“... Freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution ... It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea ....” – Ronald Reagan, Moscow State University, May 31, 1988 (quoted at https://nige.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/understanding-quantum-gravity/). For a review of this site see: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/are-nuclear-weapons-100-times-less.html which states: "Cook is a master researcher who digs up incredible piles of research on all topics nuclear and the following is digest of various writings of his gathered for easy access centered on the remarkable thesis that the effects of nuclear weapons, while literally awesome, have been exaggerated or misunderstood to an even greater extent, with perhaps very considerable military consequences." Also see some key extracts from this blog published over at http://www.militarystory.org/nuclear-detonations-in-urban-and-suburban-areas/ and blog statistics (over 2.3 million views) linked here (populist pseudo-critics love to falsely claim that "nobody takes any notice of the truth, justifying their decision to ignore the facts by following the fake fashion herd groupthink agenda"). (For the essential so-called "overkill" background or Sir Slim's "the more you use, fewer you lose" success formula for winning in Burma against Japan - where physicist Herman Kahn served while his friend Sam Cohen was calculating nuclear weapon efficiencies at the Los Alamos Manhattan Project, which again used "overkill" to convince the opponent to throw in the towel - please see my post on the practicalities of really DETERRING WWIII linked here.)

There is now a relatively long introduction at the top of this blog, due to the present nuclear threat caused by disarmament and arms control propaganda, and the dire need to get the facts out past pro-Russian media influencers or loony mass media which has never cared about nuclear and radiation effects facts, so please scroll down to see blog posts. The text below in blue is hyperlinked (direct to reference source materials, rather than numbered and linked to reference at the end of the page) so you can right-click on it and open in a new tab to see the source. This page is not about opinions, it provides censored out facts that debunk propaganda, but for those who require background "authority" nonsense on censored physics facts, see stuff here or here. Regarding calling war-mongering, world war causing, terrorism-regime-supporting UK disarmers of the 20th century "thugs" instead of "kind language": I was put through the Christianity grinder as a kid so will quote Jesus (whom I'm instructed to follow), Matthew 23:33: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell?" The fake "pacifist" thugs will respond with some kindly suggestion that this is "paranoid" and that "Jesus was rightfully no-platformed for his inappropriate language"! Yeah, you guys would say that, wouldn't ya. Genuine pacifism requires credible deterrence! Decent people seem to be very confused about the facts of this. Jesus did not say "disarm to invite your annihilation by terrorists". You can't "forgive and forget" when the enemy is still on the warpath. They have to be stopped, either by deterrence, force, defense, or a combination of all these.

Click here for the key declassified nuclear testing and capability documents compilation (EM-1 related USA research reports and various UK nuclear weapon test reports on blast and radiation), from nukegate.org

We also uploaded an online-viewable version of the full text of the 1982 edition of the UK Goverment's Domestic Nuclear Shelters - Technical Guidance, including secret UK and USA nuclear test report references and extracts proving protection against collateral damage, for credible deterrence (linked here).

https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth/ (Peter Vanderwicken in the Harvard Business Review Magazine, May-June 1995): "The news media and the government are entwined in a vicious circle of mutual manipulation, mythmaking, and self-interest. Journalists need crises to dramatize news, and government officials need to appear to be responding to crises. Too often, the crises are not really crises but joint fabrications. The two institutions have become so ensnared in a symbiotic web of lies that the news media are unable to tell the public what is true and the government is unable to govern effectively. That is the thesis advanced by Paul H. Weaver, a former political scientist (at Harvard University), journalist (at Fortune magazine), and corporate communications executive (at Ford Motor Company), in his provocative analysis entitled News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works ... The news media and the government have created a charade that serves their own interests but misleads the public. Officials oblige the media’s need for drama by fabricating crises and stage-managing their responses, thereby enhancing their own prestige and power. Journalists dutifully report those fabrications. Both parties know the articles are self-aggrandizing manipulations and fail to inform the public about the more complex but boring issues of government policy and activity. What has emerged, Weaver argues, is a culture of lying. ... The architect of the transformation was not a political leader or a constitutional convention but Joseph Pulitzer, who in 1883 bought the sleepy New York World and in 20 years made it the country’s largest newspaper. Pulitzer accomplished that by bringing drama to news—by turning news articles into stories ... His journalism took events out of their dry, institutional contexts and made them emotional rather than rational, immediate rather than considered, and sensational rather than informative. The press became a stage on which the actions of government were a series of dramas. ... The press swarmed on the story, which had all the necessary dramatic elements: a foot-dragging bureaucracy, a study finding that the country’s favorite fruit was poisoning its children, and movie stars opposing the pesticide. Sales of apples collapsed. Within months, Alar’s manufacturer withdrew it from the market, although both the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration stated that they believed Alar levels on apples were safe. The outcry simply overwhelmed scientific evidence. That happens all too often, Cynthia Crossen argues in her book Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America. ... Crossen writes, “more and more of the information we use to buy, elect, advise, acquit and heal has been created not to expand our knowledge but to sell a product or advance a cause.” “Most members of the media are ill-equipped to judge a technical study,” Crossen correctly points out. “Even if the science hasn’t been explained or published in a U.S. journal, the media may jump on a study if it promises entertainment for readers or viewers. And if the media jump, that is good enough for many Americans.” ... A press driven by drama and crises creates a government driven by response to crises. Such an “emergency government can’t govern,” Weaver concludes. “Not only does public support for emergency policies evaporate the minute they’re in place and the crisis passes, but officials acting in the emergency mode can’t make meaningful public policies. According to the classic textbook definition, government is the authoritative allocation of values, and emergency government doesn’t authoritatively allocate values.” (Note that Richard Rhodes' Pulitzer prize winning books such as The making of the atomic bomb which uncritically quote Hiroshima firestorm lies and survivors nonsense about people running around without feet, play to this kind of emotional fantasy mythology of nuclear deterrence obfuscation so loved by Uncle Sam's folk.)

This blog's url is now "www.nukegate.org". When this nuclear effects blog began in 2006, "glasstone.blogspot.com" was used to signify the key issue of Glasstone's obfuscating "Effects of Nuclear Weapons", specifically the final 1977 edition, which omitted not just the credible deterrent "use" of nuclear weapons but the key final "Principles of protection" chapter that had been present in all previous editions, and it also ignored the relatively clean neutron bombs which had been developed in the intervening years, as a credible deterrent to the concentrations of force needed for aggressive invasions, such as the 1914 invasion of Belgium and the 1939 invasion of Poland; both of which triggered world wars. Those editors themselves were not subversives, but both had nuclear weapons security clearances which constituted political groupthink censorship control, regarding which designs of nuclear weapons they could discuss and the level of technical data (they include basically zero information on their sources and the "bibliographies" are in most cases not to their classified nuclear testing sources but merely further reading); the 1977 edition had been initially drafted in 1974 solely by EM-1 editor Dolan at SRI International, and was then submitted to Glasstone who made further changes. The persistent and hypocritical Russian World Peace Council's and also hardline arms controllers propaganda tactic - supported by some arms industry loons who have a vested interest in conventional war - has been to try to promote lies on nuclear weapons effects to get rid of credible Western nuclear deterrence of provocations that start war. Naturally, the Russians have now stocked 2000+ tactical neutron weapons of the sort they get the West to disarm.

This means that they can invade territory with relative impunity, since the West won't deter such provocations by flexible response - the aim of Russia is to push the West into a policy of massive retaliation of direct attacks only, and then use smaller provocations instead - and Russia can then use its tactical nuclear weapons to "defend" its newly invaded territories by declaring them to now be part of Mother Russia and under Moscow's nuclear umbrella. Russia has repeatedly made it clear - for decades - that it expects a direct war with NATO to rapidly escalate into nuclear WWIII and it has prepared civil defense shelters and evacuation tactics to enable it. Herman Kahn's public warnings of this date back to his testimony to the June 1959 Congressional Hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, but for decades were deliberately misrepresented by most media outlets. President Kennedy's book "Why England Slept" makes it crystal clear how exactly the same "pacifist" propaganda tactics in the 1930s (that time it was the "gas bomb knockout blow has no defense so disarm, disarm, disarm" lie) caused war, by using fear to slow credible rearmament in the face of state terrorism. By the time democracies finally decided to issue an ultimatum, Hitler had been converted - by pacifist appeasement - from a cautious tester of Western indecision, into an overconfident aggressor who simply ignored last-minute ultimatums.

Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons (US Government) is written in a highly ambiguous fashion (negating nearly every definite statement with a deliberately obfuscating contrary statement to leave a smokescreen legacy of needless confusion, obscurity and obfuscation), omits nearly all key nuclear test data and provides instead misleading generalizations of data from generally unspecified weapon designs tested over 60 years ago which apply to freefield measurements on unobstructed radial lines in deserts and oceans. It makes ZERO analysis of the overall shielding of radiation and blast by their energy attenuation in modern steel and concrete cities, and even falsely denies such factors in its discussion of blast in cities and in its naive chart for predicting the percentage of burns types as a function of freefield outdoor thermal radiation, totally ignoring skyline shielding geometry (similar effects apply to freefield nuclear radiation exposure, despite vague attempts to dismiss this by non-quantitative talk about some scattered radiation arriving from all angles). It omits the huge variations in effects due to weapon design e.g. cleaner warhead designs and the tactical neutron bomb. It omits quantitative data on EMP as a function of burst yield, height and weapon design.

It omits most of the detailed data collected from Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the casualty rates as a function of type of building or shelter and blast pressure. It fails to analyse overall standardized casualty rates for different kinds of burst (e.g. shallow underground earth penetrators convert radiation and blast energy into ground shock and cratering against hard targets like silos or enemy bunkers). It omits a detailed analysis of blast precursor effects. It omits a detailed analysis of fallout beta and gamma spectra, fractionation, specific activity (determining the visibility of the fallout as a function of radiation hazard, and the mass of material to be removed for effective decontamination), and data which does exist on the effect of crater soil size distribution upon the fused fallout particle size distribution (e.g. tests like Small Boy in 1962 on the very fine particles at Frenchman Flats gave mean fallout particle sizes far bigger than the pre-shot soil, proving that - as for Trinitite - melted small soil particles fuse together in the fireball to produce larger fallout particles, so the pre-shot soil size distribution is irrelevant for fallout analysis).

By generally (with few exceptions) lumping "effects" of all types of bursts together into chapters dedicated to specific effects, it falsely gives the impression that all types of nuclear explosions produce similar effects with merely "quantitative differences". This is untrue because air bursts eliminate fallout casualties entirely, while slight burial (e.g. earth penetrating warheads) eliminates thermal (including fires and dust "climatic nuclear winter" BS), the initial radiation and severe blast effects, while massively increasing ground shock, and the same applies to shallow underwater bursts. So a more objective treatment to credibly deter all aggression MUST emphasise the totally different collateral damage effects, by dedicating chapters to different kinds of burst (high altitude/space bursts, free air bursts, surface bursts, underground bursts, underwater bursts), and would include bomb design implications on these effects in detail. A great deal of previously secret and limited distributed nuclear effects data has been declassified since 1977, and new research has been done. Our objectives in this review are: (a) to ensure that an objective independent analysis of the relevant nuclear weapons effects facts is placed on the record in case the currently, increasingly vicious Cold War 2.0 escalates into some kind of limited "nuclear demonstration" by aggressors to try to end a conventional war by using coercive threats, (b) to ensure the lessons of tactical nuclear weapon design for deterring large scale provocations (like the invasions of Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939 which triggered world wars) are re-learned in contrast to Dulles "massive retaliation" (incredible deterrent) nonsense, and finally (c) to provide some push to Western governments to "get real" with our civil defense, to try to make credible our ageing "strategic nuclear deterrent". We have also provided a detailed analysis of recently declassified Russian nuclear warhead design data, shelter data, effects data, tactical nuclear weapons employment manuals, and some suggestions for improving Western thermonuclear warheads to improve deterrence.

‘The evidence from Hiroshima indicates that blast survivors, both injured and uninjured, in buildings later consumed by fire [caused by the blast overturning charcoal braziers used for breakfast in inflammable wooden houses filled with easily ignitable bamboo furnishings and paper screens] were generally able to move to safe areas following the explosion. Of 130 major buildings studied by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... 107 were ultimately burned out ... Of those suffering fire, about 20 percent were burning after the first half hour. The remainder were consumed by fire spread, some as late as 15 hours after the blast. This situation is not unlike the one our computer-based fire spread model described for Detroit.’

- Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, DCPA Attack Environment Manual, Chapter 3: What the Planner Needs to Know About Fire Ignition and Spread, report CPG 2-1A3, June 1973, Panel 27.

The Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Theatre, report 92, volume 2 (May 1947, secret):

Volume one, page 14:

“... the city lacked buildings with fire-protective features such as automatic fire doors and automatic sprinkler systems”, and pages 26-28 state the heat flash in Hiroshima was only:

“... capable of starting primary fires in exposed, easily combustible materials such as dark cloth, thin paper, or dry rotted wood exposed to direct radiation at distances usually within 4,000 feet of the point of detonation (AZ).”

Volume two examines the firestorm and the ignition of clothing by the thermal radiation flash in Hiroshima:

Page 24:

“Scores of persons throughout all sections of the city were questioned concerning the ignition of clothing by the flash from the bomb. ... Ten school boys were located during the study who had been in school yards about 6,200 feet east and 7,000 feet west, respectively, from AZ [air zero]. These boys had flash burns on the portions of their faces which had been directly exposed to rays of the bomb. The boys’ stories were consistent to the effect that their clothing, apparently of cotton materials, ‘smoked,’ but did not burst into flame. ... a boy’s coat ... started to smoulder from heat rays at 3,800 feet from AZ.” [Contrast this to the obfuscation and vagueness in Glasstone, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons!]

Page 88:

“Ignition of the City. ... Only directly exposed surfaces were flash burned. Measured from GZ, flash burns on wood poles were observed at 13,000 feet, granite was roughened or spalled by heat at 1,300 feet, and vitreous tiles on roofs were blistered at 4,000 feet. ... six persons who had been in reinforced-concrete buildings within 3,200 feet of air zero stated that black cotton blackout curtains were ignited by radiant heat ... dark clothing was scorched and, in some cases, reported to have burst into flame from flash heat [although as the 1946 unclassified USSBS report admits, most immediately beat the flames out with their hands without sustaining injury, because the clothing was not drenched in gasoline, unlike peacetime gasoline tanker road accident victims]

“... but a large proportion of over 1,000 persons questioned was in agreement that a great majority of the original fires was started by debris falling on kitchen charcoal fires, by industrial process fires, or by electric short circuits. Hundreds of fires were reported to have started in the centre of the city within 10 minutes after the explosion. Of the total number of buildings investigated [135 buildings are listed] 107 caught fire, and in 69 instances, the probable cause of initial ignition of the buildings or their contents was as follows: (1) 8 by direct radiated heat from the bomb (primary fire), (2) 8 by secondary sources, and (3) 53 by fire spread from exposed [wooden] buildings.”

ABOVE: "missile gap" propaganda debunked by secret 1970s data; Kennedy relied on US nuclear superiority. Using a flawed analysis of nuclear weapons effects on Hiroshima - based on lying unclassified propaganda reports and ignorant dismissals of civil defense shelters in Russia (again based on Hiroshima propaganda by groves in 1945) - America allowed Russian nuclear superiority in the 1970s. Increasingly, the nuclear deterrent was used by Russia to stop the West from "interfering" with its aggressive invasions and wars, precisely Hitler's 1930s strategy with gas bombing knockout-blow threats used to engineer appeasement. BELOW: H-bomb effects and design secrecy led to tragic mass media delusions, such as the 18 February 1950 Picture Post claim that the H-bomb can devastate Australia (inspiring the Shute novel and movie "On the Beach" and also other radiation scams like "Dr Strangelove" to be used by Russia to stir up anti Western disarmament movement to help Russia win WWIII). Dad was a Civil Defense Corps Instructor in the UK when this was done (the civil defense effectiveness and weapon effects facts on shelters at UK and USA nuclear tests were kept secret and not used to debunk lying political appeasement propaganda tricks in the mass media by sensationalist "journalists" and Russian "sputniks"):

Message to mass-media journalists: please don't indulge in lying "no defence" propaganda as was done by most of the media in previous pre-war crises!

Above: Edward Leader-Williams on the basis for UK civil defence shelters in SECRET 1949 Royal Society's London Symposium on physical effects of atomic weapons, a study that was kept secret by the Attlee Government and subsequent UK governments, instead of being openly published to enhance public knowledge of civil defence effectiveness against nuclear attack. Leader-Williams also produced the vital civil defence report seven years later (published below for the first time on this blog), proving civil defence sheltering and city centre evacuation is effective against 20 megaton thermonuclear weapons. Also published in the same secret symposium, which was introduced by Penney, was Penney's own Hiroshima visit analysis of the percentage volume reduction in overpressure-crushed empty petrol cans, blueprint containers, etc., which gave a blast partition yield of 7 kilotons (or 15.6 kt total yield, if taking the nuclear blast as 45% of total yield, i.e. 7/0.45 = 15.6, as done in later AWRE nuclear weapons test blast data reports). Penney in a 1970 updated paper allowed for blast reduction due to the damage done in the city bursts.

ABOVE: The 1996 Northrop EM-1 (see extracts below showing protection by modern buildings and also simple shelters very close to nuclear tests; note that Northrop's entire set of damage ranges as a function of yield for underground shelters, tunnels, silos are based on two contained deep underground nuclear tests of different yield scaled to surface burst using the assumption of 5% yield ground coupling relative to the underground shots; this 5% equivalence figure appears to be an exaggeration for compact modern warheads, e.g. the paper “Comparison of Surface and Sub-Surface Nuclear Bursts,” from Steven Hatch, Sandia National Laboratories, to Jonathan Medalia, October 30, 2000, shows a 2% equivalence, e.g. Hatch shows that 1 megaton surface burst produces identical ranges to underground targets as a 20 kt burst at >20m depth of burst, whereas Northrop would require 50kt) has not been openly published, despite such protection being used in Russia! This proves heavy bias against credible tactical nuclear deterrence of the invasions that trigger major wars that could escalate into nuclear war (Russia has 2000+ dedicated neutron bombs; we don't!) and against simple nuclear proof tested civil defence which makes such deterrence credible and of course is also of validity against conventional wars, severe weather, peacetime disasters, etc.

The basic fact is that nuclear weapons can deter/stop invasions unlike the conventional weapons that cause mass destruction, and nuclear collateral damage is eliminated easily for nuclear weapons by using them on military targets, since for high yields at collateral damage distances all the effects are sufficiently delayed in arrival to allow duck and cover to avoid radiation and blast wind/flying debris injuries (unlike the case for the smaller areas affected by smaller yield conventional weapons, where there is little time on seeing the flash to duck and cover to avoid injury), and as the original 1951 SECRET American Government "Handbook on Capabilities of Atomic Weapons" (limited report AD511880L, forerunner to today's still secret EM-1) stated in Section 10.32:

"PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM TO BE REMEMBERED WHEN ESTIMATING EFFECTS ON PERSONNEL IS THE AMOUNT OF COVER ACTUALLY INVOLVED. ... IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ONLY A FEW SECONDS WARNING IS NECESSARY UNDER MOST CONDITIONS TO TAKE FAIRLY EFFECTIVE COVER. THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASUALTIES IN JAPAN RESULTED FOR THE MOST PART FROM THE LACK OF WARNING."

As for Hitler's stockpile of 12,000 tons of tabun nerve gas, whose strategic and also tactical use was deterred by proper defences (gas masks for all civilians and soldiers, as well as UK stockpiles of fully trial-tested deliverable biological agent anthrax and mustard gas retaliation capacity), it is possible to deter strategic nuclear escalation to city bombing, even within a world war with a crazy terrorist, if all the people are protected by both defence and deterrence.

J. R. Oppenheimer (opposing Teller), February 1951: "It is clear that they can be used only as adjuncts in a military campaign which has some other components, and whose purpose is a military victory. They are not primarily weapons of totality or terror, but weapons used to give combat forces help they would otherwise lack. They are an integral part of military operations. Only when the atomic bomb is recognized as useful insofar as it is an integral part of military operations, will it really be of much help in the fighting of a war, rather than in warning all mankind to avert it." (Quotation: Samuel Cohen, Shame, 2nd ed., 2005, page 99.)

‘The Hungarian revolution of October and November 1956 demonstrated the difficulty faced even by a vastly superior army in attempting to dominate hostile territory. The [Soviet Union] Red Army finally had to concentrate twenty-two divisions in order to crush a practically unarmed population. ... With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears when we think of [World War II nuclear city bombing like Hiroshima]. The high casualty estimates for nuclear war are based on the assumption that the most suitable targets are those of conventional warfare: cities to interdict communications ... With cities no longer serving as key elements in the communications system of the military forces, the risks of initiating city bombing may outweigh the gains which can be achieved. ...

‘The elimination of area targets will place an upper limit on the size of weapons it will be profitable to use. Since fall-out becomes a serious problem [i.e. fallout contaminated areas which are so large that thousands of people would need to evacuate or shelter indoors for up to two weeks] only in the range of explosive power of 500 kilotons and above, it could be proposed that no weapon larger than 500 kilotons will be employed unless the enemy uses it first. Concurrently, the United States could take advantage of a new development which significantly reduces fall-out by eliminating the last stage of the fission-fusion-fission process.’

- Dr Henry Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, Harper, New York, 1957, pp. 180-3, 228-9. (Note that sometimes the "nuclear taboo" issue is raised against this analysis by Kissenger: if anti-nuclear lying propaganda on weapons effects makes it apparently taboo in the Western pro-Russian disarmament lobbies to escalate from conventional to tactical nuclear weapons to end war as on 6 and 9 August 1945, then this "nuclear taboo" can be relied upon to guarantee peace for our time. However, this was not only disproved by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but by the Russian tactical nuclear weapons reliance today, the Russian civil defense shelter system detailed on this blog which showed they believed a nuclear war survivable based on the results of their own nuclear tests, and the use of Russian nuclear weapons years after Kissinger's analysis was published and criticised, for example their 50 megaton test in 1961 and their supply of IRBM's capable of reaching East Coast mainland USA targets to the fanatical Cuban dictatorship in 1962. So much for the "nuclear taboo" as being any more reliable than Chamberlain's "peace for our time" document, co-signed by Hitler on 30 September 1938! We furthermore saw how Russia respected President Obama's "red line" for the "chemical weapons taboo": Russia didn't give a toss about Western disarmament thugs prattle about what they think is a "taboo", Russia used chlorine and sarin in Syria to keep Assad the dictator and they used Novichok to attack and kill in the UK in 2018, with only diplomatic expulsions in response. "Taboos" are no more valid to restrain madmen than peace treaties, disarmament agreements, Western CND books attacking civil defense or claiming that nuclear war is the new 1930s gas war bogyman, or "secret" stamps on scientific facts. In a word, they're crazy superstitions.)

(Quoted in 2006 on this blog here.)

All of this data should have been published to inform public debate on the basis for credible nuclear deterrence of war and civil defense, PREVENTING MILLIONS OF DEATHS SINCE WWII, instead of DELIBERATELY allowing enemy anti-nuclear and anti-civil defence lying propaganda from Russian supporting evil fascists to fill the public data vacuum, killing millions by allowing civil defence and war deterrence to be dismissed by ignorant "politicians" in the West, so that wars triggered by invasions with mass civilian casualties continue today for no purpose other than to promote terrorist agendas of hate and evil arrogance and lying for war, falsely labelled "arms control and disarmament for peace":

"Controlling escalation is really an exercise in deterrence, which means providing effective disincentives to unwanted enemy actions. Contrary to widely endorsed opinion, the use or threat of nuclear weapons in tactical operations seems at least as likely to check [as Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as to promote the expansion of hostilities [providing we're not in a situation of Russian biased arms control and disarmament whereby we've no tactical weapons while the enemy has over 2000 neutron bombs thanks to "peace" propaganda from Russian thugs]." - Bernard Brodie, pvi of Escalation and the nuclear option, RAND Corp memo RM-5444-PR, June 1965.

ABOVE: Example of a possible Russian 1985 1st Cold War SLBM first strike plan. The initial use of Russian SLBM launched nuclear missiles from off-coast against command and control centres (i.e. nuclear explosions to destroy warning satellite communications centres by radiation on satellites as well as EMP against ground targets, rather than missiles launched from Russia against cities, as assumed by 100% of the Cold War left-wing propaganda) is allegedly a Russian "fog of war" strategy. Such a "demonstration strike" is aimed essentially at causing confusion about what is going on, who is responsible - it is not quick or easy to finger-print high altitude bursts fired by SLBM's from submerged submarines to a particular country because you don't get fallout samples to identify isotopic plutonium composition. Russia could immediately deny the attack (implying, probably to the applause of the left-wingers that this was some kind of American training exercise or computer based nuclear weapons "accident", similar to those depicted in numerous anti-nuclear Cold War propaganda films). Thinly-veiled ultimatums and blackmail follow. America would not lose its population or even key cities in such a first strike (contrary to left-wing propaganda fiction), as with Pearl Harbor in 1941; it would lose its complacency and its sense of security through isolationism, and would either be forced into a humiliating defeat or a major war.

Before 1941, many warned of the risks but were dismissed on the basis that Japan was a smaller country with a smaller economy than the USA and war was therefore absurd (similar to the way Churchill's warnings about European dictators were dismissed by "arms-race opposing pacifists" not only in the 1930s, but even before WWI; for example Professor Cyril Joad documents in the 1939 book "Why War?" his first hand witnessing of Winston Churchill's pre-WWI warning and call for an arms-race to deter that war, as dismissed by the sneering Norman Angell who claimed an arms race would cause a war rather than avert one by bankrupting the terrorist state). It is vital to note that there is an immense pressure against warnings of Russian nuclear superiority even today, most of it contradictory. E.g. the left wing and Russian-biased "experts" whose voices are the only ones reported in the Western media (traditionally led by "Scientific American" and "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"), simultaneously claim Russia imposes such a terrible SLBM and ICBM nuclear threat that we must desperately disarm now, while also claiming that Russian tactical nuclear weapons probably won't work so aren't a threat that needs to be credibly deterred! This only makes sense as Russian siding propaganda. In similar vein, Teller-critic Hans Bethe also used to falsely "dismiss" Russian nuclear superiority by claiming (with quotes from Brezhnev about the peaceful intentions of Russia) that Russian delivery systems are "less accurate" than Western missiles (as if accuracy has anything to do with high altitude EMP strikes, where the effects cover huge areas, or large city targets. Such claims would then by repeatedly endlessly in the Western media by Russian biased "journalists" or agents of influence, and any attempt to point out the propaganda (i.e. he real world asymmetry: Russia uses cheap countervalue targetting on folk that don't have civil defense, whereas we need costly, accurate counterforce targetting because Russia has civil defense shelters that we don't have) became a "Reds under beds" argument, implying that the truth is dangerous to "peaceful coexistence"!

“Free peoples ... will make war only when driven to it by tyrants. ... there have been no wars between well-established democracies. ... the probability ... that the absence of wars between well-established democracies is a mere accident [is] less than one chance in a thousand. ... there have been more than enough to provide robust statistics ... When toleration of dissent has persisted for three years, but not until then, we can call a new republic ‘well established.’ ... Time and again we observe authoritarian leaders ... using coercion rather than seeking mutual accommodation ... Republican behaviour ... in quite a few cases ... created an ‘appeasement trap.’ The republic tried to accommodate a tyrant as if he were a fellow republican; the tyrant concluded that he could safely make an aggressive response; eventually the republic replied furiously with war. The frequency of such errors on both sides is evidence that negotiating styles are not based strictly on sound reasoning.” - Spencer Weart, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (Yale University Press)

The Top Secret American intelligency report NIE 11-3/8-74 "Soviet Forces for Intercontinental Conflict" warned on page 6: "the USSR has largely eliminated previous US quantitative advantages in strategic offensive forces." page 9 of the report estimated that the Russian's ICBM and SLBM launchers exceed the USAs 1,700 during 1970, while Russia's on-line missile throw weight had exceeded the USA's one thousand tons back in 1967! Because the USA had more long-range bombers which can carry high-yield bombs than Russia (bombers are more vulnerable to air defences so were not Russia's priority), it took a little longer for Russia to exceed the USA in equivalent megatons, but the 1976 Top Secret American report NIE 11-3/8-76 at page 17 shows that in 1974 Russia exceeded the 4,000 equivalent-megatons payload of USA missiles and aircraft (with less vulnerability for Russia, since most of Russia's nuclear weapons were on missiles not in SAM-vulnerable aircraft), amd by 1976 Russia could deliver 7,000 tons of payload by missiles compared to just 4,000 tons on the USA side. These reports were kept secret for decades to protect the intelligence sources, but they were based on hard evidence. For example, in August 1974 the Hughes Aircraft Company used a specially designed ship (Glomar Explorer, 618 feet long, developed under a secret CIA contract) to recover nuclear weapons and their secret manuals from a Russian submarine which sank in 16,000 feet of water, while in 1976 America was able to take apart the electronics systems in a state-of-the-art Russian MIG-25 fighter which was flown to Japan by defector Viktor Belenko, discovering that it used exclusively EMP-hard miniature vacuum tubes with no EMP-vulnerable solid state components.

There are four ways of dealing with aggressors: conquest (fight them), intimidation (deter them), fortification (shelter against their attacks; historically used as castles, walled cities and even walled countries in the case of China's 1,100 mile long Great Wall and Hadrian's Wall, while the USA has used the Pacific and Atlantic as successful moats against invasion, at least since Britain invaded Washington D.C. back in 1812), and friendship (which if you are too weak to fight, means appeasing them, as Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler for worthless peace promises). These are not mutually exclusive: you can use combinations. If you are very strong in offensive capability and also have walls to protect you while your back is turned, you can - as Teddy Roosevelt put it (quoting a West African proverb): "Speak softly and carry a big stick." But if you are weak, speaking softly makes you a target, vulnerable to coercion. This is why we don't send troops directly to Ukraine. When elected in 1960, Kennedy introduced "flexible response" to replace Dulles' "massive retaliation", by addressing the need to deter large provocations without being forced to decide between the unwelcome options of "surrender or all-out nuclear war" (Herman Kahn called this flexible response "Type 2 Deterrence"). This was eroded by both Russian civil defense and their emerging superiority in the 1970s: a real missiles and bombers gap emerged in 1972 when the USSR reached and then exceeded the 2,200 of the USA, while in 1974 the USSR achieve parity at 3,500 equivalent megatons (then exceeded the USA), and finally today Russia has over 2,000 dedicated clean enhanced neutron tactical nuclear weapons and we have none (except low-neutron output B61 multipurpose bombs). (Robert Jastrow's 1985 book How to make nuclear Weapons obsolete was the first to have graphs showing the downward trend in nuclear weapon yields created by the development of miniaturized MIRV warheads for missiles and tactical weapons: he shows that the average size of US warheads fell from 3 megatons in 1960 to 200 kilotons in 1980, and from a total of 12,000 megatons in 1960 to 3,000 megatons in 1980.)

The term "equivalent megatons" roughly takes account of the fact that the areas of cratering, blast and radiation damage scale not linearly with energy but as something like the 2/3 power of energy release; but note that close-in cratering scales as a significantly smaller power of energy than 2/3, while blast wind drag displacement of jeeps in open desert scales as a larger power of energy than 2/3. Comparisons of equivalent megatonnage shows, for example, that WWII's 2 megatons of TNT in the form of about 20,000,000 separate conventional 100 kg (0.1 ton) explosives is equivalent to 20,000,000 x (10-7)2/3 = 431 separate 1 megaton explosions! The point is, nuclear weapons are not of a different order of magnitude to conventional warfare, because: (1) devastated areas don't scale in proportion to energy release, (2) the number of nuclear weapons is very much smaller than the number of conventional bombs dropped in conventional war, (3) because of radiation effects like neutrons and intense EMP, it is possible to eliminate physical destruction by nuclear weapons by a combination of weapon design (e.g. very clean bombs like 99.9% fusion Dominic-Housatonic, or 95% fusion Redwing-Navajo) and burst altitude or depth for hard targets, and create a weapon that deters invasions credibly (without lying local fallout radiation hazards), something none of the biased "pacifist disarmament" lobbies (which attract Russian support) tell you, and (4) people at collateral damage distances have time to take cover from radiation and flying glass, blast winds, etc from nuclear explosions (which they don't in Ukraine and Gaza where similar blast pressures arrive more rapidly from smaller conventional explosions). There's a big problem with propaganda here.

(These calculations, showing that even if strategic bombing had worked in WWII - and the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded it failed, thus the early Cold War effort to develop and test tactical nuclear weapons and train for tactical nuclear war in Nevada field exercises - you need over 400 megaton weapons to give the equivalent of WWII city destruction in Europe and Japan, are often inverted by anti-nuclear bigots to try to obfuscate the truth. What we're driving at is that nuclear weapons give you the ability to DETER the invasions that set off such wars, regardless of whether they escalate from poison gas - as feared in the 20s and 30s thus appeasement and WWII - or nuclear. Escalation was debunked in WWII where the only use of poison gases were in "peaceful" gas chambers, not dropped on cities. Rather than justifying appeasement, the "peaceful" massacre of millions in gas chambers justified war. But evil could and should have been deterred. The "anti-war" propagandarists like Lord Noel-Baker and pals who guaranteed immediate gas knockout blows in the 30s if we didn't appease evil dictators were never held to account and properly debunked by historians after the war, so they converted from gas liars to nuclear liars in the Cold War and went on winning "peace" prices for their lies, which multiplied up over the years, to keep getting news media headlines and Nobel Peace Prizes for starting and sustaining unnecessary wars and massacres by dictators. There's also a military side to this, with Field Marshall's Lord Mountbatten, lord Carver and lord Zuckerman in the 70s arguing for UK nuclear disarmament and a re-introduction of conscription instead. These guys were not pacifist CND thugs who wanted Moscow to rule the world, but they were quoted by them attacking the deterrent but not of course calling for conscription instead. The abolishment of UK conscription for national service in 1960 was due to the H-bomb, and was a political money-saving plot by Macmillan. If we disarmed our nuclear deterrent and spend the money on conscription plus underground shelters, we might well be able to resist Russia as Ukraine does, until we run out of ammunition etc. However, the cheapest and most credible deterrent is tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the concentration of aggressive force by terrorist states..)

Britain was initially in a better position with regards to civil defense than the USA, because in WWII Britain had built sufficient shelters (of various types, but all tested against blast intense enough to demolish brick houses, and later also tested them at various nuclear weapon trials in Monte Bello and Maralinga, Australia) and respirators for the entire civilian population. However, Britain also tried to keep the proof testing data secret from Russia (which tested their own shelters at their own nuclear tests anyway) and this meant it appeared that civil defense advice was unproved and would not work, an illusion exploited especially for communist propaganda in the UK via CND. To give just one example, CND and most of the UK media still rely on Duncan Campbell's pseudo-journalism book War Plan UK since it is based entirely on fake news about UK civil defense, nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, fallout, blast, etc. He takes for granted that - just because the UK Government kept the facts secret - the facts don't exist, and to him any use of nuclear weapons which spread any radioactivity whatsoever will make life totally impossible: "What matters 'freedom' or 'a way of life' in a radioactive wasteland?" (Quote from D. Campbell, War Plan UK, Paladin Books, May 1983, p387.) The problem here is the well known fallout decay rate; Trinity nuclear test ground zero was reported by Glasstone (Effects of Atomic Weapons, 1950) to be at 8,000 R/hr at 1 hour after burst, yet just 57 days later, on September 11, 1945, General Groves, Robert Oppenheimer, and a large group of journalists safely visited it and took their time inspecting the surviving tower legs, when the gamma dose rate was down to little more than 1 R/hr! So fission products decay fast: 1,000 R/hr at 1 hour decays to 100 at 7 hours, 10 at 2 days, and just 1 at 2 weeks. So the "radioactive wasteland" is just as much a myth as any other nuclear "doomsday" fictional headline in the media. Nuclear weapons effects have always been fake news in the mainstream media: editors have always regarded facts as "boring copy". Higher yield tests showed that even the ground zero crater "hot spots" were generally lower, due to dispersal by the larger mushroom cloud. If you're far downwind, you can simply walk cross-wind, or prepare an improvised shelter while the dust is blowing. But point any such errors out to fanatical bigots and they will just keep making up more nonsense.

Duncan Campbell's War Plan UK relies on the contradiction of claiming that the deliberately exaggerated UK Government worst-case civil defense "exercises" for training purposes are "realistic scenarios" (e.g. 1975 Inside Right, 1978 Scrum Half, 1980 Square Leg, 1982 Hard Rock planning), while simultaneously claiming the very opposite about reliable UK Government nuclear effects and sheltering effectiveness data, and hoping nobody would spot his contradictory tactics. He quotes extensively from these lurid worst-case scenario UK civil defense exercises ,as if they are factually defensible rather than imaginary fiction to put planners under the maximum possible stress (standard UK military policy of “Train hard to fight easy”), while ignoring the far more likely limited nuclear uses scenario of Sir John Hackett's Third World War. His real worry is the 1977 UK Government Training Manual for Scientific Advisers which War Plan UK quotes on p14: "a potential threat to the security of the United Kingdom arising from acts of sabotage by enemy agents, possibly assisted by dissident groups. ... Their aim would be to weaken the national will and ability to fight. ... Their significance should not be underestimated." On the next page, War Plan UK quotes J. B. S. Haldane's 1938 book Air Raid Precautions (ARP) on the terrible destruction Haldane witnessed on unprotected people in the Spanish civil war, without even mentioning that Haldane's point is pro-civil defense, pro-shelters, and anti-appeasement of dictatorship, the exact opposite of War Plan UK which wants Russia to run the world. On page 124 War Plan UK the false assertion is made that USA nuclear casualty data is "widely accepted" and true (declassified Hiroshima casaulty data for people in modern concrete buildings proves it to be lies) while the correct UK nuclear casualty data is "inaccurate", and on page 126, Duncan Campbell simply lies that the UK Government's Domestic Nuclear Shelters- Technical Guidance "ended up offering the public a selection of shelters half of which were invented in the Blitz ... None of the designs was ever tested." In fact, Frank Pavry (who studied similar shelters surviving near ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 with the British Mission to Japan_ and George R. Stanbury tested 15 Anderson shelters at the first UK nuclear explosion, Operation Hurricane in 1952, together with concrete structures, and many other improvised trench and earth-covered shelters were nuclear tested by USA and UK at trials in 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, and later at simulated nuclear explosions by Cresson Kearny of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA, having also earlier been exposed to early Russian nuclear tests (scroll down to see the evidence of this). Improved versions of war tested and nuclear weapons tested shelters! So war Plan UK makes no effort whatsoever to dig up the facts, and instead falsely claims the exact opposite of the plain unvarnished truth! War Plan UK shows its hypocrisy on page 383 in enthusiastically praising Russian civil defense:

"Training in elementary civil defence is given to everyone, at school, in industry or collective farms. A basic handbook of precautionary measures, Everybody must know this!, is the Russian Protect and Survive. The national civil defence corps is extensive, and is organized along military lines. Over 200,000 civil defence troops would be mobilized for rescue work in war. There are said to be extensive, dispersed and 'untouchable' food stockpiles; industrial workers are issued with kits of personal protection apparatus, said to include nerve gas counteragents such as atropine. Fallout and blast shelters are provided in the cities and in industrial complexes, and new buildings have been required to have shelters since the 1950s. ... They suggest that less than 10% - even as little as 5% - of the Soviet population would die in a major attack. [Less than Russia's loss of 12% of its population in WWII.]"

'LLNL achieved fusion ignition for the first time on Dec. 5, 2022. The second time came on July 30, 2023, when in a controlled fusion experiment, the NIF laser delivered 2.05 MJ of energy to the target, resulting in 3.88 MJ of fusion energy output, the highest yield achieved to date. On Oct. 8, 2023, the NIF laser achieved fusion ignition for the third time with 1.9 MJ of laser energy resulting in 2.4 MJ of fusion energy yield. “We’re on a steep performance curve,” said Jean-Michel Di Nicola, co-program director for the NIF and Photon Science’s Laser Science and Systems Engineering organization. “Increasing laser energy can give us more margin against issues like imperfections in the fuel capsule or asymmetry in the fuel hot spot. Higher laser energy can help achieve a more stable implosion, resulting in higher yields.” ... “The laser itself is capable of higher energy without fundamental changes to the laser,” said NIF operations manager Bruno Van Wonterghem. “It’s all about the control of the damage. Too much energy without proper protection, and your optics blow to pieces.” ' - https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/llnls-nif-delivers-record-laser-energy

NOTE: the "problem" very large lasers "required" to deliver ~2MJ (roughly 0.5 kg of TNT energy) to cause larger fusion explosions of 2mm diameter capsules of frozen D+T inside a 1 cm diameter energy reflecting hohlraum, and the "problem" of damage to the equipment caused by the explosions, is immaterial to clean nuclear deterrent development based on this technology, because in a clean nuclear weapon, whatever laser or other power ignition system is used only has to be fired once, so it needs to be less robust than the NIF lasers which are used repeatedly. Similarly, damage done to the system by the explosion is also immaterial for a clean nuclear weapon, in which the weapon is detonated once only! This is exactly the same point which finally occurred during a critical review of the first gun-type assembly nuclear weapon, in which the fact it would only ever be fired once (unlike a field artillery gun) enabled huge reductions in the size of the device, into a practical weapon, as described by General Leslie M. Groves on p163 of his 1962 book Now it can be told: the story of the Manhattan Project:

"Out of the Review Committee's work came one important technical contribution when Rose pointed out ... that the durability of the gun was quite immaterial to success, since it would be destroyed in the explosion anyway. Self-evident as this seemed once it was mentioned, it had not previously occurred to us. Now we could make drastic reductions in ... weight and size."

This principle also applies to weaponizing NIF clean fusion explosion technology. General Groves' book was reprinted in 1982 with a useful Introduction by Edward Teller on the nature of nuclear weapons history: "History in some ways resembles the relativity principle in science. What is observed depends on the observer. Only when the perspective of the observer is known, can proper corrections be made. ... The general ... very often managed to ignore complexity and arrive at a result which, if not ideal, at least worked. ... For Groves, the Manhattan project seemed a minor assignment, less significant than the construction of the Pentagon. He was deeply disappointed at being given the job of supervising the development of an atomic weapon, since it deprived him of combat duty. ... We must find ways to encourage mutual understanding and significant collaboration between those who defend their nation with their lives and those who can contribute the ideas to make that defense successful. Only by such cooperation can we hope that freedom will survive, that peace will be preserved."

General Groves similarly comments in Chapter 31, "A Final Word" of Now it can be told:

"No man can say what would have been the result if we had not taken the steps ... Yet, one thing seems certain - atomic energy would have been developed somewhere in the world ... I do not believe the United States ever would have undertaken it in time of peace. Most probably, the first developer would have been a power-hungry nation, which would then have dominated the world completely ... it is fortunate indeed for humanity that the initiative in this field was gained and kept by the United States. That we were successful was due entirely to the hard work and dedication of the more than 600,000 Americans who comprised and directly supported the Manhattan Project. ... we had the full backing of our government, combined with the nearly infinite potential of American science, engineering and industry, and an almost unlimited supply of people endowed with ingenuity and determination."

