Recent reporting suggests that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is reviewing its global command structure, amongst which the position of SACEUR, NATO’s most senior military position is under scrutiny to be abolished.
Read my Ariadne’s Dispatches post on this topic here
In the shadow of the Cold War, beneath the icy waters of political tension, the Soviet submarine B-39 once stealthily prowled the oceans of the world. A hulking figure of steel and secrecy, it served as a silent sentinel for its homeland, a tangible embodiment of an era teetering on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Yet, unlike its sister sub, the infamous B-59, whose actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis may have averted global annihilation, the B-39’s most remarkable story was not one of war but of survival.
Launched in 1967 from the shipyards of Leningrad, the B-39 served the Soviet Pacific Fleet with unflinching dedication. It carried out clandestine patrols along North America’s coasts, ventured to the Arctic, and made port calls in Vietnam’s Danang during the years of Cold War vigilance. But history turned, and the mighty Soviet Union fell. In 1994, the B-39 was decommissioned, its service concluded, and its purpose seemingly extinguished.
The submarine’s journey might have ended in obscurity, consigned to rust and neglect, had it not been for an unlikely twist of fate. Sold to a Finnish entrepreneur with a vision to transform it into a floating restaurant and museum, the plan faltered, leaving B-39 adrift in uncertainty. Then came a lifeline from the West. In 2002, a group of investors brought the submarine to Seattle, where it found new life as a museum exhibit at Pier 48.
There, in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, B-39 shed its veil of secrecy. Thousands of visitors marveled at its labyrinthine corridors and the cramped quarters where its crew once endured long patrols. Supported by a cadre of dedicated volunteers and professionals, the submarine became a bridge to the past—a tactile reminder of Cold War tensions and the men who bore its weight.
Connection to Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Among the stories revealed during this time was one that cast the submarine’s sister, B-59, and its flotilla commander, Vasily Arkhipov, into the spotlight of history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Arkhipov had been aboard B-59 when U.S. Navy destroyers cornered the submarine near Cuba and began dropping signaling depth charges to force it to surface. Unaware that these charges were not intended to destroy them and cut off from communication with Moscow, B-59’s captain and political officer believed war had already begun. The decision to launch a nuclear torpedo rested on a three-man vote.
Amidst the sweltering, air-deprived chaos of the submarine, Vasily Arkhipov stood firm against the tide of panic. Alone in dissent, he argued for restraint, insisting they verify the situation with Moscow before initiating what would have been a nuclear strike. His refusal prevailed, and the torpedo was never launched. The world would not learn of this near-apocalyptic decision until decades later, when declassified documents revealed the critical role Arkhipov played in averting nuclear war. It was also later discovered that Soviet forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons ready to repel any U.S. invasion, underscoring just how close the world had come to catastrophe.
The B-39, like all vessels of its class, carried this haunting legacy of potential destruction. In 2005, the submarine embarked on yet another chapter, this time journeying south to the Maritime Museum of San Diego. Anchored in the sunny harbor, it captivated schoolchildren, history buffs, and casual tourists alike. The submarine, once a symbol of enmity, now inspires curiosity and education. It offered visitors a chance to reflect on the perilous era it represented and the resilience of those who navigated it.
But even steel succumbs to time and tide. Years of exposure to the elements exacted a heavy toll, and the cost of preserving B-39 became insurmountable. In 2021, the museum faced a heartbreaking decision: the submarine had to be retired. Stripped of its final mission, B-39 was sent to a scrapyard in Ensenada, Mexico, where its once-proud hull was dismantled.
Yet the spirit of B-39 endures. Documented extensively, its story is preserved not only in photographs and exhibits but also in the hearts of those who labored to share its legacy. It stands as a testament to the power of historical preservation, to the vision and generosity of museum curators and volunteers who refused to let its story sink into oblivion.
Though it was not B-39 but its sister sub, B-59, that played a pivotal role in averting nuclear war, B-39 remains a potent symbol of the Cold War’s delicate balance. Its journey—from the frigid depths of the Pacific to the warm embrace of museum exhibits and finally to the scrapyard—reminds us of the importance of remembering the past. It is a relic not just of steel, but of history, perseverance, and the shared responsibility of preserving the stories that define us.
