Tuesday, September 30, 2025

NASA Readies Orion Abort Safety For First Manned Human Moon Mission in 50 Years – Feb-April 2026





I am no belliever in the quoted timelines, yet the original moon shot happened largely from inception to an actual landing, around six years or so it appeared.  The key was the rocket and the same hold true here.  Today we have a massive speedup in project engineering as shown us by space X.

So it really only takes intent to at worst replicate the original system and perhaps do a lot better.  once you are in orbit the energy cost to the moon and back is almost nominal as compared to t5he lift to earth orbit.

Space X has proven te ability to get to earth orbit.  So a redo of the transit pod and lander can do this and that today should avoid having the transit pod reenter..  We even have the space Station to work with.



NASA Readies Orion Abort Safety For First Manned Human Moon Mission in 50 Years – Feb-April 2026

September 23, 2025 by Brian Wang


NASA’s Artemis II SLS (Space Launch System) rocket is getting ready to send four astronauts from Earth on a journey around the Moon in 2026. Engineers have upgraded the agency’s Moon SLS rocket inside and out after the Artemis 1 launch. SLS flew a good first mission on the Artemis I test flight.


NASA commits to launching no later than April 2026. Teams are accelerating preparations to target as early as February 2026, but safety remains paramount. Assessments consider rocket stacking progress, ops/training, available launch periods (monthly, 4-8 days each with specific windows), technical readiness, trajectory physics, and weather. They will have a full assessment post-key integrations and tests. Emphasis: “When we’re ready to safely launch, we’re going to accelerate as much as we can.”

Success Measure: Flyby Moon, safe return, validate systems for Artemis 3. NASA hopes to inspire an Artemis Generation like Apollo did. This is a front-row to history.




Artemis 2 marks the first return to the Moon after over 50 years since Apollo.

Artemis 1 (25 days, uncrewed) validated SLS rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems in deep space.

Artemis 2 introduces crewed elements, with lessons feeding into Artemis 3.

Artemis 2 Mission Profile: 10-day duration wutg free-return trajectory using Earth-Moon gravity for a safe return with minimal burns (similar to Apollo 8 and 16).

Key phases include:

Launch from Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
Boosters provide 75% thrust; RS-25 engines burn; jettison boosters and launch abort system.
Main engine cutoff (MECO); perigee raise burn; rendezvous/proximity operations (Prox Ops) demo with the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS).
High Earth orbit checkouts (life support, etc.). translunar injection (TLI) on Day 2.
Outbound to Moon. lunar flyby (observations). return. atmospheric entry. splashdown/recovery.

Rollout from VAB to pad (4-mile journey, ~18 days total with contingencies).

At pad: Connections, boosting, final configs.

Wet dress ~2-3 days pre-launch

2-day countdown with crew hold at T-10 minutes.

Launch Abort System (LAS) arms at T-5:25

Terminal count includes propellant loading, power/software transitions. Booster ignition, liftoff; handover to flight control.

Launch Date Tie-In: Preparations align with acceleration goal. wet dress as final risk reduction before February/April windows. Modifications from Artemis 1 ( valve tweaks, ground plate seals) mitigate leaks, enabling efficient loading without VAB return unless major repair needed.


Ascent Phase (Judd Frieling)

Ascent Timeline: ~8.8 million pounds thrust; clear tower ~10 seconds post-liftoff; roll/pitch for horizontal velocity. Max Q ~1 minute in (150,000 ft); SRB separation ~2 minutes; solar array jettison/reveal ~3+ minutes; LAS jettison ~3:06; MECO ~8 minutes (15×1,200 nautical mile orbit).

Post-MECO: Nozzle extension, solar arrays deploy (~20 minutes in); crew setups (toilet, water); upper stage perigee raise to safe orbit. Crew doffs suits; Prox Ops prep.

Abort Modes: Continuous LAS capability; single-engine abort to Pacific (Mode 1, until LAS jettison); higher-energy abort to low Earth orbit after 23 seconds; 3-engine press-to-MECO ~5:15; untargeted Atlantic splashdown (Mode 2, ~7 minutes); orbit abort to Pacific/Baja (7.5+ minutes).

Launch Date Relevance: Ascent handover immediate post-liftoff; aligns with evening windows in February (Feb 5 earliest).

Orion Crew Safety System

NASA teams are finishing integration of the Orion spacecraft for the Artemis II test flight with its launch abort system on Sept. 17 inside the Launch Abort System Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The 44-foot-tall tower-like abort structure would swiftly carry the four-person crew inside Orion to safety in the unlikely event of an emergency during launch or ascent atop the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket.

Over the next few weeks, teams will complete remaining closeout activities before moving the spacecraft to its final stop before the launch pad: the agency’s Vehicle Assembly Building. There it will be added to the top of the rocket, before the finished stack is rolled out to the launch pad on its way to the Moon.

The abort system is comprised of three solid rocket motors: the jettison, attitude, and abort motors. In the case of an emergency, these motors work together to propel the astronauts inside Orion’s crew module to safety. Orion will shed the abort system and leave it behind once the crew is safely through the most dynamic part of ascent, leaving Orion thousands of pounds lighter for the rest of its journey.


The Artemis II rocket includes an improved navigation system compared to Artemis I. Its communications capability also has been improved by repositioning antennas on the rocket to ensure continuous communications with NASA ground stations and the U.S. Space Force’s Space Launch Delta 45 which controls launches along the Eastern Range.



SLS will jettison the spent boosters four seconds earlier during Artemis II ascent than occurred during Artemis I. Dropping the boosters several seconds closer to the end of their burn will give engineers flight data to correlate with projections that shedding the boosters several seconds sooner will yield approximately 1,600 pounds of payload to Earth orbit for future SLS flights.

