operation. Larger than the hoover damn, trans-alaska pipeline or moon landing. It’s large. And expensive. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming there is only one reason for chemtrails. There are about five or six reasons and possibly more. The top six are listed below with a brief summary. This web site is concerned with the last. A visual overview may help by reviewing a flowchart here.

  • Blocking the Sun: This is the standard reason given to fools in the government. We need to secretly stop global warming, so keep it a secret that we’re spraying. Global warming is the catch all con for everyone in the government. If you’re smarter than this they’ll give you a better reason.
  • Blocking the Sun (Again): A reduction in sun light across the planet works well to decrease or manipulate crop yields slightly. This is part of the requirement to engineer a food crisis and bring in a famine. You can dismiss this.
  • Superheating the Atmosphere: In order to create earthquakes and steer hurricanes (for example hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) the atmosphere needs to be more conductive for electricity so installations such as HAARP (HAARP is just what they want you to see, HAARP has nothing to do with anything) can work their magic. So the chemtrails spray barium and aluminum among other things to create a more conductive upper atmosphere. In The Phoenix Rises (2012) they tell you exactly this @ exactly ~16:00 in the movie as they specifically talk about chemtrails. For your information barium has nothing to do with the BioAPI, nano-fibers or nano-tech at all.
  • Health Erosion: As a side effect everyone’s health and immune systems become slightly compromised. This is usually not an issue for most healthy people. Older people on average will now die sooner and any health complication is slightly more likely to be fatal. This is both a side effect of spraying and intentional.
  • Climate Modification: To help or hurt crops, keep skies clear for a major event (like the Olympics), cause a typhoon, steer super storms, etc.
  • Nano-fiber Propagation: To universally install a BioAPI in everyone they need to spray nano-fibers. These fibers cannot be put into the food supply or given in some other way, the uptake across the population would take forever and not propagate very effectively. It’s much easier just to spray everyone like an insect; and because it’s happening to everyone the universal herd mentality of the unwashed masses then justifies it.

Nano-fiber basics

Nano-fibers specifically are a transport mechanism. Nothing more. They hold a payload for delivery. A payload that would otherwise be compromised by the sun or atmosphere or not make it to its destination (your body). Such as viral RNA code, metals such as aluminum, nano-components, etc. The fibers are (surprisingly) quite harmless as everyone has them. Examples of these fibers can be found all over the internet or in the physical examples section of this site. The fibers must be independently sprayed, if they we’re added to the jet fuel the extreme heat would destroy the payload.

So it’s not the fiber that is critical, it’s the payload.

Why?

This is a complicated question. The people creating and doing this are trying to force biblical principles onto the populace (including themselves) through technology. For example the seven deadly sins. They take a basic human requirement (food, sex, a specific emotion) and quantify it (within the BioAPI). If the result is to extreme (for example you eat too much) or you do something not approved of then they decide that you’re not worthy of life or judge you accordingly. In the alternative your are added to a program. The possibilities for the BioAPI or nano-tech in general is endless. Therefore you should not focus on any one reason as being the end all purpose. It’s too dynamic. It’s to complex. As I mentioned on the top of page 5 of the media references – ‘the BioAPI is the greatest revelation in human history‘. For example see the last paragraph of the description for Vexille (2007), specifically the trailer for H+ mentioned in it. Data Asylum is only giving you one angle of the BioAPI – the nano-tech disease and all the implications that encompass it.

Also see question #9 of the frequently asked questions for a brief explanation on how this (and chemtrails) are (mostly) lawful.

Who?

The same group of people that brought humanity HIV in the late 1970’s. Also see FAQ question #15.

BioAPI Phases

There are essentially two phases involved with the installation of the BioAPI. I categorize it as phase 1 and phase 2. If you can imagine a new laptop computer, all it has is the operating system like Windows, so it’s kind of useless. This would be the equivalent to phase 1. So a new computer can be remotely controlled (aka phase 1, see Surrogates (2009)) by your IT tech support guy, but that is all. There are no programs installed (provided by phase 2) to do much else with it. These names of a phase 1 and 2 are not necessarily just random nonsense I made up, see the clip and movie for Control Factor (2003) in which they use these exact names in the exact same context; because they are telling you everything.

  • Phase 1: Everyone on the planet is affected and involved in this phase. Everyone to some extent has the nano-fibers within their body cavity, and therefore wired [‘I’m wired too.’ – Michael Hall, Gamer (2009)]. Side effects include a clicking sound from within the skull and basic annoying body complications like aching joints. This phase provides complete remote control of your speech and thought patterns through suggestion (partially subconsciously). I guess about 99% of the populace of the entire planet has this phase complete.

    Phase 1 could be construed as positive and beneficial to you, at least in the future. See John Hodgman (2012) for more information. You should also see question 9 of the FAQs.

  • Phase 2: This phase must be triggered (by nano-trigger-bots) and is extreme. It completely compromises your health and can do anything from kill you to simply monitor you. This phase cannot be forced onto you like phase 1 (technically it can but they don’t do that yet). This involves multiple nano-sensors from ocular to heart and everything in between. I figure about 2% of the population has gone through this phase. If this phase is triggered in you they consider you evil as shown within the media examples page of this site. You must do something to trigger this phase, including eating cheap red meat, kissing specific people, using specific corporate health care/beauty products, etc. The objective they are (partially) reaching for here is to connect each event with a deadly sin of some sort. For example morgellons would be connected with vanity because your skin goes to hell. Ultimately this phase provides complete remote control of your body and mind, including the monitoring of your emotions, thoughts, body functions and everything in between. Phase 2 then can be considered a nano-tech disease (as clearly shown in the Family Guy clip) in which the contagious aspect can be switched on and off. For example I have phase 2, but I am not contagious, but I can be if they decide to make me contagious in some way – typically kissing. This allows them to completely control the transmission/vector or spreading of the nano-disease. If you want to get specific, the nano-tech or nano-implants that compose phase 2 of the BioAPI is actually just the vehicle they use to monitor, torment, test and hurt people. The disease itself is actually one of dishonor. The more dishonor you demonstrate, the more they hate you, the worse things get for you. They do not want people to figure that out. See Meeting Evil (2012) for clear details. Phase 2 can or is definitely detrimental to your life. That is the point of it. A cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

    You can 100% confirm if you have phase 2 or not by seeing an eye doctor and asking him to look for anomalies exactly where the ocular implant is located. The implant is still a camera and therefore must conform to the laws of physics and optics still so it must, just like your eye has, have a concave lens which it does. You might be able to slightly feel it at night when your falling asleep when your eyes are dryer and you move your eyeball around with your eyes closed. More information on the implant’s location is available here.

    Also see the clip for Contracted (2013) which specifically covers the contraction of phase 2 and the physical side effects there from. Pretty Dead (2013), no clip provided, also does a good job at covering multiple aspects of the contraction of the nano-tech disease and BioAPI in general, both good and bad. They show a couple triggers (meat and hard drugs) which makes her sick, complete with heavy zombie overtones. They also show a possible positive aspect such as accelerated healing. The entire movie, every scene, becomes like a documentary.

Nano-fiber and Side Effects

Of course with something as extreme as nanotech being installed within people’s body’s you would assume there would be health implications and side effects. This is correct and covered on this site. The approach to handle these side effects has been one of “embrace and extend” it’s called. There are several examples in the media section that show how the specific side effects listed below are recognized and then associated with something ridiculous or stupid which then discounts the authenticity in the mind of the viewer. In effect convincing the viewer to dismiss a real side effect as being something that’s too crazy to be real. Each side effect is dealt with in a media example. Additional technical possibilities are also talked about in the BioAPI details section. Additional side effects related to phase 2 are covered in the clip for Contracted (2013).