As it rests now in pieces, the legacy of B-39, alongside the bravery of Vasily Arkhipov, serves as a stark reminder of how close humanity came to the brink—and how even the smallest acts of courage can alter the course of history.
Discover the untold stories, iconic artifacts, and pivotal moments that shaped the nuclear age with The Nuclear Weapons Guidebook. This comprehensive guide explores the history of nuclear weapons, from their development during World War II to their role in Cold War diplomacy and beyond. Through detailed accounts of historic sites, museums, notable figures, and preserved artifacts like the Soviet B-39 submarine, the book offers both in-depth knowledge and virtual access for those who cannot visit in person. With curated streaming links, photos, and immersive virtual tours, The Nuclear Weapons Guidebook is your gateway to understanding the profound legacy of humanity’s most powerful—and controversial—technological achievement. Available Summer 2025.
Recently, a majority of the UN General Assembly resolved to study the global effects of nuclear war. Of the nuclear weapons states, only China supported the move forwarded with the study. Russia, France, and the United Kingdom voted against and the United States, Israel, Iran, and North Korea all
abstained. Surprising perhaps, is that the first serious project to examine this issue since the early 1980s should attract so little public interest while at the same time causing some of the nuclear-armed nations to actively campaign against the study, potentially discouraging reporting on the issue.
Another reason influencing the nuclear weapons states perspective on this proposed UN study is that the last time the publication of the report attracted worldwide attention, and as such, a similar result might be anticipated from such a report with access to more data and more powerful computer climate models to work with. Fearing that widespread knowledge of the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons could erode further public support for their nuclear deterrence and the inherent dangers posed by nuclear weapons themselves.
Nuclear weapons are a highly sensitive topic, and countries possessing them may not want the public to be fully informed about the catastrophic consequences of their use, potentially impacting political support for nuclear deterrence. Given this, it’s not so surprising that some nuclear weapons states actively lobbied against the support for the study. The November 2024 resolution for a study on “the physical and societal consequences of nuclear war, including climatic, environmental, and radiological effects, and their impacts on public health, global systems, and ecosystems” is to be undertaken over a three-year period by a twenty-one member panel of experts and is expected to conclude in 2027.
One goal of the study is to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive understanding of the global consequences as a result of the use of nuclear weapons. The motivations for the study are perceived as the need to bring a contemporary interpretation to the highly controversial publication in 1983 in the journal Science of what became to be called the TTAPS study, so named for the initials of the scientists involved: Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan, and the UN and US National Academy of Sciences reports that followed it. The TTAPS study was first presented at a conference in Washington, D.C., in October 1983, with it’s subsequent publication in Science. While it’s conclusions, including the introduction of the concept of a nuclear winter, were initially controversial, many of its core conclusions are now broadly accepted by the scientific community.
The predictions by Carl Sagan and his collaborators about the severity and duration of a nuclear winter have been subsequently supported by research, including more recent climate models. However, there is still some debate about the precise extent of the environmental impacts. Since, there have been substantial advances **in climate modeling—**models have become significantly more sophisticated since the 1980s, allowing for more accurate predictions of the potential environmental consequences of the nuclear use of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Winter all over again
Also, increased awareness of climate change and improved understanding of the fragility of Earth’s climate system and the potential for catastrophic impacts from human activities likely play a significant role in motivating further research on nuclear winter. The changing geopolitical landscape with the emergence of North Korea and possibly Iran as nuclear weapons powers and the potential for regional conflicts involving nuclear weapons in the Middle East and/or Asia underscore the continued relevance of understanding the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.
While the TTAPS study was groundbreaking for its time, the need for updated research is driven by the desire to have the most accurate and comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts of nuclear weapons use in the context of our current scientific knowledge and geopolitical realities. It’s significance would be in it’s potential, like it’s predecessors, to attract worldwide public attention to the catastrophic consequences of arising from the use of nuclear weapons. With its goal of intending to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the devastating consequences of nuclear war, it is also connected to raising public awareness and promoting efforts towards nuclear disarmament—ambitions not particularly popular with the nuclear weapons nations.
