Author Archives: RF_Alum

The Raisin Debate in the Supreme Court

Posted on by

Why did the Supreme Court get involved in a dispute about raisins? George Will explained in an editorial that the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act passed in 1937 was one of the New Dealer responses to the Great Depression. The law required farmers to turn over a significant portion of their crops to the government, which would theoretically drive up prices. Something called the “Raisin Administrative Committee” was formed by regulation in 1949, and that committee accused Marvin and Laura Horne of refusing to turn over a million pounds of raisins. The government wanted the Hornes to pay $700,000 for their failure to comply.  Justice Elena Kagan wondered during the arguments whether this case involves “a taking or it’s just the world’s most outdated law.” Will’s answer is: both. “The law has spawned more than 25 ‘marketing orders’ covering almonds, apricots, avocados, cherries, cranberries, dates, grapes, hazelnuts, kiwifruit, onions, pears, pistachios, plums, spearmint oil, walnuts and other stuff.”

The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court ruled that actions by the raisin committee “…amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.” The Hornes successfully defended themselves arguing that the program violated “…the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.” Eight justices agreed and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in dissenting that the “Hornes should be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalties.” Breyer wrote that he would have returned the case to lower courts. In his concurrence with the majority Justice Thomas, perhaps showing that even Supreme Court Justices can use puns, “…said such a move would be a fruitless exercise.”

I enjoyed Will’s closing sentences. “Progressives say, ‘Government is simply the name we give to the things we chose to do together. That is not how the Hornes are experiencing government.”

The Complete Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant

Posted on by

complete-personal-memoirs-of-us-grantI’ve been busy reading about the U.S. plans for nuclear war with the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and fell behind on reading on other history subjects. No worries, I found a review of Grant’s autobiography in my file when I was writing reviews under the title of “Amateur Historian.” Volume I is 584 pages and Volume II is 554 pages with a 78 page Appendix. The origin of Grant’s books is interesting.  Mark Twain was suffering financial problems and heard that Grant was interested in publishing his memoirs to overcome similar financial problems.  He visited Grant and offered to publish the book with a 75/25 split of profits. Grant knew by the time he accepted the offer that he was dying of mouth and throat cancer.  There are reports Twain furnished Grant with cases of Vin Tonique Mariani, a Bordeaux wine combined with cocaine.  The “tonic” allowed Grant to overcome pain and finish his writing before he died.

Grant’s books details troop movements before, during, and after various battles, complete with names of officers commanding various segments of both armies.  Logistical efforts and geography of the battle sites are described, along with detailed hand drawn maps.  Although I understand the significance of these descriptions, I admit to skimming while looking for anecdotes that would reveal more about Grant. Grant’s actual name was Hiram Ulysses Grant, but he was appointed to West Point as Ulysses Simpson Grant, with the Simpson being taken from his mother’s maiden name. West Point had a policy of not accepting any name other than what was on the nomination form, so the incorrect name stuck. Current lore finds it ironic that the general who led Federal troops at the end of the Civil War had U.S. as his first two initials. His detractors said his initials stood for “Unconditional Surrender Grant.”   Continue reading →

Atomic Energy for Military Purposes: The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government

Posted on by

atomic-energy-for-military-purposesThis report, written by Henry DeWolf Smyth at the request of Major General L.R. Groves (who led the Manhattan Project), is better known the “Smyth Report.” The copyright announcement by Smyth is interesting. “Reproduction in whole or in part authorized and permitted.” Groves wrote in the Foreword that “…there is no reason why the administrative history of the Atomic Bomb Project and the basic scientific knowledge on which the several developments were based should not be available to the general public.” There also are blunt warnings against requesting or releasing additional information “…subject to severe penalties under the Espionage Act.” Smyth explains in the Preface that “The ultimate responsibility for our nation’s policy rests on its citizens and they can discharge such responsibilities wisely only if they are informed.” He explains that the report is written about the construction of atomic bombs for “…engineers and scientific men who can understand such things and who can explain the potentialities of atomic bombs to their fellow citizens.” The book gives a tutorial on the history of research on atomic structure and radioactivity and the basics of nuclear physics.

The administrative history of the research has been well-documented in many sources, but many of them probably used the information in this book. One issue that was considered in depth early on was the need for secrecy about the research that was being considered or was on-going.  A “Reference Committee” was established in the National Research Council “…to control publication policy in all fields of possible military interest.” Journal editors would send copies of papers to the committee for review. The system worked well. Most physicists were soon absorbed into the various projects, “…which reduced papers being submitted to the committee almost to the vanishing point.” The arrangement was voluntary, but scientists in the country cooperated.  Scientists in Germany, the Soviet Union, and other countries recognized that the United States was attempting to develop atomic energy for a weapon based on the sudden absence of research papers being published by scientists in the U.S.