  • Phase 1 & 2 – Cranium Clicking/Screeching: A phase 1 side effect goes back as early as 2001. Exactly what is happening is not completely known but involves some sort of nano-chip being installed/operated in the cranium (your head) of the host. This is probably the equivalent of a CPU of some sort. The actual clicking/screeching sound observed is usually at night on average once a month and only lasts for a few seconds. Completely painless and easily ignored or passed off by the person. The entire purpose of the movie Shutter Island (2010) is to discount this. The nano-implant that is specifically and clearly responsible for this side effect is symbolically referenced in the second clip for Surrogates (2009). I suspect over time they have improved this side effect.
  • Phase 1 & 2 – Aching Joints, Headaches, Fatigue, etc.: The saturation of nano-fibers has different effects on different people. The sheer numbers involved results is a random combination of health implications. Most people will not notice anything, or pass any slight symptom off as getting older. Other people who have more of a reaction will go to the doctor and get diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a catch all disease that was created about a decade ago to give doctors something to tell the patient when they complained. The doctors can’t accurate diagnose or understand what or why a patient is feeling a certain way, so the corrupt medical establishment gives them this nonsense to spew. These side effects are primarily phase 1 but are a constant problem across the board. Notice the root word of fibromyalgia is fib[e]r, it’s not a coincidence. This Family Guy clip indirectly references Fibromyalgia.
  • Phase 2 – Itching: For whatever reason they may force harsh itching on you when they do not agree with what you are doing or how you are behaving. You probably will have no idea it is phase 2 at the beginning. This is shown in Flash of Genius (2008) when they show her typing and zoom in on her hand (@ 44:50 in the movie) when she itches it. She’s presumed to be a bad wife for leaving her husband (no clip is provided; screenshot here; you’ll have to read this whole site to understand this). The exact same concept is shown in Lay the Favorite (2012) where Bruce Willis itches his forearm clearly and intentionally after referencing it a few seconds earlier (screenshot here). Why? Why would they put that in? I mean millions of dollars are spent on these scripts and production thereto. This happens in real life to countless people around the world all day long, he’s being warned. Why? Because in the movie he’s thinking about cheating on his wife with the hot blonde that just walked in. In people with phase 2, the BioAPI is monitoring thought and emotional patterns which if conflict triggers an itch; it’s automated. For example lust + guilt (because he’s married) do not go together. Think Pontypool (2008). So they are judging you (or more accurately people with phase 2 who are pre-targeted). Itching is also shown in Fast Zombies with Guns (2011), as they turn into zombies [contract phase 2 in real life] they itch a lot. Again, why show this? Because it’s real. Most targeted individuals will understand the extremely itchy forearm. So itching is not a side effect in the common sense of the term; it is instead intentionally inflected via the BioAPI as reflected in the aforementioned references as well as loosely shown in A Scanner Darkly (2006) @ 0:44 in the clip/trailer.
  • Phase 2 – Burning Smell: Phase 2 encapsulates the person’s ability to smell, so they can read/write scents. It’s used to help warp the reality of someone they have specifically targeted (aka Black Limousine (2010)). When inhaling or specifically exhaling quickly its often a burning/smoke smell that is noticed. This is an unwanted side effect – or more accurately to encapsulate any neuron in the body involved in sensing (for example, smell, taste, etc.) there ends up being be some minor side effect. Interestingly when I cry the smell is amplified and it smells like buttered popcorn of all things. An example of how the media discounts this is demonstrated in the movie Bandits (2001).
  • Phase 2 – The Left Eye: One of the concepts they push in the movies is the left eye is evil for some reason. Or to a lesser extent use the eye as a gateway to demonstrate functionality such as with Technotise (2009) or Gamer (2009). In phase 2 an actual nano-camera will be installed in the left eye. People with this might comment on how they feel like there’s a small bump in their eye under slightly drier conditions such as when going to sleep at night. This is documented in the physical example page. Note if you figure out you have a camera in the left eye they will probably install something in the right eye too. Clips referencing this concept are now available here, here and here and now also Doomsday Book (2012).
  • Phase 2 – Permanent Metallic Taste: Some people will comment on a metallic taste in the mouth. Typically when going to sleep it becomes prevalent. In the alternative, the temporary compromising of taste buds is shown in the clip for Contracted (2013) @ 2:18. It is not a side effect of medication, that’s the typical response a doctor will give you. If you are not on medication and otherwise completely healthy and all of a sudden have a permanent metallic taste in your mouth, you are being recorded (but not watched) 24/7 as per the trailer for A Scanner Darkly (2006).
  • Phase 2 – Morgellons: Morgellon’s can strike anyone. It’s a direct problem from the nano-fibers, whether intentional or accidental. The body’s immune system can’t see or recognize the fibers at all. So when the body can’t accept the fibers anymore it beings to push them out through the skin. But the skin is a barrier because the fibers are too large. So the skin breaks up which is why people get lesions. Note that technically everyone has morgellons (nano-fibers), the actual mogellon’s symptoms are when the person’s body tries to get rid of them the only way possible. Some more conclusions can be seen here and examples within media references including this.

Chemtrails Nano-fiber Examples & Evidence

Ultimately you need some proof. This is very difficult, as we all don’t exactly have nano-tech labs in our basements. The only thing possible at this point in time is to put out the physical evidence that is known and back it up with media/movie supporting clips. A complete list of unbelievable things this technology can do is listed here, also make sure you see the real life body & mind control examples in Media References.

> Physical (BioAPI) Proof

> Media References

Source

MEDICAL NANOBOTS WILL CONNECT BRAIN TO CLOUD COMPUTING – RAY KURZWEIL

Sometimes I stumble with this nanobot/transhumanism issue and always the guy behind it is Ray Kurzweil. He just want to destroy the mankind and I have a problem with it. Here’s an article about how nanobot connect us to computers:

NICHOLAS WEST, ACTIVIST POST
2-6-2014

The Human Body Version 2.0 project features none other than arch-Transhumanist Ray Kurzweil as its main proponent. The goals have been openly stated for some time:

In the coming decades, a radical upgrading of our body’s physical and mental systems, already underway, will use nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs. We already know how to prevent most degenerative disease through nutrition and supplementation; this will be a bridge to the emerging biotechnology revolution, which in turn will be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution. By 2030, reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed and nonbiological intelligence will merge with our biological brains.

 
Working toward the first Posthuman: courtesy of Ray Kurzweil and the Lifeboat Foundation

In fact, the reverse engineering of the human brain has already been announced to be well under way via new microchips and accompanying software. And, while full nanobot rewiring of the brain is not expected before 2020, Phys.org has reported that our DNA has been successfully targeted by nanobots “for drug therapy or destruction.”

Taking this even one step further, Ray Kurzweil said in a new interview with The Wall Street Journal (see below) that our extension into non-biological realms will include nanobot computers that will enter our brain and connect us to Cloud computing.

From science fiction horror, directly to the human body, the nanobots are no longer speculation. Also unlike science fiction, they won’t arrive via immediate worldwide takeover — they are already here, and will be introduced incrementally, as Kurzweil has previously stated:

It will be an incremental process, one already well under way. Although version 2.0 is a grand project, ultimately resulting in the radical upgrading of all our physical and mental systems, we will implement it one benign step at a time. Based on our current knowledge, we can already touch and feel the means for accomplishing each aspect of this vision. (emphasis added)

Researchers from Columbia University have developed a fleet of Molecular  nanorobots that can deliver drugs to specific cells and also identify certain genetic markers by using fluorescent labeling. After such identification, a chain reaction can be initiated:

On cells where all three components are attached, a robot is functional and a fourth component (labeled 0 below) initiates a chain reaction among the DNA strands. Each component swaps a strand of DNA with another, until the end of the swap, when the last antibody obtains a strand of DNA that is fluorescently labeled. 

At the end of the chain reaction—which takes less than 15 minutes in a sample of human blood—only cells with the three surface proteins are labeled with the fluorescent marker.

Naturally, this type of targeted therapeutic approach could prove beneficial, as the researchers highlight — especially for cancer treatment which sweeps up healthy cells along with malignant ones, very often doing more harm than good (if one were to choose the establishment medical route).

This is always how new technologies are sold to the public, however, and it would be naive not to consider the darker applications as well.

Direct brain modification already has been packaged as “neuroengineering.” A Wired article from early 2009 highlighted that direct brain manipulation via fiber optics is a bit messy, but once installed “it could make someone happy with the press of a button.” Nanobots take the process to an automated level, rewiring the brain molecule by molecule. Worse, these mini droids can autonomously self-replicate, forcing one to wonder how this genie would ever be put back in the bottle once unleashed.

Here is one scenario offered by Kurzweil for how these nanobots could enter our bodies:

A significant benefit of nanobot technology is that unlike mere drugs and nutritional supplements, nanobots have a measure of intelligence. They can keep track of their own inventories, and intelligently slip in and out of our bodies in clever ways. One scenario is that we would wear a special “nutrient garment” such as a belt or undershirt. This garment would be loaded with nutrient bearing nanobots, which would make their way in and out of our bodies through the skin or other body cavities. (emphasis added)

That might seem to offer a level of participatory choice — to wear or not to wear the garment — but Kurzweil reveals that the nanobots will eventually be everywhere:

Ultimately we won’t need to bother with special garments or explicit nutritional resources. Just as computation will eventually be ubiquitous and available everywhere, so too will basic metabolic nanobot resources be embedded everywhere in our environment.