The approximately 10-day Artemis II test flight is the first crewed flight under NASA’s Artemis campaign.

Ukraine's front line grows bigger as Russia shifts tactics, top commander says



We have certainly shown that all the usual methods do not work, so small units actions across the maximum frontage must make it hard to defend, for numerically inferior forces.

Yet all assaults can be countered quickly with drones.  I am not optimistic that this will help much, but is is certainly a strong new tactic.

The Russian military leadership has never come to grips with their loss of prestige from the collapse of the Soviet Union which never looked like military failure though ultimately was.  Now they are proving it all in the Ukraine.

Now do imagine that this weeks major meeting of all the Generals in Virginia is about supporting a thrust into Russia by Poland with the baltic states and USAF air suport along with massive drone cover operated by Ukraine.

Ukraine's front line grows bigger as Russia shifts tactics, top commander says

HANNA ARHIROVA and BARRY HATTON

Fri, September 26, 2025 at 3:33 a.m. PDT
3 min read


https://ca.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-front-line-grows-bigger-103359957.html

Ukrainian soldiers of the 66th Brigade attend a training combat exercise in Donetsk region, Ukraine, Thursday, Sept. 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Dan Bashakov)


KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The front line on the battlefield in Ukraine has grown in length to nearly 1,250 kilometers (800 miles), stretching Kyiv’s defenses, while Russian forces employ a new tactic of sending swarms of small assault groups to infiltrate Ukrainian lines, Ukraine’s top military commander says.

The line of contact has grown by roughly 200 kilometers (120 miles) over the past year, and Ukrainian forces are averaging between 160 and 190 combat engagements every day with Russia’s bigger army, Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said in a review of the battlefield situation.

At the same time, Russian tactics have switched since the start of the summer from costly large-scale offensives to deploying small assault groups in a new approach that Syrskyi called the “thousand cuts” tactic.


His version of events could not be independently verified, and Russian officials made no immediate comment.

Russian forces have been trying to engulf Ukraine with sheer weight of numbers and relentless barrages of drones, missiles, artillery and devastating glide bombs. Though they have slowly pushed Ukrainian defenders back in rural areas, the Russian army has failed to conquer cities that constitute defensive strongholds.

U.S. President Donald Trump, whose efforts to bring an end to the war have made no progress, said Tuesday that he believed Ukraine could turn the tide and win back all the territory it has lost to Russia, equivalent to around 20% of its land.

Syrskyi said Russia is launching large numbers of small assault groups of about four to six soldiers who use the cover of the terrain to penetrate the front line and then strike Ukrainian rear areas, disrupting supply lines and troop rotations. However, those small groups become cut off and are trapped by encircling Ukrainian forces, he said in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.


Syrskyi told reporters that Russian forces are firing roughly twice as many artillery shells as Ukrainian units.

But he claimed that a recent Ukrainian push against Russian positions has regained control of 168 square kilometers (65 square miles) of land.

Ukraine’s long-range strike program, meanwhile, has inflicted heavy damage on Russian military and industrial assets in recent weeks, he said.

Ukraine’s newly created Unmanned Systems Forces, which use increasingly sophisticated drones, carried out 85 strikes on targets inside Russia in less than two months — 33 against military sites and 52 on plants that produce weapons, ammunition, engines, rocket fuel and drones, according to Syrskyi.

He credited the strikes with triggering a fuel shortage inside Russia that is hampering logistics and army supplies.


With winter approaching and Russia expected to escalate its attacks on the Ukrainian power grid, Kyiv is enhancing its air-defense system that combines interceptor drones, helicopters, light aircraft and electronic-warfare systems, Syrskyi said.

The improved interceptors take down Russian attack drones at least 70% of the time, he said, adding that Ukraine is now testing light, fixed-wing aircraft armed with machine guns as an additional counter-drone measure.

___

Hatton reported from Lisbon, Portugal.

Dave Pilantis on Sasquatch DNA

 

we actually have some real breakthroughs to report on.  First though, recall that we have 20,000 individual eye witness reports over the past century.  Ony the wilfully blind dumb and stupid do not accept the reality of these creatures.


That said, and it needs to be repeated,  We have had enough well verified hair samples that experts at hair identification are now able to recognize sasquatch hair unambiguosly.  This has made DNA work secure in terms of authenticity which has been the goto challenge for the faux science crowd.


The big surprise is actually in the DNA itself now that we are able to start sorting that out.  This has not been easy and has taken extensive effort by Dr Ketcham who has been on this for a long time.  It turns out that the Sasquatch is clearly a human hybrid and has human female genetics and mitrocondria.

The key takehome which was well attested by native witnesses is that they are a species of human.  The DNA   tells us that actual divergence is a mere fifteen thousand years which is super recent and likely post 12900 BP.  We do not have the independent male contribution which provide the Y component.


This is extremely important because Comms will become possible, though it is certain that they depend on mind to mind comms and voice is likely sketchy.  We certainly need their skill sets for ongoing grooming of the forest.


We are starting to pproduce a critical mass of science that should allow the science to dominate the current position of denial.  Since we can in fact expect to talk with them it should be possible to engage in legitimate lab work, to say nothing of extensive grooming which wins trust.

 

<iframe width="1351" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W7ykiotpJEk" title="David Paulides Missing 411 Ep.8 – Bigfoot DNA and the Forbidden Hybrid Truth" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maximum Strategic Vulnerability For Russia




Retire Vladimir Please.  A nice remote Ranch in Argentina looks pretty good.  You are 72 and it is time.

 I have been waiting for Russia to call off its assault on the Ukaraine from its first days when the original plan collapsed so spectacularly.  Russian failures called for an immediate reappraisal of everything and this can only be done when the fighting is paused or stopped.  Yet Russian strategy is to contnue throwing men and equipment forward expecting a better outcome.