Update: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's $3.5 billion National Ignition Facility, NIF, using ultraviolet wavelength laser beam pulses of 2MJ on to a 2mm diameter spherical beryllium shell of frozen D+T inside a 1 cm-long hollow gold cylinder "hohlraum" (which is heated to a temperature where it then re-radiates energy at much higher frequency, x-rays, on to the surface of the beryllium ablator of the central fusion capsule, which ablates causing it to recoil inward (as for the 1962 Ripple II nuclear weapon's secondary stage, the capsule is compressed efficiently, mimicking the isentropic compression mechanism of a miniature Ripple II clean nuclear weapon secondary stage), has now repeatedly achieved nuclear fusion explosions of over 3MJ, equivalent to nearly 1 kg of TNT explosive. According to a Time article (linked her) about fusion system designer Annie Kritcher, the recent breakthrough was in part due to using a ramping input energy waveform: "success that came thanks to tweaks including shifting more of the input energy to the later part of the laser shot", a feature that minimises the rise in entropy due to shock shock wave generation (which heats the capsule, causing it to expand and resist compression) and increases isentropic compression which was the principle used by LLNL's J. H. Nuckolls to achieve the 99.9% clean Ripple II 9.96 megaton nuclear test success in Dominic-Housatonic on 30 October 1962. Nuckolls in 1972 published the equation for the idealized input power waveform required for isentropic, optimized compression of fusion fuel (Nature, v239, p139): P ~ (1 - t)-1.875, where t is time in units of the transit time (the time taken for the shock to travel to the centre of the fusion capsule), and -1.875 a constant based on the specific heat of the ionized fuel (Nuckolls has provided the basic declassified principles, see extract linked here). To be clear, the energy reliably released by the 2mm diameter capsule of fusion fuel was roughly a 1 kg TNT explosion. 80% of this is in the form of 14.1 MeV neutrons (ideal for fissioning lithium-7 in LiD to yield more tritium), and 20% is the kinetic energy of fused nuclei (which is quickly converted into x-rays radiation energy by collisions). Nuckolls' 9.96 megaton Housatonic (10 kt Kinglet primary and 9.95 Mt Ripple II 100% clean isentropically compressed secondary) of 1962 proved that it is possible to use multiplicative staging whereby lower yield primary nuclear explosions trigger off a fusion stage 1,000 times more powerful than its initiator. Another key factor, as shown on our ggraph linked here, is that you can use cheap natural LiD as fuel once you have a successful D+T reaction, because naturally abundant, cheap Li-7 more readily fissions to yield tritium with the 14.1 MeV neutrons from D+T fusion, than expensively enriched Li-6, which is needed to make tritium in nuclear reactors where the fission neutron energy of around 1 MeV is too low to to fission Li-7. It should also be noted that despite an openly published paper about Nuckolls' Ripple II success being stymied in 2021 by Jon Grams, the subject is still being covered up/ignored by the anti-nuclear biased Western media! Grams article fails to contain the design details such as the isentropic power delivery curve etc from Nuckolls' declassified articles that we include in the latest blog post here. One problem regarding "data" causing continuing confusion about the Dominic-Housatonic 30 October 1962 Ripple II test at Christmas Island, is made clear in the DASA-1211 report's declassified summary of the sizes, weights and yields of those tests: Housatonic was Nuckolls' fourth and final isentropic test, with the nuclear system inserted into a heavy steel Mk36 drop case, making the overall size 57.2 inches in diameter, 147.9 long and 7,139.55 lb mass, i.e. 1.4 kt/lb or 3.0 kt/kg yield-to-mass ratio for 9.96 Mt yield, which is not impressive for that yield range until you consider (a) that it was 99.9% fusion and (b) the isentropic design required a heavy holhraum around the large Ripple II fusion secondary stage to confine x-rays for relatively long time during which a slowly rising pulse of x-rays were delivered from the primary to secondary via a very large areas of foam elsewhere in the weapon, to produce isentropic compression.

Additionally, the test was made in a hurry before an atmospheric teat ban treaty, and this rushed use of a standard air drop steel casing made the tested weapon much heavier than a properly weaponized Ripple II. The key point is that a 10 kt fission device set off a ~10 Mt fusion explosion, a very clean deterrent. Applying this Ripple II 1,000-factor multiplicative staging figure directly to this technology for clean nuclear warheads, a 0.5 kg TNT D+T fusion capsule would set off a 0.5 ton TNT 2nd stage of LiD, which would then set off a 0.5 kt 3rd stage "neutron bomb", which could then be used to set off a 500 kt 4th stage or "strategic nuclear weapon". In practice, this multiplication factor of 1,000 given by Ripple II in 1962 from 10 kt to 10 Mt may not be immediately achievable to get from ~1 kg TNT yield to 1 ton TNT, so a few more tiny stages may be needed for the lower yield. But there is every reason to forecast that with enough research, improvements will be possible and the device will become a reality. It is therefore now possible not just in "theory" or in principle, but with evidence obtained from practical experimentation, using suitable already-proved technical staging systems used in 1960s nuclear weapon tests successfully, to design 100% clean fusion nuclear warheads! Yes, the details have been worked out, yes the technology has been tested in piecemeal fashion. All that is now needed is a new, but quicker and cheaper, Star Wars program or Manhattan Project style effort to pull the components together. This will constitute a major leap forward in the credibility of the deterrence of aggressors.

ABOVE: as predicted, the higher the input laser pulse for the D+T initiator of a clean multiplicatively-staged nuclear deterrent, the lower the effect of plasma instabilities and asymmetries and the greater the fusion burn. To get ignition (where the x-ray energy injected into the fusion hohlraum by the laser is less than the energy released in the D+T fusion burn) they have had to use about 2 MJ delivered in 10 ns or so, equivalent to 0.5 kg of TNT equivalent. But for deterrent use, why use such expensive, delicate lasers? Why not just use one-shot miniaturised x-ray tubes with megavolt electron acceleration, powered a suitably ramped pulse from a chemical explosion for magnetic flux compression current generation? At 10% efficiency, you need 0.5 x 10 = 5 kg of TNT! Even at 1% efficiency, 50 kg of TNT will do. Once the D+T gas capsule's hohlraum is well over 1 cm in size, to minimise the risk of imperfections that cause asymmetries, you don't any longer need focussed laser beams to enter tiny apertures. You might even be able to integrate many miniature flash x-ray tubes (each designed to burn out when firing one pulse of a MJ or so) into a special hohlraum. Humanity urgently needs a technological arms race akin to Reagan's Star Wars project, to deter the dictators from invasions and WWIII. In the conference video above, a question was asked about the real efficiency of the enormous repeat-pulse capable laser system's efficiency (not required for a nuclear weapon whose components only require the capability to be used once, unlike lab equipment): the answer is that 300 MJ was required by the lab lasers to fire a 2 MJ pulse into the D+T capsule's x-ray hohlraum, i.e. their lasers are only 0.7% efficient! So why bother? We know - from the practical use of incoherent fission primary stage x-rays to compress and ignite fusion capsules in nuclear weapons - that you simply don't need coherent photons from a laser for this purpose. The sole reason they are approaching the problem with lasers is that they began their lab experiments decades ago with microscopic sized fusion capsules and for those you need a tightly focussed beam to insert energy through a tiny hohlraum aperture. But now they are finally achieving success with much larger fusion capsules (to minimise instabilities that caused the early failures), it may be time to change direction. A whole array of false "no-go theorems" can and will be raised by ignorant charlatan "authorities" against any innovation; this is the nature of the political world. There is some interesting discussion of why clean bombs aren't in existence today, basically the idealized theory (which works fine for big H-bombs but ignores small-scale asymmetry problems which are important only at low ignition energy) understimated the input energy required for fusion ignition by a factor of 2000:

The early calculations on ICF (inertial-confinement fusion) by John Nuckolls in 1972 had estimated that ICF might be achieved with a driver energy as low as 1 kJ. ... In order to provide reliable experimental data on the minimum energy required for ignition, a series of secret experiments—known as Halite at Livermore and Centurion at Los Alamos—was carried out at the nuclear weapons test site in Nevada between 1978 and 1988. The experiments used small underground nuclear explosions to provide X-rays of sufficiently high intensity to implode ICF capsules, simulating the manner in which they would be compressed in a hohlraum. ... the Halite/Centurion results predicted values for the required laser energy in the range 20 to 100MJ—higher than the predictions ..." - Garry McCracken and Peter Stott, Fusion, Elsevier, 2nd ed., p149.

In the final diagram above, we illustrate an example of what could very well occur in the near future, just to really poke a stick into the wheels of "orthodoxy" in nuclear weapons design: is it possible to just use a lot of (perhaps hardened for higher currents, perhaps no) pulsed current driven microwave tubes from kitchen microwave ovens, channelling their energy using waveguides (simply metal tubes, i.e. electrical Faraday cages, which reflect and thus contain microwaves) into the hohlraum, and make the pusher of dipole molecules (like common salt, NaCl) which is a good absorber of microwaves (as everybody knows from cooking in microwave ovens)? It would be extremely dangerous, not to mention embarrassing, if this worked, but nobody had done any detailed research into the possibility due to groupthink orthodoxy and conventional boxed in thinking! Remember, the D+T capsule just needs extreme compression and this can be done by any means that works. Microwave technology is now very well-established. It's no good trying to keep anything of this sort "secret" (either officially or unofficially) since as history shows, dictatorships are the places where "crackpot"-sounding ideas (such as douple-primary Project "49" Russian thermonuclear weapon designs, Russian Sputnik satellites, Russian Novichok nerve agent, Nazi V1 cruise missiles, Nazi V2 IRBM's, etc.) can be given priority by loony dictators. We have to avoid, as Edward Teller put it (in his secret commentary debunking Bethe's false history of the H-bomb, written AFTER the Teller-Ulam breakthrough), "too-narrow" thinking (which Teller said was still in force on H-bomb design even then). Fashionable hardened orthodoxy is the soft underbelly of "democracy" (a dictatorship by the majority, which is always too focussed on fashionable ideas and dismissive of alternative approaches in science and technology). Dictatorships (minorities against majorities) have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of concern for the fake "no-go theorems" used by Western anti-nuclear "authorities" to ban anything but fashionable groupthink science.

ABOVE: 1944-dated film of the Head of the British Mission to Los Alamos, neutron discoverer James Chadwick, explaining in detail to American how hard it was for him to discover the neutron, taking 10 years on a shoe-string budget, mostly due to having insufficiently strong sources of alpha particles to bombard nuclei in a cloud chamber! The idea of the neutron came from his colleague Rutherford. Chadwick reads his explanation while rapidly rotating a pencil in his right hand, perhaps indicating the stress he was under in 1944. In 1946, when British participation at Los Alamos ended, Chadwick wrote the first detailed secret British report on the design of a three-stage hydrogen bomb, another project that took over a decade. In the diagram below, it appears that the American Mk17 only had a single secondary stage like the similar yield 1952 Mike design. The point here is that popular misunderstanding of the simple mechanism of x-ray energy transfer for higher yield weapons may be creating a dogmatic attitude even in secret nuclear weaponeer design labs, where orthodoxy is followed too rigorously. The Russians (see quotes on the latest blog post here) state they used two entire two-stage thermonuclear weapons with a combined yield of 1 megaton to set off their 50 megaton test in 1961. If true, you can indeed use two-stage hydrogen bombs as an "effective primary" to set off another secondary stage, of much higher yield. Can this be reversed in the sense of scaling it down so you have several bombs-within-bombs, all triggered by a really tiny first stage? In other words, can it be applied to neutron bomb design?

ABOVE: 16 kt at 600m altitude nuclear explosion on a city, Hiroshima ground zero (in foreground) showing modern concrete buildings surviving nearby (unlike the wooden ones that mostly burned at the peak of the firestorm 2-3 hours after survivors had evacuated), in which people were shielded from most of the radiation and blast winds, as they were in simple shelters.

The 1946 Report of the British Mission to Japan, The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compiled by a team of 16 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during November 1945, which included 10 UK Home Office civil defence experts (W. N. Thomas, J. Bronowski, D. C. Burn, J. B. Hawker, H. Elder, P. A. Badland, R. W. Bevan, F. H. Pavry, F. Walley, O. C. Young, S. Parthasarathy, A. D. Evans, O. M. Solandt, A. E. Dark, R. G. Whitehead and F. G. S. Mitchell) found: "Para. 26. Reinforced concrete buildings of very heavy construction in Hiroshima, even when within 200 yards of the centre of damage, remained structurally undamaged. ... Para 28. These observations make it plain that reinforced concrete framed buildings can resist a bomb of the same power detonated at these heights, without employing fantastic thicknesses of concrete. ... Para 40. The provision of air raid shelters throughout Japan was much below European standards. ... in Hiroshima ... they were semi-sunk, about 20 feet long, had wooden frames, and 1.5-2 feet of earth cover. ... Exploding so high above them, the bomb damaged none of these shelters. ... Para 42. These observations show that the standard British shelters would have performed well against a bomb of the same power exploded at such a height. Anderson shelters, properly erected and covered, would have given protection. Brick or concrete surfac shelters with adequate reinforcement would have remained safe from collapse. The Morrison shelter is designed only to protect its occupants from the refuge load of a house, and this it would have done. Deep shelters such as the refuge provided by the London Underground would have given complete protection. ... Para 60. Buildings and walls gave complete protection from flashburn."

Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons in Table 12.21 on p547 flunks making this point by giving data without citing its source to make it credible to readers: it correlated 14% mortality (106 killed out of 775 people in Hiroshima's Telegraph Office) to "moderate damage" at 500m in Hiroshima (the uncited "secret" source was NP-3041, Table 12, applying to unwarned people inside modern concrete buildings).

"A weapon whose basic design would seem to provide the essence of what Western morality has long sought for waging classical battlefield warfare - to keep the war to a struggle between the warriors and exclude the non-combatants and their physical assets - has been violently denounced, precisely because it achieves this objective." - Samuel T. Cohen (quoted in Chapman Pincher, The secret offensive, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1985, Chapter 15: The Neutron Bomb Offensive, p210).

The reality is, dedicated enhanced neutron tactical nuclear weapons were used to credibly deter the concentrations of force required for triggering of WWIII during the 1st Cold War, and the thugs who support Russian propaganda for Western disarmament got rid of them on our side, but not on the Russian side. Air burst neutron bombs or even as subsurface earth penetrators of relatively low fission yield (where the soil converts energy that would otherwise escape as blast and radiation into ground shock for destroying buried tunnels - new research on cratering shows that a 20 kt subsurface burst creates similar effects on buried hard targets as a 1 Mt surface burst), they cause none of the vast collateral damage to civilians that we see now in Ukraine and Gaza, or that we saw in WWII and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. This is 100% contrary to CND propaganda which is a mixture of lying on nuclear explosion collateral damage, escalation/knockout blow propaganda (of the type used to start WWII by appeasers) and lying on the designs of nuclear weapons in order to ensure the Western side (but not the thugs) gets only incredible "strategic deterrence" that can't deter the invasions that start world wars (e.g. Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939.) "Our country entered into an agreement in Budapest, Hungary when the Soviet Union was breaking up that we would guarantee the independence of Ukraine." - Tom Ramos. There really is phoney nuclear groupthink left agenda politics at work here: credible relatively clean tactical nuclear weapons are banned in the West but stocked by Russia, which has civil defense shelters to make its threats far more credible than ours! We need low-collateral damage enhanced-neutron and earth-penetrator options for the new Western W93 warhead, or we remain vulnerable to aggressive coercion by thugs, and invite invasions. Ambiguity, the current policy ("justifying" secrecy on just what we would do in any scenario) actually encourages experimental provocations by enemies to test what we are prepared to do (if anything), just as it did in 1914 and the 1930s.

ABOVE: 0.2 kt (tactical yield range) Ruth nuclear test debris, with lower 200 feet of the 300 ft steel tower surviving in Nevada, 1953. Note that the yield of the tactical invasion-deterrent Mk54 Davy Crockett was only 0.02 kt, 10 times less than than 0.2 kt Ruth.

It should be noted that cheap and naive "alternatives" to credible deterrence of war were tried in the 1930s and during the Cold War and afterwards, with disastrous consequences. Heavy "peaceful" oil sanctions and other embargoes against Japan for its invasion of China between 1931-7 resulted in the plan for the Pearl Harbor surprise attack of 7 December 1941, with subsequent escalation to incendiary city bombing followed nuclear warfare against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Attlee's pressure on Truman to guarantee no use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Korean War (leaked straight to Stalin by the Cambridge Spy Ring), led to an escalation of that war causing the total devastation of the cities of that country by conventional bombing (a sight witnessed by Sam Cohen, that motivated his neutron bomb deterrent of invasions), until Eisenhower was elected and reversed Truman's decision, leading not to the "escalatory Armageddon" assertions of Attlee, but to instead to a peaceful armistice! Similarly, as Tom Ramos argues in From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Kennedy's advisers who convinced him to go ahead with the moonlit 17 April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba without any USAF air support, which led to precisely what they claimed they would avoid: an escalation of aggression from Russia in Berlin, with the Berlin Wall going up on 17 August 1961 because any showing weakness to an enemy, as in the bungled invasion of Cuba, is always a green light to dictators to go ahead with revolutions, invasions and provocations everywhere else. Rather than the widely hyped autistic claims from disarmers and appeasers about "weakness bringing peace by demonstrating to the enemy that they have nothing to fear from you", the opposite result always occurs. The paranoid dictator seizes the opportunity to strike first. Similarly, withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021 was a clear green light to Russia to go ahead with a full scale invasion of Ukraine, reigniting the Cold War. von Neumann and Morgenstein's Minimax theorem for winning games - minimise the maximum possible loss - fails with offensive action in war because it sends a signal of weakness to the enemy, which does not treat war as a game with rules to be obeyed. Minimax is only valid for defense, such as civil defense shelters used by Russia to make their threats more credible than ours. The sad truth is that cheap fixes don't work, no matter how much propaganda is behind them. You either need to militarily defeat the enemy or at least economically defeat them using proven Cold War arms race techniques (not merely ineffective sanctions, which they can bypass by making alliances with Iran, North Korea, and China). Otherwise, you are negotiating peace from a position of weakness, which is called appeasement, or collaboration with terrorism.

"Following the war, the Navy Department was intent to see the effects of an atomic blast on naval warships ... the press was invited to witness this one [Crossroads-Able, 23.5 kt at 520 feet altitude, 1 July 1946, Bikini Atoll]. ... The buildup had been too extravagant. Goats that had been tethered on warship decks were still munching their feed, and the atoll's palm trees remained standing, unscathed. The Bikini test changed public attitudes. Before July 1, the world stood in awe of a weapon that had devastated two cities and forced the Japanese Empire to surrender. After that date, the bomb was still a terrible weapon, but a limited one." - Tom Ramos (LLNL nuclear weaponeer and nuclear pumped X-ray laser developer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Prevent Nuclear War, Naval Institute Press, 2022, pp43-4.

ABOVE: 16 February 1950 Daily Express editorial on H Bomb problem due to the fact that the UN is another virtue signalling but really war mongering League of Nations (which oversaw Nazi appeasement and the outbreak of WWII); however Fuchs had attended the April 1946 Super Conference during which the Russian version of the H-bomb involving isentropic radiation implosion of a separate low-density fusion stage (unlike Teller's later dense metal ablation rocket implosion secondary TX14 Alarm Clock and Sausage designs) were discussed and then given to Russia. The media was made aware only that Fuchs hade given the fission bomb to Russia. The FBI later visited Fuchs in British jail, showed him a film of Harry Gold (whom Fuchs identified as his contact while at Los Alamos) and also gave Fuchs a long list of secret reports to mark off individually so that they knew precisely what Stalin had been given. Truman didn't order H-bomb research and development because Fuchs gave Stalin the A-bomb, but because he gave them the H-bomb. The details of the Russian H-bomb are still being covered up by those who want a repetition of 1930s appeasement, or indeed the deliberate ambiguity of the UK Cabinet in 1914 which made it unclear what the UK would do if Germany invaded Belgium, allowing the enemy to exploit that ambiguity, starting a world war. The key fact usually covered up (Richard Rhodes, Chuck Hansen, and the whole American "expert nuclear arms community" all misleadingly claim that Teller's Sausage H-bomb design with a single primary and a dense ablator around a cylindrical secondary stage - uranium, lead or tungsten - is the "hydrogen bomb design") here is that two attendees of the April 1946 Super Conference, the report author Egon Bretscher and the radiation implosion discoverer Klaus Fuchs - were British, and both contributed key H-bomb design principles to the Russian and British weapons (discarded for years by America). Egon Bretscher for example wrote up the Super Conference report, during which attendees suggested various ways to try to achieve isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel (a concept discarded by Teller's 1951 Sausage design, but used by Russia and re-developed in America on Nuckolls 1962 Ripple tests), and after Teller left Los Alamos, Bretscher took over work on Teller's Alarm Clock layered fission-fusion spherical hybrid device before Bretscher himself left Los Alamos and became head of nuclear physics at Harwell, UK,, submitting UK report together with Fuchs (head of theoretical physics at Harwell) which led to Sir James Chadwick's UK paper on a three-stage thermonuclear Super bomb which formed the basis of Penney's work at the UK Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. While Bretscher had worked on Teller's hybrid Alarm Clock (which originated two months after Fuchs left Los Alamos), Fuchs co-authored a hydrogen bomb patent with John von Neumann, in which radiation implosion and ionization implosion was used. Between them, Bretscher and Fuchs had all the key ingredients. Fuchs leaked them to Russia and the problem persists today in international relations.

ILLUSTRATION: the threat of WWII and the need to deter it was massively derided by popular pacifism which tended to make "jokes" of the Nazi threat until too late (example of 1938 UK fiction on this above; Charlie Chaplin's film "The Great Dictator" is another example), so three years after the Nuremberg Laws and five years after illegal rearmament was begun by the Nazis, in the UK crowds of "pacifists" in Downing Street, London, support friendship with the top racist, dictatorial Nazis in the name of "world peace". The Prime Minister used underhand techniques to try to undermine appeasement critics like Churchill and also later to get W. E. Johns fired from both editorships of Flying (weekly) and Popular Flying (monthly) to make it appear everybody "in the know" agreed with his actions, hence the contrived "popular support" for collaborating with terrorists depicted in these photos. The same thing persists today; the 1920s and 1930s "pacifist" was also driven by "escalation" and "annihilation" claims explosions, fire and WMD poison gas will kill everybody in a "knockout blow", immediately any war breaks out.

Update (4 January 2024): on the important world crisis, https://vixra.org/abs/2312.0155 gives a detailed review of "Britain and the H-bomb" (linked here), and why the "nuclear deterrence issue" isn't about "whether we should deter evil", but precisely what design of nuclear warhead we should have in order to do that cheaply, credibly, safely, and efficiently without guaranteeing either escalation or the failure of deterrence. When we disarmed our chemical and biological weapons, it was claimed that the West could easily deter those weapons using strategic nuclear weapons to bomb Moscow (which has shelters, unlike us). That failed when Putin used sarin and chlorine to prop up Assad in Syria, and Novichok in the UK to kill Dawn Sturgess in 2018. So it's just not a credible deterrent to say you will bomb Moscow if Putin invades Europe or uses his 2000 tactical nuclear weapons. An even more advanced deterrent, the 100% clean very low yield (or any yield) multiplicative staged design without any fissile material whatsoever, just around the corner. Clean secondary stages have been proof-tested successfully for example in the 100% clean Los Alamos Redwing Navajo secondary, and the 100% clean Ripple II secondary tested 30 October 1962, and the laser ignition of very tiny fusion capsules to yield more energy than supplied has been done on 5 December 2022 when a NIF test delivered 2.05 MJ (the energy of about 0.5 kg of TNT) to a fusion capsule which yielded 3.15 MJ, so all that is needed is to combine both ideas in a system whereby suitably sized second stages - ignited in the first place by a capacitative charged circuit sending a pulse of energy to a suitable laser system (the schematic shown is just a sketch of principle - more than one laser would possibly be required for reliability of fusion ignition) acting on tiny fusion capsule as shown - are encased to two-stage "effective primaries" which each become effective primaries of bigger systems, thus a geometric series of multiplicative staging until the desired yield is reached. Note that the actual tiny first T+D capsule can be compressed by one-shot lasers - compact lasers used way beyond their traditional upper power limit and burned out in a firing a single pulse - in the same way the gun assembly of the Hiroshima bomb was based on a one-shot gun. In other words, forget all about textbook gun design. The Hiroshima bomb gun assembly system only had to be fired once, unlike a field artillery piece which has to be ready to be fired many thousands of times (before metal fatigue/cracks set in). Thus, by analogy, the lasers - which can be powered by ramping current pulses from magnetic flux compressor systems - for use in a clean bomb will be much smaller and lighter than current lab gear which is designed to be used thousands of times in repeated experiments. The diagram below shows cylindrical Li6D stages throughout for a compact bomb shape, but spherical stages can be used, and once a few stages get fired, the flux of 14 MeV neutrons is sufficient to go to cheap natural LiD. To fit it into a MIRV warhead, the low density of LiD constrains such a clean warhead will have a low nuclear yield, which means a tactical neutron deterrent of the invasions that cause big wars; a conversion of incredible strategic deterrence into a more credible combined strategic-tactical deterrent of major provocations, not just direct attacks. It should also be noted that in 1944 von Neumann suggested that T + D inside the core of the fission weapon would be compressed by "ionization compression" during fission (where a higher density ionized plasma compresses a lower density ionized plasma, i.e. the D + T plasma), an idea that was - years later - named the Internal Booster principle by Teller; see Frank Close, "Trinity", Allen Lane, London, 2019, pp158-159 where Close argues that during the April 1946 Superbomb Conference, Fuchs extended von Neumann's 1944 internal fusion boosting idea to an external D + T filled BeO walled capsule:

"Fuchs reasoned that [the very low energy, 1-10 kev, approximately 10-100 lower energy than medical] x-rays from the [physically separated] uranium explosion would reach the tamper of beryllium oxide, heat it, ionize the constituents and cause them to implode - the 'ionization implosion' concept of von Neumann but now applied to deuterium and tritium contained within beryllium oxide. To keep the radiation inside the tamper, Fuchs proposed to enclose the device inside a casing impervious to radiation. The implosion induced by the radiation would amplify the compression ... and increase the chance of the fusion bomb igniting. The key here is 'separation of the atomic charge and thermonuclear fuel, and compression of the latter by radiation travelling from the former', which constitutes 'radiation implosion'." (This distinction between von Neumann's "ionization implosion" INSIDE the tamper, of denser tamper expanding and thus compressing lower density fusion fuel inside, and Fuchs' OUTSIDE capsule "radiation implosion", is key even today for isentropic H-bomb design; it seems Teller's key breakthroughs were not separate stages or implosion but rather radiation mirrors and ablative recoil shock compression, where radiation is used to ablate a dense pusher of Sausage designs like Mike in 1952 etc., a distinction not to be confused for the 1944 von Neumann and 1946 Fuchs implosion mechanisms!

It appears Russian H-bombs used von Neumann's "ionization implosion" and Fuchs's "radiation implosion" for RDS-37 on 22 November 1955 and also in their double-primary 23 February 1958 test and subsequently, where their fusion capsules reportedly contained a BeO or other low-density outer coating, which would lead to quasi-isentropic compression, more effective for low density secondary stages than purely ablative recoil shock compression. This accounts for the continuing classification of the April 1946 Superbomb Conference (the extract of 32 pages linked here is so severely redacted that it is less helpful than the brief but very lucid summary of its technical content, in the declassified FBI compilation of reports concerning data Klaus Fuchs sent to Stalin, linked here!). Teller had all the knowledge he needed in 1946, but didn't go ahead because he made the stupid error of killing progress off by his own "no-go theorem" against compression of fusion fuel. Teller did a "theoretical" calculation in which he claimed that compression has no effect on the amount of fusion burn because the compressed system is simply scaled down in size so that the same efficiency of fusion burn occurs, albeit faster, and then stops as the fuel thermally expands. This was wrong. Teller discusses the reason for his great error in technical detail during his tape-recorded interview by Chuck Hansen at Los Alamos on 7 June 1993 (C. Hansen, Swords of Armageddon, 2nd ed., pp. II-176-7):

"Now every one of these [fusion] processes varied with the square of density. If you compress the thing, then in one unit's volume, each of the 3 important processes increased by the same factor ... Therefore, compression (seemed to be) useless. Now when ... it seemed clear that we were in trouble, then I wanted very badly to find a way out. And it occurred to be than an unprecedentedly strong compression will just not allow much energy to go into radiation. Therefore, something had to be wrong with my argument and then, you know, within minutes, I knew what must be wrong ... [energy] emission occurs when an electron and a nucleus collide. Absorption does not occur when a light quantum and a nucleus ... or ... electron collide; it occurs when a light quantum finds an electron and a nucleus together ... it does not go with the square of the density, it goes with the cube of the density." (This very costly theoretical error, wasting five years 1946-51, could have been resolved by experimental nuclear testing. There is always a risk of this in theoretical physics, which is why experiments are done to check calculations before prizes are handed out. The ban on nuclear testing is a luddite opposition to technological progress in improving deterrence.)

(This 1946-51 theoretical "no-go theorem" anti-compression error of Teller's, which was contrary to the suggestion of compression at the April 1946 superbomb conference as Teller himself refers to on 14 August 1952, and which was corrected only by comparison of the facts about compression validity in pure fission cores in Feb '51 after Ulam's argument that month for fission core compression by lens focussed primary stage shock waves, did not merely lead to Teller's dismissal of vital compression ideas. It also led to his false equations - exaggerating the cooling effect of radiation emission - causing underestimates of fusion efficiency in all theoretical calculations done of fusion until 1951! For this reason, Teller later repudiated the calculations that allegedly showed his Superbomb would fizzle; he argued that if it had been tested in 1946, the detailed data obtained - regardless of whatever happened - would have at least tested the theory which would have led to rapid progress, because the theory was wrong. The entire basis of the cooling of fusion fuel by radiation leaking out was massively exaggerated until Lawrence Livermore weaponeer John Nuckolls showed that there is a very simple solution: use baffle re-radiated, softened x-rays for isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel, e.g. very cold 0.3 kev x-rays rather than the usual 1-10 kev cold-warm x-rays emitted directly from the fission primary. Since the radiation losses are proportional to the fourth-power of the x-ray energy or temperature, losses are virtually eliminated, allowing very efficient staging as for Nuckolls' 99.9% 10 Mt clean Ripple II, detonated on 30 October 1962 at Christmas Island. Teller's classical Superbomb was actually analyzed by John C. Solem in a 15 December 1978 report, A modern analysis of Classical Super, LA-07615, according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by mainstream historian Alex Wellerstein, FOIA 17-00131-H, 12 June 2017; according to a list of FOIA requests at https://www.governmentattic.org/46docs/NNSAfoiaLogs_2016-2020.pdf. However, a google search for the documents Dr Wellerstein requested shows only a few at the US Gov DOE Opennet OSTI database or otherwise online yet e.g. LA-643 by Teller, On the development of Thermonuclear Bombs dated 16 Feb. 1950. The page linked here stating that report was "never classified" is mistaken! One oddity about Teller's anti-compression "no-go theorem" is that the even if fusion rates were independent of density, you would still want compression of fissile material in a secondary stage such as a radiation imploded Alarm Clock, because the whole basis of implosion fission bombs is the benefit of compression; another issue is that even if fusion rates are unaffected by density, inward compression would still help to delay the expansion of the fusion system which leads to cooling and quenching of the fusion burn.)

ABOVE: the FBI file on Klaus Fuchs contains a brief summary of the secret April 1946 Super Conference at Los Alamos which Fuchs attended, noting that compression of fusion fuel was discussed by Lansdorf during the morning session on 19 April, attended by Fuchs, and that: "Suggestions were made by various people in attendance as to the manner of minimizing the rise in entropy during compression." This fact is vitally interesting, since it proves that an effort was being made then to secure isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel in April 1946, sixteen years before John H. Nuckolls tested the isentropically compressed Ripple II device on 30 October 1962, giving a 99.9% clean 10 megaton real H-bomb! So the Russians were given a massive head start on this isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel for hydrogen bombs, used (according to Trutnev) in both the single primary tests like RDS-37 in November 1955 and also in the double-primary designs which were 2.5 times more efficient on a yield-to-mass basis, tested first on 23 February 1958! According to the FBI report, the key documents Fuchs gave to Russia were LA-551, Prima facie proof of the feasibility of the Super, 15 Apr 1946 and the LA-575 Report of conference on the Super, 12 June 1946. Fuchs also handed over to Russia his own secret Los Alamos reports, such as LA-325, Initiator Theory, III. Jet Formation by the Collision of Two Surfaces, 11 July 1945, Jet Formation in Cylindrical lmplosion with 16 Detonation Points, Secret, 6 February 1945, and Theory of Initiators II, Melon Seed, Secret, 6 January 1945. Note the reference to Bretscher attending the Super Conference with Fuchs; Teller in a classified 50th anniversary conference at Los Alamos on the H-bomb claimed that after he (Teller) left Los Alamos for Chicago Uni in 1946, Bretscher continued work on Teller's 31 August 1946 "Alarm Clock" nuclear weapon (precursor of the Mike sausage concept etc) at Los Alamos; it was this layered uranium and fusion fuel "Alarm Clock" concept which led to the departure of Russian H-bomb design from American H-bomb design, simply because Fuchs left Los Alamos in June 1946, well before Teller invented the Alarm Clock concept on 31 August 1946 (Teller remembered the date precisely simply because he invented the Alarm Clock on the day his daughter was born, 31 August 1946! Teller and Richtmyer also developed a variant called "Swiss Cheese", with small pockets or bubbles of expensive fusion fuels, dispersed throughout cheaper fuel, in order to kinder a more cost-effective thermonuclear reaction; this later inspired the fission and fusion boosted "spark plug" ideas in later Sausage designs; e.g. security cleared Los Alamos historian Anne Fitzpatrick stated during her 4 March 1997 interview with Robert Richtmyer, who co-invented the Alarm Clock with Teller, that the Alarm Clock evolved into the spherical secondary stage of the 6.9 megaton Castle-Union TX-14 nuclear weapon!).

In fact (see Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear warhead designer Nuckolls' explanation in report UCRL-74345): "The rates of burn, energy deposition by charged reaction products, and electron-ion heating are proportional to the density, and the inertial confinement time is proportional to the radius. ... The burn efficiency is proportional to the product of the burn rate and the inertial confinement time ...", i.e. the fusion burn rate is directly proportional to the fuel density, which in turn is of course inversely proportional to the cube of its radius. But the inertial confinement time for fusion to occur is proportional to the radius, so the fusion stage efficiency in a nuclear weapon is the product of the burn rate (i.e., 1/radius^3) and time (i.e., radius), so efficiency ~ radius/(radius^3) ~ 1/radius^2. Therefore, for a given fuel temperature, the total fusion burn, or the efficiency of the fusion stage, is inversely proportional to the square of the compressed radius of the fuel! (Those condemning Teller's theoretical errors or "arrogance" should be aware that he pushed hard all the time for experimental nuclear tests of his ideas, to check if they were correct, exactly the right thing to do scientifically and others who read his papers had the opportunity to point out any theoretical errors, but was rebuffed by those in power, who used a series of contrived arguments to deny progress, based upon what Harry would call "subconscious bias", if not arrogant, damning, overt bigotry against the kind of credible, overwhelming deterrence which had proved lacking a decade earlier, leading to WWII. This callousness towards human suffering in war and under dictatorship existed in some UK physicists too: Joseph Rotblat's hatred of anything to deter Russia be it civil defense or tactical neutron bombs of the West - he had no problem smiling and patting Russia's neutron bomb when visiting their labs during cosy groupthink deluded Pugwash campaigns for Russian-style "peaceful collaboration" - came from deep family communist convictions, since his brother was serving in the Red Army in 1944 when he alleged he heard General Groves declare that the bomb must deter Russia! Rotblat stated he left Los Alamos as a result. The actions of these groups are analogous to the "Cambridge Scientists Anti-War Group" in the 1930s. After Truman ordered a H-bomb, Bradbury at Los Alamos had to start a "Family Committee" because Teller had a whole "family" of H-bomb designs, ranging from the biggest, "Daddy", through various "Alarm Clocks", all the way down to small internally-boosted fission tactical weapons. From Teller's perspective, he wasn't putting all eggs in one basket.)

Above: declassified illustration from a January 1949 secret report by the popular physics author and Los Alamos nuclear weapons design consultant George Gamow, showing his suggestion of using x-rays from both sides of a cylindrically imploded fission device to expose two fusion capsules to x-rays to test whether compression (fusion in BeO box on right side) helps, or is unnecessary (capsule on left side). Neutron counters detect 14.1 Mev T+D neutrons using time-of-flight method (higher energy neutrons traver faster than ~1 Mev fission stage neutrons, arriving at detectors first, allowing discrimination of the neutron energy spectrum by time of arrival). It took over two years to actually fire this 225 kt shot (8 May 1951)! No wonder Teller was outraged. A few interesting reports by Teller and also Oppenheimer's secret 1949 report opposing the H bomb project as it then stood on the grounds of low damage per dollar - precisely the exact opposite of the "interpretation" the media and gormless fools will assert until the cows come home - are linked here. The most interesting is Teller's 14 August 1952 Top Secret paper debunking Hans Bethe's propaganda, by explaining that contrary to Bethe's claims, Stalin's spy Klaus Fuch had the key "radiation implosion"- see second para on p2 - secret of the H-bomb because he attended the April 1946 Superbomb Conference which was not even attended by Bethe!  It was this very fact in April 1946, noted by two British attendees of the 1946 Superbomb Conference before collaboration was ended later in the year by the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, statement that led to Sir James Cladwick's secret use of "radiation implosion" for stages 2 and 3 of his triple staged H-bomb report the next month, "The Superbomb", a still secret document that inspired Penney's original Tom/Dick/Harry staged and radiation imploded H-bomb thinking, which is summarized by security cleared official historian Arnold's Britain and the H-Bomb.  Teller's 24 March 1951 letter to Los Alamos director Bradbury was written just 15 days after his historic Teller-Ulam 9 March 1951 report on radiation coupling and "radiation mirrors" (i.e. plastic casing lining to re-radiate soft x-rays on to the thermonuclear stage to ablate and thus compress it), and states: "Among the tests which seem to be of importance at the present time are those concerned with boosted weapons. Another is connected vith the possibility of a heterocatalytic explosion, that is, implosion of a bomb using the energy from another, auxiliary bomb. A third concerns itself with tests on mixing during atomic explosions, which question is of particular importance in connection with the Alarm Clock."

There is more to Fuchs' influence on the UK H-bomb than I go into that paper; Chapman Pincher alleged that Fuchs was treated with special leniency at his trial and later he was given early release in 1959 because of his contributions and help with the UK H-bomb as author of the key Fuchs-von Neumann x-ray compression mechanism patent. For example, Penney visited Fuchs in June 1952 in Stafford Prison; see pp309-310 of Frank Close's 2019 book "Trinity". Close argues that Fuchs gave Penney a vital tutorial on the H-bomb mechanism during that prison visit. That wasn't the last help, either, since the UK Controller for Atomic Energy Sir Freddie Morgan wrote Penney on 9 February 1953 that Fuchs was continuing to help. Another gem: Close gives, on p396, the story of how the FBI became suspicious of Edward Teller, after finding a man of his name teaching at the NY Communist Workers School in 1941 - the wrong Edward Teller, of course - yet Teller's wife was indeed a member of the Communist-front "League of women shoppers" in Washington, DC.

Chapman Pincher, who attended the Fuchs trial, writes about Fuchs hydrogen bomb lectures to prisoners in chapter 19 of his 2014 autobiography, Dangerous to know (Biteback, London, pp217-8): "... Donald Hume ... in prison had become a close friend of Fuchs ... Hume had repaid Fuchs' friendship by organising the smuggling in of new scientific books ... Hume had a mass of notes ... I secured Fuchs's copious notes for a course of 17 lectures ... including how the H-bomb works, which he had given to his fellow prisoners ... My editor agreed to buy Hume's story so long as we could keep the papers as proof of its authenticity ... Fuchs was soon due for release ..."

Chapman Pincher wrote about this as the front page exclusive of the 11 June 1952 Daily Express, "Fuchs: New Sensation", the very month Penney visited Fuchs in prison to receive his H-bomb tutorial! UK media insisted this was evidence that UK security still wasn't really serious about deterring further nuclear spies, and the revelations finally culminated in the allegations that the MI5 chief 1956-65 Roger Hollis was a Russian fellow-traveller (Hollis was descended from Peter the Great, according to his elder brother Chris Hollis' 1958 book Along the Road to Frome) and GRU agent of influence, codenamed "Elli". Pincher's 2014 book, written aged 100, explains that former MI5 agent Peter Wright suspected Hollis was Elli after evidence collected by MI6 agent Stephen de Mowbray was reported to the Cabinet Secretary. Hollis is alleged to have deliberately fiddled his report of interviewing GRU defector Igor Gouzenko on 21 November 1945 in Canada. Gouzenko had exposed the spy and Groucho Marx lookalike Dr Alan Nunn May (photo below), and also a GRU spy in MI5 codenamed Elli, who used only duboks (dead letter boxes), but Gouzenko told Pincher that when Hollis interviewed him in 1945 he wrote up a lengthy false report claiming to discredit many statements by Gouzenko: "I could not understand how Hollis had written so much when he had asked me so little. The report was full of nonsense and lies. As [MI5 agent Patrick] Stewart read the report to me [during the 1972 investigation of Hollis], it became clear that it had been faked to destroy my credibility so that my information about the spy in MI5 called Elli could be ignored. I suspect that Hollis was Elli." (Source: Pincher, 2014, p320.) Christopher Andrew claimed Hollis couldn't have been GRU spy Elli because KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky suggested it was the KGB spy Leo Long (sub-agent of KGB spy Anthony Blunt). However, Gouzenko was GRU, not KGB like Long and Gordievsky! Gordievsky's claim that "Elli" was on the cover of Long's KGB file was debunked by KGB officer Oleg Tsarev, who found that Long's codename was actually Ralph! Another declassified Russian document, from General V. Merkulov to Stalin dated 24 Nov 1945, confirmed Elli was a GRU agent inside british intelligence, whose existence was betrayed by Gouzenko. In Chapter 30 of Dangerous to Know, Pincher related how he was given a Russian suitcase sized microfilm enlarger by 1959 Hollis spying eyewitness Michael J. Butt, doorman for secret communist meetings in London. According to Butt, Hollis delivered documents to Brigitte Kuczynski, younger sister of Klaus Fuchs' original handler, the notorious Sonia aka Ursula. Hollis allegedly provided Minox films to Brigitte discretely when walking through Hyde Park at 8pm after work. Brigitte gave her Russian made Minox film enlarger to Butt to dispose of, but he kept it in his loft as evidence. (Pincher later donated it to King's College.) Other more circumstantial evidence is that Hollis recruited the spy Philby, Hollis secured spy Blunt immunity from prosecution, Hollis cleared Fuchs in 1943, and MI5 allegedly destroyed Hollis' 1945 interrogation report on Gouzenko, to prevent the airing of the scandal that it was fake after checking it with Gouzenko in 1972.

