The Association of Professional Futurists (APF) was founded in 2002 to validate the competencies of emerging futurists. As analysts, speakers, managers or consultants, APF's credentialed members cultivate strategic foresight for their organizations and clients. APF represents the professional side of the futures movement, while groups such as the World Futures Studies Federation, the World Future Society or The Millennium Project, represent its academic, popular, and activists expressions, respectively.
History
APF emerged as a network of practicing futurists who were utilizing futurology methods. As the field approached the year 2000, it began to renew old calls and issue new ones
to raise its internal standards in regards to ethics, competencies, and
quality of work. While few felt that futurists--an occupational
interest group at best--might become a full-fledged recognized
profession via certification, the nine members of APF's founding board, including Peter Bishop, Jennifer Jarratt, Andy Hines,
and Herb Rubenstein felt that foresight professionals should lead the
global discussion about professional futures practice, encourage the use
of futures and foresight in strategic decision making, and offer
services, resources and training for foresight professionals to advance
their skills and knowledge.
Instead of certifying members through coursework, professional futurists chose a pathway to credential
its members, based on a peer-review assessment of their competencies.
APF Professional Membership is conferred following a portfolio review to
those who can, at the minimum, document performance in two of seven
professional standards: consulting, organizational function,
postgraduate degree, certificate program, speaking, teaching or writing.
Full Members may use the appellation of APF after their name. Besides its Full Member program, APF also offers Provisional, Associate, and Student Memberships.
Programs & Publications
APF
Annual gatherings have been a key activity since its founding. The
first gathering was an "Applied Futures Summit" in Seattle in April
2002, at which founders agreed to establish the Association. The second
gathering was in Austin, TX, focused on "The Future of Futures,"
employing a scenario planning approach to explore the next decade of the field.
Each subsequent gathering has focused on a particular topic, such as
Design Thinking in Pasadena, CA, or the Future of Virtual Reality in Las
Vegas, NV, Global Health in Seattle, WA, Blockchain Futures in
Brisbane, Australia, or Resurgent City in Pittsburgh, PA.
APF hosts shorter "Pro Dev" workshops preceding larger
conferences, in addition to annual gatherings, such as its September
2019 workshop in Mexico City on the "Praxis of Professional Futurists."
As a digital learning platform, APF members also conduct various events
online, ranging from Twitterchats,
to webinars, to day-long learning festivals that address topics such as
the future of museums, the future of machine intelligence, diverse
futures, and design thinking. In 2020, APF began to host monthly
member-only "Foresight Friday" webinars to showcase outstanding work by
its professional members.
APF's flagship publication for members is its newsletter, published quarterly since 2003. The Compass
features recaps of APF events, articles on future trends, methodology
salons, book reviews, plus member news and promotions. Non-members may
view themed or conference editions.
Professionalism
Helping
raise professionalism of futurists has been a perennial pursuit of the
APF. In 2016, after three appointed studies over nine years, APF
released a Foresight Competency Model, a product of 23 members from 4
continents that mapped the personal, academic, workplace, and technical
competencies that futurists draw upon to support their work as
consulting, organizational or academic futurists.
The Foresight Competency Model addresses the basic question of
what one ought to be capable of doing as a professional futurist. At the
center of the model is a circle of six foresight competencies: Framing,
Scanning, Futuring, Designing, Visioning, and Adapting.
Six Foresight Competencies
Practice
Description
Framing
Defining the focal issue and current conditions
Scanning
Exploring signals of change and cross-impacts
Futuring
Identifying a baseline and alternative futures
Visioning
Developing and committing to a preferred future
Designing
Developing prototypes and artifacts to achieve goals
Adapting
Generating strategies for alternative futures
The Foresight Competency Model
also defined sector competencies for different types of foresight
professionals, such as consulting or organizational futurists, at the
entry, associate, and senior career level. The origins of the Foresight
Competency Model arose from previous taxonomies of futures research
methods that offered guidelines for carrying out successful strategic
foresight, developed over four decades.
Futurist Recognition
APF's
members annually select and recognize significant futures works. The
first awards were announced in 2008. The ten 'most significant futures
works' in 2008 included Peter Schwartz's The Art of the Long View, Wendell Bell's Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era, Bertrand de Jouvenel's L'Art de la Conjecture (The Art of Conjecture), and Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines.
APF also has an annual student recognition program in which
universities offering undergraduate, Masters and/or PhDs in foresight
and futures studies can submit up to three student works that the
instructor(s) considers being of exceptional quality in terms of
originality, content, and contribution to the field.
APF is led by an international board of 12 futurists from five
continents along with key volunteers. It is incorporated in the State of
Delaware and is formed as a 501(c)(6)
business league, with its headquarters in Washington, DC. It is
considered exempt by the IRS as it is not organized for profit. APF's
Twitter feed is @profuturists
Nanomaterials describe, in principle, materials of which a single unit small sized (in at least one dimension) between 1 and 100 nm (the usual definition of nanoscale).
Nanomaterials research takes a materials science-based approach to nanotechnology, leveraging advances in materials metrology and synthesis which have been developed in support of microfabrication
research. Materials with structure at the nanoscale often have unique
optical, electronic, thermo-physical or mechanical properties.
Nanomaterials are slowly becoming commercialized and beginning to emerge as commodities.
Definition
In ISO/TS 80004, nanomaterial
is defined as the "material with any external dimension in the
nanoscale or having internal structure or surface structure in the
nanoscale", with nanoscale defined as the "length range approximately from 1 nm to 100 nm". This includes both nano-objects, which are discrete pieces of material, and nanostructured materials, which have internal or surface structure on the nanoscale; a nanomaterial may be a member of both these categories.
On 18 October 2011, the European Commission
adopted the following definition of a nanomaterial: "A natural,
incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound
state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and for 50% or more of the
particles in the number size distribution, one or more external
dimensions is in the size range 1 nm – 100 nm. In specific cases and
where warranted by concerns for the environment, health, safety or
competitiveness the number size distribution threshold of 50% may be
replaced by a threshold between 1% to 50%."
Sources
Engineered
Engineered nanomaterials have been deliberately engineered and manufactured by humans to have certain required properties.
Legacy nanomaterials are those that were in commercial production
prior to the development of nanotechnology as incremental advancements
over other colloidal or particulate materials. They include carbon black and titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
Incidental
Nanomaterials
may be unintentionally produced as a byproduct of mechanical or
industrial processes through combustion and vaporization. Sources of
incidental nanoparticles include vehicle engine exhausts, smelting,
welding fumes, combustion processes from domestic solid fuel heating and
cooking. For instance, the class of nanomaterials called fullerenes are generated by burning gas, biomass, and candle. It can also be a byproduct of wear and corrosion products. Incidental atmospheric nanoparticles are often referred to as ultrafine particles, which are unintentionally produced during an intentional operation, and could contribute to air pollution.
Natural
Biological systems often feature natural, functional nanomaterials. The structure of foraminifera (mainly chalk) and viruses (protein, capsid), the wax crystals covering a lotus or nasturtium leaf, spider and spider-mite silk, the blue hue of tarantulas, the "spatulae" on the bottom of gecko feet, some butterfly wing scales, natural colloids (milk, blood), horny materials (skin, claws, beaks, feathers, horns, hair), paper, cotton, nacre, corals, and even our own bone matrix are all natural organic nanomaterials.
Natural inorganic nanomaterials occur through crystal growth in the diverse chemical conditions of the Earth's crust. For example, clays display complex nanostructures due to anisotropy of their underlying crystal structure, and volcanic activity can give rise to opals, which are an instance of a naturally occurring photonic crystals due to their nanoscale structure. Fires represent particularly complex reactions and can produce pigments, cement, fumed silica etc.