In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Kurzweil highlights why Google has taken an interest in nanotechnology and the possibilities he sees for humans as they increasingly become non-biological and form direct connections with computers, augmenting and/or supplanting our natural processes as we head into the era of cyborgs and beyond:

And of course once our neocortex is uploaded to the Cloud, it positions Google perfectly for searching our every thought and pre-thought. While this might sound like an impossible amount of information to upload, let alone interconnect and search, it is being announced that researchers have designed the first nanocomputer that can push beyond the concept of Moore’s Law, which imposes a theoretical limitation on the expansion of computer processing power.

The team designed and assembled, from the bottom up, a functioning, ultra-tiny control computer that is the densest nanoelectronic system ever built. 

A technical paper has been published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the research. 

The ultra-small, ultra-low-power control processor—termed a nanoelectronic finite-state machine or “nanoFSM”—is smaller than a human nerve cell.

[…]

In their recent collaboration they combined several tiles on a single chip to produce a first-of-its-kind complex, programmable nanocomputer. (Source)

It shouldn’t be seen as coincidence that these developments are happening simultaneously. What appears on the surface to be discoveries in entirely different fields are coalescing rapidly as we approach the theoretical date of The Singularity – the full merger of human and machine – estimated to occur between 2029-2045.

Despite the benign language of futurists, we know that a concerted effort is already underway to manage and predict human behavior for a whole range of potentially anti-human applications. As our free will is also targeted like the cells of our body — for drug therapy or elimination — ethical concerns must be voiced loud and clear. Scientists seem content with opening Pandora’s Box, then worrying about negative consequences later … and that is only if we assume that their intentions are benign from the beginning. One should take time to examine the history of military experimentation on human populations to see all of this through a very different lens.

At the very least, instead of the fully realized vision of Human Body 2.0, this might be Big Pharma 2.0 — a new phase where conventional drugs are incrementally replaced by nanodrugs and nano-fleet delivery systems. Coupled with applications that directly enter our brain to connect us to the computer matrix, we are rapidly entering an entirely new human paradigm.

The funding is already there, and a massive amount of money is waiting to be made by companies like Google. Here again, for those who might only see the bright side to this technology, we ought to question who is really in control of it.

Sources:
http://phys.org/news/

Source

Read more from Auricmedia:

[carousel-horizontal-posts-content-slider]

Nanotech Viruses In Food

It’s very disturbing when big corporations plans new ideas without any public approval. One of this is how they want to change our food with genetic modifications and with nanotechnology. I think it’s very dangerous and should be studied a lot more than they are doing. Here’s something about nanotech in our food:

Agency Approves First Use of Viruses as a Food Additive
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (AP) ? A mix of bacteria-killing viruses may be sprayed on cold cuts, wieners and sausages to combat common microbes that kill hundreds of people a year, federal health officials ruled Friday.

The ruling, by the Food and Drug Administration, is the first approval of viruses as a food additive, said Andrew Zajac of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the agency. Treatments that use bacteriophages to attack harmful bacteria have been a part of folk medicine for hundreds of years in India and for decades in the former Soviet Union.

The approved mix of six viruses is intended to be sprayed onto ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, including sliced ham and turkey, said John Vazzana, the president and chief executive of Intralytix, which developed the additive.

The viruses, called bacteriophages, are meant to kill strains of the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, the food agency said. The bacterium can cause a serious infection called listeriosis, primarily in pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. In the United States, an estimated 2,500 people become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 500 die.

Luncheon meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria because after they are bought they are typically not cooked or reheated, which can kill harmful bacteria like Listeria, Mr. Zajac said.

The preparation of bacteriophages – the name is from the Greek for ‘bacteria eater’ – attacks only strains of the Listeria bacterium and not human or plant cells, the food agency said.

“As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it’s safe,” Mr. Zajac said.

People normally come into contact with bacteriophages through food, water and the environment, and they are found in our digestive tracts, the agency said.

Consumers will not be aware which meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray, Mr. Zajac said. The Department of Agriculture will regulate the actual use of the product.

The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The food agency had concerns that the virus preparation could contain toxic residues from the bacteria, but testing did not reveal residues, which in small quantities are not likely to cause health problems anyway, the agency said.

“The F.D.A. is applying one of the toughest food-safety standards which they have to find this is safe,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. “They couldn’t approve this product if they had questions about its safety.”

Intralytix, based in Baltimore, first petitioned the food agency in 2002 to allow the viruses to be used as an additive. It has since licensed the product to a multinational company, which intends to market it worldwide, Mr. Vazzana said.

N.Y. Times Cites Consumers Union & OCA

Nanotech Food is Ten Times Scarier Than Genetically Engineered
Engineering Food at Level of Molecules
By Barnaby J. Feder
The New York Times, Oct 10, 2006
Straight to the Source

What if the candy maker Mars could come up with an additive to the coating of its M&M’s and Skittles that would keep them fresher longer and inhibit melting? Or if scientists at Unilever could shrink the fat particles (and thereby the calories) in premium ice cream without sacrificing its taste and feel?


Tastes Like Nanotechnology
These ideas are still laboratory dreams. The common thread in these research projects and in product development at many other food companies is nanotechnology, the name for a growing number of techniques for manipulating matter in dimensions as small as single molecules.

Food companies remain wary of pushing the technology – which is named for the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter – too far and too fast for safety-conscious consumers. But they are tantalized by nanotechnology’s capacity to create valuable and sometimes novel forms of everyday substances, like food ingredients and packaging materials, simply by reducing them to sizes that once seemed unimaginable.

Most of the hoopla and a lot of the promise for nanotechnology lies in other industries, including electronics, energy and medicine. But the first generation of nanotechnology-based food industry products, including synthetic food colorings, frying oil preservatives and packaging coated with antimicrobial agents, has quietly entered the market.

The commercial uses of the technology now add up to a $410 million sliver of the $3 trillion global food market, according to Cientifica, a British market research firm that specializes in nanotechnology coverage. Cientifica forecasts that nanotechnology’s share will grow to $5.8 billion by 2012, as other uses for it are developed.

Mindful of the adverse reaction from some consumers over the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the food industry hopes regulators will come up with supportive guidelines that will also allay consumers’ fears. That has put a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s first public hearing today on how it should regulate nanotechnology, with a portion of the agenda specifically about food and food additives. No policy changes are expected this year.

“To their credit, the F.D.A. is trying to get a handle on what’s out there,” said Michael K. Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, one of 30 groups that have signed up to speak at the meeting.

But coping with nanotechnology will be a daunting challenge for the agency, according to a report last week by a former senior F.D.A. official, whose analysis was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington policy group. Michael R. Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the agency, said the F.D.A. lacked the resources and, in the case of cosmetics, dietary supplements and food, the full legal authority needed to protect consumers and also foster innovation.

Industry representatives and analysts are worried that nanotechnology will suffer the same fate as genetic engineering, which was quickly embraced as a breakthrough for drug makers but has been fiercely opposed, especially in Europe, when used in crops, fish and livestock.

Many of the same groups fighting genetic engineering in agriculture have been arguing for regulators to clamp down on nanotechnology, in general, and its use in food and cosmetics, in particular, until more safety testing has been completed.

“I’m amazed at how far it’s gone already,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers [Association], an advocate for organic products based in Finland, Minn. “Compared to nanotechnology, I think the threat of genetic engineering is tame.”

So far, there have been no confirmed reports of public health or environmental problems related to nanotechnology. But troubling laboratory tests suggest some nanoscale particles may pose novel health risks by, for instance, slipping easily past barriers to the brain that keep larger particles out. Thus, the same attributes that could make the technology valuable for delivering drugs could also make it hazardous.

More important, everyone agrees that there have been few rigorous studies of the actual behavior of the newly engineered nanoscale materials in humans and the environment. Those that have been completed fall far short of duplicating the range of conditions the nanoparticles would encounter in general commerce. And few laboratory studies have focused on the fate of particles that are eaten rather than inhaled or injected.

“Lack of evidence of harm should not be a proxy for reasonable certainty of safety,” the Consumers Union said in testimony submitted to the F.D.A. for today’s meeting. The language was carefully chosen.

“Reasonable certainty of safety” is what food companies must demonstrate to the F.D.A. before they can introduce a new food additive.

The Consumers Union and some other groups are suggesting that the agency automatically classify all new nanoscale food ingredients, including those now classified as safe in larger sizes, as new additives. And they want the same standards extended to cover food supplement companies, some of which have been marketing traditional herbal and mineral therapies in what they say are new nanoscale forms that increase their effectiveness. Some are also calling for mandatory labeling of products with synthetic nanoscale ingredients, no matter how small the quantity.

