My Democratic Primary Vote: For Change; Real Change

I sent in my vote on January 20, two weeks before the California Democratic primary election on February 5 (“Super-Tuesday”). With several earlier primaries having induced others to withdraw, there are 2-4 candidates left; the front runners, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with well oiled money raising staff, and former Senators John Edwards and Mike Gravel, with less. Apart from the matters discussed in the “debates” or leaked by the campaign staffs, including Bill Clinton, about distortions by, and lobbyist influence on, other campaigns, there is only an occasional mention of long standing “issues”.

But wouldn't it be nice, if real concern were shown for the serious and ongoing decline in one after another aspect of the politics and economy of the country and its standing worldwide.. The Iraq quagmire, with its continuing loss of life, limb and treasure, which only recently seemed destined to dominate the 2008 elections, lost significance first with the sabre rattling for a new war against Iran, which was then sidelined by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the “volatility” of “energy” (i.e. oil) prices up to about $100 per barrel and the recession, or depression (if you pardon the expression). A need for action against fossil fuel burning contributions to global warming got just enough attention to allow nuclear power to raise its radioactive head, unpolluted by CO2, just "clean" ionizing radiation.

Well, everyone is going to be happy now, because we'll each get about $600 stimulus money to spend. Maybe it wasn't really so when the experts on the economy were attributing its woes to chronic overspending, e.g. on gasoline, leading to an ever worsening international trade balance. Anyway, with the $ exchange value dropping almost as fast as American prestige, new money from oil exporters and from China can come in and buy more of the US at a bargain rate, providing the funds for future stimulus money; and maybe the crash can wait.

I know how to alleviate many of the most serious problems the country faces and to really solve some of the most debilitating. I know specifically how to confront the problems associated with dependance on the Dirty, Obsolete Energy (DOE) sources. You may ask why, then, don't I seek the US presidency myself. There are good reasons for that, but they do not include a feeling that my knowledge and experiences are inferior to those of others seeking the office.

They are superior to those of most in at least one significant respect: I am not a lawyer. There is no serious shortage of lawyers among top Washington officeholders; or lobbyists. I have degrees, including a doctorate, in science, and long, successful experience in research. You don't find complaints about difficulties the country has turning out enough lawyers for government and the military industrial complex economy; as you can read constantly for scientists. Others, no doubt, also have their specific relative strong points. But I should also have greater sensitivity toward dangers to democracy based on life experience, not just literature or speeches. And at the present state of affairs that is important not just for candidates for office, but also to those who want to vote for, and recommend to others, a candidate honestly committed to change for stronger democracy and the common good.

While engaged in research at a major federal agricultural research center in (Albany) California, I initiated a team that worked out ways for inexpensive agricultural utilization of solar power, mainly by direct solar energy concentrated by easily mass producible thin lenses (but aided by some indirect solar such as wind and biomass), in conjunction with intensive food production in greenhouses. It could have been widely competitive almost immediately, after the first (1970s) oil shock, without the need for major prior research.

What follows in the next two paragraphs was first posted on the internet in 1999: “A colleague showed me a [then current] paper in Chemical Technology (May 1974) while I was spending most of three weeks sanding and buffing sawed prism surfaces for a lens model, because the project looked so urgent that I did not want to wait until it could be done by our shop. The article, headed Solar Energy - How Soon? by Egan O'Connor, a freelance consultant to (then) Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, expressed that urgency in the wake of the "oil shock" and boycott in a more general way. Why delay starting solar energy implementation until a conventional R&D and demonstration process has optimized the technology, when much can be done with known technology that could soon be competitive with nuclear and fossil sources. Along with wind power she actually mentioned "solar heat-concentrating devices", and she could not have known of our design, which could have been widely competitive immediately. Even without first demonstrating that the model lens will work, it was sure to work unless one of the two most basic laws of geometric optics (Snell's law) suddenly broke down. The extrusion-embossing process for mass production was also clearly indicated, which was the reason why we, and our patent attorney, had decided not even to try for a patent. Other aspects of our design contributing to competitiveness were obvious by common sense, e.g. that in decentralized thermal power generation, the "waste" heat can be utilized for on-site heat needs, rather than wasted (with concomitant thermal pollution or water waste). On the whole, O'Connor seemed better informed than most people actually working on a particular solar project, and her questions were well chosen. We decided to inform quickly in response, through a paper Solar Power Now, submitted to the same journal......

O'Connor also already mentioned "solar power enemies". I may have missed that, but in any case did not expect serious hostility at that time of sense of national emergency; nor that something as simple as having such lenses available could possibly be prevented. So we provided a pre-publication copy to ERDA [*see below here], still in the process of formation. Not long after the enthusiastic response from people at the Oakland ERDA office, it emerged that there indeed are serious enemies of solar power. That general availability of such "Fresnel" lenses could be prevented to this day still seems amazing“.

[*ERDA, for Energy Research and Development Administration, had resulted from the breakup of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) into it and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and later became the central component of the new department, which was not overtly charged to prolong dependance on the dirty, obsolete energy sources.]

The surreptitious determination with which our easy route to competitive solar proliferation (that addressed our lab's two foremost research priorities) was prevented made very clear that this can no longer be viewed as a government with serious democratic content. It is thoroughly corrupt, at least where the dirty energy and probably the related military industries are involved. Senator Gravel seems to be aware of what they are capable of.

When I googled Egan O'Connor last year, it turned out that she had been collaborating with John Gofman, Professor of Medical Physics at UC Berkeley, who had resigned as associate director of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory to call attention to the suppression of information on the dangers of (even low levels of) ionizing radiation. Gofman was the lone panelist in favor of California Proposition 15 for nuclear safeguards mentioned in my 1977 memo to the Carter White House; where I warned abour the dangers of corruption of the scientific community. At an unusual meeting of the American Chemical Society, he was pitted against two opposing panelists, both of whom were allowed much more time. In reponse to protest (e.g. by me), he was given just 5 additional minutes.

He evidently was at the receiving end of intense harassment (maybe O'Connor got some, too; and I sure did). The only thing I ever saw on that in the “maintream media” was a 1994 CNN program (without followup, which was called for) on people who had been “punished” by the nuclear power industry, some of whom were close to tears (or crying). Of Gofman I recall the comment that “they” always hit you below the belt. He seemed to have an opinion similar to mine on the Department of (Dirty Obsolete) Energy (DoDOE). One of the items I encountered googling was a joint publication by him and O'Connor, to which Sen. Gravel had written the foreword.

From what I can tell about his current position on energy, Gravel still is not ready to surrender to the nuclear power gang, as the other candidates are without wanting to talk a lot about it. He favors a carbon tax as one way to confront global warming. He is unlikely to be aware of what can be done with concentrated direct solar energy, but is likely to have an open mind toward a clean competitive version and he emphasizes the importance of windpower; with which he foresees liquid hydrogen generation, as an indirect solar fuel.

I am unlikely to agree with all his policies, but want to bring out one important other where I do. He seems to honestly support those who are fighting for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Following some vicious attacks on Sen. Obama by the character assassins in the Israeli lobby, this Change candidate has been assuring them that plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, so maybe he'll get some money from them. I don't know how much positive change can result from the Gravel campaign. I don't expect him to become president, but even the way he is kept out of formal election functions, he may yet make more of a difference than that between the two other candidates left now (Edwards having quit during this writing). I don't think I would have bothered to vote otherwise. There must be change, real change.

There should be a sequel to this.