Natural sources of nanoparticles include combustion products
forest fires, volcanic ash, ocean spray, and the radioactive decay of radon gas. Natural nanomaterials can also be formed through weathering processes of metal- or anion-containing rocks, as well as at acid mine drainage sites.
"Lotus effect", hydrophobic effect with self-cleaning ability
Close-up of the underside of a gecko's foot as it walks on a glass wall (spatula: 200 × 10-15 nm)
SEM micrograph of a butterfly wing scale (× 5000)
Peacock feather (detail)
Brazilian Crystal Opal. The play of color is caused by the
interference and diffraction of light between silica spheres (150 -
300 nm in diameter).
Blue hue of a species of tarantula (450 nm ± 20 nm)
Types
Nano-objects are often categorized as to how many of their dimensions fall in the nanoscale. A nanoparticle
is defined a nano-object with all three external dimensions in the
nanoscale, whose longest and the shortest axes do not differ
significantly. A nanofiber has two external dimensions in the nanoscale, with nanotubes being hollow nanofibers and nanorods being solid nanofibers. A nanoplate/nanosheet has one external dimension in the nanoscale, and if the two larger dimensions are significantly different it is called a nanoribbon.
For nanofibers and nanoplates, the other dimensions may or may not be
in the nanoscale, but must be significantly larger. In all cases, a
significant difference is noted to typically be at least a factor of 3.
Nanostructured materials are often categorized by what phases of matter they contain. A nanocomposite
is a solid containing at least one physically or chemically distinct
region, or collection of regions, having at least one dimension in the
nanoscale.. A nanofoam has a liquid or solid matrix, filled with a gaseous phase, where one of the two phases has dimensions on the nanoscale. A nanoporous material is a solid material containing nanopores, voids in the form of open or closed pores of sub-micron lengthscales. A nanocrystalline material has a significant fraction of crystal grains in the nanoscale.
The term nanoporous materials contain subsets of microporous
and mesoporous materials. Microporous materials are porous materials
with a mean pore size smaller than 2nm, while mesoporous materials are
those with pores sizes in the region 2-50 nm.
Microporous materials exhibit pore sizes with comparable length-scale
to small molecules. For this reason such materials may serve valuable
applications including separation membranes. Mesoporous materials are
interesting towards applications that require high specific surface
areas, while enabling penetration for molecules that may be too large to
enter the pores of a microporous material. In some sources, nanoporous
materials and nanofoam are sometimes considered nanostructures but not
nanomaterials because only the voids and not the materials themselves
are nanoscale. Although the ISO definition only considers round nano-objects to be nanoparticles, other sources use the term nanoparticle for all shapes.
The fullerenes are a class of allotropes of carbon which conceptually are graphene sheets rolled into tubes or spheres. These include the carbon nanotubes (or silicon nanotubes) which are of interest both because of their mechanical strength and also because of their electrical properties.
For the past decade, the chemical and physical properties of
fullerenes have been a hot topic in the field of research and
development, and are likely to continue to be for a long time. In April
2003, fullerenes were under study for potential medicinal use: binding specific antibiotics to the structure of resistant bacteria and even target certain types of cancer cells such as melanoma. The October 2005 issue of Chemistry and Biology contains an article describing the use of fullerenes as light-activated antimicrobial agents. In the field of nanotechnology, heat resistance and superconductivity are among the
properties attracting intense research.
A common method used to produce fullerenes is to send a large
current between two nearby graphite electrodes in an inert atmosphere.
The resulting carbonplasma arc between the electrodes cools into sooty residue from which many fullerenes can be isolated.
There are many calculations that have been done using ab-initio Quantum Methods applied to fullerenes. By DFT and TDDFT methods one can obtain IR, Raman and UV spectra. Results of such calculations can be compared with experimental results.
Metal-based nanoparticles
Inorganic nanomaterials, (e.g. quantum dots, nanowires and nanorods) because of their interesting optical and electrical properties, could be used in optoelectronics.
Furthermore, the optical and electronic properties of nanomaterials
which depend on their size and shape can be tuned via synthetic
techniques. There are the possibilities to use those materials in
organic material based optoelectronic devices such as Organic solar cells, OLEDs etc. The operating principles of such devices are governed by photoinduced processes like electron transfer
and energy transfer. The performance of the devices depends on the
efficiency of the photoinduced process responsible for their
functioning. Therefore, better understanding of those photoinduced
processes in organic/inorganic nanomaterial composite systems is
necessary in order to use them in optoelectronic devices.
Nanoparticles are of great scientific interest as they are effectively a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular
structures. A bulk material should have constant physical properties
regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is often not the
case. Size-dependent properties are observed such as quantum confinement in semiconductor particles, surface plasmon resonance in some metal particles and superparamagnetism in magnetic materials.
Nanoparticles exhibit a number of special properties relative to bulk material. For example, the bending of bulk copper (wire, ribbon, etc.) occurs with movement of copper atoms/clusters at about the 50 nm scale. Copper nanoparticles smaller than 50 nm are considered super hard materials that do not exhibit the same malleability and ductility
as bulk copper. The change in properties is not always desirable.
Ferroelectric materials smaller than 10 nm can switch their polarization
direction using room temperature thermal energy, thus making them
useless for memory storage. Suspensions of nanoparticles are possible because the interaction of the particle surface with the solvent is strong enough to overcome differences in density,
which usually result in a material either sinking or floating in a
liquid. Nanoparticles often have unexpected visual properties because
they are small enough to confine their electrons and produce quantum
effects. For example, gold nanoparticles appear deep red to black in solution.
The often very high surface area to volume ratio of nanoparticles provides a tremendous driving force for diffusion, especially at elevated temperatures. Sintering
is possible at lower temperatures and over shorter durations than for
larger particles. This theoretically does not affect the density of the
final product, though flow difficulties and the tendency of
nanoparticles to agglomerate do complicate matters. The surface effects
of nanoparticles also reduces the incipient melting temperature.
One-dimensional nanostructures
The
smallest possible crystalline wires with cross-section as small as a
single atom can be engineered in cylindrical confinement. Carbon nanotubes,
a natural semi-1D nanostructure, can be used as a template for
synthesis. Confinement provides mechanical stabilization and prevents
linear atomic chains from disintegration; other structures of 1D nanowires are predicted to be mechanically stable even upon isolation from the templates.
Two-dimensional nanostructures
2D materials are crystalline materials consisting of a two-dimensional single layer of atoms. The most important representative graphene was discovered in 2004.
Thin films
with nanoscale thicknesses are considered nanostructures, but are
sometimes not considered nanomaterials because they do not exist
separately from the substrate.
Box-shaped graphene (BSG) nanostructure is an example of 3D nanomaterial. BSG nanostructure has appeared after mechanical cleavage of pyrolytic graphite.
This nanostructure is a multilayer system of parallel hollow
nanochannels located along the surface and having quadrangular
cross-section. The thickness of the channel walls is approximately equal
to 1 nm. The typical width of channel facets makes about 25 nm.
Nano materials are used in a variety of, manufacturing processes,
products and healthcare including paints, filters, insulation and
lubricant additives. In healthcare Nanozymes are nanomaterials with enzyme-like characteristics. They are an emerging type of artificial enzyme, which have been used for wide applications in such as biosensing, bioimaging, tumor diagnosis,
antibiofouling and more. High quality filters may be produced using
nanostructures, these filters are capable of removing particulate as
small as a virus as seen in a water filter created by Seldon
Technologies. Nanomaterials membrane bioreactor (NMs-MBR), the next
generation of conventional MBR, are recently proposed for the advanced treatment of wastewater. In the air purification field, nano technology was used to combat the spread of MERS in Saudi Arabian hospitals in 2012.
