Available Balance
weapon of mass destruction media coverage, public perception, in popular culture and common hazard symbols..
May 21, 2017

In 2004, the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report[54] examining the media’s coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998; the U.S. announcement of evidence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program in October 2002; and revelations about Iran’s nuclear program in May 2003. The CISSM report notes that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report’s major findings were that:

Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.
Most journalists accepted the Bush administration’s formulation of the “War on Terror” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.
Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.
Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “inverted pyramid” style of storytelling.
In a separate study published in 2005,[55] a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people’s memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that U.S. citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions:

The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people’s beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.
A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.
In 2006 Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq,[57] based upon unclassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. Quoting from the report, Senator Rick Santorum said “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent”. According to David Kay, who appeared before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis.[58] Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR’s Talk of the Nation: “When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.”[59]

Later, wikileaks would show that WMDs of these kinds continued to be found as the Iraqi occupation continued.[60]

Many news agencies, including Fox News, reported the conclusions of the CIA that, based upon the investigation of the Iraq Survey Group, WMDs are yet to be found in Iraq.
Awareness and opinions of WMD have varied during the course of their history. Their threat is a source of unease, security, and pride to different people. The anti-WMD movement is embodied most in nuclear disarmament, and led to the formation of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1957.

In order to increase awareness of all kinds of WMD, in 2004 the nuclear physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Joseph Rotblat inspired the creation of The WMD Awareness Programme[63] to provide trustworthy and up to date information on WMD worldwide.

In 1998 University of New Mexico’s Institute for Public Policy released their third report[64] on U.S. perceptions – including the general public, politicians and scientists – of nuclear weapons since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Risks of nuclear conflict, proliferation, and terrorism were seen as substantial.

While maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was considered above average in importance, there was widespread support for a reduction in the stockpile, and very little support for developing and testing new nuclear weapons.

Also in 1998, but after the UNM survey was conducted, nuclear weapons became an issue in India’s election of March,[65] in relation to political tensions with neighboring Pakistan. Prior to the election the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced it would “declare India a nuclear weapon state” after coming to power.

BJP won the elections, and on 14 May, three days after India tested nuclear weapons for the second time, a public opinion poll reported that a majority of Indians favored the country’s nuclear build-up.[citation needed]

On 15 April 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported[66] that U.S. citizens showed high levels of concern regarding WMD, and that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should be “a very important U.S. foreign policy goal”, accomplished through multilateral arms control rather than the use of military threats.

A majority also believed the United States should be more forthcoming with its biological research and its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitment of nuclear arms reduction.

A Russian opinion poll conducted on 5 August 2005 indicated half the population believes new nuclear powers have the right to possess nuclear weapons.[67] 39% believes the Russian stockpile should be reduced, though not fully eliminated.
Weapons of mass destruction and their related impacts have been a mainstay of popular culture since the beginning of the Cold War, as both political commentary and humorous outlet. The actual phrase “weapons of mass destruction” has been used similarly and as a way to characterise any powerful force or product since the Iraqi weapons crisis in the lead up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Weapons of mass destruction and their related impacts have been a mainstay of popular culture since the beginning of the Cold War, as both political commentary and humorous outlet. The actual phrase “weapons of mass destruction” has been used similarly and as a way to characterise any powerful force or product since the Iraqi weapons crisis in the lead up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The international radioactivity symbol (also known as trefoil) first appeared in 1946, at the University of California, Berkeley Radiation Laboratory. At the time, it was rendered as magenta, and was set on a blue background.[68]

It is drawn with a central circle of radius R, the blades having an internal radius of 1.5R and an external radius of 5R, and separated from each other by 60°.[69] It is meant to represent a radiating atom.

The International Atomic Energy Agency found that the trefoil radiation symbol is unintuitive and can be variously interpreted by those uneducated in its meaning; therefore, its role as a hazard warning was compromised as it did not clearly indicate “danger” to many non-Westerners and children who encountered it. As a result of research, a new radiation hazard symbol was developed in 2007 to be placed near the most dangerous parts of radiation sources featuring a skull, someone running away, and using a red rather than yellow background.[70]

The red background is intended to convey urgent danger, and the sign is intended to be used on equipment where very strong radiation fields can be encountered if the device is dismantled or otherwise tampered with. The intended use of the sign is not in a place where the normal user will see it, but in a place where it will be seen by someone who has started to dismantle a radiation-emitting device or equipment. The aim of the sign is to warn people such as scrap metal workers to stop work and leave the area.[71]

Biological weaponry/hazard symbol Edit
Developed by Dow Chemical company in the 1960s for their containment products.[72]

According to Charles Dullin, an environmental-health engineer who contributed to its development:[69]

We wanted something that was memorable but meaningless, so we could educate people as to what it means.