Ukrainian Strategy is necessarily one of defense and maximising Russian losses.  They have now become terribly good at this and have fully integrated drone operations against hardware and even individual soldiers. now.

russia did not achieve blitzkeig conditions in the first place and that is certainly impossible now.  Neither has the Ukraine, but they do not have to.

The strategic problem is that Russia has lost all of its equipment at this point simply because of their strategy of wastage of men and hardware.  What this means is that NATO forces congregating on the GAP in Poland can launch an offensive under massive drone cover into western Russia against Moscow itself. The drones can be operated by Ukrainian specialists by the way.  I see no way for russia to stop this and current deployments including the massive movement of the US airforce from the USA into Poland just now happening tells me that this is getting set up.

Failure to strategically compromise forces an operation to decapitate the Russian leadership as a strategic response.  combined with massive comms, now possible, and Russian citizens will stand down while this happens.

Neutralizing the nuclear threat has to be part of the strategic plan but i also suspect that this is doable.  That still means preventing tactical nucs reaching the front.  Understand that such blasts also make your own forces deeply affected.

Artillery doctrine has held Ukrainian forces at bay.  This is likely to be quickly destroyed by the USAF if they have much left.

Was the real purpose of the STUPID TRADE WAR to set the STAGE for CANADA to form a Global Fair trade and Trust Confederation FTTC? that makes military adventurism unthinkable?  Such a confederation can operate easily over a network of bilateral arrangements while coallesing against bad behavior as a given response.  Thousands of bilateral arrangement provide real teeth when problems arise such as we are witnessing today.

understand that the insane aluminium tariff sets the stage for the entire aluminium manufacturing industry to upsticks and move to Canada or Mexico or now all of Europe.  You know that this Trade WAr must end and soon, but that is a taste of what is on the table.

This WAR must end in Moscow.  The question now is how?  Afterwards, all successor states join NATO and a NATO force protects the Far East and the Southern Flank.  And time should resolve both threats.


Monday, September 29, 2025

F-47 Next Generation Fighter Starts Production – Dawn of 6th Gen NGAD





One way to respond to flaggng enthusiasm for the f 35.  particularly when the Griffin wins simulated  contests.  So we promise a matching upgrade.

you know folks, that the future battle field will be a flock of killer combat drones whoseslowest element will be whatever is carrying a human being.  That will be a flying bulls eye.

And that bulls eyes can be sitting back in Arizona in that case.  Up close and personal is not necessary.

 F-47 Next Generation Fighter Starts Production – Dawn of 6th Gen NGAD

September 24, 2025 by Brian Wang

On September 22, 2025, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin said Boeing has started making the first F-47 airframes under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. This is the start of engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). Boeing has a $20 billion contract. The Boeing’s St. Louis factory been idle since F-15 production scaled down. The F-47 is the successor to the stealth F-22 Raptor for penetrating contested airspace in potential combat would go against China’s J-20.



https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/09/f-47-next-generation-fighter-starts-production-dawn-of-6th-gen-ngad.html#more-205875

Trump gave a March 2025 directive to accelerate EMD by 18 months.


Production Ramp- From Prototype to Squadron Scale



Boeing low-rate initial production (LRIP) by 2027, with the first airframe (YF-47) completing static tests Q4 2026. Ramp-up mirrors F-35’s but accelerated:

2025-2027: EMD phase; 2-3 prototypes built, engine integration.

2028: Maiden flight (national airspace debut post-secret X-plane ops); 4-6 flight-test articles.

2029: Full-rate production (FRP) initiation; 12-18 units/year initial cadence.

2030-2035: Peak at 30-40/year, yielding 185 airframes (mirroring F-22 fleet). Total program: ~200 manned + 1,000 CCAs.


Export variants (F-47E) for allies like Japan under GCAP integration possible by 2032, but downgrades the full AI.


Initial Operational Capability (IOC) targets 2029 with 12 aircraft at Eglin AFB’s 53rd Wing for tactics validation, scaling to FOC by 2031.


Technological Deep Dive: Quantum Leap into AI Enabled Fighter Jet Warfare


The F-47 is not just stealthier or faster, but will use leading AI and will be networked into the other fighters and drones in an air wing.


1. Aerodynamic and Propulsion Innovations


It is a tailless, diamond-double delta configuration with serpentine inlets and canted wings for all-aspect low-observability (aka stealth). Variable-geometry elements enable seamless supercruise at Mach 2+ without afterburner, reducing infrared (IR) plume by 70% via plasma-actuated flow control—proven in X-plane tests.


Dual GE/Pratt XA102 adaptive cycle engines will deliver 45,000 lbf thrust each with 30% better fuel efficiency than the F-22’s F119 engines. They will have three-streams to shift airflow for high-thrust mode (45:1 compression) or high-efficiency cruise (25:1), enabling 1,000+ nm combat radius unrefueled—25% beyond F-35C.


Full F-47 operational capability (FOC) will likely not be until 2030 due to variable geometry maturation.


They are using 60% carbon-nanotube composites for 40% weight savings, with gallium-nitride radar-absorbent metamaterials that self-heal via embedded microcapsules, maintaining RCS <0.001 m² across X-to-Ka bands. 2. Stealth and Electronic Warfare Suite (Spectral Dominance) It has Stealth++ capability. Broadband LO from 0.1-100 GHz, with active IR suppression via laser-based cooling arrays. F-47's Stealth++ counters quantum radars via frequency-agile skins that jam or spoof at source—critical against China’s YLC-8E. The F-22 and F-35 stealth can be detected by quantum radars.