Nanomaterials are being used in modern and human-safe insulation
technologies, in the past they were found in Asbestos-based insulation.
As a lubricant additive, nano materials have the ability to reduce
friction in moving parts. Worn and corroded parts can also be repaired
with self-assembling anisotropic nanoparticles called TriboTEX. Nanomaterials have also been applied in a range of industries and
consumer products. Mineral nanoparticles such as titanium-oxide have
been used to improve UV protection in sunscreen. In the sports industry,
lighter bats to have been produced with carbon nanotubes to improve
performance. Another application is in the military, where mobile
pigment nanoparticles have been used to create more effective
camouflage. Nanomaterials can also be used in three-way-catalyst (TWC)
applications. TWC converters have the advantage of controlling the
emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are precursors to acid rain and
smog.
In core-shell structure, nanomaterials form shell as the catalyst
support to protect the noble metals such as palladium and rhodium.
The primary function is that the supports can be used for carrying
catalysts active components, making them highly dispersed, reducing the
use of noble metals, enhancing catalysts activity, and improving the
mechanical strength.
Synthesis
The
goal of any synthetic method for nanomaterials is to yield a material
that exhibits properties that are a result of their characteristic
length scale being in the nanometer range (1 – 100 nm). Accordingly,
the synthetic method should exhibit control of size in this range so
that one property or another can be attained. Often the methods are
divided into two main types, "bottom up" and "top down".
Bottom up methods
Bottom
up methods involve the assembly of atoms or molecules into
nanostructured arrays. In these methods the raw material sources can be
in the form of gases, liquids or solids. The latter require some sort
of disassembly prior to their incorporation onto a nanostructure. Bottom
up methods generally fall into two categories: chaotic and controlled.
Chaotic processes involve elevating the constituent atoms or
molecules to a chaotic state and then suddenly changing the conditions
so as to make that state unstable. Through the clever manipulation of
any number of parameters, products form largely as a result of the
insuring kinetics. The collapse from the chaotic state can be difficult
or impossible to control and so ensemble statistics often govern the
resulting size distribution and average size. Accordingly, nanoparticle
formation is controlled through manipulation of the end state of the
products. Examples of chaotic processes are laser ablation, exploding wire, arc, flame pyrolysis, combustion, and precipitation synthesis techniques.
Controlled processes involve the controlled delivery of the
constituent atoms or molecules to the site(s) of nanoparticle formation
such that the nanoparticle can grow to a prescribed sizes in a
controlled manner. Generally the state of the constituent atoms or
molecules are never far from that needed for nanoparticle formation.
Accordingly, nanoparticle formation is controlled through the control of
the state of the reactants. Examples of controlled processes are
self-limiting growth solution, self-limited chemical vapor deposition, shaped pulse femtosecond laser techniques, and molecular beam epitaxy.
Top down methods
Top
down methods adopt some 'force' (e. g. mechanical force, laser) to
break bulk materials into nanoparticles. A popular method involves
mechanical break apart bulk materials into nanomaterials is 'ball
milling'. Besides, nanoparticles can also be made by laser ablation
which apply short pulse lasers (e. g. femtosecond laser) to ablate a
target (solid).
Novel effects can occur in materials when structures are formed with sizes comparable to any one of many possible length scales, such as the de Broglie wavelength of electrons, or the optical wavelengths of high energy photons. In these cases quantum mechanical effects can dominate material properties. One example is quantum confinement
where the electronic properties of solids are altered with great
reductions in particle size. The optical properties of nanoparticles,
e.g. fluorescence,
also become a function of the particle diameter. This effect does not
come into play by going from macrosocopic to micrometer dimensions, but
becomes pronounced when the nanometer scale is reached.
In addition to optical and electronic properties, the novel mechanical properties of many nanomaterials is the subject of nanomechanics
research. When added to a bulk material, nanoparticles can strongly
influence the mechanical properties of the material, such as the
stiffness or elasticity. For example, traditional polymers can be reinforced by nanoparticles (such as carbon nanotubes) resulting in novel materials which can be used as lightweight replacements for metals. Such composite materials may enable a weight reduction accompanied by an increase in stability and improved functionality.
Finally, nanostructured materials with small particle size such as zeolites, and asbestos, are used as catalysts
in a wide range of critical industrial chemical reactions. The further
development of such catalysts can form the basis of more efficient,
environmentally friendly chemical processes.
The first observations and size measurements of nano-particles
were made during the first decade of the 20th century. Zsigmondy made
detailed studies of gold sols and other nanomaterials with sizes down to
10 nm and less. He published a book in 1914. He used an ultramicroscope that employs a dark field method for seeing particles with sizes much less than lightwavelength.
There are traditional techniques developed during the 20th century in interface and colloid science for characterizing nanomaterials. These are widely used for first generation passive nanomaterials specified in the next section.
These methods include several different techniques for characterizing particle size distribution.
This characterization is imperative because many materials that are
expected to be nano-sized are actually aggregated in solutions. Some of
methods are based on light scattering. Others apply ultrasound, such as ultrasound attenuation spectroscopy for testing concentrated nano-dispersions and microemulsions.
The
chemical processing and synthesis of high performance technological
components for the private, industrial and military sectors requires the
use of high purity ceramics, polymers, glass-ceramics and material composites. In condensed bodies formed from fine powders, the irregular sizes and shapes of nanoparticles
in a typical powder often lead to non-uniform packing morphologies that
result in packing density variations in the powder compact.
Uncontrolled agglomeration of powders due to attractivevan der Waals forces
can also give rise to in microstructural inhomogeneities. Differential
stresses that develop as a result of non-uniform drying shrinkage are
directly related to the rate at which the solvent can be removed, and thus highly dependent upon the distribution of porosity. Such stresses have been associated with a plastic-to-brittle transition in consolidated bodies, and can yield to crack propagation in the unfired body if not relieved.
In addition, any fluctuations in packing density in the compact as it is prepared for the kiln are often amplified during the sintering process, yielding inhomogeneous densification. Some pores and other structural defects
associated with density variations have been shown to play a
detrimental role in the sintering process by growing and thus limiting
end-point densities. Differential stresses arising from inhomogeneous
densification have also been shown to result in the propagation of
internal cracks, thus becoming the strength-controlling flaws.
It would therefore appear desirable to process a material in such
a way that it is physically uniform with regard to the distribution of
components and porosity, rather than using particle size distributions
which will maximize the green density. The containment of a uniformly
dispersed assembly of strongly interacting particles in suspension
requires total control over particle-particle interactions. A number of
dispersants such as ammonium citrate (aqueous) and imidazoline or oleyl alcohol (nonaqueous) are promising solutions as possible additives for enhanced dispersion and deagglomeration. Monodisperse nanoparticles and colloids provide this potential.
Monodisperse powders of colloidal silica, for example, may therefore be stabilized sufficiently to ensure a high degree of order in the colloidal crystal or polycrystalline
colloidal solid which results from aggregation. The degree of order
appears to be limited by the time and space allowed for longer-range
correlations to be established. Such defective polycrystalline colloidal
structures would appear to be the basic elements of sub-micrometer
colloidal materials science, and, therefore, provide the first step in
developing a more rigorous understanding of the mechanisms involved in
microstructural evolution in high performance materials and components.
Nanomaterials in articles, patents, and products
The
quantitative analysis of nanomaterials showed that nanoparticles,
nanotubes, nanocrystalline materials, nanocomposites, and graphene have
been mentioned in 400000, 181000, 144000, 140000, and 119000 ISI-indexed
articles, respectively, by Sep 2018. As far as patents are concerned,
nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanocomposites, graphene, and nanowires have
been played a role in 45600, 32100, 12700, 12500, and 11800 patents,
respectively. Monitoring approximately 7000 commercial nano-based
products available on global markets revealed that the properties of
around 2330 products have been enabled or enhanced aided by
nanoparticles. Liposomes, nanofibers, nanocolloids, and aerogels were
also of the most common nanomaterials in consumer products.
