I got my PhD in the engineering of nuclear fusion reactors (Princeton 1982). The most common version of these reactors use magnetic confinement. Rare isotopes of hydrogen are held in a magnetic bottle at 300 million °C (30 KeV), reacting to produce helium, useful energy, and a neutron. The magnetic bottle and high temperatures are necessary to overcome the repulsion between the hydrogen atoms at the distances necessary for nuclear fusion.
A customer of ours is building a different type of fusion reactor, without high temperatures or a magnetic bottle. They replace a few electrons of the hydrogen with muons — particles that are like electrons, but weigh about 207 times more. Hydrogen fusion is quickly catalyzed, as described in an earlier post. The muons recirculate to catalyze more until they decay or are trapped by an impurity, often helium.
Our company, REB Research, just shipped a specially made, hydrogen purifier tailored to remove the impurities in this process. Another aspect of the purifier design is that it minimizes radioactive tritium leakage, something that happens when hydrogen (tritium) diffuses through metals. We wish them all success, and wish success to our other fusion customers as well.
A Korean animated movie, K-Pop Demon Hunters, KPDH, just broke all-time record for most watched movie in the History of Netflix. It’s only 92 days old, and not a big-budget film with massive marketing, but it’s had over 314 million views so far, appearing on the most-watched list in 32 countries. Some Chinese movies have had more views, but these tend to be specific to China, with limited appeal elsewhere. KPDH has three songs in the Billboard 100 too, including golden at no.1, see official music video, 352M views for the music video. The last movie to have three songs in the Billboard top 100 was Saturday Night Fever, some 45 years ago. Other top Korean groups include Stray Kids, BTS, and Black Pink, they’ve had multiple #1 songs world wide of the last five years, and fill 50,000 seat stadiums regularly with seats going for $150. Here are Black Pink, filling a 50,000 seat stadium in Paris. If you read the US press, you’d hardly know these groups exist. BTS had a big hit during Covid called, “Permission to Dance,” a positive song during that grim period, danced e.g at the UN. Listeners noticed, the press did not. I think the press finds Koreans “anodyne”, that is, insipid.
Top movies of the last 20 weeks include two Korean offerings, Squid Game and K-Pop Demon Hunters
One thing that turns off the US press, is that Korean songsters and movies are less sexual, and less politically moralizing. The top Oscar awards go to political movies. At the Emmies, this year, we were told, “F*ck ICE, Free Palestine.” Similarly, Green Day, Eminem, and other western bands lead chants of F*ck Trump. The press takes this moralizing as intellectual, but I find it cheap and suspect it turns off many potential fans.
Director of Star Wars, Kennedy, promoting diversity.
A favorite moralizing of US movies is to show women who don’t need or want men. Frozen was like that, as was Encanto, Last Dragon, Moana… Star Wars was a top franchise that Disney made more feminist, writing basically every man as bad. Women were good, powerful, and inherently talented. Rey a main new character, grabs a light saber with no background or training, and uses it like an expert. It turns off men, then women stayed away too.
End kiss of Pirates of Penzance, the pirate prince and the major general’s daughter
We like to show black actors in white rolls too, though not white actors in black rolls. Hamilton was successful, and had black actors playing in every positive roll, white actors playing evil idiots. It was done again with 1776, less successfully. All the founding fathers are cast as women; Jefferson is black, bisexual, and pregnant. There’s a message somewhere. The upcoming movie about King Gustaf of Sweden has a dark-skinned actor playing the king. Why? We had a dark- skinned daughter of the major general, who bends the pirate over to kiss him, a dark skinned Snow White with most of the Dwarves normal height, a female She-Hulk, stronger than the original, who lectures the original (and us) about anger. Apparently, the idea is to highlight the difficulties powerful women face. Korean shows have casts that make sense to the plot, and no gratuitous reversals or sex. Did Oppenheimer need the many sex scenes? Did the suicidal love interest have to be written stronger than the main character?