Have you heard about weapon of mass destruction ????
May 21, 2017

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, since World War II it has come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.
The first use of the term “weapon of mass destruction” on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[1]

At the time, nuclear weapons had not been developed. Japan conducted research on biological weapons (see Unit 731),[2] and chemical weapons had seen wide battlefield use in World War I. They were outlawed by the Geneva Protocol of 1925.[3] Italy used mustard gas against civilians and soldiers in Ethiopia in 1935–36.[4]

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II and during the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The application of the term to specifically nuclear and radiological weapons is traced by William Safire to the Russian phrase “Оружие массового поражения” – oruzhiye massovogo porazheniya (weapons of mass destruction).

He credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a 15 November 1945, meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush, as Bush claimed in 1970) referred to “weapons adaptable to mass destruction.”

That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).[5] The phrase found its way into the very first resolution adopted by the United Nations General assembly in January 1946 in London, which used the wording “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction.”[6] The resolution also created the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).

An exact use of this term was given in a lecture “Atomic Energy as an Atomic Problem” by J. Robert Oppenheimer. The lecture was delivered to the Foreign Service and the State Department, on 17 September 1947. The lecture is reprinted in The Open Mind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955).

It is a very far reaching control which would eliminate the rivalry between nations in this field, which would prevent the surreptitious arming of one nation against another, which would provide some cushion of time before atomic attack, and presumably therefore before any attack with weapons of mass destruction, and which would go a long way toward removing atomic energy at least as a source of conflict between the powers.

The term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential U.S. government document known as NSC-68 written in April 1950.[7]

During a speech at Rice University on 12 September 1962, President John F. Kennedy spoke of not filling space “with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.”[8] The following month, during a televised presentation about the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, Kennedy made reference to “offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction.”[9]
An early use of the exact phrase in an international treaty was in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but no definition was provided.

Evolution of its use Edit
During the Cold War, the term “weapons of mass destruction” was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in the West the euphemism “strategic weapons” was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal, which was presented as a necessary deterrent against nuclear or conventional attack from the Soviet Union under Mutual Assured Destruction.

Subsequent to Operation Opera, the destruction of a pre-operational nuclear reactor inside Iraq by the Israeli Air Force, the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, countered criticism by saying that “on no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel.” This policy of pre-emptive action against real or perceived weapons of mass destruction became known as the Begin Doctrine.

The term “weapons of mass destruction” continued to see periodic use, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.[10] Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, used the term in an 1989 speech to the United Nations, primarily in reference to chemical arms.[11]

The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and 1991 Gulf War, Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the first Bush Administration.[12] Following the war, Bill Clinton and other western politicians and media continued to use the term, usually in reference to ongoing attempts to dismantle Iraq’s weapons programs.[citation needed]

After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, an increased fear of nonconventional weapons and asymmetrical warfare took hold in many countries. The fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, American forces found none in Iraq. (Old stockpiles of chemical munitions including sarin and mustard agents were found, but all were considered to be unusable because of corrosion.)[13] Iraq, however, declared a chemical weapons stockpile in 2009. The stockpile contained mainly chemical precursors, but some warheads remained usable.[14]
Because of its prolific use and (worldwide) public profile during this period, the American Dialect Society voted “weapons of mass destruction” (and its abbreviation, “WMD”) the word of the year in 2002,[15] and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for “Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness”.[16]

In its criminal complaint against the main suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing of 15 April 2013, the FBI refers to a pressure-cooker improvised bomb as a “weapon of mass destruction.”[17]
The most widely used definition of “weapons of mass destruction” is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs,[18] some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.[18]

The abbreviations NBC (for nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and “dirty bomb” radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.

The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,[19][20] the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[21] the U.S. Department of Defense,[22][23] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.[24]

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[25]
This may also refer to nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).

The significance of the words separable and divisible part of the weapon is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.