The
World Health Organization (WHO) published a guideline on protecting
workers from potential risk of manufactured nanomaterials at the end of
2017.
WHO used a precautionary approach as one of its guiding principles.
This means that exposure has to be reduced, despite uncertainty about
the adverse health effects, when there are reasonable indications to do
so. This is highlighted by recent scientific studies that demonstrate a
capability of nanoparticles to cross cell barriers and interact with cellular structures.
In addition, the hierarchy of controls was an important guiding
principle. This means that when there is a choice between control
measures, those measures that are closer to the root of the problem
should always be preferred over measures that put a greater burden on
workers, such as the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). WHO
commissioned systematic reviews for all important issues to assess the
current state of the science and to inform the recommendations according
to the process set out in the WHO Handbook for guideline development.
The recommendations were rated as "strong" or "conditional" depending on
the quality of the scientific evidence, values and preferences, and
costs related to the recommendation.
The WHO guidelines contain the following recommendations for safe handling of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs)
A. Assess health hazards of MNMs
WHO recommends assigning hazard classes to all MNMs according to
the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals for use in safety data sheets. For a limited number of MNMs
this information is made available in the guidelines (strong
recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
WHO recommends updating safety data sheets with MNM-specific hazard
information or indicating which toxicological end-points did not have
adequate testing available (strong recommendation, moderate-quality
evidence).
For the respirable fibres and granular biopersistent particles'
groups, the GDG suggests using the available classification of MNMs for
provisional classification of nanomaterials of the same group
(conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).
B. Assess exposure to MNMs
WHO suggests assessing workers' exposure in workplaces with
methods similar to those used for the proposed specific occupational
exposure limit (OEL) value of the MNM (conditional recommendation,
low-quality evidence).
Because there are no specific regulatory OEL values for MNMs in
workplaces, WHO suggests assessing whether workplace exposure exceeds a
proposed OEL value for the MNM. A list of proposed OEL values is
provided in an annex of the guidelines. The chosen OEL should be at
least as protective as a legally mandated OEL for the bulk form of the
material (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).
If specific OELs for MNMs are not available in workplaces, WHO
suggests a step-wise approach for inhalation exposure with, first an
assessment of the potential for exposure; second, conducting basic
exposure assessment and third, conducting a comprehensive exposure
assessment such as those proposed by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) or Comité Européen de Normalisation
(the European Committee for Standardization, CEN) (conditional
recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
For dermal exposure assessment, WHO found that there was
insufficient evidence to recommend one method of dermal exposure
assessment over another.
C. Control exposure to MNMs
Based on a precautionary approach, WHO recommends focusing
control of exposure on preventing inhalation exposure with the aim of
reducing it as much as possible (strong recommendation, moderate-quality
evidence).
WHO recommends reduction of exposures to a range of MNMs that have
been consistently measured in workplaces especially during cleaning and
maintenance, collecting material from reaction vessels and feeding MNMs
into the production process. In the absence of toxicological
information, WHO recommends implementing the highest level of controls
to prevent workers from any exposure. When more information is
available, WHO recommends taking a more tailored approach (strong
recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
WHO recommends taking control measures based on the principle of
hierarchy of controls, meaning that the first control measure should be
to eliminate the source of exposure before implementing control measures
that are more dependent on worker involvement, with PPE being used only
as a last resort. According to this principle, engineering controls
should be used when there is a high level of inhalation exposure or when
there is no, or very little, toxicological information available. In
the absence of appropriate engineering controls PPE should be used,
especially respiratory protection, as part of a respiratory protection
programme that includes fit-testing (strong recommendation,
moderate-quality evidence).
WHO suggests preventing dermal exposure by occupational hygiene
measures such as surface cleaning, and the use of appropriate gloves
(conditional recommendation, low quality evidence).
When assessment and measurement by a workplace safety expert is not
available, WHO suggests using control banding for nanomaterials to
select exposure control measures in the workplace. Owing to a lack of
studies, WHO cannot recommend one method of control banding over another
(conditional recommendation, very low-quality evidence).
For health surveillance WHO could not make a recommendation for
targeted MNM-specific health surveillance programmes over existing
health surveillance programmes that are already in use owing to the lack
of evidence. WHO considers training of workers and worker involvement
in health and safety issues to be best practice but could not recommend
one form of training of workers over another, or one form of worker
involvement over another, owing to the lack of studies available. It is
expected that there will be considerable progress in validated
measurement methods and risk assessment and WHO expects to update these
guidelines in five years' time, in 2022.
Other guidance
Because
nanotechnology is a recent development, the health and safety effects
of exposures to nanomaterials, and what levels of exposure may be
acceptable, are subjects of ongoing research. Of the possible hazards, inhalation exposure appears to present the most concern. Animal studies indicate that carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers can cause pulmonary effects including inflammation, granulomas, and pulmonary fibrosis, which were of similar or greater potency when compared with other known fibrogenic materials such as silica, asbestos, and ultrafine carbon black.
Acute inhalation exposure of healthy animals to biodegradable
inorganic nanomaterials have not demonstrated significant toxicity
effects.
Although the extent to which animal data may predict clinically
significant lung effects in workers is not known, the toxicity seen in
the short-term animal studies indicate a need for protective action for
workers exposed to these nanomaterials, although no reports of actual
adverse health effects in workers using or producing these nanomaterials
were known as of 2013. Additional concerns include skin contact and ingestion exposure, and dust explosion hazards.
Elimination and substitution are the most desirable approaches to hazard control. While the nanomaterials themselves often cannot be eliminated or substituted with conventional materials, it may be possible to choose properties of the nanoparticle such as size, shape, functionalization, surface charge, solubility, agglomeration, and aggregation state to improve their toxicological properties while retaining the desired functionality. Handling procedures can also be improved, for example, using a nanomaterial slurry or suspension in a liquid solvent instead of a dry powder will reduce dust exposure. Engineering controls are physical changes to the workplace that isolate workers from hazards, mainly ventilation systems such as fume hoods, gloveboxes, biosafety cabinets, and vented balance enclosures. Administrative controls are changes to workers' behavior to mitigate a hazard, including training on best practices
for safe handling, storage, and disposal of nanomaterials, proper
awareness of hazards through labeling and warning signage, and
encouraging a general safety culture. Personal protective equipment must be worn on the worker's body and is the least desirable option for controlling hazards.
Personal protective equipment normally used for typical chemicals are
also appropriate for nanomaterials, including long pants, long-sleeve
shirts, and closed-toed shoes, and the use of safety gloves, goggles, and impervious laboratory coats. In some circumstances respirators may be used.
Area 51 is the common name of a highly classified United States Air Force (USAF) facility located within the Nevada Test and Training Range. A remote detachment administered by Edwards Air Force Base, the facility is officially called Homey Airport (XTA/KXTA) or Groom Lake (after the salt flat
situated next to its airfield). Details of the facility's operations
are not made public, but the USAF says that it is an open training
range, and it is commonly thought to support the development and testing of experimental aircraft and weapons systems. The USAF acquired the site in 1955, primarily for flight testing the Lockheed U-2 aircraft.
The intense secrecy surrounding the base has made it the frequent subject of conspiracy theories and a central component of unidentified flying object (UFO) folklore. The base has never been declared a secret base, but all research and occurrences in Area 51 are Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). The CIA publicly acknowledged the existence of the base for the first time on June 25, 2013, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in 2005, and, at the same time, they declassified documents detailing the history and purpose of Area 51.