The past decade has witnessed a steady decline in public confidence in arms control agreements. Most importantly, American and Russian strategic arms negotiations are frozen while the US has withdrawn from the multilateral arrangements that were in place to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. These and other related events have left observers concerned that studies such as those proposed by the UN will weaken public support for initiatives that seek to modernize and introduce technological innovations to their strategic nuclear arsenals.
No need to test
In 1978, three preeminent nuclear weapons scientists wrote an open letter to then President Jimmy Carter, arguing that maintaining the reliability of the nuclear stockpile did not require explosive nuclear testing. They also argued that a comprehensive test ban treaty was important in arms control, including in support of restricting the proliferation of new nuclear weapons states.
The scientists Richard Garwin, J. Carson Mark, and Norris Bradbury, all legendary names in the history of US nuclear weapons development, believed that the data acquired from the tests conducted in the past, as well as the enormous increase in the power of supercomputers combined with the ability to test components and designs without the need for nuclear explosive tests, Additionally, the US nuclear weapons laboratories each year certify the operational status of the nuclear stockpile and have never raised the need for explosive nuclear testing. This has been the case even when serious problems were identified with the Polaris submarines that launched warheads and similarly with the warheads for the Minuteman ICBMs. Both problems were identified and resolved without explosive nuclear testing.
Explosive nuclear tests have not been needed for many years. Indeed, the atomic bomb “Liitle Boy” dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, had not been tested so high was the confidence in the design and the non-nuclear testing of its components. Since then and until 1992, when the US voluntarily halted nuclear testing, it had conducted 1054 explosive nuclear tests. From the perspective of innovation in nuclear weapons design, the accumulation of data from prior tests and the available supercomputer capability tests is not necessary. For example, Israel is assessed to have roughly a hundred warheads, but it has never admitted to testing and has a policy to neither confirm nor deny this capability. In contrast, North Korea probably wished to be acknowledged as a nuclear weapons state and conducted verifiable explosive tests. Even so, North Korea has not conducted an explosive nuclear test since 2017. At present, all nuclear weapons states, whether or not they have ratified the CTBT (the US has not), are observing the testing moratorium. The question of whether Iran can be persuaded to forgo nuclear weapons remains unresolved.
US-Russian collaboaration on Nuclear weapons
In 1991, at the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the separation of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, there was a collaboration between Russia and the United States to ensure the security of the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet states. The program was extremely successful, though short-lived, and demonstrated that collaboration between the nuclear weapons scientists of two countries was possible.
Now laregly forgotten, these cooperative efforts between the US and Russia to secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet states after the USSR’s collapse was a remarkable achievement, often overshadowed by other events of the time.
Here’s a summary of what took place: The Challenge:
Putting weapons-grade plutonium to peaceful uses
Was the reprocessing of Russian weapons-grade plutonium by the US also part of this effort or was it a separate program?
Another important aspect of US-Russia nuclear security cooperation. While related to the overall efforts to reduce nuclear dangers after the Soviet collapse, the reprocessing of Russian weapons-grade plutonium was a separate, though interconnected, program. Here’s how it worked:
The Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA)
Key takeaway: The reprocessing of Russian weapons-grade plutonium was a distinct program from the CTR, but both were integral to the broader effort to reduce nuclear risks after the Cold War. These initiatives highlight the importance of continued US-Russia cooperation in addressing nuclear security challenges.
You’re asking about the countries that have signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and whether any are bound to observe it even though it hasn’t entered into force. Here’s the situation: Signatories and Ratifiers:
It would be fair to say that explosive nuclear weapons testing is not needed to address any change in the perceived threat from Russia or China; new warhead designs do not require explosive testing. Testing is not required to maintain assurance of the reliability of the stockpile. And each year the US nuclear weapons labs provide this assurance. Testing is not required to establish confidence that the weapon will work or with regard to its reliability. Insofar as any innovation in design is required, this too would not need explosive nuclear testing.