F.D.A. officials said last week that treating every new nanotechnology product that consumers swallow as a food additive might compromise the agency’s mandate to foster innovation and might not be within its authority. Such a move would also be hobbled by the lack of agreement on safety testing standards for the wide range of nanoscale innovations in the pipeline. In addition, the agency lacks the staff to handle that scale of oversight.

“That would be a sea change for us,” said Laura Tarantino, director of the F.D.A.’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

Simply defining nanotechnology may also be a hurdle. BASF has been widely considered a pioneer for products like its synthetic lycopene, an additive that substitutes for the natural lycopene extracted from tomatoes and other fruits. Lycopene, widely used as a food coloring, is increasingly valued for its reported heart and anticancer benefits. But BASF’s particles average 200 to 400 nanometers in diameter, about the same as the natural pigment, and well above the 100-nanometer threshold that many experts consider true nanotechnology.

Unilever has never disclosed the dimensions of its shrunken fat particles. Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman in Britain, said in an e-mail message that reports about the project have been misleading.

Given the uncertainty about the risks of consuming new nano products, many analysts expect near-term investment to focus on novel food processing and packaging technology. That is the niche targeted by Sunny Oh, whose start-up company, OilFresh, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is marketing a novel device to keep frying oil fresh. OilFresh grinds zeolite, a mineral, into tiny beads averaging 20 nanometers across and coats them with an undisclosed material. Packed into a shelf inside the fryer, the beads interfere with chemical processes that break down the oil or form hydrocarbon clusters, Mr. Oh says. As a result, restaurants can use oil longer and transfer heat to food at lower temperatures, although they still need traditional filters to remove food waste from the oil.

Mr. Oh said OilFresh will move beyond restaurants into food processing by the end of the month, when it delivers a 1,000-ton version of the device to a “midsized potato chip company” that he said did not want to be identified.

The desire to avoid controversy has made even the largest food companies, like Kraft Foods, leery about discussing their interest in nanotechnology. Kraft, the second-largest food processor after Nestle, was considered the industry’s nanotechnology pacesetter in 2000. That is when it announced the founding of an international alliance of academic researchers and experts at government labs to pursue basic research in nanotechnology sponsored by Kraft.

The Nanotek Consortium, as Kraft called the group, produced a number of patents for the company, but Kraft pulled back from its high-profile connection with nanotechnology two years ago. Manuel Marquez, the research chemist Kraft appointed to organize the consortium, moved to Philip Morris USA, a sister subsidiary of Altria that now sponsors the consortium under a new name – the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technologies.

Kraft still sends researchers to industry conferences to make what it calls “generic” presentations about the potential uses of nanotechnology in the food industry. But the company declines to specify its use of or plans for the technology.

F.D.A. officials say companies like Kraft are voluntarily but privately providing them with information about their activities. But many independent analysts say the level of disclosure to date falls far short of what will be needed to create public confidence.

“Most of the information is in companies and very little is published,” said Jennifer Kuzma, an associate director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, who has been tracking reports of nanotechnology use in food and agriculture.

U.S. FDA Told to Watch Nanotech Products for Risks
By Lisa Richwine

Reuters
October 11, 2006


BETHESDA, Md. — The growing number of cosmetics, drugs other products made using nanotechnology need more attention from U.S. regulators to make sure they are safe for humans and the planet, consumer and environmental groups told a government hearing Tuesday.

Nanotechnology is the design and use of particles as small as one-billionth of a meter. A human hair, by contrast, is about 80,000 nanometers across. Materials at nano-size can have completely different properties from larger versions, such as unusual strength or the ability to conduct electricity.

Witnesses at a meeting called by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agreed nanotechnology holds promise for a vast range of products, including new medicines to treat diseases or delivery systems to get drugs to body parts now hard to reach.

But some complained that dozens of cosmetics and a handful of drugs made with nanomaterials already have made it to the market while regulators have done little to track their use or safety.

“Unfortunately, so far the U.S. government has acted as a cheerleader, not a regulator, in addressing the nanotech revolution. Health and environmental effects have taken a back seat,” said Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group, an organization that tracks the impact of new technologies.

The FDA has treated products made with nanotechnology the same way it handles others. For drugs with nanomaterials, that means companies must provide evidence of safety and effectiveness before they reach the market. But cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold — with or without nanoparticles.

While no harm has been documented, concerns have arisen that the tiny particles are unpredictable and could have unforeseen impacts in the human body or in the environment.

As they called for close FDA oversight, many experts said they felt the agency was ill-equipped to regulate the new technology in the midst of other responsibilities.

“New nano-enabled drugs and medical devices … place burdens on an oversight agency that is already stretched extremely thin,” said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a group aimed at helping society anticipate and manage effects of nanotechnology.

The FDA has created an internal task force on nanotechnology, and officials said they called the meeting to learn what scientific issues the agency should address.

The task force is due to report to the commissioner in nine months, said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy and planning.

“It’s not only the risks, it’s also looking at the potential. There’s a lot of opportunity… to bring great things to patients,” he said at the meeting.

Industry groups and some other experts urged the agency not to overreact.

“The key is to manage the risk while achieving the maximum benefit from these materials. It would be wrong for us to over-regulate,” said Martin Philbert of the University of Michigan School of Public Health.


Engineering Food at Level of Molecules

The New York Times

Published: October 10, 2006

At the BASF Beverage Lab in Ludwigshafen, Germany, Andreas Hasse, left, and Clemes Sambale

assess drinks that were made with synthetic beta-carotene, a nanoparticle used to add color and health benefits.

What if the candy maker Mars could come up with an additive to the coating of its M&M’s and Skittles that would keep them fresher longer and inhibit melting? Or if scientists at Unilever could shrink the fat particles (and thereby the calories) in premium ice cream without sacrificing its taste and feel?

These ideas are still laboratory dreams. The common thread in these research projects and in product development at many other food companies is nanotechnology, the name for a growing number of techniques for manipulating matter in dimensions as small as single molecules.

Food companies remain wary of pushing the technology — which is named for the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter — too far and too fast for safety-conscious consumers. But they are tantalized by nanotechnology’s capacity to create valuable and sometimes novel forms of everyday substances, like food ingredients and packaging materials, simply by reducing them to sizes that once seemed unimaginable.

Most of the hoopla and a lot of the promise for nanotechnology lies in other industries, including electronics, energy and medicine. But the first generation of nanotechnology-based food industry products, including synthetic food colorings, frying oil preservatives and packaging coated with antimicrobial agents, has quietly entered the market.

The commercial uses of the technology now add up to a $410 million sliver of the $3 trillion global food market, according to Cientifica, a British market research firm that specializes in nanotechnology coverage. Cientifica forecasts that nanotechnology’s share will grow to $5.8 billion by 2012, as other uses for it are developed.

Mindful of the adverse reaction from some consumers over the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the food industry hopes regulators will come up with supportive guidelines that will also allay consumers’ fears. That has put a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s first public hearing today on how it should regulate nanotechnology, with a portion of the agenda specifically about food and food additives. No policy changes are expected this year.

“To their credit, the F.D.A. is trying to get a handle on what’s out there,” said Michael K. Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, one of 30 groups that have signed up to speak at the meeting.

But coping with nanotechnology will be a daunting challenge for the agency, according to a report last week by a former senior F.D.A. official, whose analysis was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington policy group. Michael R. Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the agency, said the F.D.A. lacked the resources and, in the case of cosmetics, dietary supplements and food, the full legal authority needed to protect consumers and also foster innovation.

Industry representatives and analysts are worried that nanotechnology will suffer the same fate as genetic engineering, which was quickly embraced as a breakthrough for drug makers but has been fiercely opposed, especially in Europe, when used in crops, fish and livestock.

Many of the same groups fighting genetic engineering in agriculture have been arguing for regulators to clamp down on nanotechnology, in general, and its use in food and cosmetics, in particular, until more safety testing has been completed.

“I’m amazed at how far it’s gone already,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Group, an advocate for organic products based in Finland, Minn. “Compared to nanotechnology, I think the threat of genetic engineering is tame.”

So far, there have been no confirmed reports of public health or environmental problems related to nanotechnology. But troubling laboratory tests suggest some nanoscale particles may pose novel health risks by, for instance, slipping easily past barriers to the brain that keep larger particles out. Thus, the same attributes that could make the technology valuable for delivering drugs could also make it hazardous.

More important, everyone agrees that there have been few rigorous studies of the actual behavior of the newly engineered nanoscale materials in humans and the environment. Those that have been completed fall far short of duplicating the range of conditions the nanoparticles would encounter in general commerce. And few laboratory studies have focused on the fate of particles that are eaten rather than inhaled or injected.

“Lack of evidence of harm should not be a proxy for reasonable certainty of safety,” the Consumers Union said in testimony submitted to the F.D.A. for today’s meeting. The language was carefully chosen.