It should be noted that the very small number of Russian GRU illegal agents in the UK and the very small communist party membership had a relatively large influence on nuclear policy via infiltration of unions which had block votes in the Labour Party, as well the indirect CND and "peace movement" lobbies saturating the popular press with anti-civil defence propaganda to make the nuclear deterrent totally incredible for any provocation short of a direct all-out countervalue attack. Under such pressure, UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson's government abolished the UK Civil Defence Corps, making the UK nuclear deterrent totally incredible against major provocations, in March 1968. While there was some opposition to Wilson, it was focussed on his profligate nationalisation policies which were undermining the economy and thus destabilizing military expenditure for national security. Peter Wright’s 1987 book Spycatcher and various other sources, including Daily Mirror editor Hugh Cudlipp's book Walking on Water, documented that on 8 May 1968, the Bank of England's director Cecil King, who was also Chairman of Daily Mirror newspapers, Mirror editor Cudlipp and the UK Ministry of Defence's anti-nuclear Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Solly Zuckerman, met at Lord Mountbatten's house in Kinnerton Street, London, to discuss a coup e'tat to overthrow Wilson and make Mountbatten the UK President, a new position. King's position, according to Cudlipp - quite correctly as revealed by the UK economic crises of the 1970s when the UK was effectively bankrupt - was that Wilson was setting the UK on the road to financial ruin and thus military decay. Zuckerman and Mountbatten refused to take part in a revolution, however Wilson's government was attacked by the Daily Mirror in a front page editorial by Cecil King two days later, on 10 May 1968, headlined "Enough is enough ... Mr Wilson and his Government have lost all credibility, all authority." According to Wilson's secretary Lady Falkender, Wilson was only told of the coup discussions in March 1976.

CND and the UK communist party alternatively tried to claim, in a contradictory way, that they were (a) too small in numbers to have any influence on politics, and (b) they were leading the country towards utopia via unilateral nuclear disarmament saturation propaganda about nuclear weapons annihilation (totally ignoring essential data on different nuclear weapon designs, yields, heights of burst, the "use" of a weapon as a deterrent to PREVENT an invasion of concentrated force, etc.) via the infiltrated BBC and most other media. Critics pointed out that Nazi Party membership in Germany was only 5% when Hitler became dictator in 1933, while in Russia there were only 200,000 Bolsheviks in September 1917, out of 125 million, i.e. 0.16%. Therefore, the whole threat of such dictatorships is a minority seizing power beyond it justifiable numbers, and controlling a majority which has different views. Traditional democracy itself is a dictatorship of the majority (via the ballot box, a popularity contest); minority-dictatorship by contrast is a dictatorship by the fanatically motivated minority by force and fear (coercion) to control the majority. The coercion tactics used by foreign dictators to control the press in free countries are well documented, but never publicised widely. Hitler put pressure on Nazi-critics in the UK "free press" via UK Government appeasers Halifax, Chamberlain and particularly the loathsome UK ambassador to Nazi Germany, Sir Neville Henderson, for example trying to censor or ridicule appeasement critics David Low, to fire Captain W. E. Johns (editor of both Flying and Popular Flying, which had huge circulations and attacked appeasement as a threat to national security in order to reduce rearmament expenditure), and to try to get Winston Churchill deselected. These were all sneaky "back door" pressure-on-publishers tactics, dressed up as efforts to "ease international tensions"! The same occurred during the Cold War, with personal attacks in Scientific American and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and by fellow travellers on Herman Kahn, Eugene Wigner, and others who warned we need civil defence to make a deterrent of large provocations credible in the eyes of an aggressor.

Chapman Pincher summarises the vast hypocritical Russian expenditure on anti-Western propaganda against the neutron bomb in Chapter 15, "The Neutron Bomb Offensive" of his 1985 book The Secret Offensive: "Such a device ... carries three major advantages over Hiroshima-type weapons, particularly for civilians caught up in a battle ... against the massed tanks which the Soviet Union would undoubtedly use ... by exploding these warheads some 100 feet or so above the massed tanks, the blast and fire ... would be greatly reduced ... the neutron weapon produces little radioactive fall-out so the long-term danger to civilians would be very much lower ... the weapon was of no value for attacking cities and the avoidance of damage to property can hardly be rated as of interest only to 'capitalists' ... As so often happens, the constant repetition of the lie had its effects on the gullible ... In August 1977, the [Russian] World Peace Council ... declared an international 'Week of action' against the neutron bomb. ... Under this propaganda Carter delayed his decision, in September ... a Sunday service being attended by Carter and his family on 16 October 1977 was disrupted by American demonstrators shouting slogans against the neutron bomb [see the 17 October 1977 Washington Post] ... Lawrence Eagleburger, when US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, remarked, 'We consider it probably that the Soviet campaign against the 'neutron bomb cost some $100 million'. ... Even the Politburo must have been surprised at the size of what it could regard as a Fifth Column in almost every country." [Unfortunately, Pincher himself had contributed to the anti-nuclear nonsense in his 1965 novel "Not with a bang" in which small amounts of radioactivity from nuclear fallout combine with medicine to exterminate humanity! The allure of anti-nuclear propaganda extends to all who which to sell "doomsday fiction", not just Russian dictators but mainstream media story tellers in the West. By contrast, Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons doesn't even mention the neutron bomb, so there was no scientific and technical effort whatsoever by the West to make it a credible deterrent even in the minds of the public it had to protect from WWIII!]

"The Lance warhead is the first in a new generation of tactical mini-nukes that have been sought by Army field leading advocates: the series of American generals who have commanded the North Atlantic Treaty organization theater. They have argued that the 7,000 unclear warheads now in Europe are old, have too large a nuclear yield and thus would not be used in a war. With lower yields and therefore less possible collateral damage to civilian populated areas, these commanders have argued, the new mini-nukes are more credible as deterrents because they just might be used on the battlefield without leading to automatic nuclear escalation. Under the nuclear warhead production system, a President must personally give the production order. President Ford, according to informed sources, signed the order for the enhanced-radiation Lance warhead. The Lance already has regular nuclear warheads and it deployed with NATO forces in Europe. In addition to the Lance warhead, other new production starts include: An 8-inch artillery-fired nuclear warhead to replace those now in Europe. This shell had been blocked for almost eight years by Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.), who had argued that it was not needed. Symington retired last year. The Pentagon and ERDA say the new nuclear 8-inch warhead would be safer from stealing by terrorists. Starbird testified. It will be "a command disable system" to melt its inner workings if necessary. ... In longer-term research, the bill contains money to finance an enhanced-radiational bomb to the dropped from aircraft." - Washington post, 5 June 1977.

This debunks fake news that Teller's and Ulam's 9 March 1951 report LAMS-1225 itself gave Los Alamos the Mike H-bomb design, ready for testing! Teller was proposing a series of nuclear tests of the basic principles, not 10Mt Ivy-Mike which was based on a report the next month by Teller alone, LA-1230, "The Sausage: a New Thermonuclear System". When you figure that, what did Ulam actually contribute to the hydrogen bomb? Nothing about implosion, compression or separate stages - all already done by von Neumann and Fuchs five years earlier - and just a lot of drivel about trying to channel material shock waves from a primary to compress another fissile core, a real dead end. What Ulam did was to kick Teller out of his self-imposed mental objection to compression devices. Everything else was Teller's; the radiation mirrors, the Sausage with its outer ablation pusher and its inner spark plug. Note also that contrary to official historian Arnold's book (which claims due to a misleading statement by Dr Corner that all the original 1946 UK copies of Superbomb Conference documentation were destroyed after being sent from AWRE Aldermaston to London between 1955-63), all the documents did exist in the AWRE TPN (theoretical physics notes, 100% of which have been perserved) and are at the UK National Archives, e.g. AWRE-TPN 5/54 is listed in National Archives discovery catalogue ref ES 10/5: "Miscellaneous super bomb notes by Klaus Fuchs", see also the 1954 report AWRE-TPN 6/54, "Implosion super bomb: substitution of U235 for plutonium" ES 10/6, the 1954 report AWRE-TPN 39/54 is "Development of the American thermonuclear bomb: implosion super bomb" ES 10/39, see also ES 10/21 "Collected notes on Fermi's super bomb lectures", ES 10/51 "Revised reconstruction of the development of the American thermonuclear bombs", ES 1/548 and ES 1/461 "Superbomb Papers", etc. Many reports are secret and retained, despite containing "obsolete" designs (although UK report titles are generally unredacted, such as: "Storage of 6kg Delta (Phase) -Plutonium Red Beard (tactical bomb) cores in ships")! It should also be noted that the Livermore Laboatory's 1958 TUBA spherical secondary with an oralloy (enriched U235) outer pusher was just a reversion from Teller's 1951 core spark plug idea in the middle of the fusion fuel, back to the 1944 von Neumann scheme of having fission material surrounding the fusion fuel. In other words, the TUBA was just a radiation and ionization imploded, internally fusion-boosted, second fission stage which could have been accomplished a decade earlier if the will existed, when all of the relevant ideas were already known. The declassified UK spherical secondary-stage alternatives linked here (tested as Grapple X, Y and Z with varying yields but similar size, since all used the 5 ft diameter Blue Danube drop casing) clearly show that a far more efficient fusion burn occurs by minimising the mass of hard-to-compress U235 (oralloy) sparkplug/pusher, but maximising the amount of lithium-7, not lithium-6. Such a secondary with minimal fissionable material also automatically has minimal neutron ABM vulnerability (i.e., "Radiation Immunity", RI). This is the current cheap Russian neutron weapon design, but not the current Western design of warheads like the W78, W88 and bomb B61.

So why on earth doesn't the West take the cheap efficient option of cutting expensive oralloy and maximising cheap natural (mostly lithium-7) LiD in the secondary? Even Glasstone's 1957 Effects of Nuclear Weapons on p17 (para 1.55) states that "Weight for weight ... fusion of deuterium nuclei would produce nearly 3 times as much energy as the fission of uranium or plutonium"! The sad answer is "density"! Natural LiD (containing 7.42% Li6 abundance) is a low density white/grey crystalline solid like salt that actually floats on water (lithium deuteroxide would be formed on exposure to water), since its density is just 820 kg/m^3. Since the ratio of mass of Li6D to Li7D is 8/9, it would be expected that the density of highly enriched 95% Li6D is 739 kg/m^3, while for 36% enriched Li6D it is 793 kg/m^3. Uranium metal has a density of 19,000 kg/m^3, i.e. 25.7 times greater than 95% enriched li6D or 24 times greater than 36% enriched Li6D. Compactness, i.e. volume is more important in a Western MIRV warhead than mass/weight! In the West, it's best to have a tiny-volume, very heavy, very expensive warhead. In Russia, cheapness outweights volume considerations. The Russians in some cases simply allowed their more bulky warheads to protrude from the missile bus (see photo below), or compensated for lower yields at the same volume using clean LiD by using the savings in costs to build more warheads. (The West doubles the fission yield/mass ratio of some warheads by using U235/oralloy pushers in place of U238, which suffers from the problem that about half the neutrons it interacts with result in non-fission capture, as explained below. Note that the 720 kiloton UK nuclear test Orange Herald device contained a hollow shell of 117 kg of U235 surrounded by a what Lorna Arnold's book quotes John Corner referring to a "very thin" layer of high explosive, and was compact, unboosted - the boosted failed to work - and gave 6.2 kt/kg of U235, whereas the first version of the 2-stage W47 Polaris warhead contained 60 kg of U235 which produced most of the secondary stage yield of about 400 kt, i.e. 6.7 kt/kg of U235. Little difference - but because perhaps 50% of the total yield of the W47 was fusion, its efficiency of use of U235 must have actually been less than the Orange Herald device, around 3 kt/kg of U235 which indicates design efficiency limits to "hydrogen bombs"! Yet anti-nuclear charlatans claimed that the Orange Herald bomb was a con!)

ABOVE: USA nuclear weapons data declassified by UK Government in 2010 (the information was originally acquired due to the 1958 UK-USA Act for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, in exchange for UK nuclear weapons data) as published at http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/tna-ab16-4675p63.jpg. This single table summarizes all key tactical and strategic nuclear weapons secret results from 1950s testing! (In order to analyze the warhead pusher thicknesses and very basic schematics from this table it is necessary to supplement it with the 1950s warhead design data declassified in other documents, particularly some of the data from Tom Ramos and Chuck Hansen, as quoted in some detail below.) The data on the mass of special nuclear materials in each of the different weapons argues strongly that the entire load of Pu239 and U235 in the 1.1 megaton B28 was in the primary stage, so that weapon could not have had a fissile spark plug in the centre let alone a fissile ablator (unlike Teller's Sausage design of 1951), and so the B28 it appears had no need whatsoever of a beryllium neutron radiation shield to prevent pre-initiation of the secondary stage prior to its compression (on the contrary, such neutron exposure of the lithium deuteride in the secondary stage would be VITAL to produce some tritium in it prior to compression, to spark fusion when it was compressed). Arnold's book indeed explains that UK AWE physicists found the B28 to be an excellent, highly optimised, cheap design, unlike the later W47 which was extremely costly. The masses of U235 and Li6 in the W47 shows the difficulties of trying to maintain efficiency while scaling down the mass of a two-stage warhead for SLBM delivery: much larger quantities of Li6 and U235 must be used to achieve a LOWER yield! To achieve thermonuclear warheads of low mass at sub-megaton yields, both the outer bomb casing and the pusher around the the fusion fuel must be reduced:

"York ... studied the Los Alamos tests in Castle and noted most of the weight in thermonuclear devices was in their massive cases. Get rid of the case .... On June 12, 1953, York had presented a novel concept ... It radically altered the way radiative transport was used to ignite a secondary - and his concept did not require a weighty case ... they had taken the Teller-Ulam concept and turned it on its head ... the collapse time for the new device - that is, the amount of time it took for an atomic blast to compress the secondary - was favorable compared to older ones tested in Castle. Brown ... gave a female name to the new device, calling it the Linda." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp137-8. (So if you reduce the outer casing thickness to reduce warhead weight, you must complete the pusher ablation/compression faster, before the thinner outer casing is blown off, and stops reflecting/channelling x-rays on the secondary stage. Making the radiation channel smaller and ablative pusher thinner helps to speed up the process. Because the ablative pusher is thinner, there is relatively less blown-off debris to block the narrower radiation channel before the burn ends.)

"Brown's third warhead, the Flute, brought the Linda concept down to a smaller size. The Linda had done away with a lot of material in a standard thermonuclear warhead. Now the Flute tested how well designers could take the Linda's conceptual design to substantially reduce not only the weight but also the size of a thermonuclear warhead. ... The Flute's small size - it was the smallest thermonuclear device yet tested - became an incentive to improve codes. Characteristics marginally important in a larger device were now crucially important. For instance, the reduced size of the Flute's radiation channel could cause it to close early [with ablation blow-off debris], which would prematurely shut off the radiation flow. The code had to accurately predict if such a disaster would occur before the device was even tested ... the calculations showed changes had to be made from the Linda's design for the Flute to perform correctly." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp153-4. Note that the piccolo (the W47 secondary) is a half-sized flute, so it appears that the W47's secondary stage design miniaturization history was: Linda -> Flute -> Piccolo:

"A Division's third challenge was a small thermonuclear warhead for Polaris [the nuclear SLBM submarine that preceeded today's Trident system]. The starting point was the Flute, that revolutionary secondary that had performed so well the previous year. Its successor was called the Piccolo. For Plumbbob [Nevada, 1957], the design team tested three variations of the Piccolo as a parameter test. One of the variants outperformed the others ... which set the stage for the Hardtack [Nevada and Pacific, 1958] tests. Three additional variations for the Piccolo ... were tested then, and again an optimum candidate was selected. ... Human intuition as well as computer calculations played crucial roles ... Finally, a revolutionary device was completed and tested ... the Navy now had a viable warhead for its Polaris missile. From the time Brown gave Haussmann the assignment to develop this secondary until the time they tested the device in the Pacific, only 90 days had passed. As a parallel to the Robin atomic device, this secondary for Polaris laid the foundation for modern thermonuclear weapons in the United States." - Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear weapon designer), From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War, Naval Institute press, 2022, pp177-8. (Ramos is very useful in explaining that many of the 1950s weapons with complex non-spherical, non-cylindrical shaped primaries and secondaries were simply far too complex to fully simulate on the really pathetic computers they had - Livermore got a 4,000 vacuum tubes-based IBM 701 with 2 kB memory in 1956, AWRE Aldermaston in the Uk had to wait another year for theirs - so they instead did huge numbers of experimental explosive tests. For instance, on p173, Ramos discloses that the Swan primary which developed into the 155mm tactical shell, "went through over 100 hydrotests", non-nuclear tests in which fissile material is replaced with U238 or other substitutes, and the implosion is filmed with flash x-ray camera systems.)

"An integral feature of the W47, from the very start of the program, was the use of an enriched uranium-235 pusher around the cylindrical secondary." - Chuck Hansen, Swords 2.0, p. VI-375 (Hansen's source is his own notes taken during a 19-21 February 1992 nuclear weapons history conference he attended; if you remember the context, "Nuclear Glasnost" became fashionable after the Cold War ended, enabling Hansen to acquire almost unredacted historical materials for a few years until nuclear proliferation became a concern in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea). The key test of the original (Robin primary and Piccolo secondary) Livermore W47 was 412 kt Hardtack-Redwood on 28 June 1958. Since Li6D utilized at 100% efficiency would yield 66 kt/kg, the W47 fusion efficiency was only about 6%; since 100% fission of u235 yields 17 kt/kg, the W47's Piccolo fission (the u235 pusher) efficiency was about 20%; the comparable figures for secondary stage fission and fusion fuel burn efficiencies in the heavy B28 are about 7% and 15%, respectively:

ABOVE: the heavy B28 gave a very "big bang for the buck": it was cheap in terms of expensive Pu, U235 and Li6, and this was the sort of deterrent which was wanted by General LeMay for the USAF, which wanted as many weapons as possible, within the context of Eisenhower's budgetary concerns. But its weight (not its physical size) made it unsuitable for SLBM Polaris warheads. The first SLBM warhead, the W47, was almost the same size as the B28 weapon package, but much lighter due to having a much thinner "pusher" on the secondary, and casing. But this came at a large financial cost in terms of the quantities of special nuclear materials required to get such a lightweight design to work, and also a large loss of total yield. The fusion fuel burn efficiency ranges from 6% for the 400 kt W47 to 15% for the 1.1 megaton B28 (note that for very heavy cased 11-15 megaton yield tests at Castle, up to 40% fusion fuel burn efficiency was achieved), whereas the secondary stage ablative pusher fission efficiency ranged from 7% for a 1.1 inch thick natural uranium (99.3% U238) ablator to 20% for a 0.15 inch thick highly enriched oralloy (U235) ablator. From the brief description of the design evolution given by Dr Tom Ramos (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), it appears that when the x-ray channelling outer case thickness of the weapon is reduced to save weight, the duration of the x-ray coupling is reduced, so the dense metal pusher thickness must be reduced if the same compression factor (approximately 20) for the secondary stage is to be accomplished (lithium deuteride, being of low density, is far more compressable by a given pressure, than dense metal). In both examples, the secondary stage is physically a boosted fission stage. (If you are wondering why the hell the designers don't simply use a hollow core U235 bomb like Orange Herald instead of bothering with such inefficient x-ray coupled two-stage designs as these, the answer is straightforward: the risk of large fissile core meltdown by neutrons Moscow ABM defensive nuclear warheads, neutron bombs.)

The overall weight of the W47 was minimized by replacing the usual thick layer of U238 pusher with a very thin layer of fissile U235 (supposedly Teller's suggestion), which is more efficient for fission, but is limited by critical mass issues. The W47 used a 95% enriched Li6D cylinder with a 3.8mm thick U235 pusher; the B28 secondary was 36% enriched Li6D, with a very heavy 3cm thick U238 pusher. As shown below, it appears the B28 was related to the Los Alamos clean design of the TX21C tested as 95% clean 4.5 megatons Redwing-Navajo in 1956 and did not have a central fissile spark plug. From the declassified fallout composition, it is known the Los Alamos designers replaced the outer U238 pusher of Castle secondaries with lead in Navajo. Livermore did the same for their 85% clean 3.53 megatons Redwing-Zuni test, but Livermore left the central fission spark plug, which contributed 10% of its 15% fission yield, instead of removing the neutron shield, using foam channel filler for slowing down the x-ray compression, and thereby using primary stage neutrons to split lithium-6 giving tritium prior to compression. Our point is that Los Alamos got it wrong in sticking too conservatively to ideology: for clean weapons they should have got rid of the dense lead pusher and gone for John H. Nuckolls idea (also used by Fuchs in 1946 and the Russians in 1955 and 1958) of a low-density pusher for isentropic compression of low-density fusion fuel. This error is the reason why those early cleaner weapons were extremely heavy due to unnecessary 2" thick lead or tungsten pushers around the fusion fuel, which massively reduced their yield-to-weight ratios, so that LeMay rejected them!

Compare these data for the 20 inch diameter, 49 inch, 1600 lb, 1.1 megaton bomb B28 to the 18 inch diameter, 47 inch, 700 lb, 400 kt Mk47/W47 Polaris SLBM warhead (this is the correct yield for the first version of the W47 confirmed by UK data in Lorna Arnold Britain and the H-bomb 2001 and AB 16/3240; Wikipedia wrongly gives the 600 kt figure in Hansen, which was a speculation or a later upgrade). The key difference is that the W47 is much lighter, and thus suitable for the Polaris SLBM unlike the heavier, higher yield B28. Both B28 and W47 used cylindrical sausages, but they are very different in composition; the B28 used a huge mass of U238 in its ablative sausage outer shell or pusher, while the W47 used oralloy/U235 in the pusher. The table shows the total amounts of Pu, Oralloy (U235), Lithium-6 (excluding cheaper lithium-7, which is also present in varying amounts in different thermonuclear weapons), and tritium (which is used for boosting inside fissile material, essentially to reduce the amount of Pu and therefore the vulnerability of the weapon to Russian enhanced neutron ABM warhead meltdown). The B28 also has an external dense natural U (99.3% U238) "ablative pusher shell" whose mass is not listed in this table. The table shows that the 400 kt W47 Polaris SLBM warhead contains 60 kg of U235 (nearly as much as the 500 kt pure fission Mk18), which is in an ablative pusher shell around the lithium deuteride, so that the cylinder of neutron-absorbing lithium-6 deuteride within it keeps that mass of U235 subcritical, until compressed. So the 400 kt W47 contains far more Pu, U235, Li6 and T than the higher yield 1.1 megaton B28: this is the big $ price you pay for reducing the mass of the warhead; the total mass of the W47 is reduced to 44% of the mass of the B28, since the huge mass of cheap U238 pusher in the B28 is replaced by a smaller mass of U235, which is more efficient because (as Dr Carl F. Miller reveals in USNRDL-466, Table 6), about half of the neutrons hitting U238 don't cause fission but instead non-fission capture reactions which produce U239, plus the n,2n reaction that produces U237, emitting a lot of very low energy gamma rays in the fallout. For example, in the 1954 Romeo nuclear test (which, for simplicity, we quote since it used entirely natural LiD, with no expensive enrichment of the Li6 isotope whatsoever), the U238 jacket fission efficiency was reduced by capture as follows: 0.66 atom/fission of U239, 0.10 atom/fission of U237 and 0.23 atom/fission of U240 produced by fission, a total of 0.66 + 0.10 + 0.23 ~ 1 atom/fission, i.e. 50% fission in the U238 pusher, versus 50% non-fission neutron captures. So by using U235 in place of U238, you virtually eliminate the non-fission capture (see UK Atomic Weapons Establishment graph of fission and capture cross-sections for U235, shown below), which roughly halves the mass of the warhead, for a given fission yield. This same principle of using an outer U235/oralloy pusher instead of U238 to reduce mass - albeit with the secondary cylindrical "Sausage" shape now changed to a sphere - applies to today's miniaturised, high yield, low mass "MIRV" warheads. Just as the lower-yield W47 counter-intuitively used more expensive ingredients than the bulkier higher-yield B28, modern compact, high-yield oralloy-loaded warheads literally cost a bomb, just to keep the mass down! There is evidence Russia uses alternative ideas.

This is justified by the data given for a total U238 capture-to-fission ratio of 1 in the 11 megaton Romeo test and also the cross-sections for U235 capture and fission on the AWE graph for relevant neutron energy range of about 1-14 Mev. If half the neutrons are captured in U238 without fission, then the maximum fission yield you can possibly get from "x" kg of U238 pusher is HALF the energy obtained from 100% fission of "x" kg of U238. Since with U238 only about half the atoms can undergo fission by thermonuclear neutrons (because the other half undergo non-fission capture), the energy density (i.e., the Joules/kg produced by the fission explosion of the pusher) reached by an exploding U238 pusher is only half that reached by U235 (in which there is less non-fission capture of neutrons, which doubles the pusher mass without doubling the fission energy release). So a U235 pusher will reach twice the temperature of a U238 pusher, doubling its material heating of fusion fuel within, prolonging the fusion burn and thus increasing fusion burn efficiency. 10 MeV neutron energy is important since it allows for likely average scattering of 14.1 MeV D+T fusion neutrons and it is also the energy at which the most important capture reaction, the (n,2n) cross-section peaks for both U235 (peak of 0.88 barn at 10 Mev) and U238 (peak of 1.4 barns at 10 Mev). For 10 Mev neutrons, U235 and U238 have fission cross-sections of 1.8 and 1 barn, respectively. For 14 Mev neutrons, U238 has a (n,2n) cross section of 0.97 barn for U237 production. So ignoring non-fission captures, you need 1.8/1 = 1.8 times greater thickness of pusher for U238 than for U235, to achieve the same amount of fission. But this simple consideration ignores the x-ray ablation requirement of the explosing pusher, so there are several factors requiring detailed computer calculations, and/or nuclear testing.

Note: there is an extensive collection of declassified documents released after Chuck Hansen's final edition, Swords 2.0, which are now available at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/foiareadingroom/*, being an internet-archive back-up of a now-removed US Government Freedom of Information Act Reading Room. Unfortunately they were only identified by number sequence, not by report title or content, in that reeding room, and so failed to achieve wide attention when originally released! (This includes extensive "Family Committee" H-bomb documentation and many long-delayed FOIA requests submitted originally by Hansen, but not released in time for inclusion in Swords 2.0.) As the extract below - from declassified document RR00132 - shows, some declassified documents contained very detailed information or typewriter spaces that could only be filled by a single specific secret word (in this example, details of the W48 linear implosion tactical nuclear warhead, including the fact that it used PBX9404 plastic bonded explosive glued to the brittle beryllium neutron reflector around the plutonium core using Adiprene L100 adhesive!).

ABOVE: Declassified data on the radiation flow analysis for the 10 megaton Mike sausage: http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/foiareadingroom/RR00198.pdf Note that the simplistic "no-go theorem" given in this extract, against any effect from varying the temperature to help the radiation channelling, was later proved false by John H. Nuckolls (like Teller's anti-compression "no-go theorem" was later proved false), since lowered temperature delivers energy where it is needed while massively reducing radiation losses (which go as the fourth power of temperature/x-ray energy in kev).

ABOVE: Hans A. Bethe's disastrous back-of-the-envelope nonsense "non-go theorem" against lithium-7 fission into tritium by 14.1 Mev D+T neutrons in Bravo (which contained 40% lithium-6 and 60% lithium-7; unnecessarily enriched - at great expense and effort - from the natural 7.42% lithum-6 abundance). It was Bethe's nonsense "physics" speculation, unbacked by serious calculation, who caused Bravo to go off at 2.5 times the expected 6 megatons and therefore for the Japanese Lucky Dragon tuna trawler crew in the maximum fallout hotspot area 80 miles downwind to be contaminated by fallout, and also for Rongelap's people to be contaminated ("accidents" that inevitably kickstarted the originally limited early 1950s USSR funded Communist Party anti-nuclear deterrence movements in the West into mainstream media and thus politics). There was simply no solid basis for assuming that the highly penetrating 14.1 Mev neutrons would be significantly slowed by scattering in the fuel before hitting lithium-7 nuclei. Even teller's 1950 report LA-643 at page 17 estimated that in a fission-fusion Alarm Clock, the ratio of 14 Mev to 2.5 Mev neutrons was 0.7/0.2 = 3.5. Bethe's complacently bad guesswork-based physics also led to the EMP fiasco for high altitude bursts, after he failed to predict the geomagnetic field deflection of Compton electrons at high altitude in his secret report “Electromagnetic Signal Expected from High-Altitude Test”, Los Alamos report LA-2173, October 1957, Secret. He repeatedly caused nuclear weapons effects study disasters. For the true utility of lithium-7, which is actually BETTER than lithum-6 at tritium production when struck by 14.1 Mev D+T fusion neutrons, and its consequences for cheap isentropically compressed fusion capsules in Russian neutron bombs, please see my paper here which gives a graph of lithium isotopic cross section versus neutron energy, plus the results when Britain used cheap lithium-7 in Grapple Y to yield 3 megatons (having got lower yields with costly lithium-6 in previous tests!).

Update (15 Dec 2023): PDF uploaded of UK DAMAGE BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS (linked here on Internet Archive) - secret 1000 pages UK and USA nuclear weapon test effects analysis, and protective measures determined at those tests (not guesswork) relevant to escalation threats by Russia for EU invasion (linked here at wordpress) in response to Ukraine potentially joining the EU (this is now fully declassified without deletions, and in the UK National Archives at Kew):

Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist liars debunked by secret American government evidence that simple shelters worked, REPORT LINKED HERE (this was restricted from public view and never published by the American government, and Glasstone's lying Effects of Nuclear Weapons book reversed its evidence for propaganda purposes, a fact still covered by all the lying cold war pseudo "historians" today), Operation Hurricane 1952 declassified nuclear weapon test data (here), declassified UK nuclear tested shelter research reports (here), declassified EMP nuclear test research data (here), declassified clandestine nuclear bombs in ships attack on Liverpool study (here), declassified fallout decontamination study for UK recovery from nuclear attack (here), declassified Operation Buffalo surface burst and near surface burst fallout patterns, water decontamination, initial radiation shielding at Antler nuclear tests, and resuspension of deposited fallout dust into the air (inhalation hazard) at different British nuclear tests, plus Operation Totem nuclear tests crater region radiation surveys (here), declassified Operation Antler nuclear blast precursor waveforms (here), declassified Operation Buffalo nuclear blast precursor waveforms (here), declassified UK Atomic Weapons Establishment nuclear weapons effects symposium (here), and declassified UK Atomic Weapons Establishment paper on the gamma radiation versus time at Crossroads tests Able and Baker (here, paper by inventor of lenses in implosion weapons, James L. Tuck of the British Mission to Los Alamos and Operation Crossroads, clearly showing how initial gamma shielding in an air burst can be achieved with a few seconds warning and giving the much greater escape times available for residual radiation dose accumulations in an underwater burst; key anti-nuclear hysteria data kept covered up by Glasstone and the USA book Effects of Nuclear Weapons), and Penney and Hicks paper on the base surge contamination mechanism (here), and Russian nuclear warhead design evidence covered-up by both America and the so-called arms control and disarmament "experts" who always lie and distort the facts to suit their own agenda to try to start a nuclear war (linked here). If they wanted "peace" they'd support the proved facts, available on this blog nukegate.org since 2006, and seek international agreement to replace the incredible, NON-war deterring strategic nuclear weapons with safe tactical neutron warheads which collateral damage averting and invasion-deterring (thus war deterring in all its forms, not only nuclear), plus civil defence against all forms of collateral damage from war, which reduces escalation risks during terrorist actions, as proved in wars which don't escalate because of effective civil defence and credible deterrence (see below). Instead, they support policies designed to maximise civilian casualties and to deliberately escalate war, to profit "politically" from the disasters caused which they blame falsely on nuclear weapons, as if deterrence causes war! (Another lie believed by mad/evil/gullible mainstream media/political loons in "authority".) A good summary of the fake news basis of "escalation" blather against credible tactical nuclear deterrence of the invasions that set off wars is inadvertently provided by Lord David Owen's 2009 "Nuclear Papers" (Liverpool Uni Press), compiling his declassified nuclear disarmament propaganda reports written while he was UK Foreign Secretary 1977-9. It's all Carter era appeasement nonsense. For example, on pp158-8 he reprints his Top Secret 19 Dec 1978 "Future of the British Deterrent" report to the Prime Minister which states that "I am not convinced by the contention ... that the ability to destroy at least 10 major cities, or inflict damage on 30 major targets ... is the minimum criterion for a British deterrent." (He actually thinks this is too strong a deterrent, despite the fact it is incredible for the realpolitik tactics of dictators who make indirect provocations like invading their neighbours!) The reality Owens ignores is that Russia had and still has civil defence shelters and evacuation plans, so threatening some damage in retaliation is not a credible deterrent against the invasions that set off both world wars. On page 196, he gives a Secret 18 April 1978 paper stating that NATO then had 1000 nuclear artillery pieces (8" and 155mm), 200 Lance and Honest John tactical nuclear missile systems, 135 Pershing; all now long ago disarmed and destroyed while Russian now has over 2000 dedicated tactical nuclear weapons of high neutron output (unlike EM1's data for the low yield option of the multipurpose NATO B61). Owen proudly self-congratulates on his Brezhnev supporting anti-neutron bomb ranting 1978 book, "Human Rights", pp. 136-7. If Owen really wants "Human Rights", he needs to back the neutron bomb now to deter the dictatorships which destroy human rights! His 2009 "Nuclear Papers" at p287 gives the usual completely distorted analysis of the Cuban missiles crisis, claiming that despite the overwhelming American tactical and strategic nuclear superiority for credible deterrence in 1962, the world came "close" to a nuclear war. It's closer now, mate, when thanks to your propaganda we no longer have a credible deterrent, civil defence, tactical neutron warheads. Pathetic.

ABOVE secret reports on Australian-British nuclear test operations at Maralinga in 1956 and 1957, Buffalo and Antler, proved that even at 10 psi peak overpressure for the 15 kt Buffalo-1 shot, the dummy lying prone facing the blast was hardly moved due to the low cross-sectional area exposed to the blast winds, relative to standing dummies which were severely displaced and damaged. The value of trenches in protecting personnel against blast winds and radiation was also proved in tests (gamma radiation shielding of trenches had been proved at an earlier nuclear test in Australia, Operation Hurricane in 1952). (Antler report linked here; Buffalo report linked here.) This debunks the US Department of Defense models claiming that people will automatically be blown out of the upper floors of modern city buildings at very low pressures, and killed by the gravitational impact with the pavement below! In reality, tall buildings mutually shield one another from the blast winds, not to mention the radiation (proven in the latest post on this blog), and on seeing the flash most people will have time to lie down on typical surfaces like carpet which give a frictional resistance to displacement, ignored in fiddled models which assume surfaces have less friction than a skating rink; all of this was omitted from the American 1977 Glasstone and Dolan book "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons". As Tuck's paper below on the gamma radiation dose rate measurements on ships at Operation Crossroads, July 1946 nuclear tests proved, contrary to Glasstone and Dolan, scattered radiation contributions are small, so buildings or ships gun turrets provided excellent radiation "shadows" to protect personnel. This effect was then calculated by UK civil defence weapons effects expert Edward Leader-Williams in his paper presented at the UK's secret London Royal Society Symposium on the Physical Effects of Atomic Weapons, but the nuclear test data as always was excluded from the American Glasstone book published the next year, The Effects of Atomic Weapons in deference to lies about the effects in Hiroshima, including an "average" casualty curve which deliberately obfuscated huge differences in survival rates in different types of buildings and shelters, or simply in shadows!

Note: the DELFIC, SIMFIC and other computer predicted fallout area comparisons for the 110 kt Bikini Atoll Castle-Koon land surface burst nuclear test are false since the distance scale of Bikini Atoll is massively exaggerated on many maps, e.g. in the Secret January 1955 AFSWP "Fall-out Symposium", the Castle fallout report WT-915, and the fallout patterns compendium DASA-1251! The Western side of the Bikini Atoll reef is at 165.2 degrees East, while the most eastern island in the Bikini Atoll, Enyu, is at 165.567 degrees East: since there are 60 nautical miles per degree by definition, the width of Bikini Atoll is therefore (165.567-165.2)(60) = 22 nautical miles, approximately half the distance shown in the Castle-Koon fallout patterns. Since area is proportional to the square of the distance scale, this constitutes a serious exaggeration in fallout casualty calculations, before you get into the issue of the low energy (0.1-0.2 MeV) gamma rays from neutron induced Np239 and U237 in the fallout enhancing the protection factor of shelters (usually calculated assuming hard 1.17 and 1.33 MeV gamma rads from Co60), during the sheltering period of approximately 1-14 days after detonation.

"Since the nuclear stalemate became apparent, the Governments of East and West have adopted the policy which Mr Dulles calls 'brinkmanship'. This is a policy adopted from a sport ... called 'Chicken!' ... If one side is unwilling to risk global war, while the other side is willing to risk it, the side which is willing to run the risk will be victorious in all negotiations and will ultimately reduce the other side to complete impotence. 'Perhaps' - so the practical politician will argue - 'it might be ideally wise for the sane party to yield to the insane party in view of the dreadful nature of the alternative, but, whether wise or not, no proud nation will long acquiesce in such an ignominious role. We are, therefore, faced, quite inevitably, with the choice between brinkmanship and surrender." - Bertrand Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1959, pp30-31.

Emphasis added. Note that Russell accepts lying about nuclear weapons just as gas weapons had been lied about in the 1920s-30s by "arms controllers" to start WWII, then he simply falls into the 1930s Cambridge Scientists Antiwar Group delusional propaganda fraud of assuming that any attempt to credibly deter fascism is immoral because it will automatically result in escalatory retaliation with Herman Goering's Luftwaffe drenching London with "overkill" by poison gas WMDs etc. In particular, he forgets that general disarmament pursued in the West until 1935 - when Baldwin suddenly announced that the Nazis had secretly produced a massive, unstoppable warmachine in two years - encouraged aggressors to first secretly rearm, then coerce and invade their neighbours while signing peace promises purely to buy more time for rearmament, until a world war resulted. Not exactly a great result for disarmament propaganda. So after obliterating what Reagan used to call (to the horror of commie "historians") the "true facts of history" from his mind, he advocates some compromise with the aggressors of the 30 September 1938 Munich Agreement peace-in-our-time sort, the historically proved sure fire way to really escalate a crisis into a major war by showing the green lamp to a loon to popular media acclaim and applause for a fairy tale utopian fantasy; just as the "principled" weak, rushed, imbecile withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2021 encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine in 2022, and also the green lamp for Hamas to invade Israel in 2023.

"... deterrence ... consists of threatening the enemy with thermonuclear retaliation should he act provocatively. ... If war is 'impossible', how can one threaten a possible aggressor with war? ... The danger, evoked by numerous critics, that such research will result in a sort of resigned expectation of the holocaust, seems a weak argument ... The classic theory of Clausewitz defines absolute victory in terms of disarmament of the enemy ... Today ... it will suffice to take away his means of retaliation to hold him at your mercy." - Raymond Aron, Introduction to Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 9-12. (This is the commie support for arms control and disarmament has achieved, precisely the weakening of the West to take away credible deterrence.)

"75 years ago, white slavery was rampant in England. ... it could not be talked about openly in Victorian England, moral standards as to the subjects of discussion made it difficult to arouse the community to necessary action. ... Victorian standards, besides perpetuating the white slave trade, intensified the damage ... Social inhibitions which reinforce natural tendencies to avoid thinking about unpleasant subjects are hardly uncommon. ... But when our reluctance to consider danger brings danger nearer, repression has gone too far. In 1960, I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war ... people are willing to argue that it is immoral to think and even more immoral to write in detail about having to fight ... like those ancient kings who punished messengers who brought them bad news. That did not change the news; it simply slowed up its delivery. On occasion it meant that the kings were ill informed and, lacking truth, made serious errors in judgement and strategy. ... We cannot wish them away. Nor should we overestimate and assume the worst is inevitable. This leads only to defeatism, inadequate preparations (because they seem useless), and pressures toward either preventative war or undue accommodation." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 17-19. (In the footnote on page 35, Kahn notes that original nuclear bullshitter, the 1950 creator of fake cobalt-60 doomsday bomb propaganda, Leo Szilard, was in the usual physics groupthink nutters club: "Szilard is probably being too respectful of his scientific colleagues who also seem to indulge in ad hominem arguments - especially when they are out of their technical specialty.")

"Ever since the catastropic and disillusioning experience of 1914-18, war has been unthinkable to most people in the West ... In December 1938, only 3 months after Munich, Lloyd's of London gave odds of 32 to 1 that there would be no war in 1939. On August 7, 1939, the London Daily Express reported the result of a poll of its European reporters. 10 out of 12 said, 'No war this year'. Hitler invaded Poland 3 weeks later." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, p. 39. (But as the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 proved, even the label "war" is now "controversial": the aggressor now simply declares they are on a special operation of unifying people under one flag to ensure peace! So the reason why there is war in Ukraine is that Ukraine is resisting. If it waved a white flag, as the entire arms control and disarmament lobby insists is the only sane response to a nuclear-armed aggressor, there would be "peace," albeit on Russia's terms: that's why they disarmed Ukraine in 1994. "Peace propaganda" of "disarmers"! Free decent people prefer to fight tyranny. But as Kahn states on pp. 7-9:

"Some, most notably [CND's pseudo-historian of arms race lying] A. J. P. Taylor, have even said that Hitler was not like Hitler, that further appeasement [not an all-out arms race as was needed but repeatedly rejected by Baldwin and Chamberlain until far too late; see discussion of this fact which is still deliberately ignored or onfuscated by "historians" of the A. J. P. Taylor biased anti-deterrence left wing type, in Slessor's The Central Blue, quoted on this blog] would have prevented World War II ... If someone says to you, 'One of us has to be reasonable and it is not going to be me, so it has to be you', he has a very effective bargaining advantage, particularly if he is armed with thermonuclear bombs [and you have damn all civil defense, ABM, or credible tactical deterrent]. If he can convince you he is stark, staring mad and if he has enough destructive power ... deterrence alone will not work. You must then give in or accept the possibility of being annihilated ... in the first instance if we fight and lose; in the second if we capitulate without fighting. ... We could still resist by other means ranging from passive resistance of the Gandhi type to the use of underground fighting and sabotage. All of these alternatives might be of doubtful effectiveness against [the Gulag system, KGB/FSB torture camps or Siberian salt mines of] a ruthless dictatorship."

Sometimes people complain that Hitler and the most destructive and costly war and only nuclear war of history, WWII, is given undue attention. But WWII is a good analogy to the danger precisely because of the lying WMD gas war propaganda-based disarmament of the West which allowed the war, because of the attacks by Hitler's fans on civil defense in the West to make even the token rearmament after 1935 ineffective as a credible deterrent, and because Hitler has mirrors in Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon and Stalin. Kahn explains on p. 173: "Because history has a way of being more imaginative and complex than even the most imaginative and intelligent analysts, historical examples often provide better scenarios than artificial ones, even though they may be no more directly applicable to current equipment, postures, and political situations than the fictional plot of the scenario. Recent history can be especially useful.")