Lastly, it is sometimes claimed that scientists will leave the labs in a kind of “brain drain’’ without the opportunity to test their wits with actual tests, despite the complications and possible biological and environmental consequences associated with the nuclear explosive testing. Aside from the devastating legacy of radiation-induced sickness in addition to the shockwave and burn deaths caused instantly by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US tests in the Marshall Islands and at Los Alamos and the Nevada test site have left thousands of incompensated victims of radiation-induced sickness. The situation is comparable for tests conducted in the former Soviet Union. The implications of radiation accidents have become generally understood as a result of a string of nuclear reactor accidents from the first Plutonium production facilities, such as Hanford, WA and Windscale, Cumbria, to Chernobyl, Ukraine, and Fukushima, Japan.
Over the past decade, there has been a steady negation of international security, both those impacting the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons states and those addressing strategic arms limitations between the United States and Russia. In 2017, the United States withdrew from the INF treaty limiting intermediate-range nuclear forces, citing Russian violations of the agreement restricting the development and testing of new weapons in that category. In 2018, the United States announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from the multilateral agreement with Iran designed to restrain that country’s development of nuclear weapons. The Russian Parliament declared the nation’s withdrawal from its ratification of the CTBT, citing the United States Congress’s failure to ratify the treaty from the time it was signed in 1996. Both Russia and the United States have new missiles and other weapons systems in an advanced state of development, though President Putin has suspended all strategic arms control negotiations with the US. The existing strategic arms reduction treaty will expire in February 2026 with a dim prospect of being extended or replaced.
To resume explosive nuclear testing in these circumstances is simply for the purposes of sabre rattling. It is hard to see what political purposes such a resumption of testing acheives. While the prospective negative outcomes from a resumption of testing are easy to identify.
For instance, if the reason given for the resumption of testing is concern over nuclear weapons development by China, that country can proceed to develop new warheads without redorting to testing while using the American resumption to cast the US in a negative light.
By initiating a resumption of nuclear testing, the US’s diminished standing internationally means that the near nuclear states would be even less willing to respond to American pleas for restraint.
There is a widely perceived need for an urgent resumption of negotiations for strategic arms control.
September 19, 1995, the date of the last US nuclear weapons test. It was conducted at the Nevada Test Site.
Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its nuclear capabilities. Estimates suggest they possess around 90 nuclear warheads.
You’re asking about the countries that have signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and whether any are bound to observe it even though it hasn’t entered into force. Here’s the situation: Signatories and Ratifiers:
A resumption of testing by the United States may lead to renewed testing by Russia and China, but this would not necessarily follow automatically. Certainly, a decision by the United States to resume explosive nuclear testing would generate international condemnation, including the likelihood of initiating protest movements to bring the planned testing to a halt; after all, it is a result of a worldwide protest movement that the present restraint on explosive nuclear testing brought about in the first place.
References
Linus Pauling died at his home on August 16, 1994. He was ninety-three. He built the house overlooking the Pacific Ocean on his picturesque ranch near San Louis Obispo, Big Sur, California. His last few years had seen him in failing health and becoming extremely weak. He had earlier been diagnosed with prostate cancer for which he’d received surgery at Stanford Medical School but had declined follow-on chemotherapy in favor of an intravenous supplementation of vitamin C—an unproven experimental procedure he had chosen for himself.
He had survived his wife Ava Helen by thirteen years. They had fallen in love at college, where he had also been a sophomore science teacher in her home economics class. She was three years younger than he and gave up completing her education to marry and to join him at the newly founded chemistry division at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. In 1922, the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena accepted Pauling to work on his PhD.
Ava Helen was 77 years old when she died of cancer of the stomach on December 7, 1981. Her last days were spent at Pauling’s Portola Valley home, close to the Stanford University campus. She, too, had declined the follow-on chemotherapy after the surgery to remove the tumor.