“Reasonable certainty of safety” is what food companies must demonstrate to the F.D.A. before they can introduce a new food additive.

The Consumers Union and some other groups are suggesting that the agency automatically classify all new nanoscale food ingredients, including those now classified as safe in larger sizes, as new additives. And they want the same standards extended to cover food supplement companies, some of which have been marketing traditional herbal and mineral therapies in what they say are new nanoscale forms that increase their effectiveness. Some are also calling for mandatory labeling of products with synthetic nanoscale ingredients, no matter how small the quantity.

F.D.A. officials said last week that treating every new nanotechnology product that consumers swallow as a food additive might compromise the agency’s mandate to foster innovation and might not be within its authority. Such a move would also be hobbled by the lack of agreement on safety testing standards for the wide range of nanoscale innovations in the pipeline.

In addition, the agency lacks the staff to handle that scale of oversight.

“That would be a sea change for us,” said Laura Tarantino, director of the F.D.A.’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

Simply defining nanotechnology may also be a hurdle. BASF has been widely considered a pioneer for products like its synthetic lycopene, an additive that substitutes for the natural lycopene extracted from tomatoes and other fruits. Lycopene, widely used as a food coloring, is increasingly valued for its reported heart and anticancer benefits. But BASF’s particles average 200 to 400 nanometers in diameter, about the same as the natural pigment, and well above the 100-nanometer threshold that many experts consider true nanotechnology.

Unilever has never disclosed the dimensions of its shrunken fat particles. Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman in Britain, said in an e-mail message that reports about the project have been misleading.

Given the uncertainty about the risks of consuming new nano products, many analysts expect near-term investment to focus on novel food processing and packaging technology. That is the niche targeted by Sunny Oh, whose start-up company, OilFresh, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is marketing a novel device to keep frying oil fresh. OilFresh grinds zeolite, a mineral, into tiny beads averaging 20 nanometers across and coats them with an undisclosed material. Packed into a shelf inside the fryer, the beads interfere with chemical processes that break down the oil or form hydrocarbon clusters, Mr. Oh says. As a result, restaurants can use oil longer and transfer heat to food at lower temperatures, although they still need traditional filters to remove food waste from the oil.

Mr. Oh said OilFresh will move beyond restaurants into food processing by the end of the month, when it delivers a 1,000-ton version of the device to a “midsized potato chip company” that he said did not want to be identified.

The desire to avoid controversy has made even the largest food companies, like Kraft Foods, leery about discussing their interest in nanotechnology. Kraft, the second-largest food processor after Nestlé, was considered the industry’s nanotechnology pacesetter in 2000. That is when it announced the founding of an international alliance of academic researchers and experts at government labs to pursue basic research in nanotechnology sponsored by Kraft.

The Nanotek Consortium, as Kraft called the group, produced a number of patents for the company, but Kraft pulled back from its high-profile connection with nanotechnology two years ago. Manuel Marquez, the research chemist Kraft appointed to organize the consortium, moved to Philip Morris USA, a sister subsidiary of Altria that now sponsors the consortium under a new name — the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technologies.

Kraft still sends researchers to industry conferences to make what it calls “generic” presentations about the potential uses of nanotechnology in the food industry. But the company declines to specify its use of or plans for the technology.

F.D.A. officials say companies like Kraft are voluntarily but privately providing them with information about their activities. But many independent analysts say the level of disclosure to date falls far short of what will be needed to create public confidence.

“Most of the information is in companies and very little is published,” said Jennifer Kuzma, an associate director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, who has been tracking reports of nanotechnology use in food and agriculture.


Open Letter to the FDA to Stop Corporations from Lacing Foods, Body Care Products, & Supplements with Dangerous Nanoparticles
By Ronnie Cummins, National Director
Organic Consumers Association

Sept 23, 2006

Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. Von Eschenbach
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Commissioner Von Eschenbach,

I write to express my serious concerns about the FDA’s regulatory oversight of nanomaterials in consumer products. Many consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials are already available on U.S. market shelves, including food and food packaging products.

Millions of dollars are being spent by government and industry to apply nanotechnology in areas of food processing, food packaging, and agricultural production. Current nano-food products on the market include a canola oil, a chocolate “slim” shake, a nano-bread, and several nano-food additives and supplements used in soft drinks, lemonades, fruit juices, and margarines. Many food packaging products use nano-composites, nano-clays, and nano-coatings. In addition, if industry observers are correct, hundreds of more new food and agriculture products are under development and many could be on the market in as few as two years. By 2010 the nano-food market will be $20 billion. Many of the world’s leading food companies – including H.J. Heinz, Nestle, Hershey, Unilever, and Kraft – are investing heavily in nanotechnology applications.

Scientists have found that the fundamental properties of matter can change at the nano-scale, creating physical and chemical properties distinct from those of the same material in bulk form. We know that the new properties of nanomaterials create new risks, like enhanced toxicity. Studies have raised numerous red flags, and many types of nanoparticles have proven to be toxic to human tissue and cells.

Nanoparticles can gain assess to the blood stream following ingestion. Once inside the body, the super-tiny size of these materials gives them unprecedented mobility and access to the human body; they can access cells, tissues, and organs that larger particles cannot. The length of time that nanoparticles remain in organs and what dose may cause harmful effects remains unknown.

It does not appear that FDA is ready for this wave of nano-food products. I am very concerned about the rapid introduction of these potentially hazardous nanomaterials into our bodies and into our environment without adequate scientific study to ensure that we understand their risks and can prevent harm occurring to people and the environment. The FDA’s failure to undertake or review new testing of these nanomaterials despite these known and foreseeable dangers suggests the agency’s review process is not acting to ensure consumer health and safety.

For these reasons, I strongly request that FDA use its upcoming Public Meeting and its new Nanotechnology Task Force to discuss the human health and environmental risks presented by nanomaterials in consumer products, including food and food packaging products. FDA should act quickly to shore up its regulation of these substances to account for their fundamentally different properties and their associated dangers, including require new nano-specific testing and the labeling of all nanomaterial products, including nano-food products.

Currently, FDA’s reliance on manufacturers’ assurances of safety make me and my family into guinea pigs. FDA must instead independently review all testing and assess the safety of these products as well as force manufacturers to label their nanomaterial products. Only with labeling can I make educated decisions about what I buy and put in and on my body. Until such actions are taken, I fully support a moratorium on the manufacture of nanomaterial consumer products and the recall of products currently on the market.

Ronnie Cummins
National Director
Organic Consumers Association
Finland, Minnesota 55603


FDA not ‘nano-ready’, says report
By Clarisse Douaud
10/5/2006

A former FDA deputy commissioner for policy has denounced the agency’s capacity to properly regulate nanotechnology products including supplements, a criticism that could inflame debate leading up to the agency’s first major public meeting on the atomic technology.

In a report commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s project on emerging nanotechnologies, University of Maryland School of Medicine professor Michael Taylor concluded the US Food & Drug Administration’s resource base is severely eroded. This is despite what appears to be a recent nanotechnology policy kick-start at the FDA.


The report reveals regulatory weaknesses affecting new products, such as certain dietary supplements and cosmetics, using the technology. Critics say questions over nanotechnology safety have not been answered and the FDA is not in a position to effectively police it.

“Unless the FDA addresses potential nanotechnology risks now, public confidence in a host of valuable nanotechnology-based products could be undermined,” wrote Taylor, who was deputy commissioner for policy at the Food and Drug Administration from 1991 to 1994 and currently conducts research on policy, resource, and institutional issues affecting public health agencies.

Nanotechnology is the ability to control things at an atomic and molecular scale of between one and 100 nanometers and has been met with enthusiasm across a variety of industries. Critics highlight the murky area of how nanoparticles affect toxicity and say the particles should be treated as new, potentially harmful materials and tested for safety accordingly.

“There are important gaps in FDA’s legal authority that hamper its ability to understand and manage nanotechnology’s potential risks,” wrote Taylor. “This is particularly true in the area of cosmetics and dietary supplements, and in the oversight of products after they reach the marketplace.”

Unlike pharmaceuticals, which must go through a series of pre-market approvals, finished dietary supplements need no pre-market approval. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which is part of the Food and Cosmetics Act, only ingredients not marketed in the US before October 1994 must be approved by FDA before use in consumer products.

Thus, as it stands, pre-market regulation of nanotechnology in dietary supplements does not fall under FDA’s regulatory umbrella, nor – according to Taylor – can it fit into the agency’s budget.

But Taylor points out in the report that the FDA is restricted in what it can do due to a dire lack of funding under the current administration. In order to continue activities mandated in 1996, FDA’s 2006 budget would have to increase by 49 percent, according to Taylor, and under President Bush’s 2007 FDA budget this funding gap will grow to 56 percent.