Area 51 is located in the southern portion of Nevada, 83 miles (134 km) north-northwest of Las Vegas. The surrounding area is a popular tourist destination, including the small town of Rachel on the "Extraterrestrial Highway".
The original rectangular base of 6 by 10 miles (9.7 by 16.1 km) is
now part of the so-called "Groom box", a rectangular area measuring 23
by 25 miles (37 by 40 km), of restricted airspace. The area is connected
to the internal Nevada Test Site (NTS) road network, with paved roads leading south to Mercury and west to Yucca Flat.
Leading northeast from the lake, the wide and well-maintained Groom
Lake Road runs through a pass in the Jumbled Hills. The road formerly
led to mines in the Groom basin but has been improved since their
closure. Its winding course runs past a security checkpoint, but the
restricted area around the base extends farther east. After leaving the
restricted area, Groom Lake Road descends eastward to the floor of the Tikaboo Valley, passing the dirt-road entrances to several small ranches, before converging with State Route 375, the "Extraterrestrial Highway", south of Rachel.
Groom Lake is a salt flat in Nevada used for runways of the Nellis Bombing Range Test Site airport (XTA/KXTA) on the north of the Area 51 USAF military installation. The lake at 4,409 ft (1,344 m)
elevation is approximately 3.7 miles (6.0 km) from north to south and 3
miles (4.8 km) from east to west at its widest point. Located within
the namesake Groom Lake Valley portion of the Tonopah Basin, the lake is 25 mi (40 km) south of Rachel, Nevada.
History
Nevada Test Range topographic chart centered on Groom Lake
The origin of the name "Area 51" is unclear. It is believed to be from an Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) numbering grid, although Area 51 is not part of this system; it
is adjacent to Area 15. Another explanation is that 51 was used because
it was unlikely that the AEC would use the number. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the correct names for the facility are Homey Airport (XTA/KXTA) and Groom Lake, though the name Area 51 was used in a CIA document from the Vietnam War. The facility has also been referred to as Dreamland and Paradise Ranch,
among other nicknames. The USAF public relations has referred to the
facility as "an operating location near Groom Dry Lake". The special use airspace around the field is referred to as Restricted Area 4808 North (R-4808N).
Lead and silver were discovered in the southern part of the Groom Range in 1864, and the English company Groome Lead Mines Limited financed the Conception Mines in the 1870s, giving the district its name (nearby mines included Maria, Willow, and White Lake). J. B. Osborne and partners acquired the controlling interest in Groom in 1876, and Osbourne's son acquired it in the 1890s. Mining continued until 1918, then resumed after World War II until the early 1950s.
The airfield on the Groom Lake site began service in 1942 as Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field and consisted of two unpaved 5,000-foot (1,524 m) runways.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established the Groom Lake test facility in April 1955 for Project AQUATONE: the development of the Lockheed U-2 strategic reconnaissance aircraft. Project director Richard M. Bissell Jr. understood that the flight test and pilot training programs could not be conducted at Edwards Air Force Base
or Lockheed's Palmdale facility, given the extreme secrecy surrounding
the project. He conducted a search for a suitable testing site for the
U-2 under the same extreme security as the rest of the project. He notified Lockheed, who sent an inspection team out to Groom Lake. According to Lockheed's U-2 designer Kelly Johnson:
We flew over it and within thirty seconds, you knew that was the place...
it was right by a dry lake. Man alive, we looked at that lake, and we
all looked at each other. It was another Edwards, so we wheeled around,
landed on that lake, taxied up to one end of it. It was a perfect
natural landing field... as smooth as a billiard table without anything being done to it.
The lake bed made an ideal strip for testing aircraft, and the
Emigrant Valley's mountain ranges and the NTS perimeter protected the
site from visitors; it was about 100 mi (160 km) north of Las Vegas. The CIA asked the AEC to acquire the land, designated "Area 51" on the map, and to add it to the Nevada Test Site.
Johnson named the area "Paradise Ranch" to encourage workers to
move to "the new facility in the middle of nowhere", as the CIA later
described it, and the name became shortened to "the Ranch". On 4May
1955, a survey team arrived at Groom Lake and laid out a 5,000-foot
(1,500 m) north–south runway on the southwest corner of the lakebed and
designated a site for a base support facility. The Ranch initially
consisted of little more than a few shelters, workshops, and trailer
homes in which to house its small team.
A little over three months later, the base consisted of a single paved
runway, three hangars, a control tower, and rudimentary accommodations
for test personnel. The base's few amenities included a movie theater
and volleyball court. There was also a mess hall, several wells, and
fuel storage tanks. CIA, Air Force, and Lockheed personnel began
arriving by July 1955. The Ranch received its first U-2 delivery on 24
July 1955 from Burbank on a C-124 Globemaster II cargo plane, accompanied by Lockheed technicians on a Douglas DC-3. Regular Military Air Transport Service flights were set up between Area 51 and Lockheed's offices in Burbank, California. To preserve secrecy, personnel flew to Nevada on Monday mornings and returned to California on Friday evenings.
OXCART program
For testing of a similar aircraft in December 1964, see SR-71 Blackbird.
A 1966 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) diagram of Area 51, found in an untitled, declassified paper, showing the runway overrun for OXCART (Lockheed A-12) and the turnaround areas (CIA / CREST RDP90b00184r000100040001-4)
Project OXCART was established in August 1959 for "antiradar studies,
aerodynamic structural tests, and engineering designs" and all later
work on the Lockheed A-12.
This included testing at Groom Lake, which had inadequate facilities
consisting of buildings for only 150 people, a 5,000 ft (1,500 m)
asphalt runway, and limited fuel, hangar, and shop space. Groom Lake had received the name "Area 51"
when A-12 test facility construction began in September 1960, including
a new 8,500 ft (2,600 m) runway to replace the existing runway.
Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company (REECo) began construction of "Project 51" on 1October
1960 with double-shift construction schedules. The contractor upgraded
base facilities and built a new 10,000 ft (3,000 m) runway (14/32)
diagonally across the southwest corner of the lakebed. They marked an Archimedean spiral
on the dry lake approximately two miles across so that an A-12 pilot
approaching the end of the overrun could abort instead of plunging into
the sagebrush. Area 51 pilots called it "The Hook". For crosswind
landings, they marked two unpaved airstrips (runways 9/27 and 03/21) on
the dry lakebed.
By August 1961, construction of the essential facilities was
complete; three surplus Navy hangars were erected on the base's north
side while hangar7 was new construction. The original U-2 hangars were converted to maintenance and machine shops. Facilities in the main cantonment
area included workshops and buildings for storage and administration, a
commissary, a control tower, a fire station, and housing. The Navy also
contributed more than 130 surplus Babbitt duplex housing units for
long-term occupancy facilities. Older buildings were repaired, and
additional facilities were constructed as necessary. A reservoir pond
surrounded by trees served as a recreational area one mile north of the
base. Other recreational facilities included a gymnasium, a movie
theater, and a baseball diamond. A permanent aircraft fuel tank farm was constructed by early 1962 for the special JP-7 fuel required by the A-12. Seven tanks were constructed, with a total capacity of 1,320,000 gallons.
An A-12 (60-6924) takes off from Groom Lake during one of the first test flights, piloted by Louis Schalk, 26 April 1962.
Security was enhanced for the arrival of OXCART and the small mine
was closed in the Groom basin. In January 1962, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) expanded the restricted airspace in the vicinity of
Groom Lake, and the lakebed became the center of a 600-square mile
addition to restricted area R-4808N. The CIA facility received eight USAF F-101 Voodoos for training, two T-33 Shooting Star trainers for proficiency flying, a C-130 Hercules for cargo transport, a U-3A for administrative purposes, a helicopter for search and rescue, and a Cessna 180 for liaison use, and Lockheed provided an F-104 Starfighter for use as a chase plane.