The Paulings had bought Deer Flat Ranch after Linus had won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1954. Ava Helen had seen the for sale sign on an occasion they were driving back to Pasadena from Berkeley. The ranch was located on the scenic route along the Pacific Coast Highway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It sloped steeply from the road to the ocean. When they purchased the property, it only consisted of a barn and a small cabin. However, they meticulously designed and constructed a home that perched like a nest on the edge of a steep drop leading to the ocean. Deer Flat Ranch was their sanctuary from the height of his scientific reputation in the mid-fifties to it’s implosion following the controversial award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Peace in 1963 in recognition of his campaign to halt atmospheric nuclear testing.
The Nobel Peace Prize, itself no stranger to controversy, had been withheld the year before by the Gunnar Jahn Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee because the other committee would not agree to award it to Pauling. Also, the Cuban missile crisis had occurred during that October, close to when Nobel Awards are announced annually. At the time, no reason was given for the decision to withhold the prize—an accepted practice for the Nobel Committee. Jahn, unable to coerce the other committee members to award the prize to Pauling in 1962, was more successful in 1963 after the Nuclear Partial Test Ban (NPT) was signed on August 5. Two months later, the Nobel Peace Prizes for 1962 and ‘63 were announced. The ‘62 prize goes to Pauling for his efforts to bring about the end to nuclear weapons testing, and the ‘63 prize goes to the international Red Cross.
The ensuing furor over the award to Pauling drew international criticism mostly for singling out Pauling for a campaign initiated by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell and supported by a large number of eminent scientists and multiple organizations, the most prominent of which was the Pugwash Conference and Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Laureate for Physics. It took another thirty years for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the peace prize jointly to Pugwash and Rotblat in 1995.
Having won Nobel prizes for Chemistry and Peace Linus’s interests moved towards the possibility of a third, for physiology or medicine. While he continued to profess an interest in world peace and an end to all wars, this was mostly expressed in activism rather than in participation in the development of international security policy or measures articulating arms control, either through organizations or by individual initiative.
Linus, a scientist, held the belief that only scientific thinking and solutions could contribute to the betterment of humanity. At the same time he was admiring, perhaps even envious, scientists who could write poetry and recite from philosophy and ancient literature, like Robert Oppenheimer, for example. As children, neither Linus nor Ava Helen had much exposure to the value of the arts and humanities to society. Her family was immersed in issues to alleviate injustice, especially that effecting those most socially vulnerable. For his childhood, Linus was able to scavenge chemicals and apparatus to build himself a lab, learned to speak German with his grandparents, and read some Latin and Greek from a neighbor. His father, who died when Linus was nine, had provided a reading list that included classic literature, history and philosophy. However, by the time he arrived at college, this had done much less towards broadening his mind than hardening his feelings of intellectual superiority. For example, he did not receive a high school diploma because he considered the requirement to complete a civics and government class to be intellectually challenging and of no value to him.
His health was a constant concern from 1941, when he was first diagnosed with glomerulonephritis, a kidney disorder. It occurs on its own or with other conditions such as lupus or diabetes. An inflammation of the tiny filters in the kidneys (glomeruli). The condition, depending on its severity, can be fatal. It can come on suddenly or gradually. The condition was considered incurable at the time and treatable mainly by dietary modification, as kidney dialysis had not yet been developed nor transplant surgery. The problem was first noticed after Pauling traveled to attend a scientific meeting on the east coast. He fell ill with a severe inflammation of the kidneys. The condition only worsened on his return journey to California by train. At that time, a highly regarded specialist for nephritis patients was at Stanford University Medical School, and Pauling was referred to him. Dr. Tom Addis Jr., a Scottish emigre, treated nephritis patients exclusively through a specialized diet derived from the urinalysis of the patient. The diet was comprised of a low-salt, low-protein intake with vitamin supplements. Pauling’s condition began improving immediately. Linus, Ava Helen (who charged with the administration of the diet), and Tom Addis bonded and remained close until Addis’s death in 1949. Pauling’s nephritis went into remission, and he maintained the diet for a decade and a half.