Then there are the sequels: the Marvel universe includes 37 interconnected movies, Star Wars, 19, Batman 13. To get the full story, you have to see them all. So far, in 2025, only two of the major funded movies were original (one was Korean, Mikey 17). The others are all reboots or sequels with recycled plots and ever-bigger explosions. It all works until it doesn’t, then they make a reboot. Law and Order, 26 years old with 500 episodes.
Scene from Crash Landing on You. These two are in serious trouble.
Korean entertainment has series too, but much shorter and with fewer explosions. A TV series will have only 16-24 episodes and I’ve yet to see one with a mass-murderer. The Squid game, has had 13 episodes over 3 seasons. Some deaths, but not wholesale. A longer series, “Crash Landing on You,” 24. In it, a successful South Korean executive (female) is blown across the border to North Korea into the arms of a handsome, North Korean. No deaths. They could have gone on for years, but didn’t. People rewatch the original.
Other countries movies moralize too, like ours do, but they tend to be patriotic moralization, and anti gratuitous violence, not violent, anti-patriotic as in the US. Chinese TV shows present Chinese politicians as honest, they have praise for the Chinese schools and infrastructure, and regular invocations to respect the police. India moralization is similar, but more towards family order. Korean messages are in-between, with some crooked politicians, some violence, people with mental or emotional problems who evolve.
Robert Buxbaum, September 17, 2025. The industry has pushed back against criticism of their wokeness, claiming that the only folks turned off are the toxic fans: white, MAGA men, mostly, who hate diversity. They claim to be happy when such fans stay home and watch KPDH, or go buy $150 tickets to see Koreans sing in Korean.
As things stand, the major export of Germany to the US is high end cars: Mercedes, Audis, Porsches, BMWs, $100,000+ on average. The lower end models are made in the US, Mexico, and Canada. These high end cars are the biggest profit centers of their makers and of the German economy. Currently, they face an import tax (tariff) of 15%, the same as everything from Germany (or Italy or Japan). Liberal economists are furious at this; they claim it’s a tax and that it is inflationary. They are right on both counts except that this is only a tax and inflationary for the few Americans who buy new, high end cars.
The Americans who buy such cars are typically rich folks — poor and middle class folks can’t afford them. They are also folks with ‘taste’, folks who need a BMW, and would not be caught dead behind the wheel of a US car. Normally liberal economists would favor taxing such people, but these are often the who hire economists. They run the TV programs and newspapers, universities and hedge funds. They choose the economists and the economists are eager to see things their way.
Another high tariff item imported from Europe is art. Modern art for $1 million dollars that ends up in museums. For the average Americans the tariff on this, or on art is irrelevant or beneficial. The income it generates is used to offset other taxes, allowing Trump to remove the tax on tips, for example. That this tariff falls on rich people and replaces a tax that otherwise fell on poor workers. Liberal economists should favor of this, but their opinions are not their own.
A side benefit of these tariffs for ordinary folks, is that that they cause some buyers to switch to American-made products, cars and art. Perhaps not for themselves, but for for their children. They may buy a German car made in the US, rather than one made in Germany, or art from an American. This provides jobs for US workers — and an opportunity for Detroit to retool for the future. Detroit auto workers seem to understand this; they voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024. Detroit’s union leaders opposed tariffs. In Michigan, the union leaders get their power mostly from MI politicians, Democrats, who force union membership.
This is not to ignore the suffering of those who buy foreign products, the buyers of new BMWs, or French cheese, or high end art. As things stand, Columbian coffee is tariffed at 10%, and that may add 50¢/lb. Mexican coffee is not taxed, but many average Americans prefer Columbian. I hope they can be consoled by Trump’s tax breaks.
Some months ago, Trump showed off a tariff schedule that he considered ideal, with rates targeted to reduce our trade deficit by half. I derive here, Trump’s formula and rates, and give my opinions of the target. By the formula he presented, the EU tariff should be higher than it is, 20%. Trump has it at 15%, I think, for diplomatic leverage, to goad the EU into lowering their tariffs on us goods, now 15%. He’s also pushed them to spend more on defense, and pushed to end the war between Cambodia and Thailand. He threatened them with near 100% tariffs if they didn’t stop fighting.