The first A-12 test aircraft was covertly trucked from Burbank on 26 February 1962 and arrived at Groom Lake on 28 February. It made its first flight 26 April 1962 when the base had over 1,000 personnel. The closed airspace above Groom Lake was within the Nellis Air Force Range airspace, and pilots saw the A-12 20 to 30 times. Groom was also the site of the first Lockheed D-21 drone test flight on 22 December 1964. By the end of 1963, nine A-12s were at Area 51, assigned to the CIA-operated "1129th Special Activities Squadron".
The D-21 mounted on the back of the M-21. Note the intake cover on the drone, which was used on early flights.
Following the loss of Gary Powers' U-2
over the Soviet Union, there were several discussions about using the
A-12 OXCART as an unpiloted drone aircraft. Although Kelly Johnson had
come to support the idea of drone reconnaissance, he opposed the
development of an A-12 drone, contending that the aircraft was too large
and complex for such a conversion. However, the Air Force agreed to
fund the study of a high-speed, high-altitude drone aircraft in October
1962. The Air Force interest seems to have moved the CIA to take action,
the project designated "Q-12". By October 1963, the drone's design had
been finalized. At the same time, the Q-12 underwent a name change. To
separate it from the other A-12-based projects, it was renamed the
"D-21". (The "12" was reversed to "21"). "Tagboard" was the project's
code name.
The first D-21 was completed in the spring of 1964 by Lockheed.
After four more months of checkouts and static tests, the aircraft was
shipped to Groom Lake and reassembled. It was to be carried by a
two-seat derivative of the A-12, designated the "M-21". When the
D-21/M-21 reached the launch point, the first step would be to blow off
the D-21's inlet and exhaust covers. With the D-21/M-21 at the correct
speed and altitude, the LCO would start the ramjet and the other systems
of the D-21. "With the D-21's systems activated and running, and the
launch aircraft at the correct point, the M-21 would begin a slight
pushover, the LCO would push a final button, and the D-21 would come off
the pylon".
Difficulties were addressed throughout 1964 and 1965 at Groom
Lake with various technical issues. Captive flights showed unforeseen
aerodynamic difficulties. By late January 1966, more than a year after
the first captive flight, everything seemed ready. The first D-21 launch
was made on 5March 1966 with a successful
flight, with the D-21 flying 120 miles with limited fuel. A second D-21
flight was successful in April 1966 with the drone flying 1,200 miles,
reaching Mach 3.3 and 90,000 feet. An accident on 30 July 1966 with a
fully fueled D-21, on a planned checkout flight, suffered from an unstart
of the drone after its separation, causing it to collide with the M-21
launch aircraft. The two crewmen ejected and landed in the ocean 150
miles offshore. One crew member was picked up by a helicopter, but the
other, having survived the aircraft breakup and ejection, drowned when
sea water entered his pressure suit. Kelly Johnson personally cancelled
the entire program, having had serious doubts from the start of the
feasibility. A number of D-21s had already been produced, and rather
than scrapping the whole effort, Johnson again proposed to the Air Force
that they be launched from a B-52H bomber.
By late summer of 1967, the modification work to both the D-21
(now designated D-21B) and the B-52Hs was complete. The test program
could now resume. The test missions were flown out of Groom Lake, with
the actual launches over the Pacific. The first D-21B to be flown was
Article 501, the prototype. The first attempt was made on 28 September
1967 and ended in complete failure. As the B-52 was flying toward the
launch point, the D-21B fell off the pylon. The B-52H gave a sharp lurch
as the drone fell free. The booster fired and was "quite a sight from
the ground". The failure was traced to a stripped nut on the forward
right attachment point on the pylon. Several more tests were made, none
of which met with success. However, the fact is that the resumptions of
D-21 tests took place against a changing reconnaissance background. The
A-12 had finally been allowed to deploy, and the SR-71
was soon to replace it. At the same time, new developments in
reconnaissance satellite technology were nearing operation. Up to this
point, the limited number of satellites available restricted coverage to
the Soviet Union. A new generation of reconnaissance satellites could
soon cover targets anywhere in the world. The satellites' resolution
would be comparable to that of aircraft but without the slightest
political risk. Time was running out for the Tagboard.
Several more test flights, including two over China, were made from Beale AFB,
California, in 1969 and 1970, to varying degrees of success. On 15 July
1971, Kelly Johnson received a wire canceling the D-21B program. The
remaining drones were transferred by a C-5A and placed in dead storage.
The tooling used to build the D-21Bs was ordered destroyed. Like the
A-12 Oxcart, the D-21B Tagboard drones remained a Black airplane, even
in retirement. Their existence was not suspected until August 1976, when
the first group was placed in storage at the Davis-Monthan AFBMilitary Storage and Disposition Center. A second group arrived in 1977. They were labeled "GTD-21Bs" (GT stood for ground training).
Davis-Monthan is an open base, with public tours of the storage
area at the time, so the odd-looking drones were soon spotted and photos
began appearing in magazines. Speculation about the D-21Bs circulated
within aviation circles for years, and it was not until 1982 that
details of the Tagboard program were released. However, it was not until
1993 that the B-52/D-21B program was made public. That same year, the
surviving D-21Bs were released to museums.
During the Cold War, one of the missions carried out by the United States was the test and evaluation of captured Soviet
fighter aircraft. Beginning in the late 1960s, and for several decades,
Area 51 played host to an assortment of Soviet-built aircraft. Under
the HAVE DOUGHNUT, HAVE DRILL
and HAVE FERRY programs, the first MiGs flown in the United States were
used to evaluate the aircraft in performance, technical, and
operational capabilities, pitting the types against U.S. fighters.
This was not a new mission, as testing of foreign technology by
the USAF began during World War II. After the war, testing of acquired
foreign technology was performed by the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC, which became very influential during the Korean War),
under the direct command of the Air Materiel Control Department. In
1961, ATIC became the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) and was
reassigned to Air Force Systems Command. ATIC personnel were sent anywhere where foreign aircraft could be found.
In August 1966, Iraqi Air Force fighter pilot Captain Munir Redfadefected, flying his MiG-21 to Israel
after being ordered to attack Iraqi Kurd villages with napalm. His
aircraft was transferred to Groom Lake in late 1967 for study. In 1968,
the US Air Force and Navy jointly formed a project known as HAVE DOUGHNUT
in which Air Force Systems Command, Tactical Air Command, and the U.S.
Navy's Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Four (VX-4) flew this acquired
Soviet made aircraft in simulated air combat training.
Because U.S. possession of the Soviet MiG-21 was, itself, secret, it
was tested at Groom Lake. A joint Air Force-Navy team was assembled for a
series of dogfight tests.
HAVE FERRY, the second of two MiG-17F "Fresco"s loaned to the United States by Israel in 1969
Comparisons between the F-4 and the MiG-21 indicated that, on the
surface, they were evenly matched. The HAVE DOUGHNUT tests showed the
skill of the man in the cockpit was what made the difference. When the
Navy or Air Force pilots flew the MiG-21, the results were a draw; the
F-4 would win some fights, the MiG-21 would win others. There were no
clear advantages. The problem was not with the planes, but with the
pilots flying them. The pilots would not fly either plane to its limits.
One of the Navy pilots was Marland W. "Doc" Townsend, then commander of
VF-121, the F-4 training squadron at NAS Miramar.
He was an engineer and a Korean War veteran and had flown almost every
navy aircraft. When he flew against the MiG-21, he would outmaneuver it
every time. The Air Force pilots would not go vertical in the MiG-21.