In 2004, the United Kingdom’s Butler Review recognized the “considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’”. The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:

“Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research,development,support and manufacturing facilities.
Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities.”[26]
Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because “only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction”. He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons “weapons of terror” when aimed against civilians and “weapons of intimidation” for soldiers.

Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.[27] For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term “weapons of mass terror,” apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.

Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause “dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.[28]

An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to “have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves”.[29] The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[30]
Military Edit
For the general purposes of national defense,[31] the U.S. Code[32] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[33]
For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[34] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as “chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons.”[35]

Criminal (civilian) Edit
For the purposes of U.S. criminal law concerning terrorism,[36] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

any “destructive device” defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[37]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[38]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[39]

any “destructive device” as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.
Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[40] pipe bombs,[41] shoe bombs,[42] and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin[43] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

(a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;
Under the same statute, conspiring, attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if resulting in death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.[44]
The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: “Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles”. Moussaoui was indicted and tried for the use of airplanes as WMD.

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing perpetrator, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was charged in June 2013 with the federal offense of “use of a weapon of mass destruction” after he and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev allegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. He was convicted in April 2015. The bombing resulted in three deaths and at least 264 injuries.
The development and use of WMD is governed by several international conventions and treaties, although not all countries have signed and ratified them:

Partial Test Ban Treaty
Outer Space Treaty
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Seabed Arms Control Treaty
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, has not entered into force as of 2015)
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC)
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is the United States, which dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. There are eight countries that have declared they possess nuclear weapons and are known to have tested a nuclear weapon, only five of which are members of the NPT. The eight are China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Israel is considered by most analysts to have nuclear weapons numbering in the low hundreds as well, but maintains an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither denying nor confirming its nuclear status.

South Africa developed a small nuclear arsenal in the 1980s but disassembled them in the early 1990s, making it the only country to have fully given up an independently developed nuclear weapons arsenal. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited stockpiles of nuclear arms following the break-up of the Soviet Union, but relinquished them to the Russian Federation.

Countries with access to nuclear weapons through nuclear sharing agreements include Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
Due to the indiscriminate impact of WMD, the fear of a WMD attack has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.

An atomic-bomb blueprint
Fear of WMD, or of threats diminished by the possession of WMD, has long been used to catalyze public support for various WMD policies. They include mobilization of pro- and anti-WMD campaigners alike, and generation of popular political support. The term WMD may be used as a powerful buzzword[45] or to generate a culture of fear.[46] It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.[47]

A television commercial called Daisy, promoting Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential candidacy, invoked the fear of a nuclear war and was an element in Johnson’s subsequent election.

More recently, the threat of potential WMD in Iraq was used by President George W. Bush as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[48] Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of President Bush’s arguments.[47] The claim that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Coalition forces.

Over 500 munitions were discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 containing chemical agents mustard and Sarin gas, produced in the 1980s and no longer usable as originally intended.[49]

In 2004, Polish troops found nineteen 1980s-era rocket warheads, thwarting an attempt by militants to buy them at $5000 each. Some of the rockets contained extremely deteriorated nerve agent.[50]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a weapon of mass destruction as: “a weapon that can cause widespread destruction or kill large numbers of people, especially a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.”[51] In other words, it does not have to be nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC). For example, the terrorist for the Boston Marathon bombings was charged under United States law 18 U.S.C. 2332A[52] for using a weapon of mass destruction[53] and that was a pressure cooker bomb. In other words, it was a weapon that caused large-scale death and destruction, without being an NBC weapon.

Some Hidden Things About The Universe
May 17, 2017

××he Universe Is Old (Really Old)

he universe began with the Big ang, and is estimated to be pproximately 13.7 billion years old

plus or minus 130 million years).

stronomers calculated this figure by easuring the composition of matter nd energy density in the universe, hich enabled them to determine ow fast the universe expanded in he past. As a result, researchers ould turn back the hands of time nd pinpoint when the Big Bang ccurred. The time in between that xplosion and now makes up the age f the universe

×× he Universe Is Getting Bigger

n the 1920s, astronomer Edwin ubble made the revolutionary iscovery that the universe is not tatic, but rather is expanding. But, it as long thought that the gravity of atter in the universe would slow his expansion or even cause it to ontract.

n 1998, the Hubble Space Telescope tudied very distant supernovas and ound that, a long time ago, the niverse was expanding more slowly han it is today. This puzzling iscovery suggested that an nexplicable force, called dark energy, s driving the accelerating expansion f the universe. [ Full Story ]

hile dark energy is thought to be he strange force that is pulling the osmos apart at ever-increasing peeds, it remains one of the reatest mysteries in science ecause its detection remains lusive to scientists.