Robert Buxbaum, September 2, 2025. Here’s a Bob Dylan song, union sundown, making a musical case against free trade. Once upon a time that was a liberal view. Now not. The NY appeals court ruled to block Trump’s tariffs to stop the horrible damage being done. My guess is the judges drink high-end coffee, eat French cheese, and drive new, German cars.
Four weeks ago, Trump managed to pause (perhaps end?) a century long war between Thailand and Cambodia that had flared up with F16s, rocket attacks, drones, invasion, and hundreds of dead. He did it by threatening to block trade with both countries if they didn’t sign a ceasefire. Within the day, they did. Perhaps, all they needed was a good excuse to stop fighting. The peace has lasted four weeks, though nasty words continue to flow. Some 70,000 Buddhist monks are very appreciative.
Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim (center) hosted the peace talks in Putrajaya as chairman of the Asian regional block, Official Photo.
Thailand and Cambodia have had had significant empires with overlapping land claims going back to the days of the kingdom of Siam and the collapse of the Khmer empire. A peace treaty was concluded between 1904 and 1908, but it involved ill- drawn, conflicting French maps. Several major Buddhist temples are in the disputed areas; they appear to be part of Siam in the earlier map, but part of Cambodia in latter documents. Siam complained weakly about the later documents, perhaps signaling accent, or signaling that they had the weaker army.
The problem festered this way until WWII when Siam allied with Japan and took back the territory it claimed, plus some more. After Japan lost the war, French Cambodia took back the territory, but Siam / Thailand re-armed and re-took in when the French left. It didn’t help Cambodia’s claims that it collapsed into a rein of terror under the Khmer Rouge. As things stand, the International Court of justice favors Cambodia’s claims. Then again Thailand now has the larger army, and has used it to occupy the disputed areas.
Buddhist thank Trump for peace request he gets the Nobel Prize. Photo from USA Today. Sometimes all it takes is a hard push.
A May-July, 2025 flareup in fighting resulted in about 200 dead and/or captured, mostly in the area of the historic temples, plus 135,000 displaced. The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, tired to achieve peace, and on July 28, 2025 Donald Trump stepped in and calling both leaders in the midst of tariff negotiations and informed them that they would be banned from US trade if they didn’t stop fighting. With Malaysian help, they signed a ceasefire that day. The presidents thanked Trump; 70,000 Buddhists marched and asked that he get the Nobel Prize. It’s the power of tariffs, and of personality.
Will the peace last? It has for four weeks now, and seems to be holding. The press downplays the significance saying that Trump only got involved because he wants the Nobel Prize. Maybe, but people are not dying who would be. Peace is good and surprisingly hard. I would not mind seeing Trump get the prize, shared with Ibrahim. My guess is that it was motivated more by ego than real hopes of gain. They were in a position to push effectively, and did so. The push was a convent excuse for sanity. A month later, Trump brokered another peace deal, this time between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The press isn’t impressed with this either, nor with Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine; they’re upset over his efforts to reduce the crime rate in DC.
We have a trade imbalance with many countries, it causes a loss of American jobs, and a transfer of currency abroad. This imbalance is not all negative, of course, it provides US consumers with cheaper consumer goods. Trump would like to eliminate the imbalance using tariffs. He hopes that this will create jobs, and that the money raised will help balance the US budget. He’s already moved to end income taxes on tips expecting to replace that tax with tariff income. Trump claims that the tariffs are not inflationary compared to current the tax system that he claims has been hacked by the elites. In past essays, I’ve discussed the pluses and minuses of tariffs here, and here. Now I’d now like to derive the formula Trump uses, see below. The proposed tariff for any country or region, i, he calls ∆τi.