It has enhanced electronic warfare sensors and devices. Integrated Distributed Aperture System (IDAS) with 360° gallium-nitride AESA arrays (Eagle Eye derivative), fusing EO/IR, SAR, and SIGINT for 10x F-35’s detection range (500+ nm). AI-driven “spectral warfare” autonomously retasks jammers, creating “denial bubbles” that blind adversary networks.


3. Cognitive Avionics and AI Integration


It has Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture with edge AI (Palantir-derived algorithms) for predictive threat modeling—anticipating hypersonic intercepts 30 seconds ahead.


Pilots will use Neural-linked helmet (HMD 2.0) with augmented reality overlays, reducing workload by 50% via voice/gesture controls.


Internal weapon bays for 8x hypersonic AGM-183A ARRW or laser-guided JDAMs; external compatibility for NGAD munitions like drone-launched swarms. AI optimizes loadouts in-flight, prioritizing “kill webs” over single targets.


The Processed Meat Industry Uses Dirty Tactics to Further Its Goals




The reason we use it is for color and bug protection is hardly on the radar.  We do not like the normal grey color of processed cooked meat.

Yet we have been pitched sodium nitrate as totally necessary.  Yet better practise is indicated.

All good.

The Processed Meat Industry Uses Dirty Tactics to Further Its Goals


The secret behind pink, perfect-looking meat? Sodium nitrite, a ubiquitous preservative linked to DNA damage.


Sep 25, 2025


Story at-a-glance

https://dailynewsfromaolf.substack.com/p/the-processed-meat-industry-uses

Sodium nitrite is a chemical that creates artificial pink coloring in processed meats. Meat industries argue that it protects against botulism


Research shows nitrites increase exposure to harmful nitrosamines by two- to threefold. This results in DNA breaks within 30 minutes, as well as a rapid rise in colorectal cancer cases


Denmark’s Hanegal has produced nitrite-free cured meats for 25+ years with zero botulism cases, proving these additives aren’t necessary


The American Meat Institute successfully blocked a 1970s nitrite ban using tobacco industry tactics, political connections, and fearmongering about economic impacts


To protect your health, eliminate processed meats, cook fresh meat at home, read labels for E250 (sodium nitrite), choose nitrite-free brands, and avoid harmful vegetable oils

Processed meats like ham, bacon, and hotdogs are a daily staple for millions of Americans today. However, many are unaware that these products contain a chemical linked to cancer — sodium nitrite. As shown in the featured documentary, “Corrupt Food Industry,” there are many forces at work behind the scenes to maintain the status quo.1

The Pink Meat Illusion


When you buy processed meats, have you noticed that they all have a perfect pink color? You’ve probably thought it was fresh, just like the commercials suggest, but the truth is far more sinister.

•Meat is injected with chemicals — Behind that bright pink hue in processed meat is a hidden chemical known as E250, which is the commercial name for sodium nitrite.

•The role of E250 — This chemical is responsible for keeping meats pink, but is also the primary reason for their carcinogenic properties. Without this additive, the ham in your sandwich or holiday dinner would appear dull and gray. Laurent Rouleau, who works for a big meat processor in France, explains:


“Sodium nitrite is used to preserve the ham and to kill any pathogenic germs. But also, to give the characteristic color and taste of processed meats. It’s what gives processed meats their appetizing pink color.”

•Pink meat is just for marketing purposes — As confirmed by a different spokesperson — who wished to remain anonymous — for another company, nitrite is used to differentiate their products from unprocessed meat. That’s because if they don’t inject their ham with nitrites, it will simply look like roasted pork:


“Nitrite is really that. It’s really for the color. Because ham has to be pink and not brown. Otherwise, people will say it’s not fresh and so on. If I cook pork, the meat is gray. So that’s what ham should be like.”

Nitrites Damage Your DNA and Cause Cancer


What does sodium nitrite do to your body? The answer is simple — just like any other processed additives, it does not benefit your health:

•Additives are warping your health — As noted by the documentary, sodium nitrite works by preventing meat from turning brown due to oxidation. While it kills harmful bacteria and extends shelf life, the health problems created are more serious. According to Theo de Kok, Ph.D., a professor from Maastricht University in the Netherlands:


“Nitrosamines are known to induce damage in the large intestine. So, it can induce DNA breaks, mutate cells into sort of precancer cells. And that’s, of course, something that you want to prevent.”

•Testing the impact of additives — Curious about the impact of nitrites on humans in an academic setting, de Kok conducted his own experiment on a student named Arnaud. For two weeks, Arnaud ate 300 grams of processed meat a day, which is equivalent to eight and a half sausages or seven slices of ham. Here’s what de Kok discovered afterward:


“After 15 days, we saw that the exposure to nitrosamines was considerably increased. So, it was up to between two- and threefold increase as compared to the levels that we measured at the start.”

•DNA damage is confirmed — After examining different fecal samples from processed meat eaters, including Arnaud, de Kok confidently believes that nitrites damage DNA. In fact, damage was observed in test human cells right away:


“[T]his damage can be induced relatively quickly. So, in this assay, when we isolate the cells, and we only expose them for half an hour, and then you already see the breakage of these DNA strands. So, that’s how fast it can happen. And it can also happen, not just in the lab here, but also in an intact human body.”

•Processed meat increases the risk of cancer — According to de Kok, nitrites are a significant contributor to the rising cases of colorectal cancer every year in Europe. In fact, he believes that removing nitrites from processed meats will significantly lower the numbers:


“That would make a difference of potentially several thousands of colorectal cancers that’s in Europe every year. That’s huge. Because colorectal cancer is a very frequent disease, already small changes in a cancer risk can have a big impact in the large population.”

Meats Don’t Need To Be Exposed to Nitrite


Despite mounting evidence against nitrites, the food industry continues using it with a clear-cut argument that causes health authorities to look the other way — botulism prevention. However, there’s a problem with this logic.