×× he Universe’s Growth Spurt Is ccelerating

ysterious dark energy is not only hought to be driving the expansion f the universe, it appears to be ulling the cosmos apart at ever-ncreasing speeds. In 1998, two eams of astronomers announced hat not only is the universe xpanding, but it is accelerating as ell. According to the researchers, he farther a galaxy is from Earth, the aster it is moving away.

he universe’s acceleration also onfirms Albert Einstein’s theory of eneral relativity, and lately, cientists have revived Einstein’s osmological constant to explain the trange dark energy that seems to be ounteracting gravity and causing he universe to expand at an ccelerating pace. [Full Story]

hree scientists won the 2011 Nobel rize in Physics for their 1998 iscovery that the expansion of the niverse was accelerating.

×× he Universe Is Filled With Invisible tuff

he universe is overwhelmingly made p of things that cannot be seen. In ct, the stars, planets and galaxies hat can be detected make up only 4 ercent of the universe, according to stronomers. The other 96 percent is ade up of substances that cannot e seen or easily comprehended.

hese elusive substances, called ark energy and dark matter, have ot been detected, but astronomers ase their existence on the ravitational influence that both exert n normal matter, the parts of the niverse that can be seen

×× he Universe Could Be Flat

he shape of the universe is fluenced by the struggle between he pull of gravity (based on the ensity of the matter in the universe) nd the rate of expansion. If the ensity of the universe exceeds a ertain critical value, then the niverse is “closed,” like the surface f a sphere. This implies that the niverse is not infinite but has no nd. In this case, the universe will ventually stop expanding and start ollapsing in on itself, in an event nown as the “Big Crunch.”

f the density of the universe is less han the critical density value, then he shape of the universe is “open,” ke the surface of a saddle. In this ase, the universe has no bounds nd will continue to expand forever

he Universe Has Echoes of Its Birth

he cosmic microwave background

made up of light echoes left over om the Big Bang that created the niverse 13.7 billion years ago. This lic of the Big Bang explosion hangs round the universe as a pocked veil f radiation.

he European Space Agency’s lanck mission mapped the entire ky in microwave light to reveal new lues about how the universe began. lanck’s observations are the most recise views of the cosmic icrowave background ever btained. Scientists are hoping to se data from the mission to settle ome of the most debated questions

cosmology, such as what appened immediately after the niverse was form seen

×× here May Be More Universes

he idea that we live in a multiverse,

which our universe is one of many, omes from a theory called eternal flation, which suggests that shortly fter the Big Bang, space-time xpanded at different rates in different laces. According to the theory, this ave rise to bubble universes that ould function with their own eparate laws of physics.

he concept is controversial and had een purely hypothetical until recent tudies searched for physical arkers of the multiverse theory in e cosmic microwave background, hich is a relic of the Big Bang that ervades our universe. [Full Story]

esearchers searched the best vailable observations of the cosmic icrowave background for signs of ubble universe collisions, but didn’t nd anything conclusive. If two niverses had collided, the searchers say, it would have left a ircular pattern behind in the cosmic icrowave background

Mobile Phones: A Necessary Evil and friend also.
May 8, 2017

Mobile phones have become necessity of life nowadays, but somewhere we are not using it correctly. Mobiles are technically advanced & have too many options like Hi-tech games, radio, and internet, downloading, etc. Everyone from youngsters to old aged uses mobile phones for different purposes.  But teenagers use it for texting, music, games & net surfing.
We have started to rely upon the cell phones now. With a touch alarm blows & we wake up, easy conversation is possible, reminders & notes to make you alert, social chats to remove the distance, in fact GPS for navigation. But it’s a distraction which can bring harm to us, life & property. Mobiles can damage the brain as well.
You are no more secure, as your social life will be completely destroyed. No personal distances, no privacy at all, as anyone can dig into your life through social sites. It can also leads to wrong practices also like hacking the data, damage, unwanted blank/fake calls etc.
Parents are really annoyed because of the cell phones addiction of the teen agers as they keep their phones with them everywhere like using it while dinning, studying, shopping, at schools/colleges. It has supported the wrong habits in them. Sometimes students tend to cheat in examination by taking their cell phones with them in examination centre.
The major issue attached with the cell phones is health problems. Excessive use of mobiles leads to problems like Migraines, weak eyesight, can bring damage to your brain as well. On petrol pumps mobiles are asked to be turned off, but these teen agers generally ignore it, which leads to big explosion also. Isn’t this a risk to life & property?
Look at the major negatives attached to the mobile phones.