The nephritis diagnosis came shortly after the publication of Pauling’s seminal textbook, ‘Nature of the Chemical Bond’. At this point he was already a star at Caltech, having been made head of the chemistry division by the time he was thirty-one years old. Both the events of his succumbing to a then frequently fatal condition for which there were no widely accepted treatments and his recovery from it by a dietary plan supplemented with vitamins left a deep impression that shaped the way he would view the management of human health for the rest of his life.
By the time of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1963, Pauling’s activism and the shift in his scientific interest away from chemistry towards biology and health had significantly impacted his management of his division at Caltech. His frequent and extended absences from campus while he travelled both domestically and internationally promoting his petition for scientist signatures supporting a halt to atmospheric nuclear testing and seeming disinterest in the routine management of the Chemistry Division had driven Caltech’s Board and Trustees to exasperation. His peers at Caltech at the time described the situation as “very messy.” Pauling would not accept that the Chemistry Division had fallen into disarray; “no one could tell Linus anything; they were all afraid of him; he was like the Pope of Caltech.” Remarked one senior member of the faculty. Moreover, there was growing acceptance of the orbital theory over Pauling’s valence bond theory that he had so eloquently articulated in the Nature of the Chemical Bond. It also did not help that the President of the Caltech Board was Robert Millikan, who was one of the major developers of molecular orbital theory. Although Nature of the Chemical Bond was selling widely and new editions were being issued, Pauling steadfastly refused to acknowledge the importance of the emergence of molecular orbital theory in the revisions to his book, relegating it to a note in the appendix of a late edition of Nature of the Chemical Bond.
After he had successfully predicted the structural basis of the uptake of oxygen by hemoglobin, Pauling went on to identify that sickle cell anemia was a structural abnormality of the hemoglobin molecule causing the curved sickle shape of the red blood cells with this anemic disorder. But he had also latched on to the idea that the intake of large amounts of niacin would alleviate schizophrenia. These areas of investigation occupied a significant portion of the Chemistry Division’s lab space, displacing traditional chemistry research. It is undeniable that Pauling played a significant role in propelling the fledgling Caltech to a level comparable to historically prominent American institutions such as Harvard, MIT, and Cornell. Equally, without Caltech’s nurturing, Pauling May would have struggled to distinguish himself from the other high-achieving individuals on those campuses. Also, while Pauling quickly emerged as a remarkably talented member of Caltech’s faculty, he was by no means alone or even in a minority. Over a couple of decades from the 1950s, Caltech’s campus was bursting with Nobel Prize winners. In spite of Pauling’s second Nobel, perhaps even because of it, neither Pauling nor the Caltech Trustees could reach a settlement about Pauling’s future, and they parted ways. Pauling, angry and embittered by his treatment by the Caltech Trustees and Board, and for their part, Caltech frustrated by Pauling’s activism, his absences from campus, and his pursuit of research priorities well outside and at the expense of what they felt should have been the focus of the chemistry division.
By this time in the early1960’s,s all ofPauling’ss major scientific accomplishments in chemistry were behind him. Most scientists have completed their contributions by theirfifties,s and Pauling was in his early sixties at the time he took his position at the Center for Democratic Institutions in SantaBarbara,a not far from his beautiful and beloved ranch in Big Sur. His time here was short andinconsequential;l unable to pursue lab work or associate with scientificthinkers,s he moved to the chemistry department at theUniversityy ofCalifornia,a San Diego. He wasunable toe move UCSD to allow him free reign to develop his ideas for treating diseases with vitamins and supplements in that these ideas lay outside the scope of a chemistry department. Finding a sympathetic ear in ArthurKornberg, at StanfordUniversity,y Pauling moved there in 1969. Kornberg had been awarded the NobelPrizee in 1959 for his work on DNA synthesis and was both a biochemist and an MD. Pauling must have been optimistic that his ideas for what by then he had called “orthomolecular medicine” would find a warmer reception at Stanford.