In the equation at left, χi = our exports to country, i. Similarly, mi = our imports from that country. The difference between these two is our trade imbalance, something he’d like to set to zero. There are two other greek terms that I will discuss, ε and φ. These are the elasticity of elasticity of consumption to price, and the elasticity of price to tariffs. Trump uses an asterix here to indicate multiplication. I will use a, more normal, “dot” symbol, •, to the same purpose. For most countries, he takes the two elasticities to cancel to 2, and produces a chart.
Let’s say that the dollar amount we currently buy from some country, i, = mi = ni • Pi, where ni is the number of items bought from this country, and Pi is the average price. The intended effect of tariffs is to reduce mi by raising Pi, the price consumers pay for goods from that country. This increase is certainly inflationary in terms of the consumer: a consumer of French wine will pay more per bottle unless he/she switches to US wine. Typically this price rise is not inflationary in terms of the country as a whole, because the producer likely swallows some of the tariff, so for the country as a whole, we pay less per bottle of French wine. The customer does not see that, but it’s worth noting. Trump sees things this way.
Back to the formula, we need to figure out how much the price will go up and how much sales will change. Economists have elasticity numbers for both these relations, denoted φ and ε. We can say that, for any country, I, the rise in the price of the average product is ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ. Where Pi is the original price, ∆τi is the tariff, and φ is the fraction of this tariff that gets passed on to the consumer. A typical value is φ= 1/2 though some claim less. Assuming φ= 1/2 , if we add a 20%=∆τi tariff, as on on French wine, the consumer price will rise by 10%, a change that will cause him/her to buy less.
How much less will the consumer buy? That’s determined by the elasticity of sales, ε. This is the fractional decrease in the number items bought per fractional rise in the price. In math terms, ∆ni /ni = -ε∆Pi/Pi where ε is the elasticity. Now, since ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ, we find that:
∆ni = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ.
There is evidence to suggest that, for the average product, ε equals about 2, and also evidence that it’s 4. Trump prefers 4, and uses it for his calculations. I prefer 2, and will get nearly the same tariffs at the end. Whatever our preferred value for ε, our next step is to use the following approximation, accurate for small ∆(mi);
∆mi = ∆(ni•Pi) = ∆ni•Pi, + ni•∆Pi .
Trump seems to ignore the second term. Perhaps because it can either be positive or negative, as I’d mentioned above, depending on whether you look at things in terms of the customer or of the US as a whole. I’ll keep it in, writing this term in lighter text. In the end I will calculate a fairly similar tariff to Trump:
∆mi = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ•Pi + ni•Pi•∆τi •φ.
Rearranging the above, and recalling that ni•Pi• =mi, you can find the appropriate tariff to eliminate the trade imbalance.
∆τi = -∆mi /(ε • φ• mi + φ•mi) .
To make the trade imbalance go away, you need -∆mi = χi-mi . Thus,
∆τi = χi-mi /(ε • φ • mi + φ•mi)
This is the Trump formula with an extra term in light text. If you ignore that term and use the values Trump prefers, ε =4 and φ=1/2, you get the exact values of the tariffs he listed on the chart for most countries — those with positive trade imbalances.
∆τi = χi-mi / 2 mi
Now, I’d like to put back in the missing term, and use the (better) values, values I would trust, ε =2 and φ=1/2. Using those values, I find the tariff should be slightly higher.
∆τi = χi-mi / 3/2 mi .
I should note that some countries are creating to these trips by raising their own tariffs, and some are lowering theirs. This will cause a change in the imbalance of trade, and Trump will have to change the tariff schedule periodically to keep up.
CPAP machines (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machines) are very commonly prescribed to prevent sleep apnea. They were originally prescribed to prevent heart attack, and despite minimal evidence that they help, they are still paid for by most insurance, including medicare. Sleep apnea is associated with snoring and with being overweight. The theory, supported by minimal evidence, was that stopping the apnea would prevent heart attack.