"One type of war resulting at least partly from deliberate calculation could occur in the process of escalation. For example, suppose the Soviets attacked Europe, relying upon our fear of their reprisal to deter a strategic attack by us; we might be deterred enough to pause, but we might evacuate our cities during this pause in the hope we could thereby convince the Soviets we meant business. If the Soviets did not back down, but continued their attack upon Europe, we might decide that we would be less badly off if we proceeded ... The damage we would receive in return would then be considerably reduced, compared with what we would have suffered had we not evacuated. We might well decide at such a time that we would be better off to attack the Soviets and accept a retalitory blow at our dispersed population, rather than let Europe be occupied, and so be forced to accept the penalty of living in the hostile and dangerous world that would follow." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, pp. 51-2.

"We must recognise that the stability we want in a system is more than just stability against accidental war or even against an attack by the enemy. We also want stability against extreme provocation [e.g. invasion of allies, which then escalates as per invasion of Belgium 1914, or Poland 1939]." - Herman Kahn's 1962 Thinking About the Unthinkable, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, p. 53(footnote).

Note: this 1962 book should not be confused with Kahn's 1984 "updated" Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s, which omits the best material in the 1962 edition (in the same way that the 1977 edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons omits the entire civil defense chapter which was the one decent thing in the 1957 and 1962/4 editions!) and thus shows a reversion to the less readable and less helpful style of his 1960 On Thermonuclear War, which severely fragmented and jumbled up all the key arguments making it easy for critics to misquote or quote out of context. For example, Kahn's 1984 "updated" book starts on the first page of the first chapter with the correct assertion that Johnathan Schell's Fate of the Earth is nonsense, but doesn't say why it's nonsense, and you have to read through to the final chapter - pages 207-8 of chapter 10 - to find Kahn writing in the most vague way possible, without a single specific example, that Schell is wrong because of "substantive inadequacies and inaccuracies", without listing a single example such as Schell's lying that the 1954 Bravo nuclear test blinded everyone well beyond the range of Rongelap, and that it was impossible to easily shield the radiation from the fallout or evacuate the area until it decays, which Schell falsely attributed to Glasstone and Dolan's nonsense in the 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons! Kahn eventually in the footnote on page 208 refers readers to an out-of-print article for facts: "These criticisms are elaborated in my review of The Fate of the Earth, see 'Refusing to Think About the Unthinkable', Fortune, June 28, 1982, pp. 113-6. Kahn does the same for civil defense in the 1984 book, referring in such general, imprecise and vague terms to Russian civil defence, with no specific data, that it is a waste of time, apart possibly one half-baked sentence on page 177: "Variations in the total megatonnage, somewhat surprisingly, do not seem to affect the toll nearly as much as variations in the targetting or the type of weapon bursts." Kahn on page 71 quotes an exchange between himself and Senator Proxmire during the US Congressional Hearings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, Civil preparedness and limited nuclear war where on page 55 of the hearings, Senator Proxmire alleges America would escalate a limited conflict to an all-out war because: "The strategic value and military value of destroying cities in the Soviet Union would be very great." Kahn responded: "No American President is likely to do that, no matter what the provocation." Nuclear war will be limited, according to Herman Kahn's analysis, despite the bullshit fron nutters to the contrary.

Kahn on page 101 of Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s correctly and accurately condemns President Carter's 1979 State of the Union Address, which claimed falsely that just a single American nuclear submarine is required by America and has an "overwhelming" deterrent against "every large and medium-sized city in the Soviet Union". Carter ignored Russian retaliation on cities if you bomb theirs: America has avoided the intense Russian protection efforts that make the Russian nuclear threat credible, namely civil defense shelters and evacuation plans, and also the realpolitik of deterrence of world wars, which so far have only been triggered due to invasions of third parties (Belgium '14, Poland '39). Did America strategically nuke every city in Russia when it invaded Ukraine in 2022? No, debunking Proxmire and the entire Western pro-Russian "automatic escalation" propaganda lobby, and it didn't even have tactical neutron bombs to help deter the Russians like Reagan in the 1980s, because in the 1990s America had ignored Kahn's argument, and went in for MINIMAL deterrence of the least credible sort (abolishing the invasion-deterring dedicated neutron tactical nuclear stockpile entirely; the following quotation is from p101 of Kahn's Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s):

"Minimum deterrence, or any predicated on an escessive emphasis on the inevitably of mutual homocide, is both misleading and dangerous. ... MAD principles can promote provocation - e.g. Munich-type blackmail on an ally. Hitler, for example, did not threaten to attack France or England - only Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. It was the French and the British who finally had to threaten all-out war [they could only do this after rearmament and building shelters and gas masks to reduce the risk of reprisals in city bombing, which gave more time for Germany to prepare since it was rearming faster than France and Britain which still desperately counted on appeasement and peace treaties and feared provoking a war by an arms-race due to endless lying propaganda from Lord Grey that his failure to deter war in 1914 had been due to an arms-race rather than the incompetence of the procrastination of his anti-war Liberal Party colleagues in the Cabinet] - a move they would not and could not have made if the notion of a balance of terror between themselves and Germany had been completely accepted. As it was, the British and French were most reluctant to go to war; from 1933 to 1939 Hitler exploited that reluctance. Both nations [France and Britain] were terrified by the so-called 'knockout blow', a German maneuver that would blanket their capitals with poison gas ... The paralyzing effect of this fear prevented them from going to war ... and gave the Germans the freedom to march into the Ruhr, to form the Anschluss with Austria, to force the humiliating Munich appeasement (with the justification of 'peace in our time'), and to take other aggressive actions [e.g. against the Jews in the Nuremberg Laws, Kristallnacht, etc.] ... If the USSR were sufficiently prepared in the event a war did occur, only the capitalists would be destroyed. The Soviets would survive ... that would more than justify whatever sacrifice and destruction had taken place.

"This view seems to prevail in the Soviet military and the Politburo even to the present day. It is almost certain, despite several public denials, that Soviet military preparations are based on war-fighting, rather than on deterrence-only concepts and doctrines..." - Herman Kahn, Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s, 1984, pages 101-102.

Kahn adds, in his footnote on p111, that "Richard Betts has documented numerous historical cases in which attackers weakened their opponents defenses through the employment of unanticipated tactics. These include: rapid changes in tactics per se, false alarms and fluctuating preparations for war ... doctrinal innovations to gain surprise. ... This is exactly the kind of thing which is likely to surprise those who subscribe to MAD theories. Those who see a need for war-fighting capabilities expect the other side to try to be creative and use tactical innovations such as coercion and blackmail, technological surprises, or clever tactics on 'leverage' targets, such as command and control installations. If he is to adhere to a total reliance on MAD, the MADvocate has to ignore these possibilities." See Richard Betts, "Surprise Despite Warning: Why Sudden Attacks Succeed", Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1980-81, pp. 551-572.)

Compare two situations: (1) Putin explodes a 50 megaton nuclear "test" of the warhead for his new nuclear reactor powered torpedo, Poseidon, a revamped 1961 Tsar Bomba, or detonates a high-altitude nuclear EMP "test" over neutral waters but within the thousands of miles range of USA or UK territory; (2) Putin invades Poland using purely conventional weapons. Our point here is that both nuclear AND conventional weapons trigger nuclear threats and the risk of nuclear escalation, as indeed they have done (for Putin's nuclear threats scroll down to videos with translations below). So the fashionable CND style concept that only nuclear weapons can trigger nuclear escalation is bullshit, and is designed to help Russia start and win WWIII to produce a world government, by getting us to undertake further unilateral (not multilateral) disarmament, just as evolved in the 1930s, setting the scene for WWII. Japan for example did not have nuclear weapons in August 1945, yet triggered not just tactical nuclear war (both cities had some military bases and munitions factories, as well as enormous numbers of civilians), and the decision to attack cities rather than just "test" weapons obove Tokyo bay as Teller demanded but Oppenheimer rejected (for maximum impact with a very small supply of nuclear weapons) showed some strategic nuclear war thinking. Truman was escalating to try to shock Japan into rapid surrender emotionally (many cities in Japan had already been burned out in conventional incendiary air raids, and the two nuclear attacks while horrible for civilians in those cities contributed only a fraction of the millions killed in WWII, despite anti-nuclear propaganda lies to the contrary). Truman's approach escalating to win is the opposite of the "Minimax game theory" (von Neumann's maths and Thomas Schelling's propaganda) gradual escalation approach that's currently the basis of nuclear deterrence planning despite its failure wherever it has been tried (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc). Gradual escalation is supposed to minimise the maximum possible risk (hence "minimax" name), but it guarantees failure in the real world (unlike rule abided games) by maximising the build up of resentment. E.g. Schelling/Minimax say that if you gradually napalm civilians day after day (because they are the unprotected human shields used by terrorists/insurgents; the Vietcong are hiding in underground tunnels, exactly like Hamas today, and the Putin regime's metro 2 shelter tunnels under Russia) you somehow "punish the enemy" (although they don't give a toss about the lives of kids which is why you're fighting them!) and force them to negotiate for peace in good faith, then you can pose for photos with them sharing a glass of champagne and there is "world peace". That's a popular fairy tale, like Marxist mythology.

Once you grasp this fact, that nuclear weapons have been and will again be "used" explosively without automatic escalation, for example provocative testing as per the 1961 Russian 50 megaton bomb test, or the 1962 high altitude EMP bursts, you should be able to grasp the fact that the "escalation" deception used to dismiss civil defense and tactical nuclear deterrence against limited nuclear war, is fake news from Russian fellow-travellers like Corbyn. Once you assign a non-unity probability to "escalation", you're into conventional war territory: if you fight a conventional war, it can "escalate" to nuclear war as on 6 August 1945. Japan did not avoid nuclear attack by not having nuclear weapons on 6 August 1945. If it had nuclear weapons ready to be delivered, a very persuasive argument could be made that unless Truman wanted to invite retaliation, World War II would have remained strategically non-nuclear: no net strategic advantage would have been achieved by nuclear city bombing so only war-ending tactical nuclear threats could have prevailed in practice. But try explaining this to the groupthink pseudosocialist bigoted mass murderers who permeate fake physics with crap; it's no easier to explain to them the origins of particle masses or even dark energy/gravitation; in both cases groupthink lying hogwash persists because statements of proved facts are hated and rejected if them debunk religious style fairy tales the mass media loves. There were plenty of people warning that mass media gas war fear mongering was disguised Nazi supporting propaganda in the 1930s, but the public listened to that crap then just as it accepted the "eugenics" (anti-diversity evolution crap of Sir Galton, cousin of Darwin) basis for Hitler's Mein Kampf without question, just as they accepted the lying propaganda from the UK "Cambridge Scientists Anti-War Group" which like CND and all other arms control and disarmament lobbies supporting terrorist states today, did more than even Hitler to deliberately lay the foundations for the Holocaust and World War II, while never being criticised in the UK media! Thus, it's surely time for people to oppose evil lying on civil defence to save lives in all disasters from storms to conventional war, to collateral damage risks in nuclear terrorism by mad enemies. At some point, the majority has to decide to either defend itself honestly and decently against barbarism, or be consumed by it as a price for believing bullshit. It's time for decent people to oppose lying evil regarding the necessity to have credible tactical (not incredible strategic) nuclear weapons, as Oppenheimer called for in his 1951 speech, to deter invasions.

Democracy can't function when secrecy is used to deliberately cover-up vital data from viewing by Joe Public. Secrecy doesn't protect you from enemies who independently develop weapons in secret, or who spy from inside your laboratories:

"The United States and Great Britain resumed testing in 1962, and we spared no effort trying to find out what they were up to. I attended several meetings on that subject. An episode related to those meetings comes to mind ... Once we were shown photographs of some documents ... the photographer had been rushed. Mixed in with the photocopies was a single, terribly crumpled original. I innocently asked why, and was told that it had been concealed in panties. Another time ... questions were asked along the following lines: What data about American weapons would be most useful for your work and for planning military technology in general?"

- Andrei Sakharov, Memoirs, Hutchinson, London, 1990, pp225-6.

ABOVE: The British government has now declassified detailed summary reports giving secret original nuclear test data on the EMP (electromagnetic pulse) damage due to numerous nuclear weapons, data which is still being kept under wraps in America since it hasn't been superseded because Western atmospheric nuclear tests were stopped late in 1962 and never resumed - even though the Russians have even more extensive data - completely debunking Glasstone and Dolan's disarmament propaganda nonsense in the 1962, 1964 and 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons which ignores EMP piped far away from low altitude nuclear tests by power and communications cables and falsely claims instead that such detonations don't produce EMP damage outside the 2psi blast radius! For a discussion of the new data and also a link to the full 200+ pages version (in addition to useful data, inevitably like all official reports it also contains a lot of "fluff" padding), please see the other (physics) site: https://nige.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/secret-emp-effects-of-american-nuclear-tests-finally-declassified-by-the-uk-and-at-uk-national-archives/ (by contrast, this "blogspot" uses old non-smartphone proof coding, no longer properly indexed any long longer by "google's smartphone bot"). As long ago as 1984, Herman Kahn argued on page 112 of his book Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s: "The effects of an EMP attack are simply not well understood [in the West, where long powerlines were never exposed on high altitude nuclear tests, unlike the Russian's 1962 Operation K, so MHD-EMP or E3 damage wasn't even mentioned in the 1977 Glasstone and Dolan Effects of Nuclear Weapons], but the Soviets seem to know - or think they know - more than we do."

BELOW: declassified British nuclear war planning blast survival data showing that even without special Morrison table shelters, the American assumption that nobody can survive in a demolished house is false, based on detailed WWII British data (the majority of people in houses flattened within 77 ft from V1 Nazi cruise missiles survived!), and secret American reports (contradicting their unclassified propaganda) proved that blast survival occurred at 16 psi overpressure in Hiroshima's houses, e.g. see limited distribution Dirkwood corp DC-P-1060 for Hiroshima, also the secret 1972 Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons DNA-EM-1 table 10-1, and WWII report RC-450 table 8.2, p145 (for determining survival of people sheltered in brick houses, the WWII A, B, C, and D damage versus casualty data from V1 blast was correlated to similar damage from nuclear blast as given Glasstone's 1957 Effects of Nuclear Weapons page 249, Fig. 6.41a, and page 109 Fig. 3.94a, which show that A, B, C, and D damage to brick houses from nuclear weapons occur at peak overpressures of 9, 6, 3 and 0.5 psi, respectively; the longer blast from higher yields blows the debris over a wider area, reducing the load per unit area falling on to people sheltered under tables etc), and the declassified UK government assessment of nuclear terrorist attack on a port or harbour, as well as the confidential classified UK Government analysis of the economic and social effects from WWII bombing (e.g. the recovery times for areas as a function of percentage of houses destroyed):

Unofficial Russian video on the secret Russian nuclear shelters from Russian Urban Exploration, titled "Проникли на секретный Спецобъект Метро!" = "We infiltrated a secret special facility of the Metro!":

ABOVE: Moscow Metro and Metro-2 (secret nuclear subway) horizonially swinging blast doors take only 70 seconds to shut, whereas their vertically rising blast doors take 160 seconds to shut; both times are however far shorter than the arrival time of Western ICBMs or even SLBMs which take 15-30 minutes by which time the Russian shelters are sealed from blast and radiation! In times of nuclear crisis, Russia planned to evacuate from cities those who could not be sheltered, and for the remainder to be based in shelters (similarly to the WWII British situation, when people slept in shelters of one kind or another when there was a large risk of being bombed without notice, particularly in supersonic V2 missile attacks where little warning time was available).

fCo2fnIEVVDG-6K0Kwk9cik87id46Qw5l0qJSBtQ/s1600/Moscow%20bomb%20shelter6.png"/>

ABOVE: originally SECRET diagrams showing the immense casualty reductions for simple shelters and local (not long distance as in 1939) evacuation, from a UK Home Office Scientific Advisers’ Branch report CD/SA 72 (UK National Archives document reference HO 225/72), “Casualty estimates for ground burst 10 megaton bombs”, which exposed the truth behind UK Cold War civil defence (contrary to Russian propaganda against UK defence, which still falsely claims there was no scientific basis for anything, playing on the fact the data was classified SECRET). Evacuation plus shelter eliminates huge casualties for limited attacks; notice that for the 10 megaton bombs (more than 20 times the typical yield of today’s MIRV compact warheads!), you need 20 weapons, i.e. a total of 10 x 20 = 200 megatons, for 1 million killed, if civil defence is in place for 45% of people to evacuate a city and the rest to take shelter. Under civil defence, therefore, you get 1 million killed per 200 megatons. This proves that civil defence work to make deterrence more credible in Russian eyes. For a discussion of the anti-civil defence propaganda scam in the West led by Russian agents for Russian advantage in the new cold war, just read posts on this blog started in 2006 when Putin's influence became clear. You can read the full PDF by clicking the link here. Or see the files here.

ABOVE: the originally CONFIDENTIAL classified document chapters of Dr D.G. Christopherson’s “Structural Defence 1945, RC450”, giving low cost UK WWII shelter effectiveness data, which should also have been published to prove the validity of civil defence countermeasures in making deterrence of future war more credible by allowing survival of “demonstration” strikes and “nuclear accidents / limited wars” (it’s no use having weapons and no civil defence, so you can’t deter aggressors, the disaster of Munich appeasement giving Hitler a green light on 30 September 1938, when Anderson shelters were only issued the next year, 1939!). For the original WWII UK Government low cost sheltering instruction books issued to the public (for a small charge!) please click here (we have uploaded them to internet archive), and please click here for further evidence for the effectiveness of indoor shelters during WWII from Morrison shelter inventor Baker's analysis, please click here (he titled his book about WWII shelters "Enterprise versus Bureaucracy" which tells you all you need to know about the problems his successful innovations in shelter design experienced; his revolutionary concept was that the shelter should be damaged to protect the people inside because of the vast energy absorption soaked up in the plastic deformation of steel - something which naive fools can never appreciate - by analogy, if your car bumper is perfectly intact after impact you're unlikely to be because it has not absorbed the impact energy which has been passed on to you!). We have also placed useful declassified UK government nuclear war survival information on internet archive here and here. There is also a demonstration of how proof-tested WWII shelters were tested in 1950s nuclear weapon trials and adapted for use in Cold War nuclear civil defence, here, thus permanently debunking the somewhat pro-dictatorship/anti-deterrence Jeremy Corbyn/Matthew Grant/Duncan Campbell anti-civil defence propaganda rants which pretend to to based on reality, but obviously just ignore the hard, yet secret, nuclear testing facts upon which UK government civil defence was based as my father (a Civil Defence Corps instructor) explained here back in 2006. The reality is that the media follows herd fashion to sell paper/airtime; it doesn't lead it. This is why it backed Nazi appeasement (cheering Chamberlain's 1938 handshakes with Hitler for instance) and only switched tune when it was too late to deter Nazi aggression in 1939; it made the most money that way. We have to face the facts!

NUKEGATE - Western tactical neutron bombs were disarmed after Russian propaganda lie. Russia now has over 2000... "Disarmament and arms control" charlatans, quacks, cranks, liars, mass murdering Russian affiliates, and evil genocidal Marxist media exposed for what it is, what it was in the 1930s when it enabled Hitler to murder tens of millions in war. Glasstone's and Dolan's 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons deceptions totally disproved. Professor Brian Martin, TRUTH TACTICS, 2021 (pp45-50): "In trying to learn from scientific publications, trust remains crucial. The role of trust is epitomised by Glasstone’s book The Effects of Atomic Weapons. Glasstone was not the author; he was the editor. The book is a compilation of information based on the work of numerous contributors. For me, the question was, should I trust this information? Was there some reason why the editors or authors would present fraudulent information, be subject to conflicts of interest or otherwise be biased? ... if anything, the authors would presumably want to overestimate rather than underestimate the dangers ... Of special interest would be anyone who disagreed with the data, calculations or findings in Glasstone. But I couldn’t find any criticisms. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons was treated as the definitive source, and other treatments were compatible with it. ... One potent influence is called confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for information that supports current beliefs and dismiss or counter contrary information. The implication is that changing one’s views can be difficult due to mental commitments. To this can be added various forms of bias, interpersonal influences such as wanting to maintain relationships, overconfidence in one’s knowledge, desires to appear smart, not wanting to admit being mistaken, and career impacts of having particular beliefs. It is difficult to assess the role of these influences on yourself. "

Honest Effects of Nuclear Weapons!

ABOVE (VIDEO CLIP): Russian State TV Channel 1 war inurer and enabler, NOT MERELY MAKING "INCREDIBLE BLUFF THREATS THAT WE MUST ALL LAUGH AT AND IGNORE LIKE DR GOEBBELS THREATS TO GAS JEWS AND START A WORLD WAR" AS ALMOST ALL THE BBC SCHOOL OF "JOURNALISM" (to which we don't exactly belong!) LIARS CLAIM, but instead preparing Russians mentally for nuclear war (they already have nuclear shelters and a new Putin-era tactical nuclear war civil defense manual from 2014, linked and discussed in blog posts on the archive above), arguing for use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine war in 2023: "We should not be afraid of what it is unnecessary to be afraid of. We need to win. That is all. We have to achieve this with the means we have, with the weapons we have. I would like to remind you that a nuclear weapon is not just a bomb; it is the heritage of the whole Russian people, suffered through the hardest times. It is our heritage. And we have the right to use it to defend our homeland [does he mean the liberated components of the USSR that gained freedom in 1992?]. Changing the [nuclear use] doctrine is just a piece of paper, but it is worth making a decision."

NOTE: THIS IS NOT ENGLISH LANGUAGE "PROPAGANDA" SOLELY ADDRESSED AS A "BLUFF" TO UK AND USA GOV BIGOTED CHARLATANS (those who have framed photos of hitler, stalin, chamberlain, baldwin, lloyd george, eisenhower, et al., on their office walls), BUT ADDRESSED AT MAKING RUSSIAN FOLK PARTY TO THE NEED FOR PUTIN TO START A THIRD WORLD WAR! Duh!!!!! SURE, PUTIN COULD PRESS THE BUTTON NOW, BUT THAT IS NOT THE RUSSIAN WAY, ANY MORE THAN HITLER SET OFF WWII BY DIRECTLY BOMBING LONDON! HE DIDN'T. THESE PEOPLE WANT TO CONTROL HISTORY, TO GO DOWN THE NEXT "PUTIN THE GREAT". THEY WANT TO GET THEIR PEOPLE, AND CHINA, NORTH KOREA, IRAN, ET Al. AS ALLIES, BY APPEARING TO BE DEFENDING RATIONALITY AND LIBERTY AGAINST WAR MONGERING WESTERN IMPERIALISM. For the KGB mindset here, please read Chapman Pincher's book "The Secret offensive" and Paul Mercer's "Peace of the Dead - The Truth Behind the Nuclear Disarmers". Please note that the link to the analysis of the secret USSBS report 92, The Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan (which google fails to appreciate is a report with the OPPOSITE conclusions to the lying unclassified reports and Glasstone's book on fire, is on internet archive in the PDF documents list at the page "The effects of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan" (the secret report 92 of the USSBS, not the lying unclassified version or the Glasstone book series). If you don't like the plain layout of this blog, you can change it into a "fashionable" one with smaller photos you can't read by adding ?m=1 to the end of the URL, e.g. https://glasstone.blogspot.com/2022/02/analogy-of-1938-munich-crisis-and.html?m=1

PLEASE BEAR WITH US - THIS SITE WAS DEVELOPED IN 2006 BEFORE GOOGLE SMARTPHONE BOT CACHING (GOOGLE BOTS CAN'T INDEX THIS FORMAT ANYMORE AS IT IS SIMPLY UNSUITABLE TO SMARTPHONES WHICH DIDN'T EXIST BACK IN 2006 - WILL MOVE TO A NEW DOMAIN SOON TO OVERCOME THIS. (HOPEFULLY THE TEXT WILL ALSO BE EDITED AND RE-WRITTEN TO TAKE OUT TYPING ERRORS AND DEAD LINKS DATING BACK TO 2006 WHEN THE BLOG BEGAN - A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN!)

Glasstone's Effects of Nuclear Weapons exaggerations completely undermine credible deterrence of war: Glasstone exaggerates urban "strategic" nuclear weapons effects by using effects data taken from unobstructed terrain (without the concrete jungle shielding of blast winds and radiation by cities!), and omits the most vital uses and most vital effects of nuclear weapons: to DETER world war credibly by negating the concentrations of force used to invade Belgium, 1914 (thus WWI) and Poland (WWII). The facts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the shielding of blast and radiation effects by modern concrete buildings in the credible nuclear deterrence of invasions (click here for data) which - unlike the countervalue drivel that failed to prevent WW2 costing millions of human lives - worked in the Cold War despite the Western media's obsession with treating as Gospel truth the lying anti-nuclear propaganda from Russia's World Peace Council and its allies (intended to make the West disarm to allow Russian invasions without opposition, as worked in Ukraine recently)! If we have credible W54's and W79's tactical nukes to deter invasions as used to Cold War, pro Russian World Peace Council inspired propaganda says: "if you use those, we'll bomb your cities", but they can bomb our cities with nuclear if we use conventional weapons, or even if we fart, if they want - we don't actually control what thugs in dictatorships - it is like saying Hitler had 12,000 tons of tabun nerve agent by 1945, so lying we had to surrender for fear of it. Actually, he had to blow his brains out because he had an incredible deterrent, as retaliation risk plus defence (masks) negated it!

Credible deterrence necessitates simple, effective protection against concentrated and dispersed invasions and bombing. The facts can debunk massively inaccurate, deliberately misleading CND "disarm or be annihilated" pro-dictatorship ("communism" scam) political anti-nuclear deterrence dogma. Hiroshima and Nagasaki anti-nuclear propaganda effects lies on blast and radiation for modern concrete cities is debunked by solid factual evidence kept from public sight for political reasons by the Marx-media which is not opposed by the remainder of the media, and the completely fake "nuclear effects data" sneaks into "established pseudo-wisdom" by the back-door. Another trick is hate attacks on anyone telling the truth: this is a repeat of lies from Nobel Peace Prize winner Angell and pals before WWI (when long-"outlawed" gas was used by all sides, contrary to claims that paper agreements had "banned" it somehow) and WWII (when gas bombing lies prior to the war by Angell, Noel-Baker, Joad and others were used as an excuse to "make peace deals" with the Nazis, again, not worth the paper they were printed on). Mathematically, the subset of all States which keep agreements (disarmament and arms control, for instance) is identical to the subset of all States which are stable Democracies (i.e., tolerating dissent for the past several years), but this subset is - as Dr Spencer Weart's statistical evidence of war proves in his book Never at War: Why Democracies Won't Fight One Another - not the bloody war problem! Because none of the disarmaments grasp set theory, or bother to read Dr Weart's book, they can never understand that disarmament of Democracies doesn't cause peace but causes millions of deaths.

PLEASE CLICK HERE for the truth from Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the shielding of blast and radiation effects by modern concrete buildings in the credible nuclear deterrence of invasions which - unlike the countervalue drivel that failed to prevent WW2 costing millions of human lives - worked in the Cold War despite the Western media's obsession with treating as Gospel truth the lying anti-nuclear propaganda from Russia's World Peace Council and its allies (intended to make the West disarm to allow Russian invasions without opposition, as worked in Ukraine recently)! Realistic effects and credible nuclear weapon capabilities are needed for deterring or stopping aggressive invasions and attacks which could escalate into major conventional or nuclear wars. Credible deterrence is through simple, effective protection against concentrated and dispersed invasions and aerial attacks, debunking inaccurate, misleading CND "disarm or be annihilated" left political anti-nuclear deterrence dogma. Hiroshima and Nagasaki anti-nuclear propaganda effects lies on blast and radiation for modern concrete cities is debunked by solid factual evidence kept from public sight for political reasons by the Marx-media.

Glasstone's and Nukemap's fake Effects of Nuclear Weapons effects data for unobstructed deserts, rather than realistic blast and radiation shielding concrete jungles which mitigate countervalue damage as proved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Penney and Stanbury, undermine credible world war deterrence just as Philip Noel-Baker's 1927 BBC radio propaganda on gas war knock-out blow lies were used by Nazi propaganda distributing "pacifist disarmers" to undermine deterrence of Hitler's war, murdering tens of millions deliberately through lies (e.g. effective gas masks don't exist) that were easy to disprove, but supported by the mainstream fascist leaning press in the UK. There is not just one country, Russia, which could trigger WW3, because we know from history that the world forms alliances once a major war breaks out, apart from a few traditional neutral countries like Ireland and Switzerland, so a major US-China war over Taiwan could draw in support from Russia and North Korea, just as the present Russian invasion and war against Ukraine has drawn in Iranian munitions support for Russia. So it is almost certain that a future East-vs-West world war will involve an alliance of Russia-China-North Korea-Iran fighting on multiple fronts, with nuclear weapons being used carefully for military purposes (not in the imaginary 1930s massive "knockout blow" gas/incendiary/high explosive raids against cities that was used by the UK media to scare the public into appeasing Hitler and thus enabling him to trigger world war; Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf and crazily approved Hitler's plans to exterminate Jews and invade Russia starting a major war, a fact censored out of biased propaganda hailing Chamberlain as a peacemaker).

Realistic effects and credible nuclear weapons capabilities are VITAL for deterring or stopping aggressive invasions and attacks which could escalate into major conventional or nuclear wars debunk Marx media propagandarists who obfuscate because they don't want you to know the truth, so activism is needed to get the message out against lying frauds and open fascists in the Russian supporting Marx mass media, which sadly includes government officialdom (still infiltrated by reds under beds, sorry to Joe MaCarthy haters, but admit it as a hard fact that nuclear bomb labs in the West openly support Russian fascist mass murders; I PRAY THIS WILL SOON CHANGE!).

ABOVE: Tom Ramos at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (quoted at length on the development details of compact MIRV nuclear warhead designs in the latest post on this blog) explains how the brilliant small size primary stage, the Robin, was developed and properly proof-tested in time to act as the primary stage for a compact thermonuclear warhead to deter Russia in the 1st Cold War, something now made impossible due to Russia's World Peace Council propaganda campaigns. (Note that Ramos has a new book published, called From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War which describes in detail in chapter 13, "First the Flute and Then the Robin", how caring, dedicated nuclear weapons physicists in the 1950s and 1960s actually remembered the lesson of disarmament disaster in the 1930s, and so WORKED HARD to develop the "Flute" secondary and the "Robin" primary to enable a compact, light thermonuclear warhead to help deter WWIII! What a difference to today, when all we hear from such "weaponeers" now is evil lying about nuclear weapons effects on cities and against Western civil defence and against credible deterrence on behalf of the enemy.)

ABOVE: Star Wars filmmaker Peter Kuran has at last released his lengthy (90 minutes) documentary on The neutron bomb. Unfortunately, it is not yet being widely screened in cinemas or on DVD Blu Ray disc, so you have to stream it (if you have fast broadband internet hooked up to a decent telly). At least Peter managed to interview Samuel Cohen, who developed the neutron bomb out of the cleaner Livermore devices Dove and Starling in 1958 (Ramos says Livermore's director, who invented a wetsuit, is now trying to say Cohen stole the neutron bomb idea from him! Not so, as RAND colleague and 1993 Effects Manual EM-1 editor Dr Harold L. Brode explains in his recent brilliant book on the history of nuclear weapons in the 1st Cold War (reviewed in a post on this blog in detail) that Cohen was after the neutron bomb for many years before Livermore was even built as a rival to Los Alamos. Cohen had been into neutrons when working in the Los Alamos Efficiency Group of the Manhattan project on the very first nuclear weapons, used with neutron effects on people by Truman, back in 1945 to end a bloody war while the Livermore director was in short pants.)

For the true effects in modern city concrete buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, disproving the popular lies for nudes in open deserts used as the basis for blast and radiation calculations by Glasstone and Nukemap, please click here The deceptive bigots protraying themselves as Federation of American Scientists genuine communist disarmers in the Marx media including TV scammers have been suppressing the truth to sell fake news since 1945 and in a repetition of the 1920s and 1930s gas war media lying for disarmament and horror news scams that caused disarmament and thus encouraged Hitler to initiate the invasions that set off WWII!

Glasstone's Effects of Nuclear Weapons exaggerations completely undermine credible deterrence of war: Glasstone exaggerates urban "strategic" nuclear weapons effects by using effects data taken from unobstructed terrain (without the concrete jungle shielding of blast winds and radiation by cities!), and omits the most vital uses and most vital effects of nuclear weapons: to DETER world war credibly by negating the concentrations of force used to invade Belgium, 1914 (thus WWI) and Poland (WWII). Disarmament and arms control funded propaganda lying says any deterrent which is not actually exploded in anger is a waste of money since it isn't being "used", a fraud apparently due to the title and content of Glasstone's book which omits the key use and effect of nuclear weapons, to prevent world wars: this is because Glasstone and Dolan don't even bother to mention the neutron bomb or 10-fold reduced fallout in the the Los Alamos 95% clean Redwing-Navajo test of 1956, despite the neutron bomb effects being analysed for its enhanced radiation and reduced thermal and blast yield in detail in the 1972 edition of Dolan's edited secret U.S. Department of Defense Effects Manual EM-1, "Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons", data now declassified yet still being covered-up by "arms control and disarmament" liars today to try to destroy credible deterrence of war in order to bolster their obviously pro-Russian political anti-peace agenda. "Disarmament and arms control" charlatans, quacks, cranks, liars, mass murdering Russian affiliates, and evil genocidal Marxist media exposed for what it is, what it was in the 1930s when it enabled Hitler to murder tens of millions in war .

ABOVE: 11 May 2023 Russian state TV channel 1 loon openly threatens nuclear tests and bombing UK. Seeing how the Russian media is under control of Putin, this is like Dr Goebbels rantings, 80 years past. But this doesn't disprove the world war threat any more than it did with Dr Goebbels. These people, like the BBC here, don't just communicate "news" but attempt to do so selectively and with interpretations and opinions that set the stage for a pretty obviously hate based political agenda with their millions of viewers, a trick that worked in the 1st Cold War despite Orwell's attempts to lampoon it in books about big brother like "1984" and "Animal Farm". When in October 1962 the Russians put nuclear weapons into Cuba in secret without any open "threats", and with a MASSIVELY inferior overall nuclear stockpile to the USA (the USA had MORE nuclear weapons, more ICBMs, etc.), the media made a big fuss, even when Kennedy went on TV on 22 October and ensured no nuclear "accidents" in Cuba by telling Russia that any single accidentally launched missile from Cuba against any Western city would result in a FULL RETALITORY STRIKE ON RUSSIA. There was no risk of nuclear war then except by accident, and Kennedy had in his 25 May 1961 speech on "Urgent National Needs" a year and a half before instigated NUCLEAR SHELTERS in public basement buildings to help people in cities survive (modern concrete buildings survive near ground zero Hiroshima, as proved by declassified USSBS reports kept covered up by Uncle Sam). NOE THAT THERE IS A CREDIBLE THREAT OF NUCLEAR TESTS AND HIROSHIMA TYPE INTIMIDATION STRIKES, THE BBC FINALLY DECIDES TO SUPPRESS NUCLEAR NEWS SUPPOSEDLY TO HELP "ANTI-NUCLEAR" RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA TRYING TO PREVENT US FROM GETTING CREDIBLE DETERRENCE OF INVASIONS, AS WE HAD WITH THE W79 UNTIL DISARMERS REMOVED IT IN THE 90s! This stinks of prejudice, the usual sort of hypocrisy from the 1930s "disarmament heroes" who lied their way to Nobel peace prizes by starting a world war!

The facts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the shielding of blast and radiation effects by modern concrete buildings in the credible nuclear deterrence of invasions (click here for data) which - unlike the countervalue drivel that failed to prevent WW2 costing millions of human lives - worked in the Cold War despite the Western media's obsession with treating as Gospel truth the lying anti-nuclear propaganda from Russia's World Peace Council and its allies (intended to make the West disarm to allow Russian invasions without overwhelming, effective deterrence or opposition, as worked in Ukraine recently)!

Realistic effects and credible nuclear weapon capabilities are required now for deterring or stopping aggressive invasions and attacks which could escalate into major conventional or nuclear wars. Credible deterrence necessitates simple, effective protection against concentrated and dispersed invasions and bombing. The facts can debunk massively inaccurate, deliberately misleading CND "disarm or be annihilated" pro-dictatorship ("communism" scam) political anti-nuclear deterrence dogma. Hiroshima and Nagasaki anti-nuclear propaganda effects lies on blast and radiation for modern concrete cities is debunked by solid factual evidence kept from public sight for political reasons by the Marx-media, which is not opposed by the fashion-obsessed remainder of the media, and so myths sneak into "established pseudo-wisdom" by the back-door.

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Gas masks or EH20 escape hoods as an alternative to economic disruption due to coronavirus covid-19

UPDATE: see "Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic", The Lancet, Britain's premier medical journal, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2213-2600%2820%2930134-X: "It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas. ... In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans."

 The immense success of Taiwan's mask policy, just 379 cases of covid-19, should make Taiwan the world's model for ending the covid-19 pandemic, please see https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/taiwan-is-exporting-its-coronavirus-successes-to-the-world: "Despite being shut out of WHO [WHO refuses to recommend masks to end the pandemic], Taiwan has largely succeeded in containing the coronavirus. ... On April 1, Taiwan announced it would donate 10 million masks to the United States, 11 European countries, and its diplomatic allies. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said on Thursday that a second batch of six million masks would be donated to countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas."
"This study focussed on the effectiveness of surgical masks against a range of airborne particles. Using separate tests to measure levels of inert particles and live aerosolised influenza virus, our findings show that surgical masks provide around a 6-fold reduction in exposure. Live viruses could be detected in the air behind all surgical masks tested. By contrast, properly fitted respirators could provide at least a 100-fold reduction. "

 - UK Government Health and Safety Executive, Research Report RR619, Evaluating the protection afforded by surgical masks against influenza bioaerosols - Gross protection of surgical masks compared to filtering facepiece respirators, https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf

 Weird that the UK Government and BBC ignores this report, claiming falsely to maximise deaths that there is "no evidence" to prove that virus inhalation is reduced by respirators by a factor of 100, a complete lie! Note that the mass of viruses in typical sneeze water droplets is insignificant, so the physical action of the mask in both influenza and covid-19 is the same mechanism regardless of the chemical structure of the different viruses: filtering out typical sub-millimetre diameter water droplets. The viruses contained in those small water droplets are an insignificant percentage of the mass in either case, so although the different respiratory disease viruses do have a different biological infectivity (i.e. probability of locking on to receptors on the surface of cells), the physical filtering efficiency of a gas mask will be the same in each case, for the similar sized water carrier droplets being considered.

 (The tiny mass of viruses in the contaminating water droplets is analogous to the tiny mass of actual radioactive nuclides in fallout particles of soil or water; the physical macroscopic characteristics of the contaminant and the ability to filter it using masks is determined by the carrier material which forms the greater mass by far, not by the tiny mass of the virus or radioactive nuclide in it.)

 Therefore, experiments on filtering influenza water droplets are applicable to covid-19 virus droplets of similar size; the droplet size distribution is determined by whether the person is talking, coughing or sneezing, not by the type of respiratory disease virus. This is straightforward physics, not speculation.

 The flu viruses have an effective diameter less than one micron (i.e. one millionth of a metre). Therefore, the flu virus has a diameter less than 1/1000th of 1 mm diameter water droplet emitted in a sneeze. The respirator works by filtering the water droplets, and the size or shape of the tiny viruses in the water droplets is irrelevant. As the water droplet trapped in the filter of a respirator dries, the virus does not evaporate with the water, but adheres to micro-relief pores in the fibres of the filter.

 Covid viruses are the largest known RNA viruses, 30 kilobase-long single stranded RNA, i.e. they are about 10 microns long (since 1 kbase is about 0.33 microns), so they are LARGER than flu and where the physical size of the virus plays a part (for very small exhaled droplets) they will therefore be EASIER to filter than flu viruses. The larger the particle, the easier it is to filter it out:
Typical viruses range from 30nm to 300nm in diameter: filters in respirators capture the considerably larger sized water / mucus droplets which contain the virus.  Therefore, filtering is effective against a range of respiratory viruses, irrespective of the specific structure of the particular virus.  So data from influenza virus filtering is also in general applicable to coronavirus / covid-19.
Probability of deposition of particles of different sizes in different parts of the lung as a function of particle size, a graph and diagram from the 22-26 June 1959 US Congressional Hearings on Biological effects of war (testimony by Dr Stanton Cohn of Brookhaven National Laboratory, based upon studies of inhalation of radioactive tracer particles), which we uploaded to Internet Archive years ago (linked here). For 5 micron diameter inhaled particles, 50% go straight into the lung (the alveolar sacs are 300 microns / 0.3 mm in diameter). For particles of larger size than 5 microns diameter, most adhere in the upper respiratory tract, not the lungs. For very small particles 0.5 micron diameter, some particles inhaled can be exhaled without being retained (this happens with cigarette smoke, for example, where very small particles inhaled are then exhaled without being retained). Extensive research of this type was done at places like Porton in the Cold War for nuclear, chemical particles (some chemical war agents are actually small droplets or particles of smoke, not gas) and biological war agents like viruses sprayed in liquid aerosols from aircraft (Peter Hammond and Gradon Carter, "From Biological Warfare to Healthcare: Porton Down, 1940-2000", Palgrave). Effective CBRN war respirators are therefore needed for small particles, which will not always be filtered out by the smaller filtering layer in simple surgical masks. This is particularly true for those with weak immune systems (the old and those with underlying health issues, such as people undergoing cancer treatments which affect immune response), for whom the infectious dose of virus is smaller than it is in people with stronger immune systems (that can respond must faster).

 British Medical Journal, https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435 "Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis" - https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1435.full.pdf point out that the precautionary principle argues that when thousands of lives are at stake it is better to be safe than sorry, so we need masks for the same reason that we have lifeboats, seat belts, smoke detectors, etc:

 "In conclusion, in the face of a pandemic the search for perfect evidence may be the enemy of good policy. As with parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes, it is time to act without waiting for randomised controlled trial evidence. A recently posted preprint of a systematic review came to the same conclusion. Masks are simple, cheap, and potentially effective. We believe that, worn both in the home (particularly by the person showing symptoms) and also outside the home in situations where meeting others is likely (for example, shopping, public transport), they could have a substantial impact on transmission with a relatively small impact on social and economic life."
Wow!  They never took that approach to civil defence in the cold war, when they believed USSR propaganda to make the UK vulnerable!  The convoluted argument of WHO is that car seat belts make people have more accidents by lulling them into a false sense of security, the same as the anti-gas mask argument.  A soldier given a gas mask is not more likely to start a gas war; the other side is less likely to! The idea that the public, properly protected, will spread disease is purely lying Marxist propaganda with no evidence to support it.  WHO are rejecting the evidence using a debunked argument based on lies.