•Meats can be processed without nitrites — According to the documentary, there are now several companies who produce meat products without unnecessary additives, and their customers are doing okay when it comes to their health.

•Nitrite-free products are widely available in other countries — Hanegal, a meat producer based in Denmark, has been offering nitrite-free cured meats to its consumers for over 25 years. Despite claims that processed meat producers that nitrite prevents botulism, Denmark has had zero cases of botulism linked to nitrite-free products. As noted by Hanegal CEO Ulrich Kern:


“That was a problem in the meat industry 100 years ago, where things weren’t as clean as they are, slaughterhouses were not as clean as they are today. So, no worry about bacteria. Now, we have to worry about additives that might be cancer-producing. And if they are not necessary for some very good reasons, we should not use them.”

•How to find clean, cured meat — In Denmark, nitrite-free processed meat is labeled “uden nitrit.” The documentary noted that products belonging under this category have a more brownish appearance instead of the pink that consumers know.




Why the Sodium Nitrite Ban Failed


In 1999, a European Union health report already recommended reducing sodium nitrite in processed meats and even called for banning its use. However, this is still an unattainable dream because of bureaucracy and underhanded tactics by meat producers.

•Why nitrite levels don’t get lower — Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, a parliament member of the European Union (EU), explains that big, sweeping decisions such as removing nitrites from meats entail plenty of work:


“From my point of view, we must be more energetic asking industry to change their technology, reformulate forward, to follow figures, to keep on board public health priorities, not profit. Absolutely. But of course, it takes time.”

•The meat industry is untouchable — Did you know that the United States almost banned sodium nitrite in the 1970s? It started with a government-funded study involving 2,000 rats. Researchers observed a clear link between nitrite consumption and cancer in these animals, raising alarms regarding public health. This prompted immediate action to ban nitrite from human foods. However, the American Meat Institute (AMI) made sure that it didn’t happen.

•Fearmongering is causing decisions to be delayed — Facing billions in eventual revenue lost, the AMI fought back fiercely. They argued for the economic importance of processed meat — a $12.5 billion retail market at the time. They even went as far as saying banning nitrites would cause an apocalypse.

More significantly, political connections came into play when AMI president Richard Lyng joined President Reagan’s cabinet. Lyng’s appointment effectively ended the proposed ban, allowing sodium nitrite to remain legal and widely used.

•Research regarding nitrites was censored — Upon Lyng’s appointment, further research about the health effects of nitrites fell into silence.

All these tactics set the stage for decades of battles between consumer safety advocates and the meat industry. As a result, processed meat remains as hazardous today as it was nearly half a century ago, thanks to aggressive lobbying and political maneuvering.
Meat Producers Took Cues from the Tobacco Industry


The documentary reveals troubling details about how the processed meat industry manipulates scientific opinion.

•The meat industry is attacking scientists with integrity — One notable case involved retired scientist Susan Preston-Martin. Her 1995 study that linked hotdogs to cancer led to an 8% decrease in sales. While that may look like a small number, remember that the hotdog industry is huge in America, and that publication made them lose millions of dollars in potential revenue.

The industry swiftly launched an aggressive campaign to discredit Preston-Martin’s work. She faced attacks questioning her integrity, credibility, and scientific methods, effectively silencing further research efforts.

•How the link was discovered — The documentary team personally went to Preston-Martin’s home in California. There, she summarized the process of her landmark discovery:


“We started out with a group of children who had leukemia and compared them to a group of children who didn’t have leukemia. And we asked the mothers about what they fed the children. And sure enough, the kids with leukemia ate more hotdogs … I was a little bit surprised. And just reserved judgment, which is what epidemiologists do when they find something they don’t expect.”

•Big Tobacco joined the battle against health — Borrowing tactics from the tobacco industry, meat companies intentionally created confusion about the health risks associated with their products. One such example is Oscar Mayer hotdogs, which also happened to be owned by Phillip Morris.

According to anti-tobacco activist Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., tobacco lobbyists sowed doubt to compete with the “body of fact” existing in the public’s minds. This is the playbook that the meat industry followed.

•Science was suddenly captured — To counteract Preston-Martin’s bombshell revelation, AMI brought its own academics into the fold, namely David Klurfeld, Ph.D., to publicly downplay the risks of nitrite.

When personally interviewed by the documentary team, Klurfeld followed the same strategies regarding nitrite by giving this answer — “I don’t think anybody really knows definitively what the answer is.” Furthermore, he said that he doesn’t remember being paid by the AMI despite documented evidence.
How to Protect Yourself from Dangerous Additives


America’s processed meat industry giants bring in billions of dollars for the economy. As such, they exert powerful influence over food policy and public health regulations. It’s high time that the public accept that they’re not interested in keeping you healthy — the only thing that matters is you buy their products.

If you’re concerned about the harmful additives hidden in processed meats, you’re already one step ahead in safeguarding your health. Making simple yet powerful changes in your eating habits not only protects you from dangerous chemicals but also gives you peace of mind about what you’re eating. Here are my recommendations:

1.Cut out processed meats completely — The best way to eliminate your risk from sodium nitrite exposure is to simply remove processed meats like bacon, ham, sausages, and hotdogs from your diet. If you regularly eat these foods, switching to fresh cuts of meat is one of the best decisions you’ll ever make for your health.

2.Cook your meats at home — Preparing meals yourself allows you to control exactly what goes into your food. Cooking fresh meat at home helps you avoid harmful additives that processed meat companies put in their products. When you know every ingredient, you feel better about the choices you’re making.

3.Choose healthier fats — Reducing your intake of linoleic acid (LA) is important because this harmful fat often accompanies processed meats and other junk foods. Replace vegetable oils with healthier alternatives like grass fed butter, tallow, or ghee.