My C-PAP/ APAP. shown with distilled water
Five years ago, I found myself among those prescribed. CPAP, and found no evidence they extended life, or prevented any heart problem. I wrote this blog post, explaining what I thought was going on. I suspected some health risks, and found no obvious sleep benefit; I felt claustrophobic and woke with sniffles. I quickly stopped using the device.
Last month I retried my CPAP, now with a better fitting mask (nose only) and better humidification. I now find sleep benefits and no sniffles, but still see no sign of health benefits. “Even among participants with good CPAP adherence there was no significant reduction in cardiovascular risk in the two largest trials.2,3 ” There also appear to be some bad side effects. If the pressures are too high, the CPAP can cause inflammation and micro-tears in the lung. This is the same problem that killed people on ventilators during COVID. CPAP users show significantly increased inflammation markers, with higher inflammation the higher the pressure used. Lower pressure settings seems to result in fewer heart problems, too, see figure below. The number of cumulative adverse heart-events is lower for patients, randomly selected, who used a pressure below 7 cm H2O (lower than 0.1 psi). Most events happen in the first few months, and don’t know why. The researchers do not comment on this.
From the Lancet, Y. Peter et al, Volume 101, 105015, March 2024, with with results adjusted for age, sex, and BMI. Pressures below ≤7 cmH2O show fewer events. Most CPAPs are set to higher pressures, about 10cmH2O
I suspect that heart attack and stroke are mostly driven by BMI, lack of exercise, and by eating too much of the wrong foods (e.g. waffles, see here). I suspect the CPAP does nothing for this beyond improved sleep, and that, at the current pressure settings, it may be harmful.The health risks might have put me off the machine, except I like getting better sleep.
I figured I could try decreasing the pressure, hoping to get good sleep with fewer lung risks. I can’t reduce usage because healthcare pays for supplies only if you use the device 4+ hours per night, tracking your usage over the internet to make sure. I discovered that my device, an AirSense 10, was set to deliver pressures between 5 and 15 cmH2O resulting in an average delivery pressure of 10.2 cmH2O. I decreased the range to 4.6-12.4 cm, then further, to 5-9 cmH2O. So far, the machine shows no reduction in average pressure(?!) but my sleep is OK.
The SS United States is in the process of being towed to its final resting place, on the sea floor near florida, to be a scuba-diving reef. She is the largest ocean liner to be entirely constructed in the United States and was the fastest ocean liner to cross the Atlantic Ocean in either direction, 36 knots or 41 mph average speed. She won the Blue Riband for this on her first voyage, in 1952, and retained that title till today. There was a faster crossing in June, 1990 by the Hoverspeed Great Britain, 36.6 knots, 42.1 mph average speed, but the Hoverspeed was a 76 meter channel catamaran, not an ocean liner.
The SS United States was half-paid for by the US government. Its purpose was fast passenger transport across the Atlantic. The government contributed because it might be used as a troop ship if needed in times of war. In terms of speed, she handily beat the luxurious British liners, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Ann, but the compromises for speed and military use made the SS United States unsuited for use as a luxury cruise ship.
Designed by William Francis Gibbs, one of the greatest ship designers, the high speed was achieved, in part, by making the ship very light. He used aluminum for the entire superstructure, the stuff above water level, making it the largest aluminum construction when built, 1951. Though larger than the Titanic, the United States is thinner and more pointy. Much lighter than the Queen Elizabeth or Queen Ann, she could go as fast backward as the Titanic could forward. The hull is doubled, with fuel stored between the layers as a protection from collisions and canon; the interior is highly compartmentalized too, to make her fairly unsinkable. This was confirmed when she survived a sea collision shortly after launch. Making the ship light on the top made the SS United States stable in wind and rough seas despite its narrow shape. There were two engine sections, divided into four engine rooms, done to increase the chances that the engines would survive an explosion or torpedo attack.
The interior design was American modern, and fire-proof, with few weighty decorations. Furnishings were fiberglass, steel or aluminum, for the most part, see picture below. The red, white, and blue stacks added to the American look. Both are used (recall that there are two engine rooms), and both have aluminum wings. These shield the deck from any sparks that might come out the stacks.