Propaganda, anti-mask "fake news" spread to mislead the public by The Guardian and the BBC endlessly parrots WHO deceptions, since they are backed by pro-Marxist political propaganda lobbies which falsely claim that people should be misinformed about masks because all available masks should be reserved for medics (treatment, not prevention of the vulnerable from getting infected and needing treatment in the first place):

Fake news spreading Marxist paper The Guardian hypes up the WHO deception that there is "no evidence" that masks protect healthy people against covid-19.  What they should say is that there is no evidence that washing hands and staying 2 metres apart is actually proved to stops all transmission (even the UK government only claims that this is just a measure to reduce the reproduction number to stagger the number of deaths over a longer period of time by "flattening the curve" to avoid an overload of ventilator capacity at any given time, NOT to stop infections and deaths altogether), but proper filtering has been proved to reduce airborne viral transmission by more than a factor of 100, which could quickly stop the pandemic:


Above: why washing hands and keeping 2 metres social distancing will NOT stop deaths from covid-19: droplets and covid-19 respiratory aerosols indoors build up in concentration (the finer aerosols get deeper into the lungs than the larger droplets, so are not safer), and spread far further than 2 metres through the air, not just by hands.  But propagandarist BBC's David Shukman circulates deceptive propaganda in the form of "strawman" arguments against masks in which he shows the video of covid-19 droplets spreading (above pic) and then some NHS "expert" or other states that "on balance, people don't need masks outdoors", even though it is about indoor contamination of air in hospital corridors, waiting rooms at surgeries, diagnosis and rooms for cancer or heart disease, supermarkets, shops, offices, buses, trains, tubes, care homes, etc.  This sadly is deliberate Dr Goebbels style lying, because we could END the pandemic by the massive reduction of the reproduction number of the virus if we all wore efficient droplet filtering gas masks for a week (because, outside the body, the virus only survives a few days on most surfaces except in a refrigerator):







Daily Mail's 17 April 2020 "Why don't we MASK out virus?" cover story for covid-19 end of lockdown scheme. Old news! I blogged this over a month ago: "Gas masks or EH20 escape hoods as an alternative to economic disruption due to coronavirus covid-19" - https://glasstone.blogspot.com/2020/03/gas-masks-or-eh20-escape-hoods-as.html Glad they have eventually got the basic idea! ;-)

Daily Mail, 22 April 2020: Because the UK Government is not recommending that vulnerable people wear effective covid-19 protective masks when travelling for cancer diagnosis or treatment or heart treatment, 2700 cancers may be missed a week, and hospital admissions have fallen in the UK, indicating that vulnerable people are avoiding the risk of covid-19 contagion by not going to hospital for other diagnoses and treatments (Daily Mail, 22 April 2020).  Therefore, the total death rate due to side effects of the virus and deaths outside hospitals may be higher, due to people dying from diseases sidelined by covid-19.

 This may also imply that the recent fall in hospital admissions in London is not an indication that the pandemic is over, but that fall is instead at least partly due to people avoiding covid-19 infected hospitals like the plague (no pun intended).  Even people with symptoms that could be flu/covid-19, who are currently not allowed to be tested outside of hospital, may choose to stay from hospital, in the hope that they just have normal flu and would not prefer to risk getting covid-19 as well, if they went to hospital.  Therefore, vulnerable people will need to be protected to make it safe enough for them to attend hospital for diagnosis or treatment, or they will end up suffering and dying due to the WHO/BBC/Guardian "no masks" delusional propaganda.

Above: UK hospital covid-19 cases is falling because people without masks are now avoiding infected hospitals like the plague. The government however is viewing this data differently, claiming that because people are avoiding hospitals to try to reduce their risk of picking up infection, the pandemic is "under control".  Likewise, they claimed that the fall in tested cases due to their reduced testing policy (testing only hospital patients, not everyone with symptoms as in February) was "green shoots", and that the falling death rate in hospitals (due to people avoiding hospitals if at all possible and dying in homes, care centres, etc.) was good news that the pandemic was over without masks being needed to save lives.

 Even the EU's European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in its 8 April 2020 technical report, "Using face masks in the community - Reducing COVID-19 transmission from potentially asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people through the use of face masks", recommended in its Executive Summary: "The use of face masks in public may serve as a means of source control to reduce the spread of the infection in the community by minimising the excretion of respiratory droplets from infected individuals who have not yet developed symptoms or who remain asymptomatic. ... The use of face masks in the community could be considered, especially when visiting busy, closed spaces, such as grocery stores, shopping centres, or when using public transport, etc. ... Appropriate use of face masks is key for the effectiveness of the measure and can be improved through education campaigns."  (WHO by contrast considers the lay public incapable of using masks correctly, a belief not shared by the UK government in WW2 when 100% of the UK public were issued gas masks and informed how to use them safely.)
Above: UK death rate is very high.  America's death rate is higher due to a much larger population; America has 328 million whereas the UK only has 67 million, which is only 20% of America's population so despite superficial propaganda appearances of the Prime Minister's tweeted curves on this graph, the USA death rate per person is really way lower than in the UK.  Countries with high populations but mask wearing policies for people entering buildings, e.g. Germany, South Korea and China, have low death rates.


 On 23 April 2020, The Sun newspaper also ignored WHO, BBC and Guardian anti-masks propaganda to run a front page article "WEAR A MASK": https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11458821/coronavirus-mask-work-shops-transport-lockdown-2021/









How to modify an Avon UK EH20 CBN (chemical, biological and nuclear hazard) Escape Hood - stocked in large numbers by UK emergency services - into an easier to wear, practical eye shield and respirator for covid-19 coronavirus droplet filtering use. (Click on photo for larger view.)

Avon EH20 cheap surplus Chemical Biological Nuclear War Escape Hood respirator and eye shields modified into low-cost, comfortable and efficient covid-19 protective mask.
Avon Chemical, Nuclear, Biological and Radiological filter containers are relatively cheap - this one was £9.04 (see price label on this sealed container), when compared to the immense lock-down price per person for months of economic shut-down, and they are vacuum foil sealed which preserves the activated charcoal and filters inside indefinitely - they can easily be tested against smoke or chlorine gas (generated from household bleach + acid) to confirm when gas mask filters need replacing!  (The "best before" dates on sealed gas mask filters is just a rule for the date when they next need testing, not a date when they cease being serviceable!)  The actual gas mask has a soft rubber face seal which is comfortable to wear, can be wiped clean and fresh with antiseptic after each shift and re-used, saving waste, unlike less comfortable, less effective disposable paper masks!  They can also be kept by civilians ready for nuclear disasters or a repeat of the recent Salisbury Novichok nerve agent chemical warfare attacks, which was the policy for the UK Government during the entire Second World War (Germany had mustard gas and stockpiled 12K tons of tabun, a volatile nerve gas intended for London if the UK abandoned the legal demand on civilians to always carry their personal gas masks):




ORIGINAL BLOG POST:


UK cumulative covid-19 cases doubling time has now fallen to about 2 days, going from 590 total cases on 12th to 1100 on 14th March: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases (graph below; please click on illustrations on this blog for a full-size view to load)
If this exponential rate continues, in 30 days there will be 1100 x 2^(30/2) = 36,000,000 cases (half the population). If the W.H.O. mortality rate figure of 3.4% applies, that is 0.034x36,000,000 = 1,200,000 dead, which will be hard to "cover-up" by simply preventing people from being tested for coronavirus. Flu in the UK killed 1,692 in 2018/19 according to Public Health England (see https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/ ), so there is a difference: the mortality risk is about 17-34 times higher than flu, and it is far more infectious than flu (no flu strain in the UK has ever doubled the cases in just 2 days!), and China only stopped its epidemic by draconian measures to stop people from coming near one another. Clearly the exponential curve will have to flatten out (due to increasing doubling time) at some point eventually, but we could do that sooner rather than later - and without economic disruption - by simply issuing effective masks:


UK policy is to allow the virus to spread in the hope of causing "herd immunity" without waiting for a vaccine, and to stop testing most infected people due to only 2,000 lab tests being available daily. I saw people wearing surgical masks at the supermarket today (canned food shelves were empty, not just hand wash as a week ago). As in WWII when everyone was issued a protective mask against gas, we would be able to continue doing almost everything as normal without self-isolation (thus no massive economic world recession effect on people avoiding public transport, airports, aircraft, schools, colleges, etc.), if everyone doing so had such simple cheap masks when near other people who could transmit infections. This was not regarded as a waste of money then, even though Hitler never dropped his 12,000 tons of nerve gas tabun on the UK thanks to UK gas precautions, and at least one mainstream media commentator (Richard Madeley) realised this:


The recent use of nerve gas Novichok in the UK by Russia and the use of gas in other recent wars such as in Syria has led to some new interest in civil defence as an alternative to shutting down the economy if such a pandemic virus or a gas threatens people. When dad was a Civil Defence Corps Instructor in the 1950s, Britain was building up enough brand new (post-war, NOT WW2) C7 gas masks for the entire population, which were abandoned after the Corps was closed in 1968 (leaving the UK population vulnerable to a whole range of civil emergencies and disasters, not "just war")!  It's about time that tried and tested solutions are used to deal with disasters to SAVE LIVES efficiently.

 Instead, the media will oppose/ignore/ridicule/dismiss this, misled to the kind of abusive stupid "experts" who don't like tried and tested solutions.  (Extremists on both the right and left wing politically, who hate straightforward solutions that WORK, and simply pretend such solutions don't really exist, using a long list of fake news "no-go theorems" against them.)  They will lie that it is too expensive or not applicable to school kids who spread disease to older folk (not true in WWII, see photos of kids in WWII gas masks playing above), etc., etc.  They won't be challenged effectively by any of the fake news spreaders and trolls who are employed by most of the UK TV media, whose sole purpose in "reporting news" is to make a hate attack on Prime Minister Johnson or President Trump, and not to give airtime to WORKABLE solutions that can enable the world to avoid both (a) economic shutdown/recession and (b) massive casualties.
----------------------------------------------

 Frequently asked questions on gas masks against viruses

 1. Hands spread infection so washing hands will prevent covid-19 /coronavirus, won't it?

 ANSWER: no it doesn't work because infection takes place through the FACE (eyes, nose, mouth).  If you are on a London tube train you have to touch handles to remain standing when the train starts/stops.  People are coughing.  There is no sunlight UV "open air factor" to render ineffective the viruses on exhaled water droplets.  There are NO WASHBASINS on tube trains and even where there are washbasins, in many cases you wash your hands clean and then re-infect yourself immediately afterwards in opening the door handle to go out of the toilet!

 So the amount of time that "washing your hands" protects you is a few seconds only.  Trivial protection!  Pathetic protection!  The rest of the time - most of the time - washing hands is useless because you have to touch things.

 Money changes hands, or you type your credit card pin number on a contaminated number pad if not using cash - either way you risk contamination!  Even Novichok and for that matter sarin and VX nerve agents, and even old mustard gas liquid, were primarily skin contaminants but people in Novichok contaminated locations in Salisbury UK still had to wear gas masks, because the only guaranteed way to stop people reflectively touching their mouth, eyes, or nose (without even realising it!) is to be wearing a gas mask!

 In fact, the data we have on the airborne transmission of flu and other aerosol spread viruses comes from simple experiments on control groups of people wearing masks and other groups not wearing them, in places like the old Common Cold Research Station.  By unscrewing the gas mask filters from one group, exposed in identical conditions to others with filtered masks and without them, you determine precisely the infection risk from putting your fingers on your face accidentally (brushing your nose, lips or eye lashes), as compared to actual inhalation risk.

 In any case, the government has been advising hand-washing for a long time, UK supermarket shelves were emptied of handwash long ago, but cases are now soaring regardless.  This proves that simple advice to wash hands is not enough to prevent the risk.

 2. We don't have enough gas masks for everyone at risk and there is not a world war to justify making any more gas masks as in 1939-45, so this whole idea is unreasonable and too expensive, isn't it?

 LIE - we have stockpiles of EH20 escape hoods and a large stockpile of military gas masks in case of gas attacks, and the filters on those are absolutely fine for viruses as for nerve gas. The UK government has been repeatedly saying that the people MOST AT RISK are a SMALL PERCENTAGE with pre-existing conditions.  Therefore, give gas masks or EH20 escape hoods to the most vulnerable groups first, while making more (the UK has its own gas mask factories such as Avon).

 The remainder of this kind of "question" is a complete lie - the UK made most of the gas masks BEFORE WWII actually started, and it was the VERY existence of such civil defence that enabled the threat to be addressed.

 Before that, there was a real risk of mass casualties from gas (way beyond the 60K deaths from civilian bombing that actually occurred in the UK during the war) which closed down all realistic discussions of the threat.  You had to have the gas masks to negate the threat before realistic solutions were finally taken seriously.  As explained in previous blog posts here, opponents of gas masks in 1936-8 were either ignorant (liars proclaiming there is "no protection" in the face of evidence to the contrary from WWI) or had a sympathy with extremist right or left wing organisations, who had a vested interest in making the UK vulnerable, to profit from this either financially or politically.

 Regarding the "expense" argument, just look at the economic costs of shutting down Italy.  Gas masks were manufactured cheaply and quickly in large numbers in the UK in 1938-9.  It would have been MORE expensive to have Hitler drop his 12,000 tons of nerve gas tabun on London, or mustard gas, than to issue gas masks!  Likewise for the coronavirus causing businesses to close for an extended period and for huge numbers of people to suffer and die!  This is about human lives primarily, but the argument ALSO applies to economic considerations!

 3. But surely the data will soon show that the exponential surge in UK covid-19 cases will end, so we don't need gas masks?

 YES IT WILL!  But NOT because anything is improving while in fact infection conditions remain the same: the data will soon show a FAKE NEWS type "fall" or at least "level out" because the UK is no longer offering tests to people with symptoms who call 111, because the UK Government has stated it it can only test a maximum of 2,000 people a day.  Tests in the "Contain Phase" have now ended, and in the current "Delay Phase" people with symptoms are advised NOT to be tested but just to self-isolate for 7 days, so data will falsely level off from this.  This is a bit like "sorting out" radiation problems by not taking measurements with geiger counters - a fake approach to reduce panic by controlling the data available!  It is precisely this decision to end routinely testing people with symptoms that motivated this blog post.

 The problem is media self-interest - either in fear mongering or ignoring the threat, or a mixture of both of these equally deplorable extremist lunacies - backing incompetent or fashionable "expert" liars who begin by ignoring the simple proved solutions, and then propose ineffective, costly schemes that don't work for political self-aggrandisement.  And no, I'm not the inventor of the gas mask and I don't get paid to hype them, I only have as much self-interest in delaying this virus until a vaccine is developed to safely give immunity, as everyone else has.  Of course, mass media TV and Left Wing Magazine/Paper promoted trolls will ignore this idea and will try to maximise the disaster to sell scare stories on TV or to allow the problem to get worse by trying to stop sensible suggestions from being sensibly discussed.  Hype doesn't mean they are correct.


4. If you are on crowded bus/train/airplane, with people coughing nearby, do you need goggles as well as a mask for protection, or an actual full face gas mask / EH20 escape hood?

 Surgical masks are specifically designed to protect the patient's wounds from contamination from the surgeon when he speaks during surgery to assistants, not to protect the surgeon from the patient! They are therefore only designed to catch YOUR exhaled or coughed droplets. They don't provide an airtight seal at the edges to filter air you inhale, so they offer only partial protection against small airborne infectious droplets when people nearby cough or sneeze, which is one reason why some "experts" are against them as a ready solution.

 (Other objections are political and fashion based and thus are similar to the fake news claims made by "experts" in the 1930s against gas masks, which were fortunately ignored by the government, which issued gas masks to remove gas threats regardless of the howling of "expert" objectors who thought that effective countermeasures would degrade or taint the pristine morality of humanity, by allowing people to survive using unfashionable facewear, or that we should morally take the highroad by simply asking the virus to sign a "peace agreement" and promise faithfully to stop infecting people.)

 However the filters in gas masks and EH20 escape hoods are designed specifically to remove CBN (chemical, biological and nuclear) hazards, fine particles, droplets and gases, and they are better seals.  They prevent eye infection, nose infection, inhalation and the accidental touching of the face with the hands.  Some have drinking straws built in.  Gas masks can be wiped clean and anti-septic and re-used, unlike paper masks that become contaminated.
---------------------------------

 Update (21 March 2020):

 The over 80s and other susceptible groups (those with lung conditions like cystic fibrosis or lung cancer, or with weakened immune systems due to chemotherapy) should get the available masks of whatever sorts are available (medical, civilian, military, industrial, etc.) immediately to help to prevent them getting coronavirus until a vaccine is available, because there is a shortage of ventilators and they are not saving enough lives in Italy where there have been 47,021 confirmed cases with 4,032 deaths, which is 8.6%, exactly double the W.H.O. forecast of 4.3%. China successfully gave out masks as well as isolating infected areas, and the masks worked. Instead the policy is reserving masks for the medical professional to treat people, when infected, even though the Italian evidence shows this is failing, and that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN EFFORTS TO TREAT THE PNEUMONIA SYMPTOMS IN THE VULNERABLE. The UK is instead reserving masks for use in the treatment stage which is LESS EFFECTIVE than PREVENTION, the opposite of what it did in 1938 when it made 40 million masks to protect people.

 (The analogy to gas war would be to issue only masks to medics treating civilians who have inhaled usually fatal gas doses due to not having masks.  I'm trying to "dumb down" the facts so that the media's fake news spreaders, fear mongerers, and self-aggrandising Marxists can't get away with claiming to be "confused" or "ignorant" about the point being made.  That's their usual excuse for suppressing the key facts and circulating "official expert" lies instead of challenging Marxist dogma that aims to maximise disasters for political advantages and profit.)

 Wouldn't it be better to keep everything open and issue people protective masks and gloves INSTEAD of a general shut down - which has failed to halt deaths in Italy - until a vaccine is developed? Ultimately masks and gloves will have to be issued to people working in crowded places like supermarkets, transport systems, etc, not just hospitals. Why not go the whole hog now and issue them to people at particular risk of dying from coronavirus, to minimise their risk of getting it in the first place. I think they will be the last ones to get personal protective equipment, and pseudo "experts" will instead prefer to allow them to get covid-19 pneumonia, and overload hospitals!
The UK coronavirus test ban problem in creating fake news of curve flattening, when vital data are simply NOT being collected or included anymore.  Without any idea of the true numbers, the government can avoid issuing protective life saving masks to vulnerable groups.  The media reports political propaganda of one sort or another, and avoids the basic facts.
Coronavirus cover up in UK data statistics.  It underestimates current cases, due to now only testing people in hospital, but even this still shows a doubling in the cumulative total cases in the past 3 days, from about 2000 to about 4000 today: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases
Another aspect of this "fake news" propaganda from the UK Government, the TV media, and many newspapers is the inaccuracy on the actual mortality risk.  Bubonic plague in the infamous pandemics of 1348, 1665, etc had a higher mortality than covid-19 in Italy ONLY if you compare unlike situations (untreated bubonic plague cases compared with treated covid-19 cases).  If you are not issuing propaganda, and compare like-with-like, you find that bubonic plague from infected fleas carried by rats will kill 10-15% of treated cases.

 So far in Italy, the 4,032 deaths in 47,021 confirmed cases is 8.6% mortality (those who have died have an average age of 80), but if we just focus on those 47,021 cases (ignoring any future cases), many of them are too recent to have resulted in mortality, so the number of deaths within the 47,021 will increase beyond the 4,032 figure, and this means (ignoring future cases) that the true total death rate in Italy is higher than the 8.6% figure, and is probably 10-15%.

 So it is likely to have a similar mortality risk to bubonic plague in an elderly population, given a like-for-like comparison basis (treated cases of covid-19 and treated cases of bubonic plague).  Seasonal flu by comparison usually has a death rate of 0.1-0.2% with treatment, so covid-19 can be up to 100 times more deadly than flu and in terms of mortality risks observed in the elderly population of Italy, it is similar to bubonic plague.

 Perhaps explaining this will help to ensure it is considered more as biological warfare type threat requiring that kind of response (e.g. gas masks for people queuing up for their rations in supermarkets), than a flu strain.

 Update: 22 March 2020

 BBC Fake News for mass murder is debunked
Evidence that the TV media hyped washing hands countermeasure without masks has FAILED to prevent exponental surge in cases.  This "government data" is partly FAKE news itself because routine data collection and testing of people with symptoms for coronavirus stopped over a week ago in the UK, when people were instructed not to even call 111 to report cases, let alone to get tested.  So many cases are probably now being unreported.  The media in general fails to acknowledge this fact, and reports the fake news as the truth.  It also lies about gas masks that could save lives, all in the interest of expert hubris.
BBC news is hyping "expert fake news" lies that washing hands and not wearing masks is adequate, that wearing masks makes the virus spread faster, etc. Just to remind people, don't believe liars. If medical professionals believe this they wouldn't wear masks. They do wear masks, and they don't therefore believe their own lies. The sooner the BBC and other fake news outlets have the compulsory licence fee abolished and stop issuing "expert" lies, the more lives can be saved.

 Protecting people, rather than institutions like the BBC, media, NHS etc, is the key problem. The NHS only has limited resources for epidemics and the safest option is to PREVENT covid-19 transmission until a vaccine is available, not the rant against masks and then rely on the NHS to cope with the massive numbers of cases. There is evidence from Italy that isolation and hospitalisation DON'T WORK and prevention is better than cure. Washing hands is not sufficient to stop a disease spread by infectious airborne droplets. I saw the NHS bullshit when my glue-ear problem went undiagnosed and untreated for over five years, causing severe hearing and speech problems. (My mother was a State Registered Nurse in the NHS from 1951 onwards, so please don't imagine that the Marxist infiltration of NHS medical professionals trade unions, the BMA and organisations that issue lying "peace propaganda" against civil defence preventative measures is a topic we're unaware of. As far as the Marxist dogma driven liars in the NHS have always been concerned, it must be saved in order to produce back-door Marxism in the UK by being as cost-inefficient as possible - as in my hellish childhood caused by the NHS and now in abandoning effective preventative medicine in favour of ineffective costly treatment - in order deliberately to use the inefficiency as a political lever to demand more and more money, until capitalism collapses under the debt burden when it can't repay the interest by taxation. The fact it is inefficient is what the professionals so love about it. I ended up with a ruined childhood, unable to hear properly due to distortion or speak properly due to frequency distorted hearing, despite numerous God-type patronising and fake news type "expert" propaganda lectures from "NHS professionals" that were lies.) "Save our NHS" government slogans therefore should be replaced by "save people's lives". Less propaganda, less lies, and more facts are needed.

 In fact what they are doing is the OPPOSITE of what they claim to do. They spread fake news to cause panic by suppressing evidence of EFFECTIVE countermeasures, and then claim that anyone pointing out their lies must be censored out because it disagrees with big shot liars. This is getting very dirty, hubris and dictatorship versus the truth, and people are needlessly dying as a result. If you look at China, you see that the masks have helped to stop the spread of the disease very quickly when people have to get food from shops, etc. You need them to reduce the spread of the transmission, to save lives.

 The problem with James Delingpole's criticism of officialdom on coronavirus / covid-19

 James Delingpole has been chasing the wrong horse as usual, in this case the 2005 Virology Journal paper ‘Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,’ based on chloroquine to enable people to absorb more zinc, which allegedly prevents viral RNA transcription of coronavirus:

"Why isn’t the solution being shouted from the rooftops? One possibility, as I suggested yesterday, is that there is no money in it for Big Pharma. Chloroquine is a generic drug. That’s why Big Pharma’s lobbyists have worked hard to persuade governments that there can be no acceptable solution till a patented vaccine is brought on to the market. Even if this happens it won’t be till long after the pandemic is over – probably not till at least next year." - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/19/chloroquine-known-as-effective-against-coronavirus-since-2005/

In fact, coronavirus covid-19 isn't the same as SARS coronavirus and there is no proof it will work against variants. Viruses often evolve to get over problems like this.  In any case, tens of millions of people taking a new drug will always result in unintended side-effects in the doses needed to be effective as a zinc uptake facilitator.  Chloroquine is currently only licensed as an anti-malarial drug, and it can cause stomach upsets, hair loss and a list of other side-effects.  The only guaranteed way to halt the pandemic is masks to filter out the droplets containing viruses when people go to supermarket queues, etc.

 Update: 28 March 2020
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases
Sad to see that the media is ignoring the fact that the very steep cumulative mortality curve in UK for covid-19 coronavirus and the infection of the UK Prime Minister, UK Health Secretary and UK Chief Medical Advisor should indicate: (1) hand washing advice (which most people do anyway) for airborne fine droplets has PROVABLY FAILED, (2) the 2-metres separation rule is not sufficient protection, because biological transmission experiments have shown that many airborne viruses (eg Venezuelan equine encephalitis, bovine brucellosis, tularemia, and Q fever) can survive for up to 2 hours in sunlight or 8-18 hours in cloudy/night/indoor conditions (source: US Army Field Manual FM3-10, Chemical and Biological Weapons, 1962, page 82). Infected people coughing/talking will leave behind small airborne 5 micron (invisible sized) contaminated droplets in the air which, like very fine dust can provably take hours to fall to the ground. (This is not opinion, it is physics.) This is probably why gas masks or at least some kind of full face protection is safer than relying on the 2-metre separation advice, which has failed for the very "top" people who promoted it on TV.

 There was a time, back in the 1950s when Britain was stockpiling 50 million anti-virus civil defence C7 full face masks for the entire UK population, when the scientific evidence was based on actual experiments and proof testing, not the opinions of ill-informed ranting "official experts" who have not even bothered to check whether their advice works.  Politicians of course have the motto: "When in a hole, keep digging."

 As the physicist who discovered the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, Feynman, stated in his report when he found that public relations cover-up over the space shuttle's rubber O-ring seals (which froze solid and brittle in freezing launch weather, causing the explosion of the shuttle in 1986):

 "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

 Nobody in PR listens to this, instead continually deferring to "experts" who put inflammable cladding on buildings, and now issue fake news to stop people wearing protective masks, to throw abuse at those who prove them wrong instead of apologising and correcting their advice, etc.  The media is so politically bigoted that it buys into this "expert opinion" or "consensus science", just to create disasters to sell "news stories" that are unnecessary.

 Second update of 28 March 2020:


The UK government has just released the latest data which shows that UK covid-19 deaths have doubled in past 3 days, from 463 on 25 March to 1000 announced this afternoon 28 March. If this 3-day doubling continued for 30 days (10 doubling times) from now you'd have 1000 x (2^10) = 1 million killed. This will happen if infection conditions remain the same as they were when the recent death cases resulted, because the only way you get out of the exponential (or geometric) curve is if the infection conditions change, and with people having to regularly go to get food, this is not necessarily going to change much.

 All the "sophisticated models" which predict a rapid flattening of the curve have loads of assumptions using guesswork, a bit like NASA's massive calculation book resulting in a 1/100,000 risk prediction of failure for the space shuttle (Feynman later estimated it was closer to a 1/2 risk for launching on a cold morning as in the 1986 disaster, when the booster O-rings would be brittle and leak fuel, a factor simply ignored in the sophisticated computer models).

 This reminds me too of the global warming scare mongering scandal, where all 21 IPCC computer models in 2007 assumed solely positive feedback from water in the atmosphere, despite the fact that this is debunked by the fact we don't have a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus! (They still haven't corrected this error properly.) Today's Daily Telegraph (28 March 2020 p13, below) article on bad UK government "expert" scientific modelling misses the point entirely because gas masks for everyone as in WW2 would avoid relying on the shortage of hospital ventilators and the ineffective lock-down until a vaccine is developed.


Daily Mail 28 March 2020 pages 1 and 2 on the infection of the UK Prime Minister UK Health Secretary and UK Chief Medical Adviser proving that their flawed advice is a failure.
Daily Mail editorial 28 March 2020 page 20 debunking Marxist covid-19 profiteering racket: both right and left wing extremists are corruptly lying about the crisis to profit from mass murder.

Daily Mail 28 March 2020 pages 16 exposes Marxist exploitation of virus for political propaganda and financial gain.
Daily Express 28 March 2020 page 15 Carole Malone exposes the eugenics like corruption of former UK Chief Scientific Adviser who wants to deny treatment to the most vulnerable people, a political policy so extreme, inhumane, immoral and unethical that it was not even used by Stalin.

Covid 19 deaths data 23 March 2020: exposing the fact that the UK covid-19 death rate acceleration is relatively bad, due in no small part to UK government, BBC, and NHS tireless fake news propaganda telling people not to bother to wear face masks when exposed to concentrated airborne contaminants in supermarket queues, on crowded public transport, in hospitals etc, unlike several other far more humane, honest and rational countries which tell the truth to reduce the spread of disease.
Update: 29 March 2020

Just a bit more about my background that is relevant to this blog post (from a facebook comment to Carl Brannen), since this expands on some of the key technical arguments that underpin respirators:

I've always washed my hands regularly and kept away from other people as far as possible, due to having recurrent nasal and chest infections after having my tonsils and adenoids removed, but this hasn't stopped me from regularly getting flu, colds, etc. I went into this years ago, and viruses attached to small (5 micron diameter, say) droplets in exhaled air can hang around long after the person exhaling them has gone, especially indoors (hospitals, supermarket queue areas, nursing homes, houses, corridors, lifts, doctor's waiting rooms, etc) where there is no strong UV light to deactivate them. Viruses aren't living, so they can't be killed, so only a physical or chemical process, such as removing their outer coating of grease, will deactivate them. In the air, the droplets are too small to fall quickly to the floor, so they can remain airborne for hours until they stick to surfaces, contaminating them. Without effective CBN gas mask filters (paper masks are of little use for such tiny droplets), the only protection from staying 2 metres apart from other people is dilution. As for cigarette smoke that smokers exhale, in a strong breeze you get rapid dilution, but in still air or indoors you can get a build up of airborne contamination. Biological warfare studies on this sort of virus dispersion in the open air showed that in cloudy or nighttime conditions it can take 8-18 hours for viruses in the air to become inactive. In the sun, 2 hours. This seems to me to discredit claims that staying 2 metres apart provides enough protection. I'd like to see if they have any hard evidence for that. I know the UK Common Cold Research Centre long ago proved that a person sneezing can infect another person over 10 metres away, for the less infectious cold virus. Covid-19 seems more infectious!
"NHS Staff infecting patients with coronavirus as they show no symptoms and aren't being tested, admits health official" -  Evidence that NHS staff are actually driving the pandemic by spreading infection due to not testing enough people for covid-19 and not using effective protective masks, since they seem to assume that all untested people are uninfected (The Sun, 27 March 2020).  The WHO, the NHS and others are simply ignoring gas mask stockpiles as a solution for those who need to travel on crowded public transport (the London Labour Mayor has cut tube train services to ensure that essential workers are crowded together, which spreads viruses by increasing the risk of cross-infection) to work in medicine, food distribution, etc., and are pointing out that ineffective paper masks are ineffective!  Duh.  This is lethal fake news propaganda, that costs lives. It is akin the "Nukemap" and other forms of mass deception, that are disseminated by fear-mongering terrorist minded journalists who refuse to take effective live saving straightforward countermeasures seriously and make hate attacks on anyone debunking their ill-informed abusive rants.

UPDATE: 31 March 2020

 On the day of the largest rise in UK deaths from covid-19, 400 in the past 24 hours, there are two positive news stories about the fight against lying propaganda on masks from the hubris covid-19 money exploiting anti-civil defence W.H.O., the fear-mongering pandemic exploiting The Guardian newspaper, BBC, NHS, UK Government / "healthcare experts" and general Marxist anti-civil defence propaganda folk like Corbyn's "opposition" in Parliament: 
(1) Austria makes masks compulsory as protection debate shifts - Financial Times.




"Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering altering the official guidance to encourage people to take measures to cover their faces amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing matter of internal discussion and nothing has been finalized." - Washington Post, 31 March 2020.

They should recommend full gas masks if possible, for the vulnerable who have to visit hospitals for heart conditions etc.  Please, please, please distribute military stockpiles and escape hoods for chemical, biological and radiological warfare.  They WILL save lives until a vaccine is developed.  Washing hands and 2 metre distancing is NOT enough!  Lying COSTS LIVES.
Avon Protection NH15 Gas Mask and Respiratory System CBRN Escape Hood. Even cheaper masks have a massive effect in reducing deaths from covid-19 as the inset graphics at the bottom of this picture illustrate - countries where masks are routinely worn like Japan have a relatively small death rate from the virus.  Please see Sui Huang's report, COVID-19: WHY WE SHOULD ALL WEAR MASKS — THERE IS NEW SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE, and the graphs at the report Universal mask-wearing is the most overlooked COVID-19 lifesaver. 

 The UK Financial Times reports: "Austria is to join a small but growing number of European countries making the wearing of face masks outside the home compulsory amid shifting debate over the medical gear’s protective utility.

"Authorities would start distributing millions of free face masks at the entrances to all supermarkets from midweek onwards, chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced on Monday. Shoppers will only be permitted inside supermarkets and other open stores,such as pharmacies, if they are wearing masks.

"While masks are a familiar sight throughout Asia, the only other countries in Europe to require the wearing of masks in public space are Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bosnia-Herzegovina. ... The WHO and many governments say healthy people do not need to wear a mask unless they are taking care of a person with suspected Covid-19 infection. ...   French trade unions representing shop assistants, factory workers and police officers have demanded safety equipment for all staff or else they would exercise their right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions.

"In Italy, where the outbreak has been the deadliest in the world, the wearing has with in a month gone from attracting disapproving looks to being socially obligatory."

This news and the evidence for gas masks, however, is STILL being deliberately suppressed by the W.H.O., BBC, etc., while people die needlessly and gas masks remain un-used in stockpiles at military quartermasters stores.  The BBC today is also reporting more fake news on the number of "confirmed covid-19 cases" in the UK showing "green shoots", when that is just due to the limit on the small number of tests being done daily.  In plain unvarnished language, the truth is this: if you only do 5000 tests a day, then you are going to find the number of "confirmed cases" limited by that testing rate.  You can never discover 5001 confirmed cases a day if you only do 5000 per day.  Official lying in the UK for BBC fake news, and the unquestioning acceptance of falsehoods on masks to ensure all funding goes into Marxist state organisations instead of actually protecting the vulnerable from needing to go into covid-19 infected hospitals, is a national tragedy.

Update: 2 April 2020

The Mirror reports:

 "The coronavirus lockdown is 'nowhere near' its end with cases expected to rise for weeks, a senior health official has warned. ... The number of deaths soared by 563 in one day yesterday - to a total of 2,352 as of 4pm on March 31."

The Sun reports:

 "... NHS staff may be forced to stop using life-saving treatment, such as ventilators, on dying patients if others with the virus are more likely to survive. ... Staff at the NHS Nightingale Hospital in London have been told to brace themselves for death ahead of the opening of the new field hospital.  Volunteers at the 4,000-bed field hospital set up in the ExCel Centre in the east of the capital have reportedly been warned up to 80 per cent of coronavirus patients who are on ventilators will probably die."

This estimate, that "up to 80% of coronavirus patients who are on ventilators will probably die" (based on Italian experience), should be a warning to rely on PROTECTION FOR PREVENTION e.g. gas masks, instead of putting all the eggs into one basket and merely relying on buying ventilators for treatment.  Protection should always be the number 1 priority.  It is proved to work!

From a Facebook discussion with Carl Brannen on whether lengthy clinical trials are needed before gas masks are used to save the lives of the most vulnerable people:

Masks were proof tested successfully against the common cold virus back in the 1960s by the UK Common Cold Research Station in Wales (since closed down). It's curious that some experts claim that superstring theory can be accepted as valid science without objective tests and experimental back up, while demanding evidence that filters work as filters.  Put it like this, the UK government and BBC currently claims that standing 2 metres apart will stop infections.  Where is the real scientific double blind experiment to verify that claim which is currently in use?  It's pretty obvious that if someone is exhaling virus contaminated droplets for a period of time in an enclosed space like a bus, tube train, lift/elevator, ambulance, hospital corridor, etc., you will get airborne contamination building up just as if they were a smoker and the exhaled smoke was building up.  This requires protection.

The current W.H.O. recommendation for front line medical workers of a paper nose/mouth mask and an open sided face shield will NOT prevent small airborne droplets getting into the eyes through the gaps around the perspex face shield (which is designed to stop blood squirting into the eyes during surgery, not to prevent small airborne droplets).  Where is the proof that the existing protective W.H.O. advice is any use for medical workers?  It is just as void as the W.H.O. claim that civil defence gas masks should not be used by the vulnerable.  A gas mask would provide full eye protection as well as mouth and nose protection.  This doesn't need any clinical trials, for the following reason.  If someone tells me that hitting my thumb hard with a hammer will hurt, I don't need to "do the experiment" to decide whether this is true.  Theoretical calculations will indicate what the likely result is with sufficient accuracy for my purpose.  Gas masks have been tested successfully since 1915 and they will provide protection now if used.  There is no need for yet more trials to delay life-saving protection.

 Update: 4 April 2020

Unfortunately, the latest data indicates a 3 day doubling time in the death rate in the UK from Covid-19, i.e. 1.8k deaths on 31 March to double that, 3.6k deaths on 3 April, and the BBC is now reporting that masks are recommended in Los Angeles and New York, but NOT in London, yet is still trying to hypocritically "ridicule" President Trump's decision not to wear a mask when alone in the Oval Office, based on BBC/WHO advice NOT to wear masks, while still stating that people in the UK should not wear any protection! Get your facts straight, BBC! At what point does the police arrest the BBC fake news "journalists" for causing deaths by spreading deceptive propaganda?

Update (6 April 2020):

There were a wide range of gas masks issued to civilians prior to WWII (illustrations of some WWII gas mask civil defence posters are shown above), which were all updated and improved with an added blue/green coloured contex filter unit to increase their effectiveness against smaller particles, which were taped on by civil defence workers during gas mask inspections during the war.  Filters could be replaced/updated if necessary.

 As the 1960 UK Civil Instructors Notes: Warden Section shows, an updated general civilian gas mask, the C7 (developed at Porton biological warfare centre in 1951) was stockpiled together with special masks for those with breathing difficulties, for small babies, kids, and also for unconscious hospital patients, ready for distribution by the UK Civil Defence Corps long after WWII and well into the 1960s (Marxist-controlled PM Harold Wilson finally abolished the CD Corps in 1968 under military anti-civil defence lying propaganda from the USSR's union/political/media fronts in the UK, which wanted to make the UK more vulnerable so that only disarmament would seem to be "only option" for protection against dictatorships), and the Restricted 1965 UK government Scientific intelligence officers' operational notes, section ON 23:1 (Notes on Biological and Chemical Warfare) states:

"The new Civilian Respirator (C7), with pneumatic tube face fitting which is comfortable for long periods of wearing, affords excellent protection against Biological Warfare and Chemical Warfare attacks."  (A key concern in the cold war was aircraft-sprayed airborne viruses.)


UK Government 6 April 2020 hospital admissions Covid-19 data for England shows continued increases despite two weeks of supposed lock down: proof of failure of the current policy.

UK Government 6 April 2020 FAKE NEWS on covid-19 IGNORES additional over-crowding of tube trains due to restriction of services and IGNORE food supermarket queuing which is now a major main infection route.  The infection reproduction number (R number) suggested by these misleading data has fallen, but in reality the tube, bus and railway had ALREADY spread infection across communities by the time of the fall in the statistics above, and the main route thereafter is local supermarket food ration queues: people can now only buy 3 items of one sort in supermarkets due to UK ration restrictions to "keep food on supermarket shelves", so many people are being forced to shop MORE FREQUENTLY THAN PREVIOUSLY, and can have to queue for an hour, which increases exposure.  They might as well have added a curve to the graph of air travel statistics as a fake "proof" that the "lock-down" is useful.  It would similarly prove nothing, because by the time air travel was locked down (by passengers choosing not to fly, not by any sensible government order), the virus had already been transmitted to all regions of the country so it was a case of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted."  No sense in interpreting this fake news is being included in the "sophisticated" computer models of the pandemic, used to "justify" the lock-down dogma.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy because no amount of failure can ever "disprove" the government policy: its proponents ignore criticisms, hypocritically do the opposite of the advice they dish out to other people (e.g., Scotland's chief medical officer - who fronted the "stay at home" government adverts - broke her own advice by travelling to spend her weekends at a second holiday home during the "lock-down"), and blame other folk for their failure instead of correcting their errors!

UK Government 6 April 2020 covid-19 global deaths showing that even very simple paper face masks in China and South Korea have drastically cut death rates in those countries unlike the lock down in Italy UK and Spain.  Despite this, the W.HO., BBC, media generally (pretending that science is an authoritarian religion of bigoted geniuses who must never be investigated, questioned, or debunked) and the UK Government continue to advise DO NOT WEAR MASKS, a policy of maximising the spread of infection causing maximum deaths.  This particular graph, from the UK Prime Minister's Twitter feed, is also bigoted by normalization for curves to begin - day 0 - on the first day 50 deaths or more were reported.  This "trick" helps to cover up the fact that the UK death rate acceleration (gradient of slope of the line) is: (1) particularly high, and (2) not flattening out like the graphs of other countries.  With the logarithmic death scale, a straight line represents an exponential (geometric) rise, and the UK seems to be only country with no curving towards a plateau.  The Prime Minister himself is now in hospital with a temperature, so may lack control.
UK covid-19 deaths increasing by factor of 10 every 10 days.


Update: 7 April 2020

The UK has just reported its highest ever covid-19 daily deaths statistic of 854, while it is reported that the UK Government bought 17,500,000 defective covid-19 antibody tests which are useless and misleading, instead of tested gas masks to prevent infection, according to the UK newpaper, Financial Times (which as usual FAILS to even bother to mention the gas mask option as an alternative that WILL WORK to get out of the lock-down):

 "The UK government has admitted that none of the 17.5m antibody tests it ordered in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic work well enough to be used. ... The government is working with nine companies that have developed coronavirus antibody tests, which screen for whether someone has recovered from the disease and is likely to be immune. The tests are being assessed by researchers at Oxford university — but each one has so far proven unreliable. ... “We see many false negatives (tests where no antibody is detected despite the fact we know it is there) and we also see false positives. None of the tests we have validated would meet the criteria for a good test as agreed with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. This is not a good result for test suppliers or for us,” ... The government issued guidance about its testing plans at the weekend, saying that if the antibody tests “do not work, no further tests will be purchased and, where possible, orders will be cancelled”."


The "UK Prime Minister" (whoever that is; Mr Johnson is currently on oxygen in intensive care as a result of the "(in)effectiveness" of his 2 metre/hand-wash "lockdown" rules) has now published on Twitter more graphs with extra data, proving the ineffectiveness of the lock-down for another couple of days:

UK Prime Minister's 7 April 2020 data release showing increased hospital admissions data to 5 April, despite 2 weeks of lock down policy. SOURCE: "UK PRIME MINISTER" (currently in intensive care using up NHS oxygen while proving that his own 2-meter + handwash rules of lockdown are ineffective even for the top people, never mind those who don't have soap because the supermarkets have sold out a month ago), https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1247491180880957440/photo/3
UK increased deaths data from the Prime Minister as of 7 April 2020: still no significant evidence that the UK's exponential acceleration in deaths (a straight line on a log-linear graph) is reaching its asymptotic limit, unlike other countries. (Source: https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1247491180880957440/photo/4 ).