“But FDA’s lack of ‘nano-readiness’ is about more than dollars,” said Taylor.

“Business and health leaders alike should join in ensuring that FDA has the scientific tools and knowledge it needs to say ‘yes’ to safe and effective new products,” said Taylor.

The market stands to benefit from nanotechnology and therefore also stands to lose a lot, according to Taylor, if it is not thoroughly regulated.

In 2005, nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $30bn in manufactured goods, according to Lux Research, almost double the previous year. The market analyst projects that by 2014, 15 percent of all global manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology.

The Washington, DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars initiated its project on emerging nanotechnologies in 2005 with the aim of helping business, government and the public manage possible implications of the technology.

FDA’s nanotechnology public meeting will take place October 10, 2006 in Bethesda, Maryland.

According to FDA, the purpose of the meeting is to help the agency in its understanding of developments in nanotechnology materials relating to FDA-regulated products.

“FDA is interested in learning about the kinds of new nanotechnology material products under development in the areas of foods (including dietary supplements), food and color additives, animal feeds, cosmetics, drugs and biologics, and medical devices…” states an online FDA notice for the upcoming meeting.


Nanotechnology Risks Unknown
Insufficient Attention Paid to Potential Dangers, Report Says
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A12

The United States is the world leader in nanotechnology — the newly blossoming science of making incredibly small materials and devices — but is not paying enough attention to the environmental, health and safety risks posed by nanoscale products, says a report released yesterday by the independent National Research Council.

If federal officials, business leaders and others do not devise a plan to fill the gaps in their knowledge of nanotech safety, the report warns, the field’s great promise could evaporate in a cloud of public mistrust.

“There is some evidence that engineered nanoparticles can have adverse effects on the health of laboratory animals,” the congressionally mandated report said, echoing concerns raised by others at a House hearing last week. Until the risks are better understood, “it is prudent to employ some precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment.”

The 176-page report, “A Matter of Size,” was prepared under the auspices of the National Academies, chartered to advise Congress on matters of science. It focuses on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which coordinates and prioritizes federal research in nanotechnology — the fledgling but potentially revolutionary science that deals with materials as small as a billionth of a meter.

At that size, even conventional substances behave in unconventional ways. Some materials that do not conduct electricity or are fragile, for example, are excellent conductors and are extremely strong when made small enough. But nanoparticles can also enter human cells and trigger chemical reactions in soil, interfering with biological and ecological processes.

The report concludes that the U.S. research effort is vibrant and almost certainly the strongest in the world, though a few other countries are close behind. Among the more important unmet needs, it says, is stronger collaboration with the departments of Education and Labor to boost the supply of scientists and technicians with the skills the sector needs.

The report’s concerns about the lack of a federal focus on nanotech health and safety were foreshadowed at a House Science Committee hearing Thursday at which Republicans and Democrats alike took the Bush administration to task over the lack of a plan to learn more about nanotech’s risks.

Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) accused the administration of “sauntering” toward solutions “at a time when a sense of urgency is required.”

Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon (Tenn.) went further, calling the administration’s latest summary of nanotech research needs, released at the hearing, “a very juvenile piece of work.”

Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, funded in part by the Smithsonian Institution, said the government is spending about $11 million a year on nanotechnology’s potential harms when industry and environmental groups have jointly called for at least $50 million to $100 million a year. Equally important, Maynard said, is the need for a coordinated strategy to spend that money wisely.

About 300 consumer products already contain nanoscale ingredients, Maynard said, including several foods and many cosmetics, with little or no research to document their safety.

The industry is expected to be worth about $2 trillion by 2014.

Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the Food and Drug Administration and chairman of the working group that created the administration’s summary research plan presented to Congress last week, said the document — which was supposed to be delivered six months ago — was meant as “a first step.” Asked by Boehlert if he understood that much more is expected of him and his working group, Alderson responded:

“I think your message is loud and clear.”

Source

An Overview of Nanotechnology

Many of us have heard about nanotechnology, but what does it mean? When we are talking for example about chemtrails it’s very important to understand nanotechnology and it’s capabilities. So here’s an overview of nanotechnology:

gold-nanotech-2

Image source

An Overview of Nanotechnology
Adapted by J.Storrs Hall from papers by Ralph C. Merkle and K. Eric Drexler

INTRODUCTION

Nanotechnology is an anticipated manufacturing technology giving thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter. The term has sometimes been used to refer to any technique able to work at a submicron scale; Here on sci.nanotech we are interested in what is sometimes called molecular nanotechnology, which means basically “A place for every atom and every atom in its place.” (other terms, such as molecular engineering, molecular manufacturing, etc. are also often applied).

Molecular manufacturing will enable the construction of giga-ops computers smaller than a cubic micron; cell repair machines; personal manufacturing and recycling appliances; and much more.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

Broadly speaking, the central thesis of nanotechnology is that almost any chemically stable structure that can be specified can in fact be built. This possibility was first advanced by Richard Feynman in 1959 [4] when he said: “The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom.” (Feynman won the 1965 Nobel prize in physics).

This concept is receiving increasing attention in the research community. There have been two international conferences directly on molecular nanotechnology[30,31] as well as a broad range of conferences on related subjects. Science [23, page 26] said “The ability to design and manufacture devices that are only tens or hundreds of atoms across promises rich rewards in electronics, catalysis, and materials. The scientific rewards should be just as great, as researchers approach an ultimate level of control – assembling matter one atom at a time.” “Within the decade, [John] Foster [at IBM Almaden] or some other scientist is likely to learn how to piece together atoms and molecules one at a time using the STM [Scanning Tunnelling Microscope].”

Eigler and Schweizer[25] at IBM reported on “…the use of the STM at low temperatures (4 K) to position individual xenon atoms on a single-crystal nickel surface with atomic precision. This capacity has allowed us to fabricate rudimentary structures of our own design, atom by atom. The processes we describe are in principle applicable to molecules also. …”

ASSEMBLERS

Drexler[1,8,11,19,32] has proposed the “assembler”, a device having a submicroscopic robotic arm under computer control. It will be capable of holding and positioning reactive compounds in order to control the precise location at which chemical reactions take place. This general approach should allow the construction of large atomically precise objects by a sequence of precisely controlled chemical reactions, building objects molecule by molecule. If designed to do so, assemblers will be able to build copies of themselves, that is, to replicate.

Because they will be able to copy themselves, assemblers will be inexpensive. We can see this by recalling that many other products of molecular machines–firewood, hay, potatoes–cost very little. By working in large teams, assemblers and more specialized nanomachines will be able to build objects cheaply. By ensuring that each atom is properly placed, they will manufacture products of high quality and reliability. Left-over molecules would be subject to this strict control as well, making the manufacturing process extremely clean.

Ribosomes

The plausibility of this approach can be illustrated by the ribosome. Ribosomes manufacture all the proteins used in all living things on this planet. A typical ribosome is relatively small (a few thousand cubic nanometers) and is capable of building almost any protein by stringing together amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) in a precise linear sequence. To do this, the ribosome has a means of grasping a specific amino acid (more precisely, it has a means of selectively grasping a specific transfer RNA, which in turn is chemically bonded by a specific enzyme to a specific amino acid), of grasping the growing polypeptide, and of causing the specific amino acid to react with and be added to the end of the polypeptide[9].

The instructions that the ribosome follows in building a protein are provided by mRNA (messenger RNA). This is a polymer formed from the four bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil. A sequence of several hundred to a few thousand such bases codes for a specific protein. The ribosome “reads” this “control tape” sequentially, and acts on the directions it provides.

Assemblers

In an analogous fashion, an assembler will build an arbitrary molecular structure following a sequence of instructions. The assembler, however, will provide three-dimensional positional and full orientational control over the molecular component (analogous to the individual amino acid) being added to a growing complex molecular structure (analogous to the growing polypeptide). In addition, the assembler will be able to form any one of several different kinds of chemical bonds, not just the single kind (the peptide bond) that the ribosome makes.

Calculations indicate that an assembler need not inherently be very large. Enzymes “typically” weigh about 10^5 amu (atomic mass units). while the ribosome itself is about 3 x 10^6 amu[9]. The smallest assembler might be a factor of ten or so larger than a ribosome. Current design ideas for an assembler are somewhat larger than this: cylindrical “arms” about 100 nanometers in length and 30 nanometers in diameter, rotary joints to allow arbitrary positioning of the tip of the arm, and a worst-case positional accuracy at the tip of perhaps 0.1 to 0.2 nanometers, even in the presence of thermal noise. Even a solid block of diamond as large as such an arm weighs only sixteen million amu, so we can safely conclude that a hollow arm of such dimensions would weigh less. Six such arms would weigh less than 10^8 amu.