In the end, it was the crossing speed not the comfort level that doomed the SS United States. Even at a top speed of 44.1 mph, crossing the Atlantic took 3+ days. That could not compete with jet planes that travelled at 500 mph. I’ve argued that long range, “high speed” passenger trains make little sense for the same reason. Even at 100+ mph, few Americans will be willing to spend 36 hours traveling from Chicago to Seattle. Fast boats are useful, I think, but only in smaller size foreshorten trips, similar to the Hoverspeed.
5 blade propeller on display at Throg’s neck. Paired with a 4 blade propeller it reduced vibration and wear at high speed.
Also helping it reach the speeds it did, the SS United States benefitted from innovations in the engines and in the propellers. There were four engines, in two engine sections. These were modern, light weight, compact, steam turbines running at high pressures and temperatures: 975°F and 925 psi. Each turbine delivered 60,000 shaft hp to a variable-speed, geared shaft. The inboard propellers had 5 blades and the outboard (end of ship) had four. This difference in blade number was a secret, design innovation that allowed faster speed, without vibration and cavitation. The 5 blade propeller shown on display at left, accelerated the water, while the 4 blade accelerated it faster. At the time, this was secret technology. We now have some better propellers, though no faster ocean liners. The Hoverspeed uses water jet for propulsion, by the way.
Leaving the Delaware River heading to the Gulf of X
On its way to the bottom of the sea, the ship will first stop at MARS. That is not the planet Mars, but at an engineering firm, “Modern American Recycling Services” in Mobile Alabama, on The Gulf of X. There the MARS folks will prepare the ship to sink in an even way, where its supposed to; a way that works for scuba divers.
Robert Buxbaum, February 28, 2025. My sense is there is still room for steam power. I also think the US government should return to investing in US ship-building, especially for double-use, military and commercial, like this one. A new favorite phrase, from Ovid, Metamorphosis: “Omnia mutantur, nihil interit”. Everything changes, but nothing passes away. RIP, old friend.
Cardiac death rates vary by a factor of six or more across regions of the US, from very low rates in Arizona, Utah, Washington, about 1/1000/year, to well over 6/1000/year in the US southeast. This is shown in the map below based on CDC data from 2013, mapped by Dr. Robert-J using ArcGIS Pro in 2015, Source here.
The author of this graph humorously(?) overlayed the cardiac death data with yellow dots showing the location of all US waffle houses. I infer from this something that Dr. J. denies: that waffle houses, or waffle eating is a significant contributor to these cardiac deaths. Other possibilities (my own list) include opioids, pollution, low exercise, depression, and poor healthcare. Still, I can’t help thinking that diet is a big contributor.
Here is a more up-to-date map, by county, showing that cardiac deaths still concentrate in the southeast, but now they are joined by Nevada and eastern California. I downloaded this map directly from the CDC, but this time, the map is in terms of Age Adjusted Mortality Rates, that is lives lost per 100,000 persons, relative to some ideal, people living in Minnesota, Colorado, and Massachusetts, I suppose. As before, the red areas are those with a higher cardiac death rates. Why are West Californians healthier and folks in Minnesota and Colorado, perhaps because they exercise more, and exercise is a good thing, but these could also be areas with better healthcare, or fewer opioids. Some cities are healthier, some are worse. Why?.
Things have been getting worse in recent years. From 2019 to 2022, the national Cardio-vascular disease caused AAMR increased by 9.3%. Some of this may be COVID or the COVID vaccine, I suppose, or depression. Men seem to be hit harder than women, with the same regional differences. As shown in the map at right, southeast rural men have a lifespan more than 4 years shorter than the national average, or about 7 years shorter than that for women. And this is on top of their already significantly shorter lifespan compared to other developed countries. There’s no obvious reason.