Google is now spreading UK Sky TV fake news on the number of covid-19 deaths, 7 April 2020:

Google is now promoting UK Sky TV fake news that "Coronavirus deaths rise by 786 in UK" when in fact the figure is 758 for England, 74 Scotland, 19 Wales and 3 Northern Ireland = 854.

UK TV Sky fake news claims that 786 = 758 + 74 + 19 + 3.  Google is still relying on UK TV Sky fake news. If it can't even add up, why trust it?  It has been repeating fake news claims that masks don't protect people against respiratory disease, like W.H.O. quacks.
World Health Organisation lies that masks to prevent airborne infections have no evidence, just as "bigoted experts" claimed that before the Grenfell Fire there was "no evidence" that inflammable cladding would result in fire and massacre.  Other W.H.O. arguments are identical to those against civil defence gas masks made by lying hubris big shot quacks like Professor Joad and the "Cambridge Scientists Antiwar Group" before WWII (ignored by the UK government in 1938, thankfully).  By analogy, as Herman Kahn used to point out, the specious argument could have been made that sufficient lifeboats on the Titanic would add weight and make the ship sink faster, before anyone could get into them (a lie, but the kind of crap used by deniers of truth).  In 1986, when a low down engineer tried to object to the launching of the Space Shuttle in the freezing conditions that made the booster rubber O-rings brittle, leaking fuel and causing the explosion of the Shuttle, his manager simply retorted with the exasperated question: did he want to delay the launch until the warm summer?  The reality is that in we are NOT getting any "debate" on masks.  Even Google is opting to go against mavericks and rank quack W.H.O. mass murdering anti-masks propaganda ahead of sites giving the plain facts that debunk W.H.O. liars.  This is precisely the same situation that will exist for civil defence in any nuclear or chemical war emergency: the Marxist "professionals" (money-makers) will "protect their own interests (funding)" by attacking civil defence protective measures as if they are dangerous.  They have no humanity or decency.  They never did have.


Updates: 8 April 2020


Above: Mauro Ferrari resigns as EU top scientist after his lifesaving covid-19 pandemic work is blocked by EU bureaucracy (from Financial Times, 8 April 2020): "Please forgive me, but I believe that the priority now is to stop the pandemic. The priority is to save possibly millions of lives. It takes precedence over careers, politics, even the beauty of certain science. ... Those idealistic motivations were crushed by a very different reality, in the brief three months since I took office. Disquieting early warning, signs gave way to the painfully icy, cold recognitions of a world entirely different from what I had envisioned. The Covid-19 pandemic shone a merciless light on how mistaken I had been: In time of emergencies people, and institutions, revert to their deepest nature and reveal their true character. As it became evident that the pandemic would be a tragedy of possibly unprecedented proportions, I moved that the European Research Council should establish a special program directed at combating Covid-19. I believed this was justified by the expected burden of death, suffering, societal transformation, and economic devastation, especially striking the less fortunate, the weakest in the societies of the world. I thought that at a time like this, the very best scientists in the world should be provided with resources and opportunities to fight the pandemic, with new drugs, new vaccines, new diagnostic tools, new behavioral dynamic approaches based on science, to replace the oft-improvised intuitions of political leaders. The proposal was rejected unanimously by the governing body of the ERC, without even considering what shape or form it may take, and to such an extent that my presidency became fully opposed by them, in every respect."

The European Union's top scientist Mauro Ferrari thus is forced into resigning over covid-19 EU Brussels bureaucracy and red-tape that prevents life saving countermeasures:

 "He had argued for the ERC to create a new, more hands-on initiative to provide scientists and health care workers with more help and resources - but his proposals were apparently rejected.

"Prof Ferrari bemoaned the 'complete absence of coordination of healthcare policies among member states' and the opposition to what he described as a 'cohesive financial support' package.

"Mr Bahrke said he hoped the commission would 'be able to share more information very soon' on the circumstances of the resignation but did not elaborate further.
"As the coronavirus spread from China to Italy, Austria, Spain and other EU nations, the bloc was heavily criticised for not acting forcefully enough to set up a coordinated response." - Daily Mail.

Here's more on the underlying Marxist ultra left World Health Organization - W.H.O. (the anti mask bigots who use facetious arguments against masks which would stop the pandemic until a vaccine is available) - whose specious political bigotry is exposed and debunked by Michael Collins, Council on Foreign Relations (any attempt by Trump to nail Marxist China's handling of the spread of covid-19 across the world via the W.H.O. propaganda machine has so far been dismissed as "racist" by mainstream USA media - criticise USSR Marxism in the cold war and you're a "racist", criticise Chinese Marxist plots now and again the same tired old lying tactic, all these big bully organizations put a "minority race" head figure in as President to allow that tactic, which prevents any type of proper criticism of mass murder, just as critics of Mugabe and Pol Pot were simply dismissed as "racists" by the REAL racists, the nasty Marxists!):



Add caption
WHO political lying myth based propaganda on covid 19 is debunked and exposed for the Marxism it is:

The WHO and China: Dereliction of Duty

The WHO’s weak response to China’s mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak has laundered China’s image at the expense of the WHO’s credibility. The time is ripe for clear leadership from the WHO based on science not politics.
Blog Post by Michael Collins

Michael Collins is a research associate for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 with the lofty goal of ensuring the attainment of the highest possible level of health by all people. ... However, the WHO is now facing rising international criticism over outsized Chinese influence in the organization’s response to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak.  ... The WHO Director-General (DG) Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been an outspoken advocate for the Chinese government’s COVID-19 response. On January 28, Tedros met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Following the meeting, Tedros commended China for “setting a new standard for outbreak control” and praised the country’s top leadership for its “openness to sharing information” with the WHO and other countries. Yet in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese officials were busy arresting and punishing citizens for “spreading rumors” about the disease, while online censors controlled the flow of information. Despite growing evidence of China’s mishandling of the outbreak and rising domestic Chinese outrage over the government’s censorship, Tedros remains unmoved. On February 20 at the Munich Security Conference, Tedros doubled down on his praise for China stating that “China has bought the world time.” In contrast to his effusive praise for China, Tedros has been quick to criticize other countries for their responses to the outbreak. ... More concerning is Tedros’ delay in declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). On January 23, the WHO’s emergency committee was split on whether to declare a PHEIC. With final authority resting with the DG, Tedros decided to wait despite admitting that “this is an emergency in China.” A week later, he declared a PHEIC. By that point, confirmed cases of COVID-19 had increased tenfold with 7,781 cases across 18 countries. ... What has changed in the nearly two decades since the SARS epidemic? As always, it is important to follow the money. Since its founding, the WHO has required voluntary budgetary contributions to meet its broad mandate. In recent years, the WHO has grown more reliant upon these funds to address budget deficits. ...  China’s WHO contributions have grown by 52% since 2014 to approximately $86 million. The WHO’s weak response to China’s mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak has laundered China’s image at the expense of the WHO’s credibility. The rate of infection in China appears to be declining, but the risk of a global pandemic is increasing. The time is ripe for clear leadership from the WHO based on science not politics.

 Update: 8 April 2020
UK Prime Minister's twitter data release of 8 April 2020, graph of covid-19 deaths showing relatively steep UK curve with no indication that the 2.5 weeks of lock-down is working to halt the pandemic. Source: https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1247950781480873986/photo/1
UK 8 April 2020 graph of covid-19 deaths showing relatively steep UK curve.
Above: we have compared the UK deaths to 8 April 2020 on linear and logarithmic-linear graphs to show that the alleged "green shoots" of recovery now appear to be only a temporary fluctuation in the data.  When you look at the data on the log-linear graph (above right) you see that a straight line is a good fit, and this suggests that the deaths are continuing instead of tailing off as the media hyped a few days ago.  Sadly, releasing the lock-down without issuing masks to people may result in even larger rises to the death rate, because people will spread large doses of the virus to one another on buses, trains, in offices, pubs, restaurants, etc.  The theory that no-body can become re-infected once they have some antibodies is also questionable, because it depends on dose.  For example, people who have had chickenpox can later get shingles (a return of the disease) if their immune systems are weak, while people can get repeated bouts of malaria, colds, etc.  There is no proof that, having been allowed to spread so widely throughout the world, the covid-19 coronavirus will not undergo further mutations and develop more than one strain, in which case antibodies (and indeed vaccines) will not work to provide guaranteed protection.  The whole basis for antibodies to work is that the immune system is able to produce antibodies at a rate which is faster than the multiplication rate of the virus when it infects the person: so if you produce antibodies slower than the virus multiplies, due to having a weak immune system (due to old age, chemotherapy for cancer, etc.) you will still be at risk.  There is no basis yet for assuming that having some antibodies is a long-term magic bullet providing protection against infection.  If you end up with the terrible number of infected people producing just 100 different mutant strains from covid-19, then it will be very difficult to produce an effective vaccine.  Therefore, the sooner the pandemic is halted mechanically by widespread use of masks to deny it the opportunity to mutate, the better.
UK covid 19 deaths data to 8 April 2020: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases.  Unfortunately, the UK government has now stated that even the deaths data is unreliable due to excluding deaths outside hospitals, e.g. untested deaths in care homes (the confirmed cases data had long been underestimates due to the low testing rate in the UK).  As a result, we will discontinue this series of updates because even key data in deaths per day is becoming UK Government "fake news" propaganda.
8 April 2020 global covid-19 deaths data graphs. Data source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
UK Covid-19 deaths catching up with Italian curve. SOURCE: UK Prime Minister twitter 9 April 2020, https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1248293575827357696/photo/1

Covid-19 death rate world wide to 8 April 2020 in closed cases is approximately 21 %, a very high number for such an infectious disease, and not massively different from bubonic plague (10-15% for treated cases, higher for untreated cases).  Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#case-outcome.  Note that the ratio of cumulative deaths to date to cumulative confirmed cases to date is a much lower number, about 8%, because at any given time during the rapidly rising part of a pandemic, only a fraction of the total deaths that will occur in the infected cases have actually occurred.  For example, if you study a fixed group of 1000 infected cases, the number dead in that sample is not a fixed constant, but will rise with time until a maximum number (equal to the death rate for closed cases) has been reached.  In other words, the effect of the time-lag needs to be included to correct the ratio of deaths-so-far per infected case into final-deaths per infected case.

UPDATE: 10 APRIL 2020

Professor Ville Vuorinen of Aalto University, Finland, has proved that one sneeze can contaminate a large area of a supermarket for several minutes, suggesting strongly that the 2-metre social distancing rule is DECEPTIVE AND DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING, CAUSING UNNECESSARY DEATHS, and people really do need to wear gas masks:

Professor Ville Vuorinen of Aalto University, Finland, has proved that one sneeze can contaminate a large area of a supermarket for several minutes, suggesting strongly that the 2-metre social distancing rule is crackpot and people really do need to wear gas masks.
Here is the 2 hour queue doubling back outside my local supermarket in Colchester, at 9.45am 10 April 2020 (photo by yours truly):

People as you can see are not wearing gas masks, and are social distancing.  However, large areas are contaminated by coughs and sneezes, and without the wind or sun, inside the supermarket the air becomes contaminated by sneezes as Professor Ville Vuorinen proved, and people can get covid-19 and then the disease spreads.
A sneeze in a supermarket can infect people far beyond the 2 metre social distance covid-19 rule


Professor Ville Vuorinen of Aalto University, Finland, has an YouTube video of his computer simulation which proves that one sneeze can contaminate a large area of a supermarket for several minutes, suggesting strongly that the W.H.O./BBC/UK Gov "2-metre social distancing rule" is DECEPTIVE AND DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING PROPAGANDA, CAUSING UNNECESSARY DEATHS, and people really do need to wear masks:


"Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic", in Britain's premier medical journal, The Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2213-2600%2820%2930134-X: "It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas. ... In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans."

 The immense success of Taiwan's mask policy, just 379 cases of covid-19, should make Taiwan the world's model for ending the covid-19 pandemic, please see https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/taiwan-is-exporting-its-coronavirus-successes-to-the-world: "Despite being shut out of WHO [WHO refuses to recommend masks to end the pandemic], Taiwan has largely succeeded in containing the coronavirus. ... On April 1, Taiwan announced it would donate 10 million masks to the United States, 11 European countries, and its diplomatic allies. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said on Thursday that a second batch of six million masks would be donated to countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas."

Please note the political conflict here: Taiwan and the pro-masks lobby which want to end the pandemic without mass casualties, are against Marxist medical organizations like W.H.O. which is in China's pocket financially as we have already shown, and also the Marxist infiltrated media such as the BBC, which is naturally pro-China and the NHS which wants as ever to end civil defence entirely and to be given a nearly infinite budget to treat victims, instead of allowing a smaller budged for civil defence to prevent victims (the Marxist BMA did the same in the 1980s over Britain's civil defence, preferring to call for millions of burns unit beds rather than telling people to duck and cover if Russia drops a H-bomb "by accident" near our coast).  Same old news.
9 April 2020 confirmed covid-19 deaths: unlike UK government propaganda curves that start at 50 deaths, these start at 100 deaths and show that the UK death rate is rising very steeply, likely to soon overtake Italy's at the same stage in the pandemic.

UPDATE: 28 April 2020

The UK Government has finally published a graph of all deaths, not just tested hospital deaths (they refused to test people outside of hospitals), showing the UK no-masks policy to have the highest deaths in Europe and also higher per head of population than the USA (which has 5 times the population of the UK, explaining its higher death curve):

Above: UK Government ANTI MASK PROPAGANDA LIES debunked by their own total death statistics on 28 April 2020.  Note that the USA has 5 times the UK population so the USA has a MUCH LOWER death rate risk than the UK, per person of population.  South Korea, which has the lowest death rate in the graph above, has a policy of wearing masks in buildings to cut the covid-19 transmission rate! Source: https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1247950781480873986

Update 29 April 2020:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/live-coronavirus-pandemic-updates-latest-21931279:

"Coronavirus 'just as deadly as Ebola' for patients hospitalised with the killer bug

"Covid-19 is just as deadly as Ebola for people admitted to hospital in the UK, a leading expert has said as his team published a major British study of almost 17,000 patients.
"The research found almost half of people admitted to hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales with coronavirus have no underlying health conditions ... those admitted to intensive care were typically 61.  Most people had symptoms for around four days before admission and stayed in hospital for an average of seven days. Almost half (47%) had no underlying conditions ... Only one in five of those who required a mechanical ventilator in intensive care were discharged alive and a further 27% remained in hospital. Just over half who needed mechanical ventilation died.
"Professor Calum Semple, from the University of Liverpool and a consultant respiratory paediatrician at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, and chief investigator on the study, said: “Some people persist in believing that Covid-19 is no worse than a bad dose of flu [thus the false belief by "some TV experts" that no masks are needed, or improvised masks are OK, when in fact any sensible safety-first "better safe than sorry" precautionary principle approach would suggest the requirement for proper, high-level hazmat protection]. They are gravely mistaken. Despite the best supportive care that we can provide, the crude case fatality rate for people who are admitted to hospital - that is, the proportion of people ill enough to need hospital treatment who then die - with severe Covid-19 is 35 to 40% which is similar to that for people admitted to hospital with Ebola.  People need to hear this, and get it into their heads ... that this is an incredibly dangerous disease....It’s a really nasty disease."

UPDATE 30 APRIL 2020:

Good news - if it isn't fake news. Mirror reports evidence to finally nail WHO anti-masks lies:

Coronavirus infects people through the nose so 'masks are crucial,' study claims

Britain is now believed to be stockpiling face masks to be used on public transport and in shops after Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon advised Scots to wear masks
By
Danya BazaraaSenior News Reporter
Meanwhile, alternative over-hyped countermeasures such as antibody tests and vaccines are suffering delays as predictable, delays that have been glossed over by profit seeking quacks:


Coronavirus vaccine blow as major producer fears jab won't be ready until 'late 2021'

GlaxoSmithKline's CEO Emma Walmsley has said even having a coronavirus vaccine that is safe and ready to send out on a mass scale by the second half of next year is ambitious
By
Ryan Merrifield

posted by Nuclear Weapons Effects 11:40 pm

88 Comments:

At 7:14 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great to have you back!

 
At 10:58 am, Anonymous Michael Jones said...

How can people tell if a gas mask filter needs changing and if it fits properly to prevent air leaking in at the sides?

 
At 11:29 am, Blogger nige said...

If you cover the air intake hole on the outside of the filter/absorber with paper or plastic, you will not be able to inhale if the straps are correctly adjusted to prevent leakage at the edges.

If you want to test filtering of fine particulates, simply use smoke from burning a very small amount of plastic or damp leaves with a match, or if it is easier, use a cigarette, or a small amount of chlorine gas generated from household bleach (used to clean toilets). If the mask has an operational CBNR (chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological) filter/absorber cartridge, then the smoke or chlorine gas will be absorbed by the "filter" (usually a particle absorber filter plus activated charcoal granules to absorb reactive chemicals), so it is easy to do a basic test that it is still working.

These CBNR "filters" have a MUCH longer operational life than hospital surgical paper masks, which only last a few hours. Gas masks were used for months before requiring new filter canisters in WWI, e.g. the Small Box Respirator, when they had to be used daily for weeks after persistent (slowly evaporating) mustard gas attacks in 1917. Typically they are rated to be used for 200 hours in typical conditions, so for civilian usage of 1 hour a day that means 200 days before a filter change.

This is why the UK civil defence corps from 1951-68 stockpiled post-war new C7 chemical, biological and nuclear gas masks for the entire population of the UK, a development of the original WWII civilian gas masks with improvements to allow even better protection against nerve gas and particles of radiological and biological agents.

This vital safeguard against pandemics, war and terrorism was ended in 1968 due to endless Marxist propaganda in favour of "saving" £100 million a year on civil defence to move to a political policy of "peace", in which the money would be spend on health services (treatment, not prevention of casualties).

This has led to step back to the situation in 1927 when BBC Radio broadcast an infamous lying propaganda speech on "disarmament" by Lord Philip Noel-Baker which falsely claimed that gas masks provide no protection against gas and so the only safeguard is disarmament.

The W.H.O. endlessly published similar lies about nuclear duck and cover in the cold war. The aim of such Marxist mentality infiltrated organisations as the BBC and W.H.O. is hubris: they want to allow a disaster by preventing either protection or deterrence (against terrorism), to ensure they get more propaganda power, more financial power, etc.

Pointing this out falls on deaf ears, because many people are deluded by such propaganda into preferring ineffective treatments (ventilators etc) over effective protective measures, which are easy to "ridicule" using "straw man arguments".

We have already seen Marxist "globalization" propaganda allow many thousands to die in agony, with Trump's decision to halt transatlantic air travel to reduce infection on aircraft and at airports being decried by the media.

These fake news people are hate filled, ignorance and myth promoting trolls who should be somehow held to account for the many needless painful deaths which their selfish lies have caused.

 
At 8:10 am, Anonymous Mike Jones said...

Nigel, I think that most governments led by narrow minded experts who receive brown paper packets from hospital contractors and drugs companies will wait until it is too late and then shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Masks would save most people. They will not be issued. Governments and their supposed critics are united in hating solutions that would avert a disaster. They have far more money and power to gain from tragedy than from success.

 
At 10:19 am, Blogger nige said...

The "experts" are all paid to conform without getting into allegations of corruption by back handed payments for "advice" which leads to the awarding of lucrative contracts for ventilators (which are less effective in saving lives than gas masks to keep people safe) to particular firms.

For example, aside from the official anti-gas mask, anti-respirator farce, there is also the issue of the "predictive models" of the virus and the related advice on closing aircraft/airport infection hubs.

We could have avoided infection from China by either closing air travel or making gas masks for air passengers compulsory (their choice: travel in a gas mask to avoid infection, or don't travel) back in January. The "experts" didn't recommend this. Even in March when Trump closed flights from the USA to infected countries to reduce infection of passengers on aircraft and at airports, big industry complained. Airlines complained, their unions complained. Yet if the "pristine" mathematical models of the UK gov were so wonderfully predictive, why didn't they make the case to close contamination routes even earlier, while it was still feasible to isolate infected individuals?

The rationale behind "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" is that if you close the door before the horse bolts, the extreme right wing capitalists as well as the Marxist loony left who control the news media always scream:

"LOOK! There is NO PANDEMIC HERE! We didn't NEED to shut the airports or end globalization! It was a crime against humanity to shut down the spread of the virus, and the fact that the virus has not spread here proves that we didn't need such extreme countermeasures!"

This is a fake news argument, but it works time and again. Unless a disaster occurs to the fullest extent, the government and its "expert" advisers finds their hands tied in respect of protective measures.

It was the same in the 1930s with appeasement. People warned against it but Professor Cyril Joad and other nasty liars could not be disproved until a world war broke out, when it was too late.

We can expect that the "next" pandemic, after covid-19, will be met with more rapid airport closures and even with the media forced into taking protective masks seriously again as in 1938 when the Munich agreement took the country to the brink of war and wiped away some of the complacent propaganda and fascist fake news on there being: "no protection against poison gas, so we must either accept Nazism peacefully, or be gassed."

However, the media won't accept the need to do something to avert the impending disaster now, because they want to be forced into changing their tune by a full scale disaster, not by facts about protective measures that can prevent a disaster.

The Titanic had to sink before ships were legally forced to carry enough lifeboats. Grenfell Tower has to burn down and kill people before regulations on fireproof cladding were ironed out. A Space shuttle had to explode killing all aboard before the decision not to launch in freezing conditions that made rubber sealant rings brittle was taken. These are all example of situations where some people tried to quietly get regulations changed to PREVENT disaster, but failed because no big shots, least of all the supposedly wonderful "investigative journalists", gave a damn until it was in their financial interests to do so. There is only a "story" that will sell after the disaster, not if a disaster is prevented. For years the CND used to lie that gas masks were useless in WWII because they meant that Hitler couldn't drop his 12,000 tons of tabun nerve gas on London. Mad big shot journalists and authors still sell this myth: by analogy safety valves that prevent explosions are useless because no explosions actually occur! Bonkers, but by only printing lies about civil defence, they get a kind of "brainwashing effect" like UFO cults.

 
At 6:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russian oil revenue falling drastically. The Saudis have flooded the oil market. The price of crude is hitting a record low. Russian economy will be hit hard, like the Germany economy after the 1929 crash. This caused the economic and political chaos which led to WWII.

 
At 9:10 am, Blogger nige said...

I think we should ignore the long-term problems until we have dealt with the immediate crisis.

[In any case, the proposed gas mask civil defence solution for getting out of the lock-down (if an effective vaccine isn't available soon), will also have uses in the event of the use of future regional conflicts or escalating wars sparked off by a possible global recession.]

The key now, though, is sorting out the "expert" created lunacy. There is an interesting criticism of the inflexible NHS UK covid-19 strategy in the UK Daily Telegraph by Moore:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/03/inflexibility-lumbering-nhs-country-has-had-shut/

The inflexibility of our lumbering NHS is why the country has had to shut down

CHARLES MOORE

Daily Telegraph UK newspaper (online edition) 3 APRIL 2020 • 9:30PM

Why are we clapping the NHS? It is right and just to clap NHS workers, but that is not the same thing. Virtually everyone has reason to thank good nurses, doctors and paramedics. But if we are to praise large organisations for how effectively they have dealt with the coronavirus crisis, we should be clapping vigorously for Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and Morrisons, who have responded nimbly to sudden extra demand for one of life’s basics – food. We should give only rather tepid applause for the efforts of the NHS to look after another of life’s basics – health.

As its name suggests, the National Health Service is there to serve the health of the nation. In this crisis, the roles have reversed – it is seen as the duty of the nation to serve the NHS. “Protect the NHS. Save lives,” says the slogan, in that rather surprising order. Children are made to recite it like a prayer. How are we to do this? We must help the NHS by avoiding hospitals and surgeries, we are told. The Government’s policy of lockdown is in significant part dictated by the demands not of patients, but of the NHS, and by its lack of adaptability and readiness. ...

It is a shame however that Moore criticises the ineffective existing NHS ventilator propaganda effort without bothering to mention the WWII solution of gas masks to get us out of the slaughter, the lock-down and the economic damage! Even the "best" of these "journalists" are unbelievably naive and close-minded bigots.

 
At 6:11 pm, Anonymous Dr Q. U. Ack, W.H.O. said...

Nigel,

Please realise that if the World Health Organization recommends that people are not worth protecting with masks, it is for some beautiful hidden agenda.

Maybe they want to decrease the overpopulation?

Maybe they want to go down in history as mass murders on a par to the Third Reich?

Maybe they want to get rich by ensuring all the covid-19 funds goes to W.H.O., not protection by masks which is out of their control?

Maybe they just want theg randiose feeling of patronising the world's population with a load of bogus propaganda like the Nukemap guy?

See, they're dear fellow humans. Be sure that whatever they say, they'll get the next Medical Nobel Prize and billions of dollars.

Try not be get impatient, and they may even reward you with some patronising lies!

Cheers,
Dr Q. U. Ack,
W.H.O.

 
At 6:43 pm, Blogger nige said...

Please, no more sarcasm. (If anybody in the media reads sarcasm here they won't know what the point is, they're too dumb.)

I will just add this comment on the basic problem: from discussions on facebook, no effort to get a discussion on gas masks as an exit strategy for the covid-19 lockdown gets any serious interest:

(1) Facebook discussion efforts show that there is very little interest in the topic,
(2) The few comments made are totally non-serious: jokes, pleading not to discuss the subject on Facebook because it is frightening - although clearly not being protected is what should be frightening, and spurious efforts by Marxism or mass murder defenders to try to defend the W.H.O. no-masks advice (e.g. "why not herd immunity" - answer: "because getting there causes many needless deaths of the vulnerable which can be prevented by a clear strategy of masks and then vaccination).

Imagine you are on a ship which is sinking. You suggest (quietly) putting people on to the iceberg so that all can be saved. A list of "refutations" is eventually compiled by a committee of experts, who are all agreed that passengers will be less cold if they instead await rescue ships and use the lifeboats to ferry all the passengers to them. If the rescue ships don't come, the experts have their "excuse" for dismissing a plan that would have worked - they blame the rescue ships for not coming.

Now suppose you were a space shuttle engineer warning about the risk of explosion due to launching in cold weather. If you make a big fuss after your boss tells you to shut up, you get fired, or given a patronising lecture on how "nothing monumental and magnificent is ever done without taking some element of risk". There is no guarantee that the shuttle will actually explode, the probability is 1/2 rather than 1/100,000 but it still might survive. Furthermore, if they do fire you, there is not even any guarantee that the media will be interested in your story (until after the shuttle actually explodes, who the "I told you so" article will be met by sneers that he didn't make a clear cut case so he was really responsible by not letting the people know - so either way you're in a bad place).

This is how they get away with it. Bureaucracy can get away with mass murder. All the disarmament liars who exaggerated massively the effects of gas bombing in the 1920s and 1930s and dismissed simple low cost civil defence countermeasures like gas masks (just as the W.H.O. is again doing) were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for contributing to the start of WWII: Lord Philip Noel Baker got one, as did Sir Norman Angell who claimed to have debunked war in 1980 in his book The Great Illusion. I've discussed all this in previous blog posts.

Until weapons effects lying and civil defence dismissals for disarmament failure (war) leads to reprimands and not rewards, the CND, WHO and other pseudo-Marxist dictatorships which pretend they want equal respect for all people (Marxist sentiments) but actually deliver the exact opposite, a dictatorship of hying hubris for the profit of the few, will continue to dominate the media, which itself is a dictatorship of hubris. The problem with "democracy" is that it is just dictatorship dressed up as something else. Elections of pretty similar parties is not democracy. "Freedom of the press" is akin to "freedom of the dictators". Yes, they are free up to the point that what they say sells enough to cover overheads (or in the case of the Guardian/BBC, they are free because they are funded by Marxist charity or a form of compulsory tax). But what about the freedom of speech of people more widely? Again, it's a popularity contest in which fairy tales outsell facts.

 
At 11:35 am, Anonymous Mike Jones said...

Nigel,

An economic crisis after the pandemic could well be far worse than that following the 1929 Wall Street crash which set off ww2, and this whole covid-19 pandemic may either be a plot by Communist China or at least manipulated by China, into an attempt to sink global capitalism or engineer a third world war, just as ww2 came from conflicts sparked by global depression.

This could be far worse than the actual covid-19 fatalities. So please bear it in mind.

 
At 11:47 am, Blogger nige said...

Mike: there is an interesting article in the South China Morning Post, relevant to China's racketeering from covid-19 via its power in the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) here:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3078448/taiwan-looks-play-leading-international-role-battle-against

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST (newspaper)

China / Diplomacy

Taiwan offers masks and medical aid to foreign countries, angering Beijing

Self-ruled island has been frozen out of the World Health Organisation but its strong response to Covid-19 has helped raise its profile

Taipei has offered to donate 10 million face masks to countries that are battling the outbreak

Taiwan has intensified its efforts to raise its global profile by offering to donate urgently needed face masks and medical aids to other countries – a move that has angered Beijing.

Observers said Taiwan’s efforts to control the Covid-19 outbreak had highlighted the strengths of its medical system and increased its visibility on the world stage.

It has also been praised by world leaders, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen saying the EU is thankful for Taiwan’s efforts and gestures of solidarity, while the US state department described Taiwan as a true friend.

But Beijing’s response was less complimentary. Foreign ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said Taiwan prohibited the export of masks when the outbreak was at its height on the Chinese mainland, and said the island should not play any “political tricks” to gain accession to the World Health Organisation.

My take is that we must get through the covid-19 emergency with as few casualties and as little economic damage as possible, and then we will be in the best position to tackle the possibly dire challenges ahead.

Gas masks are needed, regardless what W.H.O. aka Marxist China dictates to the lunatic hypocritical "health officials" in all Western governments!

The West should tell the Marxist China front W.H.O. to go take a hike, asap, with or without a mask!

 
At 11:26 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The World Health Organization advice is to stay at home, do without food, and simply hold your breathe for the next year to avoid infection while attempts are made to produce a workable safe vaccine. This advice has been proved by the consensus of Chinese Marxists who fund W.H.O., so it is beyond argument.

:)

 
At 2:00 pm, Anonymous Tommy said...

Thanks Nige. The people claiming that masks don't work should be prosecuted and banned from circulating fake news. This includes the TV journalists and the left wing anti-civil defense bigoted fools.

 
At 2:06 pm, Blogger nige said...

It will take millions of deaths before anybody in "authority" orders the police to arrest fake news spreaders in W.H.O. As I wrote in the post, the racism card will be used to protect mass murderers again, just as it was with Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, etc. Sad but true. Joe Public doesn't care about civil defense and saving lives, which is why the British government got away with appeasing Hitler: crowds cheered Prime Minister Chamberlain when he landed at Heston Airport after his third hand-shaking meeting with Hitler to announce a Nazi-British "peace in our time" collaboration, while the Nazis were murdering Jews. Therefore, please don't trust the "moral majority", who are easily duped by propaganda of "free press" lying journalists.

 
At 3:28 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/09/another-887-dead-uk-coronavirus-toll-nears-8000-12532192/

Another 891 dead as UK’s coronavirus death toll nears 8,000 View 12 comments Joe Roberts

Thursday 9 Apr 2020 2:17 pm

Another 891 people have died after contracting coronavirus, taking the UK death toll to at least 7,988. Today’s jump in deaths is one of the biggest daily increases since the outbreak began, following a massive rise of 938 yesterday and 854 on Tuesday. ...

The combined figure from the three nations comes to 891, which could be different to the figure later released by the government this afternoon. This is because each devolved authority often makes amendments to their own data after reporting deaths to the Department of Health (DoH) each day. ...

The latest figures emerged as Downing Street said Boris Johnson’s condition ‘continues to improve’ in intensive care where he has spent three nights being treated for coronavirus. ...

He was said to be continuing with ‘standard oxygen treatment’, while it was indicated he has not taken part in any drug trials for Covid-19. ...

There has been some confusion around the reporting of death tolls. This is because there are various public bodies all reporting figures according to different criteria each day. On Tuesday, April 7, the Department of Health (DoH) said the UK coronavirus death toll had reached 6,159 after another 786 patients in hospitals died. But this was 68 lower than the combined figure of 854 from England (758), Scotland (74), Wales (19), and Northern Ireland (3). If you added together the self-reported total deaths from England (5,655), Scotland (296), Wales (212), and Northern Ireland (73) on Tuesday, you get a higher figure of 6,236. The government has said this difference is because each devolved authority often makes amendments to their data after releasing death figures to the DoH each day. It is important to note that all of these deaths occurred in hospitals across the UK. They do not take into account the people dying at home, in care facilities, hospices, or other locations outside of hospitals. ...

 
At 3:32 pm, Blogger nige said...

This news that the UK deaths statistics are are muddled up as the "fake news" from under-testing on "confirmed cases" should lead to fake news spreaders being fired and replaced with honest folk. Bureaucratic chaos needing strong leadership, not a clown.

The sooner someone competent takes charge, the more lives can be saved.

 
At 5:27 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

President Trump is nobody's fool, as usual (despite his left wing critics who love W.H.O.):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/coronavirus-updates-news-live.html

Trump Attacks W.H.O. and Ousts Watchdog for Pandemic Fund

Here’s what you need to know:
Trump attacked the W.H.O. for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak and its criticisms of his policy. ...

Trump attacked the W.H.O. for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak and its criticisms of his policy.
President Trump lashed out on Tuesday at the World Health Organization, choosing a new political enemy to attack and threatening to withhold funding from a premier health institution even as a deadly virus ravages nations around the globe.

“We’re going to put a hold on money spent to the W.H.O., we’re going to put a very powerful hold on it and we’re going to see,” Mr. Trump said during the daily coronavirus briefing at the White House, accusing the organization of having not been aggressive enough in confronting the virus. “They called it wrong. They call it wrong. They really, they missed the call.” ...

That newspaper is still ignoring the fact that W.H.O.s corruption over political bigotry and attacking masks cause the pandemic in the first place to spread over the world:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/who-and-china-dereliction-duty

Michael Collins is a research associate for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 with the lofty goal of ensuring the attainment of the highest possible level of health by all people. In the years since, the organization has been instrumental in controlling or eradicating communicable diseases and investing in healthcare capacity across the globe. However, the WHO is now facing rising international criticism over outsized Chinese influence in the organization’s response to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak. ...

In contrast to his effusive praise for China, Tedros has been quick to criticize other countries for their responses to the outbreak. He called upon nations not to limit travel with China and warned against the “recrimination or politicization” of the outbreak. Domestic Chinese news coverage prominently features Tedros’ praise of Xi Jinping and criticism of foreign governments. More concerning is Tedros’ delay in declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). ... The WHO’s weak response to China’s mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak has laundered China’s image at the expense of the WHO’s credibility. The rate of infection in China appears to be declining, but the risk of a global pandemic is increasing. The time is ripe for clear leadership from the WHO based on science not politics.

 
At 1:07 pm, Blogger nige said...

World Health Organisation W.H.O. boss who doesn't care about people, only declared a pandemic on 11 MARCH, far too late, and he STILL recommends that healthy people don't need masks despite the fact ANYBODY can get and spread the disease to others:

https://nypost.com/2020/04/08/who-head-doesnt-care-about-attacks-following-trump-criticism/

WHO chief ‘doesn’t care’ about attacks following Trump criticism
By Jackie SaloApril 8, 2020 | 2:32pm

The head of the World Health Organization said he “doesn’t care” about attacks against him, following criticism from President Trump that the organization “really blew” its coronavirus response.

Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday ... Trump previously accused the organization of pro-China bias and said he was placing a “very powerful hold” on funding to them.

In response to the criticism, Tedros said they’re “doing everything” to fight the virus but conceded that “in the process, we may make mistakes.”

“We aren’t angels. We are human beings, we make mistakes like other human beings,” Tedros said.

He then called on the US and China to prioritize “honest leadership,” saying that “unity is the only option to defeat this virus.”

“The US and China should come together and fight this dangerous enemy,” he said. “They should come together to fight it.” ...

THIS IS JUST MORE DECEITFUL PROPAGANDA FROM W.H.O. BOSS, WHOSE "NO MASKS" LYING PROPAGANDA IS KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS IN THE UK AND ELSEWHERE! :-(

 
At 3:55 pm, Anonymous Senatorial Solicitor with Deep Voice said...

Suppose I send out press releases to all the world's media warning of a tip off I have overheard with my usually excellent big ears in a smoke filled cafe, concerning an assassination attempt to be made on some famous celebrity.

If they do not publish it and the assassination goes ahead, should I then try writing a book blaming the world's media for effectively causing the death of the celebrity?

It is no use blaming the Western media for their part in appeasing the Nazis while Hitler rearmed for the Second World War, nor in blaming them for not launching crusades to have the vulnerable provided with protective masks to save their lives in the covid-19 pandemic.

If they will not publish a warning, they will certainly not publish news that their toadism towards the no-masks demands of the W.H.O. is costing thousands of vulnerable lives.

 
At 4:08 pm, Blogger nige said...

This is a catch-22 situation. Sure, the media wants to sell fashionable stories. But new fashions have to emerge, or there is no "news". Yep, to the Marxists, repeating the same tired old lies endlessly is their Orwellian doublethink interpretation of the word "news".

But ultimately some new ideas and new info has to seep out. The media is more concerned with screening and censorship than the free marketplace of ideas, because - despite Marxist propaganda - the majority of people (especially Marxists) are conservative (e.g. try telling a Marxist that he/she needs to "move on" from Marxism, and you'll see they they are conservative in resisting change from their mindset, resisting progressive ideas, and trying hopelessly to redefine the word "progressive" to mean "backward" to the time of Marx). However, the media has to follow fashion and innovation, albeit as slowly as possible. It will do so belatedly following its Latin motto: "Quoque paulo nimium sero".

But eventually the laggard media will report fragments of the facts, usually distorted out of context into a lie woven out of whole cloth, after covering up the news that is so vital.

So I disagree with you, and give all due credit, "jota unum", to the media. Eventually they will get around to printing a garbled, watered down, news "story", far too late.

 
At 4:19 pm, Blogger nige said...

It seems that I was right also about the side-effects of chloroquine that James Delingpole was promoting (while he ignored my requests that he at least consider writing about masks as a way out of the lock-down), see:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8199477/Swedish-hospitals-stop-prescribing-chloroquine-coronavirus-patients-adverse-effects.html

"Hospitals in Sweden have stopped using the malaria drug chloroquine on coronavirus patients after reports it was causing blinding headaches and vision loss. ... For one in 100 people, chloroquine can also cause the heart to beat too fast or slow, which can lead to a fatal heart attack."

Delingpole is an example of the "maverick journalist" who promotes lies and crap and claims that he is offering the "best alternative" to mainstream fashion. The real problem is editors and publishers who go along with populist alternatives, instead of looking at the factual evidence critically. Gas masks are available and have plenty of evidence. Vaccines and drugs have plenty of problems and delays.

 
At 6:53 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The failure of the media to campaign for the Taiwan solution to coronavirus, masks, proves the failure of so-called investigative journalism and do-good editing when needed.

What are all so-called socialist journalists scribbling now when masks are needed by the vulnerable to save their lives in a pandemic? They are writing how horrible democratically elected leaders are. Are those journalists democratically elected? No. Hypocrites.

They could not care less about doing the right thing, just pandering to fashion. I hope covid-19 puts their horrible presses out of action, and saves the world from their poison pens. They could do a lot of good, but they choose to be negative instead of promoting the only proven solution to the pandemic.

 
At 7:16 pm, Blogger nige said...

I've been into the failure of the media re: civil defence in many previous blog posts. This current pandemic crisis is a repeat of the BBC/Cambridge Scientists Antiwar Group/CND anti-civil defence tripe, 1927-1988.

Please see https://archive.org/details/PopularFlying/mode/2up for the story of how William Earle Johns, editor of Popular Flying (monthly) and Flying (weekly) was fired in 1939 for his repeated 1933-1939 editorial warnings about Hitler's rearmament and the dangers of appeasement. This was due to his publisher, George Newnes, being wined and dined by Cabinet Ministers who wanted to shut up critics of their fascist/racist sympathetic policies.

By contrast, Churchill profited politically in the end (he was made PM) from his occasional, ignored warnings (dismissed by the more fashionable media bosses as "warmongering"), made while his main attention was devoted not to warning of appeasement, but to writing a money-spinning long-winded, biased biography of his ancestor, Marlborough.

My point as always is that democracy and the so-called "free press" are corrupt dictatorships bestowed with an all-too-thin veneer of respectability, which rubs off fast in a crisis! What's best, a dictatorship that is beyond criticism because it is wallpapered as democracy and protected by corrupt "free press" barons, or a openly clear dictatorship that you can sabotage, plot against and fight against? The answer is sad!

 
At 7:17 pm, Blogger nige said...

Link: https://archive.org/details/PopularFlying/mode/2up

On 14 March 1933, Lt Col Moore Brabazon complained of Britain’s disarmament policy to the House of Commons: “The enemy of the Air Force is not across the Channel, it is in Whitehall.”

Captain W. E. Johns, editor of 1930s weekly Flying and monthly Popular Flying, was fired on U.K. Government orders to his publisher, for criticising U.K. Government appeasement and slow rearmament policies. This debunks the notion that there is "freedom of the press". The fact is, anyone stating anything factual is censored out using "peer-pressure" and smear attacks about "warmongering" when in fact the "pacifists" caused WWII by enforcing appeasement policies.


“Feeling in this country runs the way the party in power at Westminster wants it to run, its wishes being conveyed to the public by means of carefully prepared propaganda in the newspapers. ... [Hitler] has not kept strictly to the letter of the disarmament clause ... The cost of a thousand aeroplanes today would be nothing to what failure to safeguard ourselves might cost.”

– W. E. Johns, Popular Flying editorial, January 1934.

 
At 11:28 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a communist takeover:
1. Marxist China pays off WHO to recommend that gas masks are no use, thereby ensuring the pandemic.
2. Marxist BBC and other media repeat WHOs call to not allow any masks for the vulnerable.
3. In the absence of protection and the delays in getting a vaccine (which may never be successful), capitalism goes bankrupt.
4. Marxist is firmly instilled in place of capitalism by covid-19.
5. Marxist Jeremy Corbyn, defeated in December 2019 at the polls in the UK, announces Marxist triumph thanks to covid-19.

 
At 11:36 pm, Blogger nige said...

Keep to hard facts, not speculations that Marxist China collaborated with Marxist Corbyn to unleash covid-19 to defeat capitalism and turn the world Marxist for a year or whatever:

FACT: Marxist Corbyn has exploited covid-19 for Marxist propaganda, while ignoring gas mask civil defence (he spent his political career attacking civil defence gas masks etc, in between shaking hands with Hamas racists who love Hitler's extermination of 6 million Jews).

Leave it at that, exploitation of mass murder.

Cheers!

 
At 11:51 pm, Blogger nige said...

PS. I saw some crackpot discussions on TV about military biological warfare application of covid-19 coronavirus, which dismissed it with the specious remark that "covid-19 has no military biological warfare use because the country unleashing it would have no protection."