The HAVE DOUGHNUT project officer was Tom Cassidy, a pilot with VX-4, the Navy's Air Development Squadron at Point Mugu.
He had been watching as Townsend "waxed" the Air Force MiG-21 pilots.
Cassidy climbed into the MiG-21 and went up against Townsend's F-4. This
time the result was far different. Cassidy was willing to fight in the
vertical, flying the plane to the point where it was buffeting, just
above the stall. Cassidy was able to get on the F-4's tail. After the
flight, they realized the MiG-21 turned better than the F-4 at lower
speeds. The key was for the F-4 to keep its speed up. An F-4 had
defeated the MiG-21; the weakness of the Soviet plane had been found.
Further test flights confirmed what was learned. It was also clear that
the MiG-21 was a formidable enemy. United States pilots would have to
fly much better than they had been to beat it. This would require a
special school to teach advanced air combat techniques.
On 12 August 1968, two Syrian air force lieutenants, Walid Adham and Radfan Rifai, took off in a pair of MiG-17Fs on a training mission. They lost their way and, believing they were over Lebanon, landed at the Betzet Landing Field in northern Israel. (One version has it that they were led astray by an Arabic-speaking Israeli).
Prior to the end of 1968 these MiG-17s were transferred from Israeli
stocks and added to the Area 51 test fleet. The aircraft were given USAF
designations and fake serial numbers so that they could be identified
in DOD standard flight logs. As in the earlier program, a small group of
Air Force and Navy pilots conducted mock dogfights with the MiG-17s.
Selected instructors from the Navy's Top Gun school at NAS Miramar,
California, were chosen to fly against the MiGs for familiarization
purposes. Very soon, the MiG-17's shortcomings became clear. It had an
extremely simple, even crude, control system that lacked the
power-boosted controls of American aircraft. The F-4's twin engines were
so powerful it could accelerate out of range of the MiG-17's guns in
thirty seconds. It was important for the F-4 to keep its distance from
the MiG-17. As long as the F-4 was one and a half miles from the MiG-17,
it was outside the reach of the Soviet fighter's guns, but the MiG was
within reach of the F-4's missiles.
The data from the HAVE DOUGHNUT and HAVE DRILL tests were provided to the newly formed Top Gun school at NAS Miramar.
By 1970, the HAVE DRILL program was expanded; a few selected fleet F-4
crews were given the chance to fight the MiGs. The most important result
of Project HAVE DRILL is that no Navy pilot who flew in the project
defeated the MiG-17 Fresco in the first engagement. The HAVE DRILL
dogfights were by invitation only. The other pilots based at Nellis Air
Force Base were not to know about the U.S.-operated MiGs. To prevent any
sightings, the airspace above the Groom Lake range was closed. On
aeronautical maps, the exercise area was marked in red ink. The
forbidden zone became known as "Red Square".
During the remainder of the Vietnam War,
the Navy kill ratio climbed to 8.33 to 1. In contrast, the Air Force
rate improved only slightly to 2.83 to 1. The reason for this difference
was Top Gun. The Navy had revitalized its air combat training, while
the Air Force had stayed stagnant. Most of the Navy MiG kills were by
Top Gun graduates
In May 1973, Project HAVE IDEA was formed which took over from
the older HAVE DOUGHNUT, HAVE FERRY and HAVE DRILL projects and the
project was transferred to the Tonopah Test Range Airport. At Tonopah, testing of foreign technology aircraft continued and expanded throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Area 51 also hosted another foreign materiel evaluation program
called HAVE GLIB. This involved testing Soviet tracking and missile
control radar systems. A complex of actual and replica Soviet-type
threat systems began to grow around "Slater Lake", a mile northwest of
the main base, along with an acquired Soviet "Barlock" search radar
placed at Tonopah Air Force Station. They were arranged to simulate a Soviet-style air defense complex.
The Air Force began funding improvements to Area 51 in 1977 under
project SCORE EVENT. In 1979, the CIA transferred jurisdiction of the
Area 51 site to the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB,
California. Mr. Sam Mitchell, the last CIA commander of Area 51,
relinquished command to USAF Lt. Col. Larry D. McClain.
The Lockheed Have Blue prototype stealth fighter (a smaller proof-of-concept model of the F-117 Nighthawk) first flew at Groom in December 1977.
In 1978, the Air Force awarded a full-scale development contract
for the F-117 to Lockheed Corporation's Advanced Development Projects.
On 17 January 1981 the Lockheed test team at Area 51 accepted delivery
of the first full-scale development (FSD) prototype 79–780, designated YF-117A. At 6:05 am on 18 June 1981 Lockheed Skunk Works test pilot Hal Farley lifted the nose of YF-117A 79–780 off the runway of Area 51.
Meanwhile, Tactical Air Command
(TAC) decided to set up a group-level organization to guide the F-117A
to an initial operating capability. That organization became the 4450th
Tactical Group (Initially designated "A Unit"), which officially
activated on 15 October 1979 at Nellis AFB,
Nevada, although the group was physically located at Area 51. The
4450th TG also operated the A-7D Corsair II as a surrogate trainer for
the F-117A, and these operations continued until 15 October 1982 under
the guise of an avionics test mission.
Flying squadrons of the 4450th TG were the 4450th Tactical
Squadron (Initially designated "I Unit") activated on 11 June 1981, and
4451st Tactical Squadron (Initially designated "P Unit") on 15 January
1983. The 4450th TS, stationed at Area 51, was the first F-117A
squadron, while the 4451st TS was stationed at Nellis AFB and was
equipped with A-7D Corsair IIs
painted in a dark motif, tail coded "LV". Lockheed test pilots put the
YF-117 through its early paces. A-7Ds were used for pilot training
before any F-117As had been delivered by Lockheed to Area 51, later the
A-7D's were used for F-117A chase testing and other weapon tests at the
Nellis Range. On 15 October 1982, Major Alton C. Whitley Jr. became the
first USAF 4450th TG pilot to fly the F-117A.
Although ideal for testing, Area 51 was not a suitable location
for an operational group, so a new covert base had to be established for
F-117 operations. Tonopah Test Range Airport was selected for operations of the first USAF F-117 unit, the 4450th Tactical Group (TG).
From October 1979, the Tonopah Airport base was reconstructed and
expanded. The 6,000-foot runway was lengthened to 10,000 feet. Taxiways,
a concrete apron, a large maintenance hangar, and a propane storage
tank were added.
By early 1982, four more YF-117As were operating at the base.
After finding a large scorpion in their offices, the testing team
(Designated "R Unit") adopted it as their mascot and dubbed themselves
the "Baja Scorpions".
Testing of a series of ultra-secret prototypes continued at Area 51
until mid-1981 when testing transitioned to the initial production of
F-117 stealth fighters. The F-117s were moved to and from Area 51 by C-5
during darkness to maintain security. The aircraft were defueled,
disassembled, cradled, and then loaded aboard the C-5 at night, flown to
Lockheed, and unloaded at night before reassembly and flight testing.
Groom performed radar profiling, F-117 weapons testing, and training of
the first group of frontline USAF F-117 pilots.
While the "Baja Scorpions" were working on the F-117, there was
also another group at work in secrecy, known as "the Whalers" working on
Tacit Blue. A fly-by-wire
technology demonstration aircraft with curved surfaces and composite
material, to evade radar, was a prototype, and never went into
production. Nevertheless, this strange-looking aircraft was responsible
for many of the stealth technology advances that were used on several other aircraft designs, and had a direct influence on the B-2; with the first flight of Tacit Blue being performed on 5February 1982, by Northrop Grumman test pilot, Richard G. Thomas.
Production FSD airframes from Lockheed were shipped to Area 51
for acceptance testing. As the Baja Scorpions tested the aircraft with
functional check flights and L.O. verification, the operational
airplanes were then transferred to the 4450th TG.