“¢    No privacy

“¢    Threat to life & property

“¢    Health hazardous

“¢    Disturbance to life

“¢    Invitation to bad practices, etc

Still it’s a great invention which needs to be used in right ways. Mobile phones are useful in a lot of situations but make sure it should not become the controller of your life.

touchpad how did it get loaded on my phone
May 8, 2017

Some how I got this program on my phone call touch pad I had no idea had this got up loaded on my android phone.This program is very annoying plus it takes up a lot of space. I would never ask for a program like this . I am not sure even how to explain this program. I did a search to see how to get rid of this program call touch pad. This time I got lucky and found the right form and I got the information I need.This is how I got rid of touch pad on my phone I went setting look for apps or application then I found the program and it said to unstale it . I had no problem unstaleing it. On the form some other people said it has some thing to do with the phone keyboard and it disable the factory key board and the people could not get rid of touch pad. for me it had nothing to do with the key board . it just was like a big adevertsing bill board on my phone taking a lot of space away . This was driving me nuts.How did I get it ? I have no idea last night after charging my phone it just pop on my phone. so maybe something with the charging program some how up loaded the program on my phone . what I think I do now when the phone is being charge is to turn wi-fi off I all ready have data off may this will keep programs form up loading while I am a sleep… Any one else ever had a program up load while they were sleeping or doing something else I am not talking about if your kid took your phone and up loaded a program that kind of normal
for this day of age. OK that it for now.

Nokia phone review, first phone ever
April 28, 2017

I bought nokia in 2002 was my first phone, small cute, to call and receive call which is enough for me, this nokia is just a basic phone with low resolution  I guess was 0.4 megapixels cam. The voice is good and ring tone great from this phone was really satisfactory but its sound recorder more than phone it was able to record bout 20 seconds feature but I no internet ability that time , it had 3.5 MB memory, nokia phone did have a Bluetooth that time. Nokia phone supported a limited number of games that time. The screen was really small ready background were limited


It was also cheap its price is 300 dollars. It did not support Wireless LAN or even 3G, there was also radio. Its built in

I was fascinated with its feature for the game . The battery life was so long, nokia made a phone with battery that sustain for 6 days or week maybe even. The keypad comes with backlit with white light for each button and were big enough to press comfortably. but never use browser service since that needs net. However, the I loved the design, its was orange and blue and pink in color, the keypad were strong and do not stuck like todays phones and resistant to wear. It did sustain lots of drops

Nokia is my favorite brand myabe because its my first phone, or maybe its true best brand ever, but now i prefer other phone only due to the net, other features are best in nokia, but the net serving is not something that i tried there with nokia, i have to say nokia prices are competitive and last long with kids mostly

It is great brand and i like it even if I use ohter phone for other features.

Nokia phone review, first phone ever

Vigilance is the order of the day while sending emails
April 28, 2017

 Emails contain sensitive and confidential information and if access is available to all and sundry that can spell disaster. It could even wipe out bank accounts as it is possible that exchange of information through emails could contain such vital information such as account numbers. It could spoil relationships if gossip is exchanged.  It is therefore vital that such practices are employed that guarantee total privacy.  There are many ways to protect email privacy,

– being selective in revealing one’s email address could top the list. While registering at new sites there is always a demand for giving one’s email address. It would be a vigilant practice to verify the credentials of such sites before one starts the registration process.

–  The other important practice is to create passwords that are difficult to crack. There are those who have the know how to crack passwords and here the more complicated the password the more difficult it would be for anyone to crack them.

– There is also the provision to uncheck ‘keep me signed in’ option and this option should be selected even though it would prove cumbersome to type the id name and password each time one needs to access one’s mail.

-And last but not the least it is always advisable to use the ‘bc’ (Blank copy) option when sending bulk mail as opting for the ‘cc’ (carbon copy) would expose the emails addresses of all those who receive such mail. Many prefer to give their email address to a selected few and this method would let so many others to have access which is not unsafe but could also be very embarrassing.