From the very outset, orthomolecular medicine had a hostile reception from the medical community. Referring to the practice of varying the concentration of substances normally present in the body to prevent and treat disease, “orthomolecular” was strikingly comparable to megadoses of vitamins and other supplements to treat illnesses. A practice identified as having no scientific basis or confirmation of medical benefit to patients. Introduced to vitamin C in the mid-1960s by Irwin Stone Linus and Ava Helen began taking doses in significant excess of the recommended daily allowance. Believing that their personal experience supported the benefits of vitamin C in preventing the Common Cold Pauling published a book on the subject in 1971. The book became a huge success and triggered a deluge in sales for vitamin C. But Pauling cannot have anticipated the consequences of this success.
Unable to establish any research at Stanford either within the scientific departments or the medical school, Pauling decided to set up his own independent research institute for orthomolecular science and medicine near the Stanford campus. But he had also to face the reaction of organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, which launched a full-scale debunking of his ideas for the orthomolecular treatments for schizophrenia. Now in his early seventies, Pauling still believed he was capable of generating another Nobel Prize-worthy discovery. Despite his failure to predict the double helical structure of DNA in the mid-1950s, Pauling shifted his focus to discovering ways to treat human diseases by manipulating the amounts of naturally occurring substances in the human body, particularly vitamin C. After all, Pauling’s near-fatal personal experience with glomerulonephritis was an example of how dietary plus supplemental treatments could be effective.
In his books on vitamin C and the common cold, Pauling had suggested that it might also be beneficial in the treatment of cancer. Studies were started at the Pauling’s Institute on the efficacy of large doses of vitamin C for the treatment of cancer. These studies were funded not only from private donors but also from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health.
The research institute suffered early on from mismanagement of research and funding issues. By the time Linus Pauling died in 1994, he had fired the first director of research whom he had hand-picked himself, and the succeeding director had to be forcibly removed by the Boar of the Institute. Both sued Pauling and his institute, resulting in lengthy and expensive litigation. Pauling’s eldest son, Linus Jr., took over management of the institute, settling its liabilities. With Pauling’s papers transferred to the Oregon State University Library archives, the Pauling Institute was closed, and it’s assets were used to set up an institute named for Pauling at OSU to continue his interests in the benefits of vitamins and supplements in improving human health and well-being.
My forthcoming biography explores Pauling’s scientific genius and why his success in applying quantum mechanics to chemistry and later structural chemistry to biology floundered when he turned his extraordinary intellect to the most difficult problems of human health. Pauling was not only intellectually unchallenged in his time; he possessed a unique ability to intuitively predict molecular structure and to interpret solutions to scientific problems that would sometimes take years to verify. Yet his determination to extrapolate his personal experience with recovery from illnesses and the idea that this was likely based on correcting imbalances in naturally occurring substances in the body was without success or acceptance by the medical profession, especially as Pauling would claim for schizophrenia and cancer.
“The fact is that no species has ever had such wholesale control over everything on Earth, living or dead, as we now have. That lays upon us, whether we like it or not, an awesome responsibility. In our hands now lies not only our own future but that of all other living creatures with whom we share the Earth.”
David Attenborough
Two incredible people passed away this year: Roger Payne, whose groundbreaking work recording the “Songs of the Humpback Whale” brought attention to these and other majestic cetaceans, many of which were then and are still under threat, and Karen Bakker, whose work, as presented in her book “Sound of Life,” is a fascinating exploration of the hidden world of nature’s sounds made available through the use of digital technologies.
The idea that it might be possible for people to communicate with animals has been part of literature since ancient times. The idea that other animals may possess feelings, consciousness and minds that are not exclusive to humans was largely a philosophical question until the development of behavioral sciences in the mid-twentieth century. Various scientific attempts to communicate with different species, particularly primates and dolphins, began in the 1960s. This discussion explores the individuals and efforts that have been made to establish intelligence and communications in other species on our planet
I would not have known about this film had Niki van de Beek not mentioned it in her blog. It proved easy enough to find on YouTube, was free to watch, and was Sundance nominated for 2020. Having recently visited Luxor I was quickly caught up in the sheer beauty and mystery of the place that the movie captures perfectly. It feels as if you’re there, or at least in the midst of a tourist board travelogue.