Since LA is ubiquitous in the food supply, it’s impractical to avoid it. To protect your health, keep your intake below 5 grams a day, but if you can get it below 2 grams, that’s even better.

To monitor your intake, I recommend you download the upcoming Mercola Health Coach app that will be released this year. It contains a feature called the Seed Oil Sleuth, which will help monitor your LA intake to a tenth of a gram.

4.Read labels carefully — If you occasionally buy packaged products, always check labels closely for additives like sodium nitrite or E250, as well as LA. Being vigilant protects you and your family from these hidden risks. If you can, buy packaged products made from certified organic sources.

5.Support nitrite-free brands — Look for brands that specifically advertise “nitrite-free” meats. As seen in the documentary, Denmark citizens have safely eaten nitrite-free cured meats for over two decades without negative health effects. By choosing products labeled clearly as free from harmful additives, you encourage the food industry to produce safer foods.

Why some memories stick while others fade





We are starting to see the physical aspects of memory access.  This is helpful.  A memory itself is necessarily an address to a page in TIME that naturally weakens as we pass forward. and the connections attenuate.  This still lasts around two days.

Then our processing decide what needs to be kept on line. In most cases, this actually means checking to see if it is useful in the future.  You remember something if you recall using it again.  Just saying.

Do you recall the thousandth digit of pi?  Why would you?  Do I know how to program a computer to accurately calculate it?  Yes almost, but why would you?

Why some memories stick while others fade

'Memory isn’t just a passive recording device.’

Laura Baisas

Published Sep 24, 2025 2:00 PM EDT

https://www.popsci.com/health/why-memories-stick/


Understanding how the brain recalls (and doesn’t) recall memories could lead to better treatments for memory disorders. Image: Eugene Mymrin via Getty Images.


Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡


Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday.
Email addressSign up






Think back to some of your core memories–meeting a spouse, getting a job you really wanted, or finding out someone you loved had died. Some are pretty easy to recall, with vivid details that seem as fresh as the moment itself. Other memories might feel more ambiguous and faded, while the most stubborn ones don’t come up at all. Why this discrepancy between memories, both good and bad?


A study published today in the journal Science Advances found that mundane memories get extra sticking power in the brain if they are connected to a significant event. These events include something surprising, rewarding, or events with an emotional punch. For example, if you win the lottery, you’re more likely to remember what you were doing just before, even if it is something simple. Or you may recall what you were wearing or eating for lunch when you received some bad news.


Understanding the brain mechanisms behind this could lead to better treatments for those with memory problems or even be used to help students retain more difficult concepts.




“Memory isn’t just a passive recording device: Our brains decide what matters, and emotional events can reach back in time to stabilize fragile memories,” study co-author Dr. Robert M.G. Reinhart, a psychologist at Boston University, said in a statement. “Developing strategies to strengthen useful memories, or weaken harmful ones, is a longstanding goal in cognitive neuroscience. Our study suggests that emotional salience could be harnessed in precise ways to achieve those goals.”
The selective brain


In the new study, the team used the example of someone hiking through Yellowstone National Park and seeing a herd of bison walking along. They found that the “wow” of that moment does not just cement that one magical experience in the mind, but several small, more run-of-the-mill events leading up to and away from it. Things like a rock that was on the path or a smaller animal in the grass.


“The question is, ‘What are the mechanisms for that?’” said Reinhart. “That’s what we tried to uncover, how the brain selectively strengthens those fragile memories.”


Different types of memories are stored across interconnected brain regions. Explicit memories are those about events that happened to you and general facts and information. The hippocampus, neocortex, and amygdala all work to keep these episodic memories stored. Implicit memories (like our motor functions) are stored in the basal ganglia and cerebellum. Short-term working memories primarily involve the prefrontal cortex.




Big, special moments in our life get a primary spot throughout the brain’s memory storage system. However, scientists have been more divided on concepts called retroactive and proactive memory enhancement. This concept covers how memories are prioritized immediately after a big or salient event. Earlier studies have disagreed on whether or not weaker memories are stabilized, or are made easier to recall, by their attachment to a more prominent memory.
A memory pop quiz


To show that memory enhancement does happen in the brain, this study included almost 650 participants, 10 individual studies, and artificial intelligence to analyze a broader data set. According to Reinhart, one major difference with past studies is that this one discovered that the brain uses a sliding scale to decide which memories to preserve.


Several experiments involved showing the participants dozens of images that were connected to different levels of rewards and then giving them a memory pop quiz the next day. With things that occurred after an event (or proactive memories), the strength of the recall appeared to depend on the emotional impact of the big moment itself. The more enduring that big event is, the more likely everything after it will be remembered.


That same storage did not apply when reaching back into the memory bank to the things that happened in the runup or the retroactive memories. These were more likely to be cemented if they had similarities (some kind of visual cue, like a matching color) that connected them to the pivotal event.

Study co-author and doctoral student Chenyang (Leo) Lin added, “For the first time, we show clear evidence that the brain rescues weak memories in a graded fashion, guided by their high-level similarity to emotional events.

Just Doing What Christians Do




Understand that love is triggered by our autotonic nervous system.  Similarly attachment to our family and socoal group.  These are biological imperitives that are easy to rationalize but that is still after the fact.

Just as real is dislike of another person or social group.  This can become something we call hate.  Neither requires any rational basis.

My point is that neither love or hate has any rational inititiator from our cognitive mind.  That is along for the ride.  Most of us have experienced both along the way when both was rationally inappropriate.

Jesus invites us to use our rational mind to extend our internal world outward and to extend our sense of attachment.  Pretty potent idea.

Unfortunately Islam promotes an opposite dispensation in which hatred is honored.  That is why it must be terminated.  This is not ever about conversion but is about rejection of hatred.

Just Doing What Christians Do

Forgiving beheaders, praying for enemies – it’s a daily reality for Coptic Christians.