One piece of information that disagrees with many other sources is that Harry Truman was well aware of the project and its magnitude when he was a Senator. He was briefed by Stimson and Groves on the project immediately after FDR’s death and his inauguration, and he kept “…in constant touch with the program.” Continue reading →

Give My Eye Teeth

Posted on by

The first question is why they are called eye teeth? The upper canine teeth, the relatively long pointed teeth, are said to be called that because they are positioned directly under the eyes (weird!). The second question is why would someone say they would give up their eye teeth for something they value more? The expression has been around for centuries, and World Wide Words explains losing them “…would cause one to be severely hampered…” Thus, that other thing you want must mean a great deal to you if you would be willing to give up your eye teeth to get it.

Building a Safer, Cleaner Nuclear Reactor

Posted on by

I had an opportunity to read a copy of Popular Science while waiting for a doctor appointment, and I had forgotten how much I had liked that magazine as a young adult. There were several interesting articles, but the one titled “Revive the Nuclear Dream” was fascinating. Two young scientists, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, have been working on nuclear power generation since they found articles about reactor research performed at Oak Ridge at an MIT library in 2009. One subject was molten salt reactors, and it intrigued them that using liquid uranium fuel instead of solid fuel eliminates the chance of a meltdown. “So they dusted off the Oak Ridge design and got to work. Today, their start-up, Transatomic Power, is poised to build a new, even better molten salt reactor.”

The idea has some very compelling possibilities. Fuel rods from light water reactors, the design used at existing U.S. nuclear power plants, have to be replaced when only four percent of the uranium has been converted to energy. The molten salt reactor will convert 96 percent of the uranium into energy and generates 75 times the amount of electricity per ton of uranium. Of course another advantage is there is less waste to manage. Even better is that their reactor could run on spent fuel from those other reactors.

The article describes how the reactor works. Uranium salt is liquefied by heating it to 500 degrees C, and the molten salt is pumped past zirconium hydride to slow down the neutrons and induce fission. The krypton and xenon that poisons light water reactor fuel rods is continuously off-gassed. “You basically simmer the reactor like a Crock-Pot for decades…The fuel salt flows through a loop with a drain that is blocked by a freezer plug, a chunk of electrically cooled frozen salt. If the reactor loses electricity, the plug melts, and the fuel drains into a tank where it cools and solidifies.” That feature makes the design “virtually accident proof.”

The big hurdle for the technology is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t have a framework for licensing “advanced reactors.” The coal and natural gas lobbies see nuclear as a threat and some environmental groups will fight anything labeled “nuclear.” The two young scientists want a regulatory pathway developed, but good luck with that. We may still be developing smart and ambitious entrepreneurs, but we haven’t found a way to make government bureaucracies lobby-proof, efficient, or courageous. China would probably welcome the technology, but Dewan says they want to succeed in the U.S. I think we should think of ways to help them. My first contribution is this commentary.  Meet the two impressive people by watching the video on the home page of their web site.

US Nuclear Weapons: A Secret History

Posted on by

us-nuclear-weapons-secret-historyThis book by Chuck Hansen is an encyclopedia of nuclear weapons, and I recommend it as such to anyone who would be interested in reading about that. The book is listed at $144 on Amazon, so I recommend trying the interlibrary loan system before you commit to a purchase. It had less information about the subjects in which I have as an interest, and the short review to follow is a reflection of that. It has great pictures of various nuclear blasts as well as pictures of various weapon bodies and various delivery systems. Hansen’s feelings about nuclear weapons are not subdued. He describes in the introduction that “…a vast empire has arisen largely unnoticed in the United States.” “The secret empire has cost taxpayers dearly: $89 billion in development costs since 1940, and $700 billion for delivery systems for its products. The sheer volume and number of these products is mind-boggling: between 1945 and 1986, the nuclear weapons complex in the U.S. manufactured approximately 60,000 warheads of 71 types for 116 different weapons systems.” “The U.S. government has always gone to extreme lengths to keep this orgy of nuclear self-indulgence hidden from public view.” There is a reference that “…tens of millions of documents chronicling this vast ‘black project’ remain locked away in vaults…” (It makes one wonder how the author was able to find anything to write about.)

Ironically, a discussion follows of how it had been thought the U.S. would maintain a nuclear monopoly much longer than what occurred. The Soviets were able to steal everything they needed by espionage to develop atomic bombs while bypassing the need to invent and test the design information developed by the U.S. Continue reading →