This is nonsense because if a country did release a virus like this, particularly a communist/Marxist country which believes in civil defense - while hypocritically telling its enemies not to have civil defence themselves, as the USSR did in the cold war - you would get a situation just like that which is occurring now with covid-19 - just look at the graphs in this blog post of the relatively few Chinese casualties compared to the rest of the world!

Similarly, in gas warfare during WWI, the side releasing gas would do so when its own side was protected.

 
At 8:56 am, Blogger nige said...

Sadly, not all scientists want to save lives. Those who want like Hitler to "reduce the surplus population" like Marxist hypocritical "medical experts" in BMA, WHO, BBC etc dismiss live saving protective masks for the vulnerable in order to hype up their political agenda based on lies, hatred and extermination. This following article is supposed to be a "joke", but summarises the situation plainly for fanatics against masks in the media, in politics, religion and "hubris science":

https://www.theonion.com/scientists-look-one-third-of-the-human-race-has-to-di-1819573235

WASHINGTON—Saying there's no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet's resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species.

Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying.

And soon, the scientists confirmed.

 
At 9:11 am, Blogger nige said...

Why vaccines might not do the job, and why instead Taiwan's policy of masks to end the lock-down is so important (despite W.H.O. anti mask propaganda):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-idUSKCN21S15X

WORLD NEWSAPRIL 10, 2020 / 12:25 PM / 2 DAYS AGO
South Korea reports recovered coronavirus patients testing positive again
Josh Smith, Sangmi Cha
3 MIN READ

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korean officials on Friday reported 91 patients thought cleared of the new coronavirus had tested positive again.

Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), told a briefing that the virus may have been “reactivated” rather than the patients being re-infected.

South Korean health officials said it remains unclear what is behind the trend, with epidemiological investigations still under way.

The prospect of people being re-infected with the virus is of international concern, as many countries are hoping that infected populations will develop sufficient immunity to prevent a resurgence of the pandemic.

 
At 9:14 am, Blogger nige said...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/united-kingdom-coronavirus-covid19-fatalities-data-models/

Will the UK really have the highest coronavirus death toll in
Europe, as a US study suggests? ...

+ The forecast predicts that the UK will have the highest number of fatalities out of any European country.
+ But different models offer different predictions, mainly due to the data they use ...

 
At 3:27 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The situation of contaminated from infected corpses due to a lack of body bags in the UK (not just a lack of masks and covid-19 testing):

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1268269/uk-coronavirus-body-bags-news-boris-johnson-covid-19-death-rates-NHS-matt-hancock


Horrifying number of COVID-19 deaths leaves body bag suppliers unable to meet demand

MORTUARY suppliers have warned that they have run out of body bags, as the death toll in the UK fast approaches 1,000 per day.

By JOHN VARGA
PUBLISHED: 03:04, Mon, Apr 13, 2020 | UPDATED: 06:40, Mon, Apr 13, 2020


The shortage has led to some hospitals resorting to using sheets to move corpses. On Sunday, latest figures from Public Health England revealed that another 737 people had died in hospitals from COVID-19, bringing the total number of fatalities to 10,612. The UK is fast turning into a major epicentre for the disease within Europe, with some experts predicting that deaths in the UK will outstrip those in Italy and Spain.

The rising number of fatalities is placing a huge strain on mortuary suppliers and funeral parlours.

Barber Medical, who holds the NHS contract for mortuary supplies, told the BBC that zipped mortuary bag availability was a "real problem and they could not be sourced anywhere".
...

 
At 1:02 pm, Anonymous Foxy lady said...

https://www.foxnews.com/world/taiwan-releases-december-email-showing-unheeded-warning-to-who-about-coronavirus

WORLDPublished 11 hours ago
Taiwan releases December email to WHO showing unheeded warning about coronavirus

By Vandana Rambaran | Fox News

The World Health Organization is under fire after Taiwan released the contents of a December email inquiring about the person-to-person spread of COVID-19, which it says was ignored by the organization and further denied to provide adequate information about how to fight the virus.

Taiwan is accusing the WHO of downplaying the severity and spread of the coronavirus in an attempt to pander to China, even after Taiwan sounded the alarm about at least seven cases of atypical pneumonia that they were aware of in Wuhan, where the virus originated.

CHINA WAS 'NOT TRUTHFUL' ABOUT INITIAL CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK, EX-FDA BOSS GOTTLIEB SAYS

When asked about the cases by the media, Taiwan said China's health authorities said, "The cases were believed not SARS; however samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment," according to the contents of an email sent by Taiwan's Center for Disease Control and Prevention to the WHO on Dec. 31.

"I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us," the email said.

Taiwan is located about 80 miles off China's coast but has declared itself an independent nation for over 70 years. China, however, has refused to acknowledge Taiwan's sovereignty and consistently fights to bring it back under Beijing's control.

As a result, China has successfully persuaded the WHO to exclude Taiwan from the organization.

The WHO denied that Taiwan ever alerted them to the potential person-to-person spread of the virus, but Taiwan's CDC said that because they specifically mentioned "atypical pneumonia" – reminiscent of SARS, which is transmitted via human contact – "public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease," they said in a press release.

"However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission," Taiwan's CDC said.

Taiwan said that the WHO and the Chinese CDC both refused to provide adequate information that could have potentially prepared the government for the impact of the virus sooner.

The WHO ignored warnings from Taiwan and continued to reiterate China's false talking points — that "there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission" of the novel pathogen even as late as Jan 14.

In addition, the WHO failed to mandate that Chinese officials share the viral strains that would have allowed diagnostic tests to have been produced significantly earlier worldwide.

Tensions between Taiwan and the WHO have caused President Trump to consider pulling funding from the U.N. agency, which receives the bulk of its money from U.S taxpayers' dollars.

Trump said Monday during the White House's coronavirus task force briefing that he expects to reach a decision by the end of the week -- days after he vowed that his administration would be "looking into" WHO's operations.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has accused the U.S. of "politicizing" its handling of the virus and said that doing so would result in "more body bags."

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Currently, the coronavirus pandemic has killed 118,854 people in the world and infected over 2 million others.

Fox News' Rich Edson contributed to this report.

Vandana Rambaran is a reporter covering news and politics at foxnews.com. She can be found on Twitter @vandanarambaran

 
At 4:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), told a briefing that the virus may have been “reactivated” rather than the patients being re-infected."

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-idUSKCN21S15X

This suggests covid-19 antibodies may not prevent re-infections, so a vaccine may not work.

 
At 8:08 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/china-small-nuclear-tests-secret-state-department?fbclid=IwAR0uyktK7o6t5zfTJQJgQNrq1woznM2sdKvFAkTtenN86u6G_lpMCcTRPHc

CHINA Published 7 hours ago Last Update 5 hours ago
China may be conducting secret nuclear tests, State Department warns

By Nick Givas, Rich Edson | Fox News

The State Department is concerned China may be conducting small nuclear tests in secret, possibly violating an international agreement banning such tests, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.

A new State Department report on compliance with arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament, first obtained by the Wall Street Journal earlier Wednesday, found that China may be flouting international law by conducting the tests within the northwest region of the country, using low explosive power.

The report didn't prove any wrongdoing on the part of the Chinese, but still raised red flags.

"Some compliance concerns are raised and some findings of violations are made," it read.

CORONAVIRUS HAS 'NO IMPACT' ON ABILITY TO LAUNCH NUCLEAR WEAPONS: TOP US NUKE COMMANDER



Officials wrote that China had maintained a "high level of activity" at its Lop Nur site in 2019, and could be seeking to operate it year-round going forward.

It also mentioned China’s use of explosive containment chambers, extensive evacuations at the site and lack of transparency on nuclear testing as reasons for raising suspicions.

The report went on to cite further concerns about China's possible violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) by engaging "in biological activities with potential dual-use application."

The U.S. government also could not determine if China had shut down its biological warfare program, nor could it confirm if Beijing still had access to such weapons, due to its lack of openness and transparency.

China has been under growing scrutiny over its handling of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. There is increasing confidence that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan laboratory not as a bioweapon, but as part of China's effort to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses were equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States, multiple sources who have been briefed on government actions and seen relevant materials revealed to Fox News.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called out the Chinese government for not sharing the full story with the rest of the world.

"We know that this virus originated in Wuhan, China," Pompeo told "The Story". "We know there is the Wuhan Institute of Virology just a handful of miles away from where the wet market was. There is still lots to learn. The United States government is working diligently to figure it out."

Fox News' Bret Baier, Gregg Re, Charles Creitz and Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.

 
At 8:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://kafkadesk.org/2020/04/05/czech-nudists-reprimanded-by-police-for-not-wearing-face-masks/

ULTRA-LOCAL NEWS FROM CENTRAL EUROPE

Czech nudists reprimanded by police for not wearing face-masks

BY KAFKADESK
5 APRIL 2020

5 APRIL 2020
COMMENTS 9
Czech police apprehend nudists without face-masks
PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC – A group of Czech nudists were scolded by police officers for violating the obligation to wear protective face-masks in public spaces, local media reported.

Clothes or no clothes, face-masks mandatory in the Czech Republic
The message is clear: Protective face-masks have to be worn at all times in public, and no exception will be tolerated.

 
At 8:57 am, Blogger nige said...

What worries me about this is that the "hot beds" system - used on all the West's nuclear deterrent submarines - makes them highly vulnerable to covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, potentially weakening nuclear deterrence and risking WWIII breaking out:

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/covid-19-slams-wests-nuke-carriers-while-china-signals-taiwan-japan/

NAVAL WARFARE, THREATS
COVID-19 Slams West’s Nuke Carriers While China Signals Taiwan, Japan
Monday may have marked a turning point for how the Navy, and perhaps the Pentagon, is dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions over how deeply it might cut into military operations and what toll it will take on military readiness and operations.
By PAUL MCLEARY
on April 14, 2020 at 2:33 PM

WASHINGTON: China is operating the only aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific as the COVID crisis continues to ravage the USS Theodore Roosevelt in Guam, and the USS Ronald Reagan remains pierside in Japan.

The Liaoning carrier and its five-ship strike group skirted the territorial waters of Japan and Taiwan over the weekend, passing between the Japanese islands of Okinawa and Miyako on Saturday, before moving east of Taiwan on Sunday, according to reports. The move marks Beijing’s latest show of force in the region as its naval strength continues to grow and many US carriers sit moribund.

While the PLA Navy flexed its muscles, American and French nuclear-powered aircraft carriers struggled to contend with the global pandemic. The stricken USS Theodore Roosevelt continues to offload sailors to hotels on shore in Guam as it treats and about 600 infected sailors are quarantined. The ship has been in port for two weeks, and it’s not clear when it will return to sea.

On Monday, the Navy announced the first TR sailor died from COVID-related complications. Four sailors are hospitalized, and one has been moved into the intensive care unit due to shortness of breath, the Navy said today.

And France’s Charles de Gaulle carrier is now land-bound after 50 sailors tested positive for the novel cornaivurs, leading the French government to evacuate and isolate the entire 1,700-person crew in Toulon while a deep cleaning of the ship takes place. The de Gaulle — the only non-US nuclear powered carrier in the world — was coming to the end of a three-month deployment, but returned to port early.

...

Navy officials say it’s still unclear how COVID-19 made it aboard the TR. Many observers have pointed to its March 4 port call in Da Nang, Vietnam, blaming Capt. Brett Crozier for the visit. However, the port call had been signed off on by his boss’ bosses, Indo-Pacom commander Adm. Philip Davidson and Adm. John Aquilino, commander of the Pacific Fleet.

The visit was a major diplomatic milestone, marking just the second US carrier visit to the country since the US pulled out in 1975, and comes as Washington continues to make overtures to the country’s leadership as a bulwark against Chinese influence in the region."

If I were able to influence events, I'd recommend that all ships and subs with covid-19 outbreaks enforce biological warfare measures (respirators, anti-contamination disinfectant cleaning, and protective clothing) to try to stamp out the outbreaks vigorously, which should work (you can't self-isolate effectively in the cramped confines of a sub or ship).

But the whole nature of this pandemic and the China/W.H.O. anti-public masks advice suggests that regardless of whether the pandemic was started accidentally due to bat soup in Wuhan or a "leak" from a Chinese biological warfare field test, the Marxists are likely to gain power from the global collapse of capitalism and Western recession that will follow.

 
At 9:01 am, Blogger nige said...

So regardless of whether it was an "accident" or not, it has been used in a way that maximises the spread and human/financial costs to the West. Now add the nuclear testing revelation to that:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8224419/State-Department-warns-China-conducting-secret-nuclear-bomb-tests.html

State Department warns that China may be conducting small nuclear bomb tests and hiding the evidence from the rest of the world
State Department report on Wednesday says there is evidence of banned tests
Activity at the Lop Nur test site indicates 'extensive excavations' through 2019
China also blocks transmission of international monitoring data, report claims
China has denied the accusations, saying the criticism was 'without foundation'
Lop Nur is China's main nuclear test site and is located in remote Xinjang
Learn more about how to help people impacted by COVID
By KEITH GRIFFITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and REUTERS

PUBLISHED: 07:16, 16 April 2020 | UPDATED: 09:08, 16 April 2020

e-mail
33
shares
40

View comments
China may have secretly set off low-level underground nuclear test explosions despite claiming to observe an international pact banning such blasts, the U.S. State Department said in a report on Wednesday that could further fray U.S.-Chinese relations.

The finding may worsen ties already strained after President Donald Trump said the U.S. is investigating the possibility that coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab and was covered up by Beijing. ...

The State Department report does not prove that China violated nuclear test ban treaties, but says there is disturbing evidence of secret activity at the remote Lop Nur test site in the western province of Xinjang.

Lop Nur was China's sole nuclear testing site until 1996, when both China and the U.S. signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and vowed to adhere to its terms. ...

'China's possible preparation to operate its Lop Nur test site year-round, its use of explosive containment chambers, extensive excavation activities at Lop Nur and a lack of transparency on its nuclear testing activities ... raise concerns regarding its adherence to the zero yield standard,' the report said, without providing evidence of a low-yield test.

Beijing's lack of transparency included blocking data transmissions from sensors linked to a monitoring center operated by the international agency that verifies compliance with a treaty banning nuclear test explosions. ...

A senior U.S. official said the concerns about China's testing activities buttressed President Donald Trump's case for getting China to join the United States and Russia in talks on an arms control accord to replace the 2010 New START treaty between Washington and Moscow that expires in February. ...

'The pace and manner by which the Chinese government is modernizing its stockpile is worrying, destabilizing, and illustrates why China should be brought into the global arms control framework,' said the senior U.S. official on condition of anonymity. ...

China, estimated to have about 300 nuclear weapons, has repeatedly rejected Trump's proposal, arguing its nuclear force is defensive and poses no threat. ...

It comes after President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the U.S. is trying to determine whether the coronavirus first crossed to humans accidentally during experiments with bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology Lab.

After word of the outbreak finally became public, Chinese leaders were quick to blame Wuhan's 'wet market' where wild animals -- though not bats -- are sold for consumption, leading one source to tell Fox News the debacle is the 'costliest government coverup of all time.'

'Patient zero' worked at the Wuhan lab, and spread the virus into the local population after leaving work, sources who had been briefed on intelligence told the outlet.

 
At 7:26 pm, Blogger nige said...

British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435 "Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis" - https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1435.full.pdf :

"In conclusion, in the face of a pandemic the search for perfect evidence may be the enemy of good policy. As with parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes, it is time to act without waiting for randomised controlled trial evidence. A recently posted preprint of a systematic review came to the same conclusion. Masks are simple, cheap, and potentially effective. We believe that, worn both in the home (particularly by the person showing symptoms) and also outside the home in situations where meeting others is likely (for example, shopping, public transport), they could have a substantial impact on transmission with a relatively small impact on social and economic life."

Wow! They never took that approach to civil defence in the cold war, when they believed USSR propaganda to make the UK vulnerable!

 
At 7:34 am, Blogger nige said...

"Coronavirus: London mayor Sadiq Khan calls for 'compulsory' face masks" - better late than never ! - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52312906

 
At 7:36 am, Blogger nige said...

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-mayor-sadiq-khan-calls-on-government-to-make-face-masks-on-london-transport-compulsory-11974436

London's mayor is lobbying ministers for a change in policy on face coverings in the fight against COVID-19.
Alan McGuinness, political reporter
Alan McGuinness
Political reporter @Alan_McGuinness

Friday 17 April 2020 08:25, UK

"Wearing masks to avoid catching COVID-19 might have some advantages, the transport secretary has said. ... He has been urged by the mayor of London to make wearing masks on public transport in the capital compulsory to stop the spread of coronavirus. Sadiq Khan wrote that: "The latest scientific evidence shows that they can reduce the chances of an individual unknowingly infecting other people with COVID-19 and can therefore help to slow the spread of the virus."

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER! :-)

 
At 7:41 am, Anonymous Mike said...

The London Mayor is not suggesting that vulnerable people are protected properly, only that they receive inferior masks, with the best protection reserved to protect the NHS.

FFP2 (N95-equivalent) surgical face masks are reserved for the NHS, so why not give the elderly better protection for long periods of comfortable wearing, stockpiled military chemical/biological/nuclear particulate filter gas or respirator masks or nuclear industry masks?

"Face masks have become the new normal on streets and cities across the world as the coronavirus pandemic continues. A growing majority are deciding to cover their mouth and nose with bought or even homemade masks, in spite of World Health Organization (WHO) advice." - https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1269472/coronavirus-uk-face-mask-effective-covid-19-protection

The key issue is that 100% of the media and W.H.O. lies against "masks" is directed against poor quality masks, not the high quality, efficient type of respirator that is needed!

Paper lifeboats might well have suffered the same propaganda fate prior to the sinking of the Titanic: "There is NO EVIDENCE that paper lifeboats will save any lives!!! Blah blah blah."

Straw-man propaganda tactics by the socialist mentality of W.H.O. that just wants to maximise the pandemic disaster in order to secure more and more funds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-52326075 "Coronavirus: Home Office staff give face masks to migrants", 17 April 2020:

"Home Office staff have been seen fitting face masks to suspected migrants at Dover.
Pictures showed Immigration Enforcement officers, themselves wearing masks and gloves, processing them at the port. A total of 25 men and four women in three vessels arrived off the Kent coast between 04:30 and 12:00 BST. The Home Office said it was "standard practice" for migrants who arrive on small boats to be given face masks, fitted by individuals themselves."

So in the UK, the elderly most at risk need to get to France, burn their passports, then sail to England in leaky boats, in order to finally be deemed "economic migrants" worthy of protection and given masks. This seems to be the quack W.H.O. "guidelines" result!

 
At 9:19 pm, Blogger nige said...

Marxist New Statesman's media Stasi try to turn genuine tragedies into poetic comedy. Well, let's not hold our breath waiting for TV screenwriters, producers and New Statesman writers to mask up, stop infecting and killing people with their ill-informed bigotry. The result of doing so will be similar to a high dose of covid-19.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE. UNLESS THE MEDIA TAKES EFFECTIVE CIVIL DEFENCE BIOLOGICAL AGENT GAS MASKS / RESPIRATORS SERIOUSLY, THE CONSEQUENCES WILL GET WORSE IN MANY WAYS. :-(

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/eleven-days-may-have-tragically-cost-uk-fight-against-coronavirus

17 APRIL 2020
The eleven days that may have tragically cost the UK in the fight against coronavirus

In a personal account, Dominic Minghella recalls the pre-lockdown period in which he and others were spreading Covid-19 across the UK. ...

The days in question are 12-23 March, days in which the government decided to all but give up contact tracing and do, well, nothing. Mass gatherings were still allowed; concerts and racing and Champions League football; pubs and public transport. The over-70s, it must be conceded, were advised to avoid cruises.

Medics in Italy screamed: “Do something!” “Don’t make our mistakes!” “Look at what happens if you leave it too late!” In those 11 days, our government decided there was nothing to be done. We wrestled open-mouthed with the ideas of “taking it on the chin”, “letting it pass through the community” and “herd immunity”. Then the government realised that this “strategy” might produce upwards of 250,000 deaths in the UK. ...

The 11 days during which our government decided there was nothing it could do included the days during which I was asymptomatic with Covid-19. I’m confident I picked up my infection on a packed train from Northallerton to London on 8 March. In the following few days, at maximum infectiousness, ... I went to shops and cafés and took my kids to school. On 12 March, with the government saying there was nothing to be done and abandoning us to the virus, I tried to buy hand sanitiser, but it was all gone. I went to the Post Office ... I passed my credit card to the post office worker to show my ID. At the pharmacy I signed the back of my prescription using a communal pen tied to the till with string. I went to our tiny, closely aisled Tesco. All the time, ... I had no idea that my selfish fears were pointless; I had already caught it.

... I probably spread my infection to others at the Post Office; through the pen at the pharmacy, the keypad at the Tesco. I made them ill. I had no idea, of course – no symptoms at all – but I may have killed people. I almost certainly infected people, who infected others, who infected still more ... “My” viral spreading will have cost some people their lives, some families their loved ones.

... On the day the government finally put the UK into lockdown (23 March), it was already too late for me. I was gasping for breath and (foolishly) resisting advice to go to hospital. ...

Dominic Minghella is a television screenwriter and producer....

 
At 10:34 am, Anonymous Mike said...

Just to remind everyone of some key safety aspects of general purpose CBRN respirators (gas masks): don't use them against ammonia, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide, or in oxygen deficient environments (where there is less than 17% oxygen you need to replace the filter canister with a fire brigade or scuba diving type compressed air cylinder and appropriate regulator/adapter), because they do NOT absorb oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide which irreversibly binds up haemoglobin in red blood cells, causing oxygen insufficiency. This was a major problem in the first world war, when soldiers wore gas masks in fume filled recent bomb craters, and succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning. Ideally, civil defence CBRN gas masks should contain clear warning labels on the filter canisters, stating:

"WARNING: TEST REGULARLY AND REPLACE WHEN SMOKE OR CHLORINE GAS BEGINS TO LEAK THROUGH FILTER. CBRN FILTER IS NOT PROOF AGAINST CO, CO2, NH3, OR IN OXYGEN-DEFICIENT ENVIRONMENTS WHERE COMPRESSED AIR IS NEEDED."

 
At 3:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is curious that the BBC endlessly repeats three false reasons why vulnerable people should NOT wear masks:

a. Only sick people and medical professionals really need masks. THIS IS THE KEY FAKE W.H.O. CLAIM! On the contrary, in fact anyone can contract covid-19 and even asymptomatic people can spread the disease, and all need masks, debunking W.H.O.

b. There is a shortage of disposable paper masks, which must be reserved for medics. IGNORANT W.H.O. PROPAGANDA THAT IGNORES BETTER QUALITY MILITARY AN CIVIL DEFENSE/EMERGENCY GAS MASKS ENTIRELY. This claim also contradicts fake claim (a). If you claim people don't need masks, and then make the contradictory claim that the vulnerable people should denied protection because is a shortage caused by medics getting all the masks, you are confused!

c. Masks make people touch their faces, spreading contamination. IGNORANT W.H.O. PROPAGANDA BECAUSE FULL FACE GAS MASKS PREVENT PEOPLE FROM TOUCHING THEIR FACES AND THEREFORE PREVENT THE SPREAD OF CONTAMINATION BY HAND-TO-FACE CONTACT.

The BBC and other media are guilty of endlessly repeating this ignorant W.H.O. fake news mythology. The result so far is over 16,000 dead in hospitals and far more dead in nursing homes and houses, due to both covid-19 directly and to indirect deaths from fear of visiting contaminated hospitals for other medical problems that need live saving treatment. BBC tireless pro-lying anti-masks propaganda has a very heavy death toll. At some point, people apart from die-hard fascists will tire of applauding the lies. Truth needs airing.

 
At 3:31 pm, Blogger nige said...

The UK government seems to be following the lockdown strategy promoted by the Kate Winslet movie Contagion, instead of following what its own treatment of the airborne gas threat in 1938 when it issued everyone in the country with PPE and training it its use (ARP Handbook 1 on gas masks had sold 477,000 copies in its first edition in 1937, before civilian gas masks were even manufactured starting 1938).

The two useful aspects of the film Contagion are Winslet saying that the average person touches their face normally around 4 times every minute (thus the need for gas masks to prevent face-touching, which is a major contamination route due to hand to face contagion), and the depiction of various types of protective masks.

If everyone wore good PPE, the hospital overload and the testing problems would be ended soon. As the 2008 UK Health and Safety Executive research report RR619 explained in 2008, for airborne viruses paper masks reduce the inhalation hazard by about a factor of 6 but gas masks / respirators can reduce it by more than a factor of 100. This would stamp it out. Wearing gloves, we could then decontaminate door handles, cash point buttons, etc., and wipe out the virus, ending lock-down speedily. The fewer people then showing symptoms would stand out better and could be tested, isolated and contact-traced more easily, eliminating the crisis.

W.H.O. falsehoods against masks are killing thousands of people!

 
At 7:10 pm, Blogger nige said...

New paper in Britain's premier medical journal, The Lancet, finds: "Dismissing a low-cost intervention such as mass masking as ineffective because there is no evidence of effectiveness in clinical trials is in our view potentially harmful." - Kar Keung Cheng, Tai Hing Lam, and Chi Chiu Leung, "Wearing face masks in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic", The Lancet, April 16, 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext

 
At 7:28 pm, Blogger nige said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8234927/100-leading-doctors-call-public-wear-home-masks.html

Everyone in Britain 'should wear a mask': One hundred leading doctors say public should cover their face whenever they go out to limit spread of coronavirus

Top doctors have recommended that the public wear masks outdoors
They say Britain is out of step in its guidance, with other European countries including Germany, Italy and Spain now recommending their use

The coverings are already common in China, Japan and South Korea

Learn more about how to help people impacted by COVID

By ELEANOR HAYWARD FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 21:58, 19 April 2020 | UPDATED: 08:52, 20 April 2020

More than 100 top doctors have backed calls for the public to wear homemade face masks to protect themselves and others from contracting coronavirus when they leave their homes.

They signed a letter saying they were 'increasingly alarmed at official inaction over the need for the public to wear face masks'.

Ministers could make a decision this week on whether to order the use of protective equipment for millions of Britons in the workplace and on public transport.

The doctors spoke out ahead of a meeting of the Government's scientific advisers tomorrow to review evidence on whether masks should be made compulsory.

Britain is out of step in its guidance, with other European countries including Germany, Italy and Spain now recommending their use.

The doctors are backing the Masks4All campaign which is calling for 'ordinary homemade masks' to be worn by the public to help stop those with the disease spreading it to others.

Signatories of the letter include John Ashton, a former president of the Faculty of Public Health, and Martin McKee, a professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Their missive to The Times said: 'Official UK policy is illogical… The latest guidance on PPE [personal protective equipment] says that people should wear masks in hospital waiting rooms 'to reduce both direct transmission and environmental contamination'. Why not elsewhere?

'The thousands of coronavirus mutual aid groups could make enough homemade masks for everyone, so it would cost next to nothing. Instructions are easily available, for example, at masks4all.org.uk.'

A petition has also been started by Masks4All urging the Government to make masks mandatory in the UK.

 
At 7:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237489/Medics-say-general-public-make-facemasks-stop-spread-coronavirus.html

Medics say general public should make their own face masks from bandanas, scarves and towels to stop spread of coronavirus

Campaigners Masks4All suggest home-made masks can slow spread of Covid-19
But World Health Organisation says there is no evidence to support public use

Scientific advisers for the Government are carrying out a review on face masks

Learn more about how to help people impacted by COVID

By WILLIAM COLE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:33, 20 April 2020 | UPDATED: 21:45, 20 April 2020

Britons should make their own face masks to stop the spread of coronavirus as supplies of the protective gear run short, medics have said.

Campaigners Masks4All has suggested that home-made masks can slow the spread of Covid-19. They group use the slogan 'my mask protects you and your mask protects me' on their website.

But the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said that there is no evidence to support the use of masks in the general population.

In the wider community outside of health and care facilities, people should wear masks if they are sick or caring for those who are ill, the organisation added.

The Masks4All campaign group was started in the Czech Republic, but now has a global following. More than 100 UK medics have lent the group their support.

Dr Helen Davison told The Telegraph that the group was 'advocating the use of cloth masks as a precautionary principle' and that it had been inspired by action taken in other countries 'that have introduced face masks at population level'.

Scientific advisers for the Government are carrying out a review on face masks. ...

Two types of mask meet high-grade medical standards - FFP3 and FFP2/N95. So what's the difference?

The two main types of medical-grade face mask on sale in Britain are the FFP3 and FFP2, also known as N95, masks.

These are the types that doctors and nurses must use when treating patients with the coronavirus, and offer the most protection against viruses in the air.

They are particularly vital during 'aerosolising' procedures such as putting in a ventilator, which is when medical workers are most at risk of breathing in viruses.

FFP stands for Filtering Face Piece, with FFP3 giving the highest level of protection against virus and bacterial infections, while FFP2 is the level below.

NHS guidance is for medics to use the FFP3 masks, while FFP2 is recommended by the World Health Organization and is the equivalent to the US's N95 mask.

The N in N95 stands for Not resistant to oil - because the mask is a particle respirator only and doesn't protect against fluids - while the 95 means it filters out 95 per cent of airborne particles.

Health officials say that when FFP3s are not available, FFP2s can be used. The WHO recommends FFP2 and N95 respirators, which are widely used in other countries.

The N95 does not have the CE mark to show compliance with European safety standards, but has been tested against standards similar to these requirements.

This pack of two FFP3 masks is the best selling product for the type of respirator on Amazon

 
At 7:48 pm, Blogger nige said...

There's a petition https://www.change.org/p/sign-the-petition-to-demand-masks4all but it's not hitting the nail on the head. What is needed is proper protection for the most vulnerable people, which should be effective, preferably reusable gas masks that have a protection factor well over 100 for airborne respiratory aerosols, which will protect them reliably when visiting hospitals that are heavily contaminated, for chemotherapy, heart treatment, etc. Homemade masks only reduce airborne contamination risks by a factor of 6 (according to the tests reported in the UK Health and Safety Executive report RR619). The petition for homemade masks for all is NOT well thought out. High quality masks for vulnerable people are needed. At present all good masks are diverted from them. There are unused stockpiles of Avon biowar emergency/civil defence escape hoods and military gas masks that could be used to protect the vulnerable reliably!

 
At 7:35 am, Blogger nige said...

Reparations claims against China could risk sparking another war, just as reparations against Germany after WWI led to conflict:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1271028/Angela-Merkel-Germany-China-coronavirus-blame-Wuhan-Xi-Jinping-Trump-latest?fbclid=IwAR3kBbrW3iSQU4N4fp2o0--Mxo8Ckle2FxTRfidugUPr2U1Cb0rSMWDDvys

China furious as leading German newspaper writes out £130BN bill for 'coronavirus damages'
GERMANY has rattled China by joining the UK, France and the US in a rare attack, after Berlin called out Beijing's responsibility for the global pandemic and a leading newspaper issued a £130bn invoice.
By OLI SMITH
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Tue, Apr 21, 2020 | UPDATED: 12:36, Wed, Apr 22, 2020

Germany has sparked outrage in China after a Bild, the tabloid newspaper in the country, put together a £130bn invoice that Beijing "owes" Berlin following the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Germany has followed France, the UK and the US in directing its coronavirus anger at China, where the virus originated. Recent attacks come amid findings that Beijing appeared to cover up the true scale of the crisis, as the source of the outbreak remains a mystery.

On Saturday, Donald Trump warned that China should face consequences if it was “knowingly responsible” for unleashing the coronavirus pandemic.

President Trump told reporters: "It could have been stopped in China before it started and it wasn’t, and the whole world is suffering because of it.

“If it was a mistake, a mistake is a mistake. But if they were knowingly responsible, then there should be consequences.

He said the Chinese were “embarrassed” and the question was whether what happened with the coronavirus was “a mistake that got out of control, or was it done deliberately?”

President Trump and his senior aides have repeatedly accused China of lacking transparency.

And German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said: “I believe the more transparent China is about the origin story of the virus, the better it is for everyone in the world in order to learn from it.”

This week the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak started, revised its number of fatalities by with a sudden 50% jump in the figure.

The UK has joined US intelligence officials in investigating claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan virus lab and not a wet market.

A bombshell op-ed this week in Germany's largest tabloid newspaper, Bild, joined this outrage by drawing up an itemised invoice for €149bn (£130b).

The list includes a €27 billion charge for lost tourism revenue, up to €7.2 billion for the German film industry, a million euros an hour for German airline Lufthansa and €50 billion for German small businesses.

Bild calculated that this amounts to €1,784 (£1,550) per person if Germany's GDP falls by 4.2 percent, under the title "What China owes us."

China responded by claiming the invoice "stirs up xenophobia and nationalism".

 
At 11:33 am, Blogger nige said...

38 second clip of BBC David Shukman anti masks propaganda BBC1 News 1816 hours on 23 April 2020. The BBC's propagandarist David Shukman circulates deceptive propaganda in the form of "strawman" arguments against masks in which he shows the video of covid-19 droplets spreading and then some NHS "expert" or other states that "on balance, people don't need masks outdoors", even though it is about indoor contamination (hospital corridors, waiting rooms at surgeries, diagnosis and rooms for cancer or heart disease, supermarkets, shops, offices, buses, trains, tubes, care homes, etc.). This is deliberate Dr Goebbels style lying, because we could END the pandemic by the massive reduction of the reproduction number of the virus if we all wore efficient droplet filtering gas masks for a week (because, outside the body, the virus only survives a few days on most surfaces except in a refrigerator). The BBC anti-masks propaganda tricks used to cause over 20,000 deaths:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2254952801480370

 
At 12:00 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

Disposable paper masks should really be banned by the NHS and everyone else.

Reusable respirators should be used by everyone.

They have a protective factor of over 100 contrasted by just 6 for paper masks, and they are cheaper in the long run, because they can be disinfected and reused. They are better designed, more comfortable, and can be used for longer.

The media's obsession with ineffective paper masks is based on ignorance.

 
At 1:22 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC Panorama and News desks have never had any vested interest in debunking group-think propaganda from fireproof cladding "experts" or any others. They are solely interested in promoting Marxist Momentum style propaganda to bankrupt capitalism. Similarly, the Conservative Party went along, and indeed led, the attempt in this country to start the Second World War by the ill-informed appeasement policy towards fascism, which was warmly supported by a long list of Labour Party "opponents" from George Lansbury through Baldwin, Henderson and Chamberlain. The BBC promoted the appeasement strategy which led Hitler to believe Britain was too feeble to oppose fascism, thus leading to the Second World War. The BBC also led paedophilia through its 1980s "stars" like Sir Jimmy Saville, while hypocritically claiming to speak truth to power. It's nothing but a front for bigotry and officialdom, supporting hatred and opposing those who want corruption called to account by exposing the truth.

 
At 1:28 pm, Blogger nige said...

A respirator wearing policy would also be easier to police than the current vaguer "lockdown", because people can currently flout the rules and argue over their interpretation (how long can they spend out exercising each day?, how far can they go on their daily run or cycle ride?, etc.). With compulsory use of respirators, as in WWII, anyone not wearing a respiratory when entering a hospital or supermarket etc could be arrested by police and put into safe quarantine in a police cell until the pandemic is over (which would be very quickly if everyone could be encouraged in this way to wear effective masks to end the pandemic fast).

 
At 8:18 am, Anonymous Mike said...

The David Shukman's BBC interview with a British government adviser who says that the risk to the general public is too low, without giving any numbers to back up her claim that 20,000 deaths signifies an insignificant risk, to wear masks reminds me of similar claims.

1. Various buildings with cladding had burned down before Grenfell without fatalities, and some people had warned that people could be killed unless something was done. Official response: the risk is too low to worry about. No objective analysis backed up that claim.

2. After people pointed out in the 1960s that road deaths would be reduced if everyone was forced by law to wear a seat belt in vehicles, objectors claimed the risk was too low to bother about, despite thousands of deaths a year on the roads.

It will take a big campaign against the BBC and government to get them to change course on covid-19 and to save lives and stamp out the pandemic.

Don't expect any help from those with a vested interest in keeping the ship set on course for the ice berg, i.e. the people who stand to win acclaim for vaccine or antibody test development (even if these are way less effective than masks). Obviously, the BBC just wants hubris and party politics from it, not a solution. I hear they are trying to edit out people wearing masks in other countries from VT footage, to make it seem as if masks are not a sensible solution, in the same way Stalin airbrushed Trotsky out of old photos.

 
At 8:57 am, Blogger nige said...

"Don't expect any help from those with a vested interest in ... vaccine or antibody test development ..."

It's worse than this. Professional quacks try to pretend there is "no alternative" and make hate attacks on gas masks, jokes against them, or quick "no evidence" lying dismissals, in order to divert all funding to their own preferred quack scheme. Thus, in the 1930s, disarmament fanatics "had to dismiss civil defence and gas masks" because they were a "danger", being a credible alternative to surrendering to fascism or risking extermination. The same continued into the 1980s, and CND were still attacking civil defence even after their USSR had collapsed. The government put up a token support for civil defence but never really made an all-out assault on the lying propaganda methods used against it. Hence, the BBC's David Shukman, who incidentally has also in the past gone into the disarmament-is-the-only-way-to-save-us mythology, is using propaganda tricks against effective defence.

It's the same in superstring theory and genuine criticisms of positive water feedback delusions in climate propaganda "science": the lying use of "no evidence" when what the really mean is that they have corrupted peer-review to stop the evidence being examined! The BBC is doing this with the masks "debate": their propaganda technique is to just interview critics of instead of having a debate. If they did have a "debate" it would presumably be arranged with a load of anti-mask fanatics (funded for vaccine, antibody test, etc.) on one side, and a selection of ignorant morons representing the pro-masks side! Don't let anyone say that the BBC is not competent at enforcing mass deception, hypocrisy, misinformation and making hate attacks on the freedom of access of unbiased information. ;-)

 
At 2:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The results of the BBC and UK Government reliance on WHO anti masks propaganda:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/28/uks-death-toll-will-soon-worst-europe-charts/

UK has recorded Europe's highest average daily deaths for four days in a row - pushing it towards becoming Europe's worst affected country

By
Ashley Kirk,
SENIOR DATA JOURNALIST
28 April 2020 • 12:09pm

The UK’s five-day average for coronavirus deaths is now the highest of any major European economy at this point in the pandemic’s curve, new analysis has revealed.

At this point in the pandemic, some 42 days since the tenth death, the five-day average for deaths in the UK stands at 598, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. This is far higher than Italy (559), France (509) and Spain (423).

UK coronavirus deaths have been the highest among all major European countries for four days in a row, overtaking France at this stage of the pandemic.

 
At 6:17 pm, Blogger nige said...

Scotland leads the UK as always:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-scotland/scotlands-sturgeon-recommends-wearing-face-masks-in-enclosed-public-spaces-idUSKCN22A1Y8

WORLD NEWS

APRIL 28, 2020 / 1:34 PM / UPDATED 6 HOURS AGO

Scotland's Sturgeon recommends wearing face masks in enclosed public spaces

LONDON (Reuters) - Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has urged people to start wearing a face mask if they are in enclosed places such as public transport and shops, diverging for now from the official advice from London.

 
At 10:27 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

So gas masks it is, because antibody tests have proved pretty worthless in clinical trials.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/antibody-tests-herd-immunity/610762/

"COVID-19: The false hope of antibody tests
"Sarah Zhang - The Atlantic - 28 April 2020

"For months, ... immunity, which requires testing for proteins called antibodies in the blood that are evidence of past infection ... have been seen as key to reopening the country; other countries have even proposed using them for “immunity certificates” that would allow the immune to return to work.

"But if the first results from antibody surveys, also known as “serosurveys,” in the U.S. are anything to judge by, simply not enough people are immune. Too many Americans are still vulnerable to COVID-19 infection for these tests to be the “game changer” that many were hoping for.

"A pair of controversial surveys in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County found antibodies in 2.5 to 4 percent of the population—and even those numbers may be overestimates due to methodological flaws. In New York City, the country’s COVID-19 epicenter, 24.7 percent of people tested positive for antibodies. (The statewide number is 14.9 percent.) These rates do translate to many times more cases than officially documented, to be clear, but they are still a far cry from the 70 percent scientists believe is necessary to reach herd immunity and stop disease transmission. ...

"One study in the hard-hit municipality of Gangelt, considered “Germany’s Wuhan,” found 14 percent of people testing positive for antibodies. “It was clear from that point, for me, that we weren’t going to see big numbers,” Dean said. ...

"Scientists don’t know exactly how long immunity to COVID-19 will last and what level of antibodies confers immunity. “There are just unknowns for an individual,” Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and a co-author of a recent report on antibody testing, told me. ...

" In the U.K., for example, Prime Minister Boris Johnson touted finger-prick antibody tests as a “game changer,” only for the government to realize that the 3.5 million tests it bought from China were not reliable enough to use. Of particular concern here is the false-positive rate: If the prevalence of COVID-19 is quite low in the population—say, 5 percent—and a test can identify people who are truly negative with 95 percent reliability, half of the “positives” it returns will be false positives. In other words, half of the people the test says have antibodies wouldn’t actually have them."

As for the problem that vaccines are of least effectiveness for people with weak immune systems - the very people most in need of protection - both antibody tests and vaccines are are the real "no evidence" quackery, unlike masks. But don't expect governments to care.

 
At 10:58 pm, Blogger nige said...

What they do is to pretend that there is "no evidence" (because they won't read it, check it, publish it) for solutions that work but are not posh enough to ring the "right" bells.

John Harrison did the exact opposite of what the British Government's Longitude prize was intended for. He made clocks to solve the longitude problem, and kept his blueprints secret. You can imagine the wrath of the Newtonian scientists at this, wanting a totally new way of thinking, and instead being given an improvement on the old clock technology they wanted to replace with something entirely different (what they had in mind was some new scientific discovery, not a reinvention of the wheel).

Today, they'd say Harrison was autistic for going in the "wrong" direction. Likewise for Dyson's vortex vacuum cleaner. It was rejected by the leading UK brand, Hoover, so he had to set up his own factory to make it independently. You often hear people claiming that governments and businesses have the motto "if the boots fit, wear them". But it's simply not the case. They are fussy and want not just boots that fit and are functional, but have the right branding, promotion, are designed by the "right" people, with the "right" endorsements, etc.

It is corrupted, time-wasting, brown-paper-packet bribery style bureaucracy. It exists in professional science as in professional politics. If there is some good in everybody (which I doubt), then the one good thing you could (doubtfully) say about Stalin was that he knew how to deal with traitorous, self-serving, corrupt bureaucrats. He gave them a taste of their own medicine, trials with cart-loads of fabricated evidence, before sending them to Siberian salt mines, mass graves, etc. The covid-19 crisis and the UK death rate using WHO no-masks propaganda is very serious, and debunks group-think UK "science advice".