As a marketing thought, assuming that the cause of cardiac death is that people eat high-carb, high fat meals, then the owners of Waffle House might have noticed, and chosen to build there. If so this would be a case where apparent causation is reversed: the relationship between Waffle houses and death is that Waffle houses were built where people were dying of heart disease. It’s a scary thought, but not unlikely. I’d expect new Waffle houses would appear in mid-Michigan, mid Georgia, northern New Jersey, and NW Indiana. These are places where people will likely like the food and ambiance. I’ve taken a light hearted view here because the alternative is too depressing. These rates are dramatic and horrible. I hope RFK Jr. will help increase US lifespans, but have no great faith in him. Trump gave him two years to show significant improvements.
We’ve become accustomed to buying cheap products from China: items made of glass, plastic, and metal come to the US by the ship-load, approximately $600 B worth last year, the highest from any country. Labor isn’t cheaper in China, certainly not when compared to Mexico or India, nor are the machines that make the products more advanced. What’s behind China’s ability to produce at their low prices is cheap energy—specifically, coal and nuclear-based electricity. While the US and most western countries have shut down coal plants to stop global warming, and have even shut working nuclear reactors for no obvious reason, China has aggressively expanded coal and nuclear energy production. The result? They are the largest single source of CO2, and have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world, Chinese electricity prices are about 1/4 of European, and 2/3 of U.S.
In recent years, the U.S. and Europe have increasingly relied on renewable energy sources like wind and solar. While these can work in certain areas, they require far more land than nuclear or coal, and expensive infrastructure because the power is intermittent, and generally not located close to the customer. The UK and Germany, countries with long periods of cloudy, windless conditions, have switched to solar and wind, leading to soaring electricity prices and a moribund industrial sector. Germany shut down all of its nuclear plants, 17 of them, largely to rely on electricity imported from its neighbors, and coal-fired sources that are far more polluting and unsafe than the nuclear plants they shut. The UK shut 5 nuclear reactors since 2012.
Meanwhile, China continues to build nuclear and coal plants. China is the largest user of coal power, and is planning to build 100 more coal-fired plants this year. Beyond this, China is building nuclear power rectors, including the world’s first 4th generation reactor (a pebble bed design). China has built 20 nuclear plants since 2016, and has 21 under construction. With this massive energy advantage, China produces things at low price for export: appliances, clothes, furniture, metal and plastic goods, all at a fraction of our cost. By selling us the things we used to make, China imports our jobs and exports pollution from their coal plants.
Many people instinctively understand that outsourcing production to China is harmful to both US employment and world pollution. Yet, until recently, US politicians encouraged this transfer through trade agreements like the TPP. Politicians bow to high-spending importers, and to environmental activists. It seems we prefer cheap goods to employment, and we’re OK with pollution so long as we don’t see the pollution being made. But, by outsourcing production, we’ve also outsourced control over critical industries, we’ve limited out ability to innovate, and we make ourselves dependent on China. Likely, that was part of China’s intent.
Russia has followed a similar path, keeping electricity costs mostly through low through coal, but also nuclear power, exporting their goods mostly to the EU. Before the Ukraine war, Germany in particular, relied on Russian gas, electricity, and fertilizer, products of Russian cheap power. By cutting off those energy, Germany has dealt a severe blow to its economy. Not everyone is happy.
Transfer of electricity, GWh, between European countries, 2023. Energy is most expensive in importer-nations, and GDP growth is slowest.
The incoming Trump administration has decide that, to compete with China’s manufacturing power, we need to develop our own through tariffs, and we need to increase our energy production. Tariffs can help balance the budget, and bring production back home, but without more energy, our industries will struggle to produce. I’m generally in support of this.
US production is more energy efficient than Chinese production, and thus less polluting. Besides, making things here saves on transport, provides jobs, and helps to build US technology for the future. I’m happy to see us start to build more nuclear power reactors, and restart some old plants. Solar and wind is good too, but is suited to only in some areas, windy and sunny ones, and even there, they need battery storage so that the power is available when needed.