By Archbishop Angaelos

October 4, 2023

The Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London speaks with Plough’s Alan Koppschall about the Copts’ outsized witness as a persecuted religious minority in Egypt.


Alan Koppschall: Christ calls his followers to love their enemies and those who persecute them. The Coptic Church has had to reckon with that radical enemy love in a way that almost no other church in the present age has. If we go back to the aftermath of the Arab Spring in Egypt and the political turmoil that followed, how did this affect your church and what was the response of the Coptic Christians?

Archbishop Angaelos: At the time of the uprising in Egypt, as was the case across the Middle East, there was a lot of unrest and uncertainty. Some people had high hopes of achieving political reform, others were anxious and hesitant. Others were trying to push a personal agenda. And so for Christians it was important to continue to be Christians throughout, and that is to be constructive members of society: to be prayerful and hopeful but also strong and faithful.

At one stage, when the political situation was very tense, Islamists tried to break society apart by attacking Christians – expecting Christians would attack them in return and thereby instigate a civil war. And so, in August 2013, there were attacks on a hundred churches and places of Christian ministry across Egypt within a forty-eight-hour window. It was obviously orchestrated. And the remarkable thing was that in an incredibly inflamed political environment – it was an absolute tinderbox and anything could have ignited it – there was not one single retaliation, violent or otherwise, against any of these attacks.


No communication went out from the patriarchate or the diocese saying, “Don’t retaliate.” It was just Christians in Egypt doing what the Christians in Egypt do. And by not retaliating, they took the wind out of that initiative. By the admission of many, including political analysts and non-Christians at every level, that’s what protected the community.

The Coptic Church was brought onto the world stage more recently through the terrible act of violence carried out by ISIS against twenty-one migrant workers on a Libyan beach in February 2015. How did this incident help to demonstrate the importance of loving one’s enemies?


That was a pivotal point, I think, that impacted many people around the world, religious and nonreligious. It was an act of such inhumanity that it crossed a line that many were not ready to cross. The impact the executions made had two sources. The first was the men themselves, the twenty Coptic Christians and their Ghanaian friend. Their resilience, their strength, their utterance of the name of Christ to the very end was a real display of grace.


Just as in the Book of Daniel the three young men in the fiery furnace had a fourth with them, I am sure there was a twenty-second man on that beach. Christ must have been in their midst because their peace was visible on their faces.


Just as in the Book of Daniel the three young men in the fiery furnace had a fourth with them, I am sure there was a twenty-second man on that beach.


The second reason the execution made such an impact was the reaction of the victims’ families. The German novelist Martin Mosebach was so moved by the story that he traveled to Egypt to write his book The 21: A Journey into the Land of Coptic Martyrs (Plough, 2019). He went to live with the families, expecting to see people broken by an act that had taken away their men, but he found them celebrating their witness and forgiving the perpetrators. I think that was an eye opener.

When word of the executions first reached Britain, I had over thirty interviews in the twenty-four hours following the announcement. And all the interviewers asked me, “How can you possibly forgive?” Because in my first interview I had spoken about forgiving the perpetrators. It was such a countercultural, counterintuitive sentiment. And I think it was another display of grace. It is the grace of God in us that allows us to love as he loves and to forgive as he forgives.

Forgiveness is tied into loving God – which includes loving ourselves as the image and likeness of God. Because it is in seeing that image and likeness within us and within everybody else, including our enemies, that we are then led to love and to forgive everybody. Not forgiving the action itself but the person committing the action; never justifying or accepting the hostility itself, but recognizing human brokenness and realizing that we’re all broken and we all need God’s forgiveness. In recognizing that, we can begin to love the image and likeness of God in the perpetrators, forgive them, and pray for them that their broken humanity could one day be restored.

Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies doesn’t just apply in the most extreme cases. It needs to be something that we live in our everyday lives. As a member of a church that has suffered so much persecution, how do you show love to your enemies on a daily basis?


We tend to romanticize the big things – like the twenty-one martyrs, or the sacrifice of missionaries in far corners of the world. But in fact, day-to-day life, in Britain or anywhere else, means having to love those who persecute us or even just make our lives slightly more uncomfortable on a daily basis. We have to continue to live our faith, the “faith that carries us,” because forgiveness doesn’t come out of a vacuum: forgiveness is based on love, and love is based on understanding the nature of God, who is in and of himself love. In scripture we’re told he loves us first. And when we have that realization, we’re able to see how much he loves us – and how much he has forgiven us. And how many times, as with the adulterous woman or the paralytic or others he met, he will say to us, “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” And yet we do sin again, and he will meet us again with the same grace and the same love. So I think it’s very important for us to continue to live the message of our Lord Jesus Christ and continue to walk in his footsteps.


What about the imprecatory psalms? How should we reconcile love of enemies with the chanting of these psalms that seem to invoke judgment, calamity, and curses upon one’s enemies?


The beautiful thing about our scriptures is that they’re not sanitized. They don’t tell us we’re never going to have a problem. When the psalmist is in the depths of anxiety he says: “How long, O Lord, will you forget me?” When he is in the depths of need, he says: “I will lift up my eyes to the hills.” When he is in the depths of the darkness of the journey of life, he speaks of journeying through the valley of death – with the protection of the staff and the rod of the shepherd. All of these things are human emotions God encourages us to express in human terms.

So, no, we don’t use the psalms to curse, and we don’t use the psalms to vent. We are using the psalms to place our pain before God, because the psalms are communication with God to put our petitions before the Lord who will answer us. People sometimes weaponize scripture using verses taken out of context to justify anger and hostility. But the culmination of scripture in both the Old and New Testaments is the victory of God’s love, the victory of good over evil and of life over death.