 
At 7:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UK Government still lying to news media about the vital RR619 report findings on proper respirators having better than 100 fold protection factor (far better than distancing / hand washing "advice" crap) over a decade ago:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/01/masks-have-weak-positive-effect-coronavirus-downing-street-says-12641783/

Masks have ‘weak but positive effect’ against coronavirus, Downing Street says

Jimmy Nsubuga

Friday 1 May 2020 5:31 pm

Number 10 has admitted face coverings will have a ‘weak but positive effect’ in reducing coronavirus transmission. Boris Johnson revealed in a daily press conference yesterday Britons would get new guidance over face masks next week. The Prime Minister hinted usage could be made mandatory when out in public. An official spokesman from the PM said today: ‘Ministers are still considering how we move forward with face coverings in terms of the precise advice which we give to the public and once that’s ready we will announce it.

The spokesman added: ‘The advice we have received based on the science shows a weak but positive effect in reducing transmission of coronavirus from asymptomatic members of the public where social distancing isn’t possible. ‘What ministers need to consider is how best to produce advice for the public on the next steps and that work is still ongoing.’ Ministers are not thought to be considering recommending the use of medical-quality masks, advice which may divert supplies away from the front line. ...



UMMMM. So people would call the unprotected vulnerable people those in "the front line". Wonder when some "investigative" journalist will bother about pointing this out?

Dark allegory style comedy sketch of Monty Python format:

Screaming NHS fanatical supporters mob (of BBC journalists and other weirdo thugs) snatch mask off face of vulnerable person, who then catches covid-19 in hospital, dying in agony (with twenty-seven thousand others), saying "we are the FRONT LINE mate, we need the masks to protect us. Save the NHS!

Before he dies he says in gasps, between blasts of air being pumped into his lungs by a ventilator, "I only put that f...cking mask on so I wouldn't need to catch covid-19 and expose you bast....rds to any risk, motherf....ers! You guys use a dozen masks per patient, whereas I wanted only one, which would have saved your stockpile 12-1 = 11 masks! Learn to subject, motherf...ers! I only wanted a mask to help keep you safe!!"

The BBC promoted handclap for NHS workers begins, celebrating tens of thousands of needless deaths that could have been prevented if only a relatively small number of decent masks were available to prevent people getting the disease in the first place - which would also have prevented any need for overloaded hospitals or massive NHS usage of masks. The dying patient starts to clap, but too slowly, and an offended worker turns off the ventilator.

Camera cuts to the mob outside the window, clapping enthusiastically.

 
At 7:09 pm, Blogger nige said...

No more, please. Hypocritical "socialists" find comedy "offensive" when it attacks their cherished liars, and I'm really not interested in this Monty Python allegory stuff. Life is too short for contrived comedy. I think this story, the real story, is tragedy, not comedy.

 
At 7:41 am, Blogger nige said...

Interesting news in the Daily Mail, 2 May 2020:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279859/Bombshell-intelligence-lays-bare-China-lied-coronavirus-outbreak.html

REVEALED: US intelligence that Donald Trump relied on to blame Wuhan lab for letting coronavirus escape claims China lied about human-to-human transmission, disappeared whistle-blowers and refused to help with vaccine

A leaked 15-page dossier from the 'Five Eyes' intelligence alliance claims China's secrecy over the pandemic is an 'assault on international transparency'

The US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand intelligence agencies have exposed a series of cover-ups, according to the dossier

It claims Five Eyes found a 'deadly denial of human-to-human transmission'

Researchers who tried to raise the alarm have been silenced or disappeared and evidence of the outbreak was destroyed, it adds

Report claims China refused to hand over virus samples to develop vaccines

China also allegedly censored virus news on search engines from December

The leaked files show the nations were probing the possibility the virus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology

Dr. Shi Zhengli's research into deadly bat-derived coronaviruses was said to be a concern, with at least one virus a 96% genetic match for COVID-19

By RACHEL SHARP FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 07:34, 2 May 2020

Bombshell US intelligence has claimed that China lied about the human-to-human transmission of coronavirus, made whistle-blowers disappear and refused to help nations develop a vaccine as the outbreak spread across the world.

The leaked 15-page research dossier from the so-called 'Five Eyes' intelligence alliance reveals the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand have branded China's secrecy over the pandemic an 'assault on international transparency.'

The file shows that intelligence agencies are investigating the theory that the virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, close to the wet market China says it came from. ...

According to the documents, obtained by Australia's Daily Telegraph, intelligence officials found a series of cover-ups by the Chinese government including the 'deadly denial of human-to-human transmission', the silencing or 'disappearing' of researchers who tried to raise the alarm, the hiding or destruction of evidence of the outbreak and a refusal to hand over live virus samples to other countries to enable them to develop vaccines. ...

China's alleged cover-up of the seriousness of the outbreak can be traced back to early December, the dossier claims.

China reportedly had 'evidence of human-human transmission from early December,' the intelligence found, but continued to deny it could spread this way until January 20.

'Despite evidence of human-human transmission from early December, PRC authorities deny it until January 20,' it claims.

'The World Health Organisation does the same. Yet officials in Taiwan raised concerns as early as December 31, as did experts in Hong Kong on January 4.'

According to the intelligence agencies, China then started censoring news of the virus on search engines from December 31, deleting terms such as 'SARS variation, 'Wuhan Seafood market' and 'Wuhan Unknown Pneumonia.'

On January 3, China's National Health Commission then reportedly ordered virus samples be destroyed and issued a 'no-publication order' about the virus.

The papers go on to claim that China imposed travel bans on people traveling throughout the nation but continued to tell the rest of the world travel bans were unnecessary.

'Millions of people leave Wuhan after the outbreak and before Beijing locks down the city on January 23,' it reads ...

Huang Yan Ling, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and thought to be patient zero for the global pandemic, mysteriously disappeared and her biography was deleted from the lab's website.

 
At 7:54 am, Blogger nige said...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11462934/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-russia-microbiologist-claims/

CORONA BLAME Wuhan lab ‘did absolutely crazy things’ to manipulate coronavirus into infecting humans, Russian microbiologist claims
Will Stewart
23 Apr 2020, 13:15Updated: 23 Apr 2020, 14:06

World renowned expert Professor Petr Chumakov claimed their aim was to study the pathogenicity of the virus and not “with malicious intent” to deliberately create a man-made killer.

Professor Chumakov, chief researcher at the Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology in Moscow, said: “In China, scientists at the Wuhan Laboratory have been actively involved in the development of various coronavirus variants for over ten years.

“Moreover, they did this, supposedly not with the aim of creating pathogenic variants, but to study their pathogenicity.

“They did absolutely crazy things, in my opinion.

“For example, inserts in the genome, which gave the virus the ability to infect human cells.

“Now all this has been analysed.

“The picture of the possible creation of the current coronavirus is slowly emerging.”

He told the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper: “There are several inserts, that is, substitutions of the natural sequence of the genome, which gave it special properties.

“It is interesting that the Chinese and Americans who worked with them published all their works in the open (scientific) press.” ...

Professor Chumakov is also connected to Russia’s Federal Research Centre for Research and Development of Immunobiological Preparations.

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman warned this week against allegations that coronavirus was man-made.

Earlier, Veronika Skvortsova, head of Russia’s Federal Medical-Biological Agency (FMBA) and Putin’s ex-health minister ... said: “We can see that a fairly large number of fragments distinguishes this virus from its very close relative, SARS.

“They are approximately 94 per cent similar, the rest is different…

“I think that we must conduct a very serious research.” ...

In his latest attack, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused China of destroying coronavirus samples as part of a cover-up during the early days of the outbreak. ...

However, [Chinese funded] World Health Organisation (WHO) officials have praised China for its transparency and swiftness in dealing with the outbreak. ...

 
At 8:02 am, Blogger nige said...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11511043/wuhan-lab-blamed-for-coronavirus-lied-about-safety-precautions-it-took-during-controversial-bat-tests/

LAB SCANDAL Wuhan lab blamed for coronavirus LIED about safety precautions it took during controversial bat tests
EXCLUSIVE
Stephen Moyes
29 Apr 2020, 17:32Updated: 29 Apr 2020, 18:47

THE laboratory at the heart of the world’s coronavirus pandemic lied about taking safety precautions when collecting bat samples, The Sun can exclusively reveal.

Shocking leaked photos - which reveal a scandalous lack of safety - were deleted from the website of under-fire China science hub the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ...

The Sun can reveal a page of the Wuhan institute’s website - deleted suddenly last month - shows no safety precautions were employed.

One worker admitted being sprayed with bat blood or urine as images showed staff brazenly collecting samples with no face masks or protective suits.

Incredibly some scientists didn’t even wear gloves as they entered caves to collect fecal bat swab samples ... in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.

Earlier this month photos from the same Wuhan lab showed a broken seal on a store containing 1,500 virus strains - including the bat coronavirus linked to the devastating pandemic.

The images were published by the state-owned China Daily before they too were swiftly deleted.

A picture of the fridge-freezer revealed a flimsy loose seal on the door, as a lab worker pulled out a chilled box containing deadly samples while wearing gloves and a mask. ...

Blaming the Wuhan meat market - where bats are not sold - was reportedly an effort to deflect blame from the communist government when the lab's containment efforts failed.

US officials warned two years ago that safety lapses during the study of bats could lead to a coronavirus outbreak.

Secret cables from American embassy officials were obtained following their 2018 visits to the Wuhan lab now at the centre of a global focus.

The missives revealed fears of inadequate safety precautions by those conducting the bat studies could result in a deadly new strain of coronavirus. ...

In 2017 the institute published research showing that horseshoe bats they collected from a cave in Yunnan province were very likely from the same population that spawned the 2003 SARS virus. ...

The genetic data cannot yet indicate exactly where and how the virus first crossed to humans.

 
At 3:41 pm, Blogger nige said...

https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-destroys-coronavirus-quickly-says-us-agency-231844605.html
Sunlight destroys coronavirus quickly, say US scientists
AFP
Issam AHMED
AFP•April 24, 2020

"William Bryan, science and technology advisor to the Department of Homeland Security secretary, told reporters at the White House that government scientists had found ultraviolet rays had a potent impact on the pathogen ... Bryan shared a slide summarizing major findings of the experiment that was carried out at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center in Maryland. ... It showed that the virus's half-life -- the time taken for it to reduce to half its amount -- was 18 hours when the temperature was 70 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit (21 to 24 degrees Celsius) with 20 percent humidity on a non-porous surface. ... But the half-life dropped to six hours when humidity rose to 80 percent -- and to just two minutes when sunlight was added to the equation. When the virus was aerosolized -- meaning suspended in the air -- the half-life was one hour when the temperature was 70 to 75 degrees with 20 percent humidity.

"In the presence of sunlight, this dropped to just one and a half minutes." Wow!! ;-)


The World Health Organisation, besides promoting the dangerous myth - debunked by evidence in HSE report RR619 - that there is "no evidence" that mask filtering is possible for covid-19 in respiratory droplets from sneezes and coughs (or speech in the case of Roy Hattersley as depicted in TV show Spitting Image), has also been claiming there's "no evidence" sunlight UV disrupts viruses. In fact, it's a myth, and the single strand RNA in covid-19 viruses isn't able to repair itself after breaks caused by UV in sunlight. Viruses don't have any of the P53 repair enzymes for DNA and RNA that living cells do, so outside cells they are VERY easy to break down with sunlight - see the data in https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-destroys-coronavirus-quickly-says-us-agency-231844605.html This was confirmed with biological warfare agents in the Cold War (e.g. see the 1962 edition of US Army Field Manual FM 3-10, on virus war). The 16 April New England Journal of Medicine research paper by Neeltje van Doremalen and others, "Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 [covid-19] https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 ", applies to a warm temperature of about 22C and 40% humidity and found covid-19 has an exponential decay (i.e. like radionuclides) with a half-live of 1.1 hour in air, 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic, but it didn't study the effect of sunlight UV on these figures! The point is that the virus will disappear in a few days from all warm surfaces if everyone wears efficient filtering respirators to prevent the virus replicating in living tissue (unlike bacteria, viruses can only replicate inside living cells!). The myth spreading WHO is deliberately holding back on this, using a whole range of facetious propaganda deceptions. :-(

 
At 7:57 am, Blogger nige said...

Russia and China are now again proceeding with new weapons deployments and nuclear testing preparations, respectively, while the West can't even issue gas masks to stop the pandemic, let alone deter a crisis:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-designs-worlds-biggest-doomsday-21955137

Russia designs world's biggest 'doomsday bomb' that can be activated remotely

Chris Hughes
Defence and Security Editor
21:25, 30 APR 2020

... While dormant, the 25-metre, 100-ton mon­­ster can wait for years, lying on the sea-bed as deep as 3,000 feet.

In February, experts spotted a large object which they first believed was an updated version of Moscow’s “tsunami-maker” Poseidon drone but is now believed to be the Skif.

The Poseidon emerged in 2015 as a nuclear drone, with the power to spark a coastal city-smashing tsunami.

But experts now believe this year’s sighting was actually of the Skif, aboard the classified Russian vessel Akademik Aleksandrov during sea trials.

The ship was transferred quietly to the Russian navy on April 12 at the Arctic port of Severomorsk, Murmansk.

It is assigned to the top-secret Unit No.40056 “the Main Directorate for Deep-Water Research” and is seen as the launch vessel for the device.

 
At 5:19 pm, Blogger nige said...

The consequences of the UK "scientific advisers" (or pseudo-scientific advisers if you want to be truthful) advising people NOT to wear masks (unlike other countries who ignored WHO quack thugs):

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/06/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-30076-649-people-die-12662901/

UK coronavirus deaths pass 30,000 in grim milestone
Lucy Middleton
Wednesday 6 May 2020 5:04 pm

The UK’s official coronavirus death toll now stands at 30,076 after a further 649 people died. Speaking at today’s daily press conference, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick stated that there had been 201,101 positive cases of the virus in the UK. He noted that there have been 1,448,010 coronavirus tests carried out in the country, with 69,463 carried out on Wednesday. ... As of Tuesday, the UK now has the highest death toll in Europe. ... In Italy, 29,315 people have died after testing positive for coronavirus, while Spain’s death toll stands at 25,817.

 
At 6:42 pm, Blogger nige said...

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article242519976.html

New research shows that coronavirus mutations could complicate vaccine development
BY ZACHERY EANES
MAY 06, 2020

"A group of scientists, including a team from Duke University, has found that the novel coronavirus has mutated into a new strain that might be more contagious than the original one that emerged from Wuhan, China late last year — potentially complicating the search for a vaccine.

"The new study found that the dominant strain of the coronavirus in the U.S. is actually one that first appeared in Europe in February, but has since become more widespread than the original strain causing COVID-19. ...

"The mutation of the coronavirus appears to be happening on its spike protein, which is worrisome because that is what current vaccines are targeting, said David Montefiori, the director of the Laboratory for AIDS Vaccine Research at Duke University and a contributor to the new study."

 
At 6:52 pm, Blogger nige said...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v2 paper in pdf form: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v2.full.pdf

Spike mutation pipeline reveals the emergence of a more
transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2
Korber B1, Fischer WM1, Gnanakaran S1, Yoon H1, Theiler J1, Abfalterer W1, Foley
B1, Giorgi EE1, Bhattacharya T1, Parker MD3, Partridge DG4, Evans CM4, Freeman
TM3, de Silva TI4,5, on behalf of the Sheffield COVID-19 Genomics Group#,
LaBranche CC2, and Montefiori DC2
This Version (2) corrects analysis that was based on the codon encoding Spike position 943;
the apparent mutation at 943 was the result of a sequence error. The main conclusions of the paper regarding the mutation in Spike at 614 and recombination still hold.

1
T6: Theoretical Biology and Biophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
87545 USA
2
Duke Human Vaccine Institute & Department of Surgery, Durham, North Carolina, 27710
USA
3
Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre & Sheffield Bioinformatics Core, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK.
4
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
5
Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, Medical School, University of
Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
#
Members of Sheffield COVID-19 Genomics Group: Adrienne Angyal, Rebecca L. Brown, Laura
Carrilero, Luke R. Green, Danielle C. Groves, Katie J Johnson, Alexander J Keeley, Benjamin B
Lindsey, Paul J Parsons, Mohammad Raza, Sarah Rowland-Jones, Nikki Smith, Rachel M.
Tucker, Dennis Wang, Matthew D. Wyles
Corresponding Author and Lead Contact: Bette Korber, btk@lanl.gov
Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Summary

We have developed an analysis pipeline to facilitate real-time mutation tracking in SARS-CoV-2, focusing initially on the Spike (S) protein because it mediates infection of human cells and is the target of most vaccine strategies and antibody-based therapeutics. To date we have identified thirteen mutations in Spike that are accumulating. Mutations are considered in a broader phylogenetic context, geographically, and over time, to provide an early warning system to reveal mutations that may confer selective advantages in transmission or resistance to interventions. Each one is evaluated for evidence of positive selection, and the implications of the mutation are explored through structural modeling. The mutation Spike D614G is of urgent concern; it began spreading in Europe in early February, and when introduced to new regions it rapidly becomes the dominant form. Also, we present evidence of recombination between locally circulating strains, indicative of multiple strain infections. These finding have important implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, pathogenesis and immune interventions.

 
At 8:52 am, Blogger nige said...

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/ : A lab at Florida Atlantic University is simulating a human cough to understand how far and fast cough droplets can spread: in lab tests, the droplets from a cough go 9 feet (2.74 metres) in just 10 seconds! Therefore, the 2-metre "social distancing rule" is hopeless. People need to wear efficient masks to stop this pandemic in its tracks! Within 50 seconds, the droplets of a cough go 12 feet, which is 3.66 metres, way beyond the 2 metre "safety" distance rule of quacks in WHO, BBC, and UK government (as proved when the UK Prime Minister was hospitalised with covid-19 after announcing his pathetic advice which has cost over 30,000 lives to date). WHO "advice" is a danger, which misinforms the public and is like giving people on the Titanic paper lifejackets! It misleads people and causes needless deaths!

 
At 8:54 am, Blogger nige said...

Link to the Florida Atlantic University cough droplet travel simulation video that debunks the 2-metre social distancing lie mentioned above: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/

 
At 3:21 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

The UK government on 11 May 2020 finally advises people to start wearing masks after 31,000 deaths without masks advice, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-uk-face-coverings-masks-lockdown-transport-a9508516.html

Face-coverings should be worn in enclosed public spaces, government advises
People told to avoid using surgical masks, which are needed by health workers

Jon Sharman

People in England should wear face-coverings when in enclosed public spaces, the government has said.

 
At 3:30 pm, Blogger nige said...

There is more detail at

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/parenting/children-face-masks-uk-government-18233149

Children over the age of two should wear face masks to prevent spread of coronavirus, says government
The government has issued guidelines about wearing face masks in public

By Emma Gill
14:24, 11 MAY 2020
UPDATED 14:52, 11 MAY 2020

Children over the age of two should wear a face mask in public when social distancing isn't possible, the government has said.

While it specifically stated that face coverings 'should not be used by children under the age of two or those who may find it difficult to manage them correctly', everyone else is being advised to wear one when they can.

 
At 10:53 am, Anonymous Mike said...

Effect of anti-masks WHO policy now seems to be over 40,000 deaths, way above the official cover up for propaganda statistics from the UK government

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-uk-coronavirus-death-toll-22013038

UK coronavirus death toll passes 40,000 with more than 8,000 in care homes
Officially there have been 35,044 deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales up until May 1 - but projecting that forward for all of UK puts death toll just over 40,000

By Tom Davidson
Senior Reporter
10:03, 12 MAY 2020
UPDATED 11:38, 12 MAY 2020

The number of deaths in the UK involving coronavirus has passed 40,000, analysis of officials statistics by the PA news agency suggests.

This includes 8,000 deaths in care homes across England and Wales.

The total includes new figures published this morning by the Office for National Statistics.

These figures show that 35,044 deaths involving Covid-19 occurred in England and Wales up to May 1 (and had been registered up to May 9).

The latest figures from the National Records of Scotland, published last week, showed 2,795 deaths involving Covid-19 had been registered in Scotland up to May 3.

And the latest figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, also published last week, showed 516 deaths involving Covid-19 had been registered in Northern Ireland up to May 6.

Together these figures mean that so far 38,355 deaths have been registered in the UK where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, including suspected cases.

A further 1,678 hospital patients in England who had tested positive for Covid-19 died between May 2 and May 10, according to figures published on Monday by NHS England - which, together with the total figure of 38,355 registered deaths, indicates the overall death toll for the UK is just over 40,000.

The data painted a grim picture in care homes, which have been especially hard hit by the virus.

This is simply because the UK government, WHO and BBC pseudo "investigative" journalists in "Panorama", Sky news, and so on, who have steadfastly refused to air the facts concerning the safety of effective masks for survival of elderly groups, a news story you revealed to the public here months ago, but which is banned by quacks. Until people start challenging lying journalists quackery, this will go on, with no-masks or ineffective masks for the VULNERABLE, using all manner of deception and cover up tactics that Dr Goebbels' fascists and also Stalin's USSR used to use to try to control the media and the public. They will lie that anyone exposing their obscene money-making corruption must be sent to lunatic asylums to protect the public from "doubtful information", while they hypocritically lie and publish obvious crap to cause as many deaths as possible, to faked news of public support.


 
At 11:06 am, Blogger nige said...

Thanks. The WHO and the UK government has been running fake news Guardian/BBC adverts saying, effectively, "don't trust anyone on social media who disputes us as being fake news outlets, we are always right, the fact that we can afford to spend taxpayer's money on fake news means that we are right, this is not the time to criticize us, because people's lives are at stake."

Despite this, their lies against masks are causing the whole problem and needless deaths!

However, this is precisely what happened in the 1930s when anybody criticizing disarmament policies in the face of Hitler was condemned by the UK Government and its corrupt mass media backers (who enjoyed cosy chats with Government ministers about which journalists the editor should fire for exposing government lies, like W. E. Johns), as a "danger", a "war monger", a public menace, someone ill-informed about the truth of the millions who would be gassed in an all-out attack on the first day of any war if we dared to oppose racism, etc. Nothing really changes: investigative journalists are corrupt, so it's the same old news!

 
At 1:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-asking-coronavirus/
Face masks: have we been asking the wrong question all along?
By
Paul Nuki,
GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY EDITOR, LONDON
15 April 2020 • 10:15am

"Might population-wide use of face masks have slowed the spread of the pandemic in the west? And were our public health officials asking the wrong question all along?

"I first thought about face masks at around 4pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, when a small but agitated civil servant flung open the door of my office shouting, “Take it down! Take it down!”. I was editing the NHS website and we had just published a story which suggested that face masks had helped bring the 2003/4 Sars epidemic under control in south east Asia.

"The official was part of the DHSC’s pandemic planning team. She was very angry and wanted the story taken down immediately. She had just been to see the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and had explained to him, “in terms he could understand”, that there was really no need for the UK to hold a stockpile of masks, she said. The story we had just published threatened to undo all of that by giving credence to an “minor academic paper” which said the opposite. ... It’s for these and other reasons UK doctors and nurses are so angry about not being provided with enough proper FFP3 respirators."

The article then goes on to give a highly misleading graphic stating that the coronavirus diameter of 0.12 microns is smaller than the filtering ability of masks, while the text above the graphic admits this graphic is a lie because the virus is spread via much larger droplets of water (or mucus) which CAN BE EASILY FILTERED, unlike dry viruses (which quickly break down and aren't a problem for long outside the body and when dried).

 
At 3:14 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-14-no-underlying-conditions-22013505

Boy, 14, with no underlying conditions dies from new disease linked to coronavirus

The boy was treated at Evelina London Children’s Hospital where more than 40 children have now been treated for the “hyper inflammatory” disease

Alice Fuller & Jamie Bennett-Ness & Kelly-Ann Mills - Mirror - 12 May 2020

A 14-year-old boy, who had no underlying health conditions, has died from a new inflammatory disease linked to coronavirus.

The boy died at Evelina London Children’s Hospital where more than 40 children have now been treated for the “hyper inflammatory” disease after potentially contracting Covid-19.

Of the first eight children, aged four to 14, who were treated - seven required the use of a ventilator

The 14-year-old later tested positive for coronavirus.

 
At 8:03 pm, Blogger nige said...

And FINALLY .... in the UK wearing masks to stop covid-19 transmission becomes compulsory TOMORROW, Monday June 15. Just about 4 months too late to prevent 40,000 dead ... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11848449/face-mask-uk-when-covering-mandatory-public-transport/

Further masks news (censored by BBC/UK government loons/WHO racist Race War, Class War, Religious War and Cultural Warfare "peace" "anti-racist" "butter won't melt in our big mouth" Marxists, fascists, slave traders, etc): https://www.facebook.com/covid19masks

 
At 6:18 am, Blogger nige said...

Alex Hunt has summarized the top 10 specious fake/lying/pathetic and patiently debunked (by other countries successful use of masks to stop the epidemic and resume otherwise normal business) "arguments" against life-saving, economy-saving masks used by UK "civil servants", NHS trolls, BBC trolls, and left wing newspaper/TV "news" trolls at:

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-06/Timeline-The-UK-s-arguments-against-face-masks-for-all-R4ZUizpUfm/index.html

"Timeline: The UK's arguments against face masks for all
"Alex Hunt

"The science is pretty clear about one thing – COVID-19 is spread by droplets that come out of infected people's mouths while coughing, sneezing, singing, talking and possibly just breathing.

"It is also accepted by most people that wearing a face covering, or mask, cuts the chances of someone – including those who don't know they are infectious – of passing on the virus.

"Many countries in the world have told people to wear face masks during the pandemic, with laws making them compulsory in enclosed public spaces such as shops and on public transport. ...

"In Europe, Czechia, Slovakia and Austria acted early and have a low infection and death rate, while Italy, France and Spain have all since taken similar steps and seen their infection rates fall – but the UK has remained skeptical about face coverings. Indeed, in the early stages of the pandemic using face masks was actively discouraged, with the message that they should be reserved for health workers. ...

"Here is a list of 10 reasons given for not making general face masks/coverings compulsory:

1) They might add to people's fear and anxiety

2) The evidence for mask use by anyone who is not infected "is near nil"

3) The general public might use face masks for too long ie: even if they became "soggy"

4) It could threaten supplies for healthcare workers who need them more

5) It might lead to people abandoning social distancing and hand washing

6) It might lead to people who are self-isolating leaving their home if they wear a mask

7) Inequality concerns – some might not be able to afford or be physically able to buy face masks

8) People putting a mask on and off might touch their faces more

9) Policing implications if people are wearing face masks

10) Could lead to new crimes, such as thefts of face masks"

None of these arguments apply to the real world, to real people, who have been PROVED to have MORE fear and anxiety and to touch faces MORE, etc, etc, WITHOUT MASKS. All of the arguments are recycled versions of the fake arguments used by fascist/Marxists (USSR and Nazi Germany jointly invaded Poland from different sides in a secret pact in September 1939, as they were similar barbaric dictatorships despite CLAIMING to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum in terms of ideology) in the UK against gas masks in 1938 and in the cold war. They are also similar to specious arguments against seat belts in cars (e.g. fake claims that they are "always" useless because in a 150 miles/hour crash the forces are too great for seat belts, or because they will "create fear in drivers" or "lull them into a false sense of security in which they drive recklessly", etc., etc.). Pure propaganda.

 
At 6:44 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hunt's article also explains that the UK's anti-masks "government advisers" used the old, old, old "groupthink trick" (actually lie) of saying there is "no evidence for masks to stop covid-19" (because double-blinded clinical trials take a year or more and can't be done and aren't NEEDED for a new virus threat that has just emerged, since 99% water droplets containing viruses are filtered out by good respirators with a 100-fold filtering capability), when in fact there IS evidence in its own reports - like HSE RR619 from 2008 - that masks DO filter out pandemic virus droplet transmission (a 100-fold reduction as in respirators in taht report would reduce likely virus droplet inhalation doses to well below the infectious dose in anybody and thus prevent ANY deaths whatsoever in the entire population, regardless of distance from the infected person!), and by presenting ONLY anti-masks propaganda to UK government ministers, without even bothering to MENTION let alone ANALYSE and CHECK positive evidence that masks work (thus they presented instead advice with false choices: 1. lockdown and social distancing, 2. megadeaths, instead of: 1. masks, 2. lockdown/2metres, 3. megadeaths):

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-06/Timeline-The-UK-s-arguments-against-face-masks-for-all-R4ZUizpUfm/index.html

"To find out why the UK has taken this view, we have looked through the published minutes of every meeting held about the COVID-19 pandemic by the UK's New & Emerging Respiratory Threats Advisory Group (called Nervtag in the timeline below) and the Scientific Advisory Group England (called SAGE in the timeline) committee on the advice of which the UK government says it has been basing its decisions.

"We found the discussion about face masks, when there has been any, has largely been focused on the possible negative impact of recommending the use of face masks and no apparent discussion in the minutes published so far (up to 7 May) on the possible correlation between countries where face masks are worn and low transmission rates. ...

"13 January, 2020: Nervtag holds its first COVID-19 meeting. No mention of face masks. ... Nervtag does support the current position that port of entry screening is not advised.

"21 January: Nervtag meets: No mention of face masks

"22 January: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"28 January: Nervtag meets: "The existing advice in the UK (for pandemic flu) is that face mask wearing by the general public is NOT recommended." The committee was asked if this should change.

"Despite China making it mandatory in some cities for the public to wear face masks... the committee reported that there is no evidence to support that the wearing of face masks by the general public reduces transmission. It was also noted that this may add to fear and anxiety."

"28 January: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks for general public

"30 January: Nervtag meets: No mention of face masks

[to be continued...]

 
At 6:44 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

[continued ...]

"3 February: Nervtag recommends washing hands, covering nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing and the use of hand gel if there is no soap. It also says people should be asked to avoid touching their eyes, nose and mouth.

"6 February: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"7 February: Nervtag: No mention of face masks

"11 February: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"13 February: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks.

"18 February: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"20 February: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"21 February: Nervtag: No mention of face masks for the general public

"25 February: SAGE meets: Says that evidence of social distancing and school closures in Hong Kong, Wuhan and Singapore can reduce the R number to 1. Does not mention face masks.

"27 February: SAGE meets: The reasonable worst case scenario was that 80 percent of UK people will be infected with 1 percent of them dying. (that's about 550,000)

"3 March: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks


"4 March: Nervtag: Discussion of merits of different types of personal protective equipment, but not face masks for the public

"5 March: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks

"6 March: Nervtag: Members raised concerns around explaining why face masks were acceptable for healthcare staff but not the general public.

"The minutes give this answer: "The difference is that healthcare staff are trained to use the masks ...

"10 March: SAGE meets: Discussion of social distancing rules and reports from Italy, France, Germany and Spain on how their measures have worked. No mention of face masks.

"13 March: SAGE meets: Unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress spread of Covid19 will cause a second peak. [Hence no-masks policy for herd immunity crap argument]

"16 March: SAGE meets: Discussion over need to shut schools, get people to self isolate and to test and social distancing. No mention of face masks.

"18 March: SAGE meets: No mention of face masks. [Same "trick" of "ghosting" masks/ignoring mask options totally is used repeatedly at further SAGE meetings ...]
...

"9 April: SAGE meets: Notes that the World Health Organization has said there is currently no conclusive evidence that face masks are beneficial for community use.
...

"4 June: The transport secretary announces that face coverings will be mandatory on public transport in England, from 15 June. He said these face coverings should not be surgical masks but things like homemade masks or scarves. He says surgical masks must be reserved for healthcare workers and says that social distancing and hand washing remain the most important measures. There is no mention of making face masks compulsory inside shops or in any other part of daily life."

 
At 6:46 am, Blogger nige said...

Classic groupthink propaganda by a group of nasty lying, pseudo-scientific thugs masquerading as "scientific" advisers. :-(

 
At 6:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"NO EVIDENCE" arguments have no place in science for closing down research.

There was allegedly "no evidence" that inflammable cladding would kill people in Grenfell Tower before the fire because the disaster hadn't actually happened before it did happen! So what? It is just sophistry and propaganda! There WAS however plenty of evidence that plastic cladding can burn and that fires can kill, you just need to put it together, which plenty of viewers of previous cladding fires could do without any mathematical modelling, but which "experts" ignored.

If there is "no evidence", that is NOT necessarily "evidence" that debunks the claim in question.

A lack of evidence neither supports NOR DISPROVES a claim. This is obvious to everyone except "bigoted experts" who refuse to consider alternative courses of action to their own agenda, usually based on reading bigoted rants from the badly-named Guardian newspaper or tv "news" trolls.

Repeatedly saying "no evidence" is just a confession of IGNORANCE, not of knowledge and facts. In any case, as we quoted from the UK Health and Safety Executive report RR619 (published on pandemic preparations back in 2008, 12 years ago!), there WAS evidence of masks preventing any deaths, which SAGE in 2020 IGNORED. Bet SAGE will now get knighthoods etc for 40,000 deaths, while their victims get life time prison sentences having lost loved ones due to their repeated "no evidence" propaganda claims.

 
At 7:08 am, Blogger nige said...

I disagree. The problem is that the UK government decided to listen to one set of people (Sage, etc) and did not do its own homework in checking the basics, and debunking their "no evidence" anti-masks agenda as vacuous! Boris Johnson should have simply taken leadership, instead of being led by "no evidence 4 masks, no evidence 4 masks, no evidence 4 masks" propaganda tv folk! They get locked into a fake news policy and then refuse to get out of it!

 
At 2:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A fertilizer stockpile of almost 3kT just "went off" in Lebanon. What's notable is that in the middle of a modern city without any warning or civil defense measures in place, it only caused 78 deaths. Scaling up, a 375kt ground burst should only cause 1950 deaths, maybe a lot less if you had good civil defense. Meanwhile, Alex Wellersteins fearmongering propaganda site nukemap gives 22000 dead for a 3kt ground burst. It's amazing the kinds of lies they got people to believe.

 
At 6:06 pm, Blogger nige said...

Update 11 Jan 2021: The basic reproductive number, R, of the first detected SARS-CoV-2 strain a year ago was R=3 (without protection like masks, distancing, vaccine). The new B.1.1.7 variant spreads 50% faster so it has R=4.5, the highest reproduction number of any airborne virus (for comparison, for flu, R=1.3, for SARS, R = 3 and for MERS R =0.3-0.8). According to Nature journal: "The B.1.1.7 variant carries eight changes that affect the spike protein, and several more in other genes; samples of the South African 501Y.V2 variant carry up to nine changes to the spike protein. Working out which are responsible for the rapid spread of the variants and their other properties is an “enormous challenge”, says Luban. “I don’t think there’s a single mutation that’s accounting for all of it.” Much of the effort is focused on a change to the spike protein that is shared by both lineages, called N501Y. This mutation alters a portion of the spike, called the receptor binding domain, that locks onto a human protein to allow infection. One hypothesis that previous studies have hinted at is that the N501Y change allows the virus to attach to cells more strongly, making infection easier, says Barclay. ... Both variants harbour mutations in regions of the spike protein that are recognized by potent ‘neutralizing’, or virus-blocking, antibodies, says Jason McLellan, a structural biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who studies coronavirus spike proteins. This raises the possibility that antibodies to these regions — the receptor binding domain and a portion called the N-terminal domain — could be affected by the mutations." -https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00031-0 In other words, the effectiveness of antibody-producing vaccines could be altered by the new strains. In short, there's no guarantee that the existing covid vaccines will have similar effectiveness against the new mutant strains that they have against the older, slower-spreading strain. Therefore like evolving strains of seasonal flu, you might well need a new vaccine for new mutant strains. Put simply, the vaccines could easily be made obsolete and impotent by the new strains.

If so, then the real solution to killing the virus is - and has always been - widespread use of highly efficient biological warfare type masks and gloves for a few weeks (the virus doesn't survive longer than a few days on most surfaces, so the virus's reservoir is in infected people, who can be isolated by testing). Naturally, I hope I'm wrong here (and it seems that the bigshots ASSUME this is wrong), but hopes aren't always things to bet on. You need to face ugly realities if they emerge, and not assume that all hard option contingency planning can be discounted as "defeatism". The real defeatists are those those who churn out lying PR hype for a quick buck and try to block all discussion of proven solutions. (In the 1930s, ironically, those who wanted hard deterrence of aggressors were not merely dismissed as "warmongers" but also as "peace idealism defeatists". The popular media led this in USA and UK just as it does today with vaccine hype. Sure, everyone, including Churchill - see his popular essay on Hitler - hoped that easy, cheap, painless peaceful solutions would prevail. But they wanted harder alternatives available as a safeguard in case they failed. This wasn't defeatism, but common sense. Something the popular media doesn't appreciate.)

 
At 12:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nature article, 21 January 2021:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w

NEWS 21 JANUARY 2021
COVID research updates: COVID vaccines might lose potency against new viral variants

Nature wades through the literature on the new coronavirus — and summarizes key papers as they appear.

21 January — COVID vaccines might lose potency against new viral variants

Newly emerging, fast-spreading variants of the coronavirus might reduce the protective effects of two leading vaccines.

Michel Nussenzweig at the Rockefeller University in New York City and his colleagues analysed blood from 20 volunteers who received two doses of either the vaccine developed by Moderna or that developed by Pfizer–BioNTech (Z. Wang et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/frdn; 2021). Both vaccines carry RNA instructions that prompt human cells to make the spike protein that the virus uses to infect cells. This causes the body to generate immune molecules called antibodies that recognize the spike protein.

Three to 14 weeks after the second jab, the study participants developed several types of antibody, including some that can block SARS-CoV-2 from infecting cells. Some of these neutralizing antibodies were as effective against viruses carrying certain mutations in the spike protein as they were against widespread forms of the virus. But some were only one-third as effective at blocking the mutated variants.

Some of the mutations that the team tested have been seen in coronavirus variants that were first identified in the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa; at least one of these variants is more easily transmitted than other forms of the virus now in wide circulation.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

All of this data should have been published to inform public debate on the basis for credible nuclear deterrence of war and civil defense, PREVENTING MILLIONS OF DEATHS SINCE WWII, instead of dDELIBERATELY allowing enemy anti-nuclear and anti-civil defence lying propaganda from Russian supporting evil fascists to fill the public data vacuum, killing millions by allowing civil defence and war deterrence to be dismissed by ignorant "politicians" in the West, so that wars triggered by invasions with mass civilian casualties continue today for no purpose other than to promote terrorist agendas of hate and evil arrogance and lying for war, falsely labelled "arms control and disarmament for peace": "Controlling escalation is really an exercise in deterrence, which means providing effective disincentives to unwanted enemy actions. Contrary to widely endorsed opinion, the use or threat of nuclear weapons in tactical operations seems at least as likely to check [as Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as to promote the expansion of hostilities [providing we're not in a situation of Russian biased arms control and disarmament whereby we've no tactical weapons while the enemy has over 2000 neutron bombs thanks to "peace" propaganda from Russian thugs]." - Bernard Brodie, pvi of Escalation and the nuclear option, RAND Corp memo RM-5444-PR, June 1965.

Update (19 January 2024): Jane Corbin of BBC TV is continuing to publish ill-informed nuclear weapons capabilities nonsense debunked here since 2006 (a summary of some key evidence is linked here), e.g. her 9pm 18 Jan 2024 CND biased propaganda showpiece Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We? https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001vgq5/nuclear-armageddon-how-close-are-we which claims - from the standpoint of 1980s Greenham Common anti-American CND propaganda - that the world would be safer without nuclear weapons, despite the 1914-18 and 1939-45 trifles that she doesn't even bother to mention, which were only ended with nuclear deterrence. Moreover, she doesn't mention the BBC's Feb 1927 WMD exaggerating broadcast by Noel-Baker which used the false claim that there is no defence against mass destruction by gas bombs to argue for UK disarmament, something that later won him a Nobel Peace Prize and helped ensure the UK had no deterrent against the Nazis until too late to set off WWII (Nobel peace prizes were also awarded to others for lying, too, for instance Norman Angell whose pre-WWI book The Great Illusion helped ensure Britain's 1914 Liberal party Cabinet procrastinated on deciding what to do if Belgium was invaded, and thus failed deter the Kaiser from triggering the First World War!). The whole basis of her show was to edit out any realism whatsoever regarding the topic which is the title of her programme! No surprise there, then. Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia are currently designing the W93 nuclear warhead for SLBM's to replace the older W76 and W88, and what she should do next time is to address the key issue of what that design should be to deter dictators without risking escalation via collateral damage: "To enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of our nuclear forces as directed in the 2018 NPR, we will pursue two supplemental capabilities to existing U.S. nuclear forces: a low-yield SLBM warhead (W76-2) capability and a modern nuclear sea launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) to address regional deterrence challenges that have resulted from increasing Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities. These supplemental capabilities are necessary to correct any misperception an adversary can escalate their way to victory, and ensure our ability to provide a strategic deterrent. Russia’s increased reliance on non-treaty accountable strategic and theater nuclear weapons and evolving doctrine of limited first-use in a regional conflict, give evidence of the increased possibility of Russia’s employment of nuclear weapons. ... The NNSA took efforts in 2019 to address a gap identified in the 2018 NPR by converting a small number of W76-1s into the W76-2 low-yield variant. ... In 2019, our weapon modernization programs saw a setback when reliability issues emerged with commercial off-the-shelf non-nuclear components intended for the W88 Alteration 370 program and the B61-12 LEP. ... Finally, another just-in-time program is the W80-4 LEP, which remains in synchronized development with the LRSO delivery system. ... The Nuclear Weapons Council has established a requirement for the W93 ... If deterrence fails, our combat-ready force is prepared now to deliver a decisive response anywhere on the globe ..." - Testimony of Commander Charles Richard, US Strategic Command, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 13 Feb 2020. This issue of how to use nuclear weapons safely to deter major provocations that escalate to horrific wars is surely is the key issue humanity should be concerned with, not the CND time-machine of returning to a non-nuclear 1914 or 1939! Corbin doesn't address it; she uses debunked old propaganda tactics to avoid the real issues and the key facts.

For example, Corbin quotes only half a sentence by Kennedy in his TV speech of 22 October 1962: "it shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States", and omits the second half of the sentence, which concludes: "requiring a full retalitory response upon the Soviet Union." Kennedy was clearly using US nuclear superiority in 1962 to deter Khrushchev from allowing the Castro regime to start any nuclear war with America! By chopping up Kennedy's sentence, Corbin juggles the true facts of history to meet the CND agenda of "disarm or be annihilated." Another trick is her decision to uncritically interview CND biased anti-civil defense fanatics like the man (Professor Freedman) who got Bill Massey of the Sunday Express to water down my article debunking pro-war CND type "anti-nuclear" propaganda lies on civil defense in 1995! Massey reported to me that Freedman claimed civil defense is no use against a H-bomb, which he claims is cheaper than dirt cheap shelters, exactly what Freedman wrote in his deceptive letter published in the 26 March 1980 Times newspaper: "for far less expenditure the enemy could make a mockery of all this by increasing the number of attacking weapons", which completely ignores the Russian dual-use concept of simply adding blast doors to metro tubes and underground car parks, etc. In any case, civil defense makes deterrence credible as even the most hard left wingers like Duncan Campbell acknowledged on page 5 of War Plan UK (Paladin Books, London, 1983): "Civil defence ... is a means, if need be, of putting that deterrence policy, for those who believe in it, into practical effect."