Since we recently had some assistance from an old 1976 copy of National Geographic which showed us some differences between temperature data then and now, it seems an opportune time to announce that Popular Science magazine archives are now online and totally free.
Check out the “one armed monster” on the right panel. Looks like a wind turbine nobody ever built.
Popular Science, in partnership with Google, just put its 137-year archive online, for free. Unfortunately, you can’t yet browse by issue. [Yes you can, I missed this on the first pass.] The interface is a keyword search box.
I need help from WUWT readers in locating something that may be found in the pages of Popular Science.
The entire magazine content is available, including ads. One specific ad I’ve been looking for for years (and I’m hoping someone will find it here) is from the late 60’s to early 70’s. It is an ad for nuclear energy, sponsored I think, by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The ad has a picture of a lump of coal, and says something like “Nuclear Energy – the clean fuel” and it speaks of the pollution problems (and Co2 if I recall) associated with coal. If anyone finds it, please let me know, there’s an interesting historical backstory to it that I’ve been itching to write for years, but I have to have this ad as proof.
It may also be in other magazines of the era.
Also, maybe our readers can find some relevant things about climate in this newly available resource. If not, maybe somebody can tell me how many times we’ve been promised flying cars and basement nuclear reactors.
Link: Search the PopSci Archives
h/t to BoingBoing blog
Try searching on “ice age”
Used Google Books to select Popular Science. Then I searched all issues for “atomic energy commission coal”- got a number of hits, but none of the hit pages of the issues within your date range has the ad (I checked out Dec 63, Sep 69, Apr 73, Mar 74, Dec 77, Jun 79, and Sep 79.)
I’ve also checked all pages in the Jan 65 issue and the Sep 73 issue – no luck. (Why these two? Don’t ask).
I’m now going to search through all pages from Dec 69 thru Jan 69, then Jan 70 thru Dec 70. I’ll report back then.
Thanks to the link posted by “JLawson (04:03:48) : ” it is possible to browse the issues. I just browsed a couple, one from the mid-1950’s, and one from the mid-1960’s. I’m left wondering if this is likely to be where such an advert appeared. At least in those days, PopSci really wasn’t about science at all. It was about technology, and mostly consumer technology. Especially in the 1950’s, issue after issue was about “cars.” It also seemed to be very much a competitor to Popular Mechanics, with a lot of shop talk and DIY type articles. Very little, if any, pure science. And then the ads! In the mid 50’s, the issues were almost 300 pages long, with the first 100 pages devoted to advertisements. Then about 150 pages of articles, with the last 50 pages or so being more advertisements, mixed with the “continuing” portion of articles.
I’m left thinking that Scientific American might be a more likely place where the ad you are looking for appeared.
Futureman explaining 2010 to PopSci executives circa 1957: click
Would the backstory have something to do with Teller?
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=245789
Hey, take a look at this:
Changes at climate
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=zyUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=458&query=climate+temperature+years
Sorry Anthony,
My PhD is not in “Climate” (and I luurv you to death and all) but it IS in wind turbines, and they did build it:
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Mod-0_Wind_turbine.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mod-0_Wind_turbine.jpg&usg=__xHJohHktNrxhqj-Xpgw444dBNUI=&h=389&w=300&sz=53&hl=en&start=7&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=FIqAT3CeJ3vCIM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsingle%2Bblade%2Bwind%2Bturbine%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1
Flying cars will never be “readily available” on dealers forecourts. The technology exists, and there are several designs being tested now. The problem is that no developed country allows things that size and weight to be flown without being registered and operated by licensed pilots. The time and money needed even to get a basic daytime only VFR ticket will put this idea out of the reach of the vast majority of people. They will always be a compromise, and unless they have vertical take off/landing capability will still need suitable airfields to operate from.
Paul Z,
Thanks for the link to Patti Villacorta’s article in the American thinker. It’s well researched and gives a sobering idea of the behemoths we’re up against.
Well at least now we’ve got one more answer to the Big Oil jibe.
That’s Nuclear Power Agency, not commission.
Somebody was willing to pay money for the ad in 2003, but no success.