– Although a password appears in a * format typing it when others are around should be done judiciously so that others don’t get to read what is being typed.

– Vigilance is the order of the day.  If an email is received from an unknown source it could be that they have managed to get the email address through foul means.  It is best that they are instantly blocked.


cordless home phone etisalat review
April 20, 2017
love chains

Though we like our mobiles sometimes is budget to use a home land line, with your home phone system you save lots of money, the etisalat phone cost about 150 dollars. For that we started the phone home system, we paid for the service and bought our phone, set the language, speed dial numbers and the settings,
phone system for home cordless phone review Etisalat

I like the voice quality to start reviewing, its clear, you do not need battery since its electrical phone system, also stopped fuzzy sound that was with the phone we tried earlier. definitely ood quality, sound and voice is the most you notice when buying phones. That from my experience

stores name and numbers up to 100 callers. learning how to use the phone was super easy with no menu, admit that I liked this cordless electrical phone more than mobile

the only down side is that you need to put it for charging at least every 20 minutes, if you left it with the plug off, the battery will die for sure whether you are calling or not. I do think that this phone for home is good, also my friends also liked it, family

Etisalat Phone just good and happy to get it but as its functional phone you need to keep it plugged

However, keeping the phone plugged, major disadvantage as I need to use the plug to use it with items having to be plugged.

i would rate it 5/10 as its vital to use the plug for other things an not only for the phone home system.

home phonte is really good device you will use it for any place that you need to use land line for, and good for kids too, for me i do not like to let all the kids have smart phones, i am not against tech. but each age has its own needed tech.

I may change the phone in the future on a second thought, do not have any ideas what to buy, the minute I find good phone i will sure buy it.

kindly write any good cordless phone if you have and what advantages you see in that phone

samsung Two doors home appliance
April 18, 2017
samsung Two doors home appliance
have to say the time I saw the fridge had to wow it and also I was not able to see the top of it, that much its tall fridge, if you are looking for new fridge this is the one for any home wife that like her house to look the best
this is my friends refrigerator, reviewed by me. she got samsung twin door or two door size : 30.3 cu ft, I hope I wrote it write since I’m not good in such things. refrigerator is new design and needs lots of space to open the two doors. she bought the fridge at cheap price on sale and that is 1500 dollars, its fancy design make you arrogant to have it price is good and timely her old one become junk a few weeks ago. and that satisfy her family need of lots of food with such refrigeration. the space of the freezer is good wit two layers. you are going to be spoiled with the ice cubes that you do for the parties, and late night movies. she made the first layer for ice cbubes and meat and fish.
the second layer is for frozen food that are ready , dough, sauces, butter, ready meal and things like that, so she just pick up the pan and into the oven
she needs to go to the groceries to fill her fridge twice , its deep and you can fridge fruits and vegetables as much as you want.
She is happy with her fridge and I am happy too, if mine will not work God forbidden I will use hers lol,
THis brand of ssamsung is my trust for ever, though my electronics are not Samsung but soon will be, did not hear any one complain of it
other brands , famous one heard lots of complain and some times work for months and then needs oil or maintenance or the fridge was not as good as in the news papers. but Samsung did not hear any complains
Opera browser for fast people and work
April 17, 2017

Opera browser that each house and office needs if and only if you like to be fast and finish you work faster, but if you are not in hurry go for slow

Opera browser for fast people and work

Opera browser become a popular web browser. Its good reputation due to the simple settings which make people use it. There are lots of features that level up opera. The skins make your work personalized. Change everything about its appearance of window, whether the back the scroll bars or whatever you like to change while you are browsing.

Also you can download any skin if you did not like the skins that already there. If you like to put a skin at morning and change it to nigh these you can do easily. also buttons of add ons so you have your browser the way that is convenient to your mood such as adding weather and music and movies

Opera ranks very high due to the high speed it offer you while serving and due to its features and among it security features we all need and want while online.


I used to have different browser, that I can say is ok but I need a faster one to find do what I do, including writing in literacybase, that need fast browser to download the image and post the post. Its best for those who do lots of uploading and downloading like photos and films.

Or those who do lots of work online and research too

no more slow windows laptop or pc or even phones, you can use opera in each of these and the tablet too

get your search engine how you want it and keep it updated for better result

This review after trying on my laptop not smartphones, but I guess if its fast here then sure fast using phone