What makes something elite? For elite colleges and academic journals, a large part is selectivity, the lower fraction of people who can go to your college or publish in your journal, or earn your credential, the more selective, thus the most elite. Harvard, boasts that “the best” apply, and of these, only 3% get in. Thus Harvard selects for the top 1%, or so they claim. These are not selected as the brightest, or most moral or motivated, but by a combination: they are the most Harvardian.
The top 20 most selective US colleges, 2022-23 according to Nathan Yau, FlowingData.com
Selectivity is viewed as good. That this 1% can get into Harvard makes the students elite and makes Harvard desirable. Some lower-class Ivy colleges (Columbia, for example) have been found to cheat to pretend higher selectivity; they’ve exaggerated the number of people who apply so they can inflate their rejection rate, and justify a high tuition, and presumably a high salary for their graduates. And it’s self-sustaining. Generally speaking, college professors and high-powered executives are drawn from elite institutions. Elite grads pick other elite grads as their way to get the best material, with the best education.
By this measure, selectivity, The Journal of Universal Rejection is the most elite and best. It’s the journal you should definitely get. The reject every article submitted on every subject. They are thus more elite than Harvard or Cal Tech, and more select than the quorum of US presidents, or Olympic gold winners, or living Chess champions, and they got there by just saying no. Many people send their articles, by the way, all rejected.
My lesson from this, is that selectivity is a poor metric for quality. Just because an institution or journal that is select in some one aspect does not mean that it will be select in another. Top swimmers and footballers rarely go to Harvard, so they have to pick from a lower tear of applicants for their swimming and football teams. It’s the same with the top in math or science, they apply to Cal Tech, with the rejects going to Stanford or Princeton. As for top chess players or US Navy Seals, a Harvard degree does nothing for them; few seals go to Harvard, and few Harvard students could be Seals. Each elite exists in its own bubble, and each bubble has its own rules. Thus, if you want to be hired as a professor, you have to go to the appropriate institution, though not necessarily from the top most selective.
From Nature, 2024. 20% of all academics come from just 8 schools, 40% come from the top 21.
As for journals to read or write in, an elevated reader like you should publish where you can be read, and understood, and perhaps to change things for the better, I think. Some money would be nice too, but few scientific journals offer that. Based on this, I have a hard time recommending scientific journals, or conferences. More and more, they charge the writer to publish or present, and offer minimal exposure of your ideas. They charge the readers and attendees such high fees that very few will see your work; university libraries subscribe, but often on condition that not everyone can read for free. Journal often change your writing too, sometimes for the better, but often to match the journal outlook or style, or just to suggest (demand) that you cite some connected editor. JofUR is better in a way, no charge to the author, and no editorial changes.
Typically, journals limit your ability to read or share your work, assuming they accept it, then they expect you to review for them, for free. So why do academics write for these journals? They’re considered the only legitimate way to get your findings out; worse, that’s how universities evaluate your work. University administrators are chosen with no idea of your research quality, and a requirement of number-based evaluation, so they evaluate professors by counting publications, particularly in elite (selective) journals, and based on the elite (selective) school you come from. It’s an insane metric that results in awful research and writing, and bad professors too. I’ve come to think that anyone, outside of academia, who writes in a scientific journal is a blockhead. If you have something worthwhile to say, write a blog, or maybe a book, or find a free, open access journal. In my field, hydrogen, the only free, open access journals are published in Russia and Iran.
And just for laughs, if you don’t mind the futility of universal rejection, there’s JoUR. Mail your article, with a self addressed return, or email it to j.universal.rejection@gmail.com. You’ll get a rejection notice and you’ll join an un-elite group: rejected, self effacing academics with time on their hands.
ROBERT BUXBAUM, January 16, 2025. If, for some reason, you want to get your progeny into an elite college, my niece, a Harvard grad., has a company that does just that, International College Counselors, they help with essays, testing, and references, and nudge your progeny to submit on time.