Molecular Computers

The assembler requires a detailed sequence of control signals, just as the ribosome requires mRNA to control its actions. Such detailed control signals can be provided by a computer. A feasible design for a molecular computer has been presented by Drexler[2,11]. This design is mechanical in nature, and is based on sliding rods that interact by blocking or unblocking each other at “locks.” This design has a size of about 5 cubic nanometers per “lock” (roughly equivalent to a single logic gate). Quadrupling this size to 20 cubic nanometers (to allow for power, interfaces, and the like) and assuming that we require a minimum of 10^4 “locks” to provide minimal control results in a volume of 2 x 10^5 cubic nanometers (.0002 cubic microns) for the computational element. (This many gates is sufficient to build a simple 4-bit or 8-bit general purpose computer, e.g. a 6502).

An assembler might have a kilobyte of high speed (rod-logic based) RAM, (similar to the amount of RAM used in a modern one-chip computer) and 100 kilobytes of slower but more dense “tape” storage – this tape storage would have a mass of 10^8 amu or less (roughly 10 atoms per bit – see below). Some additional mass will be used for communications (sending and receiving signals from other computers) and power. In addition, there will probably be a “toolkit” of interchangable tips that can be placed at the ends of the assembler’s arms. When everything is added up a small assembler, with arms, computer, “toolkit,” etc. should weigh less than 10^9 amu.

Escherichia coli (a common bacterium) weigh about 10^12 amu[9, page 123]. Thus, an assembler should be much larger than a ribosome, but much smaller than a bacterium.

Self-Replicating Systems

It is also interesting to compare Drexler’s architecture for an assembler with the Von Neumann architecture for a self replicating device. Von Neumann’s “universal constructing automaton”[21] had both a universal Turing machine to control its functions and a “constructing arm” to build the “secondary automaton.” The constructing arm can be positioned in a two-dimensional plane, and the “head” at the end of the constructing arm is used to build the desired structure. While Von Neumann’s construction was theoretical (existing in a two dimensional cellular automata world), it still embodied many of the critical elements that now appear in the assembler.

Should we be concerned about runaway replicators? It would be hard to build a machine with the wonderful adaptability of living organisms. The replicators easiest to build will be inflexible machines, like automobiles or industrial robots, and will require special fuels and raw materials, the equivalents of hydraulic fluid and gasoline. To build a runaway replicator that could operate in the wild would be like building a car that could go off-road and fuel itself from tree sap. With enough work, this should be possible, but it will hardly happen by accident. Without replication, accidents would be like those of industry today: locally harmful, but not catastrophic to the biosphere. Catastrophic problems seem more likely to arise though deliberate misuse, such as the use of nanotechnology for military aggression.

Positional Chemistry

Chemists have been remarkably successful at synthesizing a wide range of compounds with atomic precision. Their successes, however, are usually small in size (with the notable exception of various polymers). Thus, we know that a wide range of atomically precise structures with perhaps a few hundreds of atoms in them are quite feasible. Larger atomically precise structures with complex three-dimensional shapes can be viewed as a connected sequence of small atomically precise structures. While chemists have the ability to precisely sculpt small collections of atoms there is currently no ability to extend this capability in a general way to structures of larger size. An obvious structure of considerable scientific and economic interest is the computer. The ability to manufacture a computer from atomically precise logic elements of molecular size, and to position those logic elements into a three- dimensional volume with a highly precise and intricate interconnection pattern would have revolutionary consequences for the computer industry.

A large atomically precise structure, however, can be viewed as simply a collection of small atomically precise objects which are then linked together. To build a truly broad range of large atomically precise objects requires the ability to create highly specific positionally controlled bonds. A variety of highly flexible synthetic techniques have been considered in [32]. We shall describe two such methods here to give the reader a feeling for the kind of methods that will eventually be feasible.

We assume that positional control is available and that all reactions take place in a hard vacuum. The use of a hard vacuum allows highly reactive intermediate structures to be used, e.g., a variety of radicals with one or more dangling bonds. Because the intermediates are in a vacuum, and because their position is controlled (as opposed to solutions, where the position and orientation of a molecule are largely random), such radicals will not react with the wrong thing for the very simple reason that they will not come into contact with the wrong thing.

Normal solution-based chemistry offers a smaller range of controlled synthetic possibilities. For example, highly reactive compounds in solution will promptly react with the solution. In addition, because positional control is not provided, compounds randomly collide with other compounds. Any reactive compound will collide randomly and react randomly with anything available. Solution-based chemistry requires extremely careful selection of compounds that are reactive enough to participate in the desired reaction, but sufficiently non-reactive that they do not accidentally participate in an undesired side reaction. Synthesis under these conditions is somewhat like placing the parts of a radio into a box, shaking, and pulling out an assembled radio. The ability of chemists to synthesize what they want under these conditions is amazing.

Much of current solution-based chemical synthesis is devoted to preventing unwanted reactions. With assembler-based synthesis, such prevention is a virtually free by-product of positional control.

To illustrate positional synthesis in vacuum somewhat more concretely, let us suppose we wish to bond two compounds, A and B. As a first step, we could utilize positional control to selectively abstract a specific hydrogen atom from compound A. To do this, we would employ a radical that had two spatially distinct regions: one region would have a high affinity for hydrogen while the other region could be built into a larger “tip” structure that would be subject to positional control. A simple example would be the 1-propynyl radical, which consists of three co-linear carbon atoms and three hydrogen atoms bonded to the sp3 carbon at the “base” end. The radical carbon at the radical end is triply bonded to the middle carbon, which in turn is singly bonded to the base carbon. In a real abstraction tool, the base carbon would be bonded to other carbon atoms in a larger diamondoid structure which provides positional control, and the tip might be further stabilized by a surrounding “collar” of unreactive atoms attached near the base that would prevent lateral motions of the reactive tip.

The affinity of this structure for hydrogen is quite high. Propyne (the same structure but with a hydrogen atom bonded to the “radical” carbon) has a hydrogen-carbon bond dissociation energy in the vicinity of 132 kilocalories per mole. As a consequence, a hydrogen atom will prefer being bonded to the 1-propynyl hydrogen abstraction tool in preference to being bonded to almost any other structure. By positioning the hydrogen abstraction tool over a specific hydrogen atom on compound A, we can perform a site specific hydrogen abstraction reaction. This requires positional accuracy of roughly a bond length (to prevent abstraction of an adjacent hydrogen). Quantum chemical analysis of this reaction by Musgrave et. al.[41] show that the activation energy for this reaction is low, and that for the abstraction of hydrogen from the hydrogenated diamond (111) surface (modeled by isobutane) the barrier is very likely zero.

Having once abstracted a specific hydrogen atom from compound A, we can repeat the process for compound B. We can now join compound A to compound B by positioning the two compounds so that the two dangling bonds are adjacent to each other, and allowing them to bond.

This illustrates a reaction using a single radical. With positional control, we could also use two radicals simultaneously to achieve a specific objective. Suppose, for example, that two atoms A1 and A2 which are part of some larger molecule are bonded to each other. If we were to position the two radicals X1 and X2 adjacent to A1 and A2, respectively, then a bonding structure of much lower free energy would be one in which the A1-A2 bond was broken, and two new bonds A1-X1 and A2-X2 were formed. Because this reaction involves breaking one bond and making two bonds (i.e., the reaction product is not a radical and is chemically stable) the exact nature of the radicals is not critical. Breaking one bond to form two bonds is a favored reaction for a wide range of cases. Thus, the positional control of two radicals can be used to break any of a wide range of bonds.

A range of other reactions involving a variety of reactive intermediate compounds (carbenes are among the more interesting ones) are proposed in [32], along with the results of semi-empirical and ab initio quantum calculations and the available experimental evidence.

Another general principle that can be employed with positional synthesis is the controlled use of force. Activation energy, normally provided by thermal energy in conventional chemistry, can also be provided by mechanical means. Pressures of 1.7 megabars have been achieved experimentally in macroscopic systems[43]. At the molecular level such pressure corresponds to forces that are a large fraction of the force required to break a chemical bond. A molecular vise made of hard diamond-like material with a cavity designed with the same precision as the reactive site of an enzyme can provide activation energy by the extremely precise application of force, thus causing a highly specific reaction between two compounds.

To achieve the low activation energy needed in reactions involving radicals requires little force, allowing a wider range of reactions to be caused by simpler devices (e.g., devices that are able to generate only small force). Further analysis is provided in [32].