Google Answers: Nuclear Power Magazine Ad
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=245789
No coal, but found one with a lump of uranium promising a golden future:
http://depletedcranium.com/wp-content/uploads/uranium.jpg
From here:
http://depletedcranium.com/20-classic-atomic-energy-ads/
Also a simple 7-point program to obtain your nuclear reactor – let them know if you want a small water boiler reactor or a larger swimming pool reactor:
http://depletedcranium.com/wp-content/uploads/ge_reactor.jpg
I’m not certain what the backstory you want to write up is, but one of the best articles I’ve come across looking at radioactive isotopes in coal fly ash is at http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
One of my favorite factoids is that if nuclear plants released the same amount of radioactive material as do coal plants, the nuclear plants would be shutdown.
The article quantifies the difference, and it’s a lot bigger than I had guessed:
It also looks at the energy content in the Uranium and Thorium in coal ash and concludes (breeder reactors required) that there is more energy available in coal ash than was released by combustion.
Off to work, the way it should be: click
Librarian here.
Search engines don’t find ads. Ad pages are not included in the searchable fields.
The only way to do this is type in 1965 and scan every issue; then 1966 and scan every issue; then 1967 and scan every issue………………………..
I cannot remember the AEC (pre-DOE construct of civilian control of nuclear energy) saying anything at all about CO2 in the air and nuclear power. Never, but I don’t know anything.
I do know that Popular Science was the first place I read about nuclear reactor powered flying cars, that’s what inspired me to buy my first one. The one I have now gets pretty good mileage, too.
I’m flashing on the same theme but different images. Not a small lump of coal but a small, maybe, fuel rod element, juxtaposed with a snaking coal train. The message was that the small bit of atomic fuel had as much energy as the trainload of coal.
And, although I did read Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, in my mind’s eye, this was a larger format . . . Time or Life or Scientific American?
Time frame? I’m thinking mid to late ’60s.
Advertiser? Could have been General Electric or Westinghouse. Or one of the electric power industry associations — Edison Electric Institute or Electric Power Research Institute.
HTH.
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=WScDAAAAMBAJ&pg=25&query=polar
May 1937 – Russia’s Polar Empire
notables:
Wind Turbines for Electricity
Opening of the Arctic Passage for Ships with Ice Breakers
Coal Mining
Modified Foods
Aero Sleds (I think I want to build that!)
A Ship reaches 630miles from the Pole following a giant Crack in the Ice…OMG!
Not too much Climate but Is Interesting that in 1937 The rush to develop the Arctic was on, and now is in about the exact same state as it was.
While I have not found your nuclear industry ad, I would point out the October 1977 issue and the article “Our Changing Climate: Colder Winters Ahead”
I remember reading that at the time. The cover story, on the 8K Commodore PET computer is fun to read, too.
I found this article in Pop Science by Rachel Carson, (yes, the book author) in 1951:
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=diEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=256&query=is+it+getting+warmer
The article starts on page 114.
The July 1945 issue has a story titled “Carbon Dioxide… The Breath of Life” on page 200.
Popular Science-October 1977 Page 100
Our Changing Weather: Part 2
Are Colder Winters Ahead?
Could not find coal but found the following ad (links) that are selling the green angle on nuclear power:
http://oldmagazineads.blogspot.com/2007/07/1992-nuclear-energy-magazine-ad_29.html
(this title is 1992 but the side description says it is an original 1974 ad, text is to small to read)
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/fig12.gif
(this one is clipped so you are unable to read all the text or see if it is from the AEC but the source site attributes it to AEC ad campaign)
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/fig11.jpg
(this one you can read the text but the AEC emblem? if that is what it is, is hard to make out)
And from almost two years ago from WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/05/scavenger-hunt-find-the-lump-of-coal/
(part of the back story?)
Dodgy Geezer (01:06:28) :
Surely the best way to handle this is by central direction?
Our huge advantage over the warmists is that we have a large, skilled workforce willing to work for free. For doing this sort of work I suggest that someone sets up a long list of the Popular Science magazines which need looking into, divided up into work-sized chunks, so that volunteers can pick a chunk and cross it off the list.
As a start, to reduce the overlap of effort by parties, relate the back-issue search by individuals to their MOB (Month of Birth); those born in January look only at January etc … this by de facto reduces workload to 1/12
.
.
Are you sure it wasn’t National Geographic? I seem to remember a lot of those kind of ads in the magazine in the 50’s and 60’s.
January 1932, page 30
This discovery by Wright’s expedition proves ice masses are disappearing At left , poling a canoe through ice pack at the edge of the glacier GLACIERS …
The Muir Glacier in 1932 was “half its size 25 years ago”.
Interesting pre-AGW theory as to why the glaciers were melting.