Written and directed by Zeina Durra with Andrea Riseborough playing the central character. Hana is returning to Egypt to spend a short vacation at the Winter Palace in Luxor. She’s a doctor whose been working in war torn Syria which has wrought havoc on her emotional state. She travels light, arriving at the fabled Winter Palace hotel with only a large but half empty purse.
It doesn’t take a moment to become enchanted with Riseborough’s portrayal of the enigmatic Hana, but the story becomes quite a challenge to follow as it slowly wanders along. There is a completely out of character part of a one-night stand with a hotel guest who is besotted with her on her first evening at the bar of the hotel. She later needs the hotel manager’s help to avoid being seen by him in the hotel.
If you are listening for the dialogue there’s mostly an extraordinarily effective communication of what’s going on in Hana’s head with the camera’s capture of her expression. But there are curious moments too, as when Hana’s ex takes her to meet his boss none other than Salima Ikram. The Prof appears I guess, as the celebrity Egyptologist she is, while being Hana’s ex’s boss in the movie. In this cameo she first explains the purpose of faience shabtis to Hana followed later over lunch by an explanation of Freud’s interest in Egyptology. It’s during this over lunch chat that Hana without a word abruptly leaves the table to gaze out over the landscape. And who can blame her?
By this time I’ve taken to stalking Hana around Luxor, King’s Valley – there were very few people when I visited recently, but Hana hit the place when there were more guards than tourists. She visits Karnak at night with her ex who she has run into again – quite by chance. He is unsurprisingly mad keen on rekindling their romance but anyone would take the bet that he’s not going to get there. However, his efforts to lead to a funny scene with him and Hana in the hotel pool with him swimming in his underpants to the dismay of the hotel concierge.
Zeina Durra is a widely respected film maker, and Luxor is entirely due it’s critical success. Andrea Riseborough’s performance is also superlative. And of course, there is Luxor and Egypt beautifully captured by the director and cinematography. The films quirkiness has not settled well with audiences and I get that, but Luxor has a friend in me.
John Hanning Speke was first of a group of European Victorian-era explorers to discover the source of the river Nile, the longest river in the world. His discovery was contested by notably by Richard Burton and others but verified in 1877 years after his death in 1864 in a shooting accident. This explorer who was able to verify Speke’s maps was non other than Henry Stanley. Stanley having found David Livingston was able to proceed with him on a journey that established the veracity of Speke’s mapping and definitively proved Burton claims as false.
Richard Burton, John Speke, James Grant, David Livingstone, Henry Stanley, and Samuel Baker and his mistress, Florence von Sas.
A monument was belatedly erected in Kensington Gardens, London as a to tribute to Speke by the RoyalGeographical Society with funds raised by public subscription
Location of monument in Kensington Gardens
The triumphs and the tragedies of the Nile explorers during the Victorian era is wonderfully recounted in Tim Jeal’s book.
In November 1922 archeologist Howard Carter, his benefactor Lord Carnavon and lady Evelyn took a peek inside at the royal tomb with intact that Carter was sure belonged to the 18th dynasty Pharo Tutankhamen. The story has been told and retold mystified and mythologized many times.
In anticipation of the explosion of Egyptomania that will likely grip the public attention
Howard Carter was born in South Kensington, London a blue plaque marks where he lived in his later years and he is buried a London cemetery where coincidently, also is Lady Evelyn
The youngest of eleven children Howard’s ill health caused him to be sent out of London to stay with relatives in Swaffam, Norfolk.
One of Samuel Carter’s patrons was William Amherst Tyssen-Amherst of Didlington Hall, an estate eight miles from Swaffham. As a boy, Howard visited Didlington Hall when his father painted Lord Amherst’s portrait, and this is where he first became exposed to Egyptology.
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/33258
http://www.lostheritage.org.uk/houses/lh_norfolk_didlingtonhall.html
Highclere castle
Flinders Petrie
British Museum
Cleopatra’s needle
Other important collections of Egyptian antiquities in the UK