Feynman said: “The problems of chemistry and biology can be greatly helped if our ability to see what we are doing, and to do things on an atomic level, is ultimately developed – a development which I think cannot be avoided.” Drexler has provided the substantive analysis required before this objective can be turned into a reality. We are nearing an era when we will be able to build virtually any structure that is specified in atomic detail and which is consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics. This has substantial implications for future medical technologies and capabilities.

Cost

One consequence of the existence of assemblers is that they are cheap. Because an assembler can be programmed to build almost any structure, it can in particular be programmed to build another assembler. Thus, self reproducing assemblers should be feasible and in consequence the manufacturing costs of assemblers would be primarily the cost of the raw materials and energy required in their construction. Eventually (after amortization of possibly quite high development costs), the price of assemblers (and of the objects they build) should be no higher than the price of other complex structures made by self-replicating systems. Potatoes – which have a staggering design complexity involving tens of thousands of different genes and different proteins directed by many megabits of genetic information – cost well under a dollar per pound.

PATHWAYS TO NANOTECHNOLOGY

The three paths of protein design (biotechnology), biomimetic chemistry, and atomic positioning are parts of a broad bottom up strategy: working at the molecular level to increase our ability to control matter. Traditional miniaturization efforts based on microelectronics technology have reached the submicron scale; these can be characterized as the top down strategy. The bottom-up strategy, however, seems more promising. INFORMATION

More information on nanotechnology can be found in these books (all by Eric Drexler (and various co-authors)):

Engines of Creation (Anchor, 1986) ISBN: 0-385-19972-2

This book was the definition of the original charter of sci.nanotech. Popularly written, it introduces assemblers, and discusses the various social and technical implications nanotechnology might have.

Unbounding the Future (Morrow, 1991) 0-688-09124-5

Essentially an update of Engines, with a better low-level description of how nanomachines might work, and less speculation on space travel, cryonics, etc.

Nanosystems (Wiley, 1992) 0-471-57518-6

This is the technical book that grew out of Drexler’s PhD thesis. It is a real tour de force that provides a substantial theoretical background for nanotech ideas.

The Foresight Institute publishes on both technical and nontechnical issues in nanotechnology. For example, students may write for their free Briefing #1, “Studying Nanotechnology”. The Foresight Institute’s main publications are the Update newsletter and Background essay series. The Update newsletter includes both policy discussions and a technical column enabling readers to find material of interest in the recent scientific literature. These publications can be found at Foresight’s web page.

email address: foresight@cup.portal.com

A set of papers and the archives of sci.nanotech can be had by standard anonymous FTP to nanotech.rutgers.edu. /nanotech

Sci.nanotech is moderated and is intended to be of a technical nature.

–JoSH (moderator)

REFERENCES

[Not all of these are referred to in the text, but they are of interest nevertheless.]

1. “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler, Anchor Press, 1986.

2. “Nanotechnology: wherein molecular computers control tiny circulatory submarines”, by A. K. Dewdney, Scientific American, January 1988, pages 100 to 103.

3. “Foresight Update”, a publication of the Foresight Institute, Box 61058, Palo Alto, CA 94306.

4. “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” a talk by Richard Feynman (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965) at an annual meeting of the American Physical Society given on December 29, 1959. Reprinted in “Miniaturization”, edited by H. D. Gilbert (Reinhold, New York, 1961) pages 282-296.

5. “Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy: Application to Biology and Technology” by P. K. Hansma, V. B. Elings, O. Marti, and C. E. Bracker. Science, October 14 1988, page 209-216.

6. “Molecular manipulation using a tunnelling microscope,” by J. S. Foster, J. E. Frommer and P. C. Arnett. Nature, Vol. 331 28 January 1988, pages 324-326.

7. “The fundamental physical limits of computation” by Charles H. Bennet and Rolf Landauer, Scientific American Vol. 253, July 1985, pages 48-56.

8. “Molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation,” by K. Eric Drexler, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Vol 78, pp 5275- 78, 1981.

9. “Molecular Biology of the Gene”, fourth edition, by James D. Watson, Nancy H. Hopkins, Jeffrey W. Roberts, Joan Argetsinger Steitz, and Alan M. Weiner. Benjamin Cummings, 1987. It can now be purchased as a single large volume.

10. “Tiny surgical robot being developed”, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 18, 1989, page 26A

11. “Rod Logic and Thermal Noise in the Mechanical Nanocomputer”, by K. Eric Drexler, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Molecular Electronic Devices, F. Carter ed., Elsevier 1988.

12. “Submarines small enough to cruise the bloodstream”, in Business Week, March 27 1989, page 64.

13. “Conservative Logic”, by Edward Fredkin and Tommaso Toffoli, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 21 Nos. 3/4, 1982, pages 219-253.

14. “The Tomorrow Makers”, Grant Fjermedal, MacMillan 1986.

15. “Dissipation and noise immunity in computation and communication” by Rolf Landauer, Nature, Vol. 335, October 27 1988, page 779.

16. “Notes on the History of Reversible Computation” by Charles H. Bennett, IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 1988.

17. “Classical and Quantum Limitations on Energy Consumption in Computation” by K. K. Likharev, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 21, Nos. 3/4, 1982.

18. “Principles and Techniques of Electron Microscopy: Biological Applications,” Third edition, by M. A. Hayat, CRC Press, 1989.

19. “Machines of Inner Space” by K. Eric Drexler, 1990 Yearbook of Science and the Future, pages 160-177, published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago 1989.

20. “Reversible Conveyer Computation in Array of Parametric Quantrons” by K. K. Likharev, S. V. Rylov, and V. K. Semenov, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 21 No. 2, March 1985, pages 947-950

21. “Theory of Self Reproducing Automata” by John Von Neumann, edited by Arthur W. Burks, University of Illinois Press, 1966.

22. “The Children of the STM” by Robert Pool, Science, Feb. 9, 1990, pages 634-636.

23. “A Small Revolution Gets Under Way,” by Robert Pool, Science, Jan. 5 1990.

24. “Advanced Automation for Space Missions”, Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE Summer Study, edited by Robert A. Freitas, Jr. and William P. Gilbreath. Available from NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; telephone 703-487- 4650, order no. N83-15348

25. “Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope,” by D. M. Eigler and E. K. Schweizer, Nature Vol 344, April 5 1990, page 524-526.

26. “Mind Children” by Hans Moravec, Harvard University Press, 1988.

27. “Microscopy of Chemical-Potential Variations on an Atomic Scale” by C.C. Williams and H.K. Wickramasinghe, Nature, Vol 344, March 22 1990, pages 317-319.

28. “Time/Space Trade-Offs for Reversible Computation” by Charles H. Bennett, SIAM J. Computing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pages 766-776, August 1989.

29. “Fixation for Electron Microscopy” by M. A. Hayat, Academic Press, 1981.

30. “Nonexistent technology gets a hearing,” by I. Amato, Science News, Vol. 136, November 4, 1989, page 295.

31. “The Invisible Factory,” The Economist, December 9, 1989, page 91.

32. “Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing and Computation,” by K. Eric Drexler, John Wiley 1992.

33. “MITI heads for inner space” by David Swinbanks, Nature, Vol 346, August 23 1990, page 688-689.

34. “Fundamentals of Physics,” Third Edition Extended, by David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Wiley 1988.

35. “General Chemistry” Second Edition, by Donald A. McQuarrie and Peter A. Rock, Freeman 1987.

36. “Charles Babbage On the Principles and Development of the Calculator and Other Seminal Writings” by Charles Babbage and others. Dover, New York, 1961.

37. “Molecular Mechanics” by U. Burkert and N. L. Allinger, American Chemical Society Monograph 177 (1982).

38. “Breaking the Diffraction Barrier: Optical Microscopy on a Nanometric Scale” by E. Betzig, J. K. Trautman, T.D. Harris, J.S. Weiner, and R.L. Kostelak, Science Vol. 251, March 22 1991, page 1468.

39. “Two Types of Mechanical Reversible Logic,” by Ralph C. Merkle, submitted to Nanotechnology.

40. “Atom by Atom, Scientists build ‘Invisible’ Machines of the Future,” Andrew Pollack, The New York Times, Science section, Tuesday November 26, 1991, page B7.

41. “Theoretical analysis of a site-specific hydrogen abstraction tool,” by Charles Musgrave, Jason Perry, Ralph C. Merkle and William A. Goddard III, in Nanotechnology, April 1992.

42. “Near-Field Optics: Microscopy, Spectroscopy, and Surface Modifications Beyond the Diffraction Limit” by Eric Betzig and Jay K. Trautman, Science, Vol. 257, July 10 1992, pages 189-195.

43. “Guinness Book of World Records,” Donald McFarlan et. al., Bantam 1989.

Source