We tend to romanticize the big things – like the twenty-one martyrs, or the sacrifice of missionaries in far corners of the world. But day-to-day life means having to love those who persecute us or even just make our lives slightly more uncomfortable on a daily basis.




What should the church do in response to the war in Ukraine?




Pray. The church must offer up prayers for those who are adversely affected, for those in power, for people who are on the frontline, for all the people who suffer. Where the church can speak a good word to de-escalate or bring reconciliation, we should do that. Much of what we do will not have an immediate effect, because these wars are based on geopolitics and national interests, which people are less than willing to let go of. But we must certainly never add fuel to the fire, and we must never be a cause of greater enmity. The church has to be a presence of hope and peace.




Jesus himself doesn’t tell us not to have enemies. He himself had many and still has many enemies. How do we stick uncompromisingly to the truth of the gospel while still loving our enemies?




I’ve struggled with this concept of “the enemy” for many years and have come to the understanding that while I myself do not have enemies, there are people in the world who consider themselves my enemy. But even so, I must still love them.




In terms of what we do, we need to be honest with ourselves. One of the requirements for a successful dialogue is to dialogue about the right thing in the right way at the right time. And so there are things we are not going to agree on, even among Christians. There are some things I, as a Coptic Orthodox Christian, cannot compromise on. Ego, status, power – all of those things we can and should compromise on. When it comes to doctrine, there are things we cannot compromise on, but these also do not stop us from living side by side. And they do not stop us from witnessing together and living the love and grace of our Lord together – being the “light of the world.”




Praying for your enemies is also an important part of the gospel, isn’t it?




Absolutely. We need to pray for everything and everyone, which includes praying, as our Lord did, for those who consider themselves our enemies. Even when he was on the cross, he prayed for his executioners, saying: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” When speaking of those who are perpetrators of atrocities, there’s an element of such people “not knowing what they do” because they are hitting out at what they consider to be a dehumanized entity, whereas in reality, they’re attacking a full human being, someone who holds the image and likeness of God.




Contributed By

BishopAngaelos

Archbishop Angaelos

Archbishop Angaelos is the first Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London.




Learn More

3 Comments

You have 2 free articles remaining.

Already a subscriber? Sign in




Start free trial now



Saturday, September 27, 2025

Westminster to hear farming blueprint to produce 'more from less'





An interesting policy ambition and plausbly possible in England.  At least it comes to grip with the absurd notion that industry alone is responsible for environmental degrataion.  The purpose of all agriculture is to convert the wild into a sustainable and productive resourse.  We have gotten good at it

We have recently learned that proper application of all herbavores will build soils.  Thus that alone directs all efforts as a foundation strategy.  The tightly managed land and the properly groomed forest is our future.

Just implimenting the Pacific Biome in all River valleys along with natural beaver culture will withdraw some land from direct cultivation as well.  not much though but hugely benefical in terms of water retention.

Westminster to hear farming blueprint to produce 'more from less'


22 September 2025 | by FarmingUK Team | News, Politics

The ambitious '30:50:50' plan will be unveiled at a summit bringing together MP and farm leaders

https://www.farminguk.com/news/westminster-to-hear-farming-blueprint-to-produce-more-from-less-_67260.html

Westminster is set to hear a radical new agenda for UK farming – aiming to increase food production by 30% while halving agriculture’s environmental footprint by 2050.





Policymakers, scientists and industry leaders will gather in November for the 30:50:50 Agri-Science Summit, hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (APPGSTA).





The event, chaired by former UK Science Minister George Freeman MP, marks the conclusion of a 10-month inquiry into how science and innovation can reshape the future of British farming.





The APPGSTA says the government must adopt a bold new strategy to boost food output. Its ‘30:50:50 vision’ calls for domestic production to rise by 30% by 2050 while cutting farming’s environmental footprint by half.





MPs argue that Britain is “well-placed” to meet these targets thanks to good soils, a temperate climate, a professional farming sector and a world-class agri-science base.





But they also warn of rising dependence on imports, with wheat now at its highest level in 30 years and the UK on course to produce just 15% of its vegetable oil requirements this year – down from around 40% a decade ago.









At the centre of the 3 November summit will be the group’s final report, based on evidence from more than 100 organisations and individuals.





It follows the launch of the 30:50:50 agenda earlier this year, which set out an ambitious vision for growth in food production alongside major cuts in farming’s environmental footprint.





The framework has been praised for offering a simple, long-term structure for future farming policy, attracting strong industry engagement and positive media coverage.





In recent months, the APPG has gathered evidence from farmers, researchers and agri-science leaders across the UK.






Key challenges identified include slowing productivity growth, the loss of farmland, reliance on imports and regulatory systems that are seen as over-precautionary and under-resourced.





Witnesses also raised concerns that the UK’s world-class research base is not being translated into practical farm-level productivity gains.





George Freeman said the urgency of food security and sustainability required “clear, long-term objectives” to help farmers produce “more from less”.









He argued that Britain’s natural advantages, from good soils to a strong farming sector, gave it the tools to lead in sustainable production.





But he cautioned that “UK agriculture today lacks clarity and consistency about its purpose”. Current policies, he said, incentivise land being taken out of production, support lower-yielding practices and allow large-scale solar farms on productive land.





"Our over-precautionary and under-resourced regulatory processes are stifling access to farming innovations which are readily available to producers elsewhere," he said.





"And while our agricultural scientists remain global leaders in academic terms, their research is no longer translating into domestic productivity growth at the practical farm level.





"Our dependence on imports in some sectors, including fresh produce, vegetable oil and protein crops, is at record highs.”





As government prepares its new farming roadmap, food strategy and land use framework, Freeman said the 30:50:50 agenda offered “a coherent, outcomes-focused approach to reshaping food, agricultural and land use policies.”