F-117 flying over mountains
On 17 May 1982, the move of the 4450th TG from Groom Lake to Tonopah
was initiated, with the final components of the move completed in early
1983. Production FSD airframes from Lockheed were shipped to Area 51 for
acceptance testing. As the Baja Scorpions tested the aircraft with
functional check flights and L.O. verification, the operational
airplanes were then transferred to the 4450th TG at Tonopah.
The R-Unit was inactivated on 30 May 1989. Upon inactivation, the unit was reformed as Detachment 1, 57th Fighter Weapons Wing (FWW). In 1990, the last F-117A (843)
was delivered from Lockheed. After completion of acceptance flights at
Area 51 of this last new F-117A aircraft, the flight test squadron
continued flight test duties of refurbished aircraft after modifications
by Lockheed. In February/March 1992 the test unit moved from Area 51 to
the USAF Palmdale Plant 42 and was integrated with the Air Force Systems Command6510th Test Squadron.
Some testing, especially RCS verification and other classified activity
was still conducted at Area 51 throughout the operational lifetime of
the F-117. The recently inactivated (2008) 410th Flight Test Squadron traces its roots, if not its formal lineage to the 4450th TG R-unit.
Later operations
F-22 during a Red Flag exercise with Groom Lake in the background (March 2013)
Since the F-117 became operational in 1983, operations at Groom Lake
have continued. The base and its associated runway system were expanded,
including the expansion of housing and support facilities.
In 1995, the federal government expanded the exclusionary area around
the base to include nearby mountains that had hitherto afforded the only
decent overlook of the base, prohibiting access to 3,972 acres
(16.07 km2) of land formerly administered by the Bureau of Land Management.[20]
On 22 October 2015, a federal judge signed an order giving land that
belonged to a Nevada family since the 1870s to the United States Air
Force for expanding Area 51. According to the judge, the land that
overlooked the base was taken to address security and safety concerns
connected with their training and testing.
Legal status
U.S. government's positions on Area 51
A 1998 letter from the USAF replying to a query about Area 51
CIA document from 1967 referring to Area 51
The United States government has provided minimal information
regarding Area 51. The area surrounding the lake is permanently
off-limits to both civilian and normal military air traffic. Security
clearances are checked regularly; cameras and weaponry are not allowed. Even military pilots training in the NAFR risk disciplinary action if they stray into the exclusionary "box" surrounding Groom's airspace. Surveillance is supplemented using buried motion sensors. Area 51 is a common destination for Janet, a small fleet of passenger aircraft operated on behalf of the Air Force to transport military personnel, primarily from McCarran International Airport.
The USGS topographic map for the area only shows the long-disused Groom Mine. A civil aviation chart published by the Nevada Department of Transportation shows a large restricted area, defined as part of the Nellis restricted airspace. The National Atlas shows the area as lying within the Nellis Air Force Base.
There are higher resolution and newer images available from other
satellite imagery providers, including Russian providers and the IKONOS. These show the runway markings, base facilities, aircraft, and vehicles.
On 25 June 2013, the CIA released an official history of the U-2
and OXCART projects which acknowledged the existence of Area 51 in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in 2005 by
Jeffrey T. Richelson of George Washington University's National Security Archive. It contains numerous references to Area 51 and Groom Lake, along with a map of the area.
Environmental lawsuit
In 1994, five unnamed civilian contractors and the widows of
contractors Walter Kasza and Robert Frost sued the Air Force and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency. They alleged that they
had been present when large quantities of unknown chemicals had been
burned in open pits and trenches at Groom. Rutgers University biochemists analyzed biopsies from the complainants and found high levels of dioxin, dibenzofuran, and trichloroethylene
in their body fat. The complainants alleged that they had sustained
skin, liver, and respiratory injuries due to their work at Groom and
that this had contributed to the deaths of Frost and Kasza. The suit
sought compensation for the injuries, claiming that the Air Force had
illegally handled toxic materials and that the EPA had failed in its
duty to enforce the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
which governs the handling of dangerous materials. They also sought
detailed information about the chemicals, hoping that this would
facilitate the medical treatment of survivors. Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told 60 Minutes reporter Lesley Stahl, "The Air Force is classifying all information about Area 51 in order to protect themselves from a lawsuit."
The government invoked the State Secrets Privilege
and petitioned U.S. District Judge Philip Pro to disallow disclosure of
classified documents or examination of secret witnesses, claiming that
this would expose classified information and threaten national security. Judge Pro rejected the government's argument, so President Bill Clinton issued a Presidential Determination
exempting what it called "the Air Force's Operating Location Near Groom
Lake, Nevada" from environmental disclosure laws. Consequently, Pro
dismissed the suit due to lack of evidence. Turley appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the grounds that the
government was abusing its power to classify material. Secretary of the
Air Force Sheila E. Widnall
filed a brief which stated that disclosures of the materials present in
the air and water near Groom "can reveal military operational
capabilities or the nature and scope of classified operations." The
Ninth Circuit rejected Turley's appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it, putting an end to the complainants' case.
The President annually issues a determination continuing the Groom exception
which is the only formal recognition that the government has ever given
that Groom Lake is more than simply another part of the Nellis complex.
An unclassified memo on the safe handling of F-117 Nighthawk
material was posted on an Air Force web site in 2005. This discussed
the same materials for which the complainants had requested information,
which the government had claimed was classified. The memo was removed
shortly after journalists became aware of it.
Civil aviation identification
In December 2007, airline pilots noticed that the base had appeared in their aircraft navigation systems' latest Jeppesen database revision with the ICAO airport identifier code of KXTA and listed as "Homey Airport". The probably inadvertent release of the airport data led to advice by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA) that student pilots should be explicitly warned about KXTA, not
to consider it as a waypoint or destination for any flight even though
it now appears in public navigation databases.
Security
The main gate to Area 51, on Groom Road
The perimeter of the base is marked out by orange posts and patrolled
by guards in white pickup trucks and camouflage fatigues. The guards
are popularly referred to as "cammo dudes" by enthusiasts. The guards will not answer questions about their employers; however, according to the New York Daily News, there are indications they are employed through a contractor such as AECOM. Signage around the base perimeter advises that deadly force is authorized against trespassers.
Technology is also heavily used to maintain the border of the base; this includes surveillance cameras
and motion detectors. Some of these motion detectors are placed some
distance away from the base on public land to notify guards of people
approaching.
Area 51 border and warning sign stating that "photography is prohibited" and that "use of deadly force is authorized"
1974 Skylab photography
Dwayne A. Day published "Astronauts and Area 51: the Skylab Incident" in The Space Review in January 2006. It was based on a memo written in 1974 to CIA director William Colby
by an unknown CIA official. The memo reported that astronauts on board
Skylab had inadvertently photographed a certain location.
There were specific instructions not to do this. [redacted] was the only location which had such an instruction.
The name of the location was obscured,
but the context led Day to believe that the subject was Groom Lake. Day
argues that "the CIA considered no other spot on Earth to be as
sensitive as Groom Lake". The memo details debate between federal agencies regarding whether the images should be classified, with Department of Defense agencies arguing that it should and NASA and the State Department
arguing that it should not be classified. The memo itself questions the
legality of retroactively classifying unclassified images.
[Secretary of State Rusk]
did raise it—said State Dept. people felt strongly. But he inclined
leave decision to me (DCI)—I confessed some question over need to
protect since:
If exposed, don't we just say classified USAF work is done there?
The declassified documents do not disclose the outcome of discussions
regarding the Skylab imagery. The debate proved moot, as the photograph
appeared in the Federal Government's Archive of Satellite Imagery along
with the remaining Skylab photographs.
2019 shooting incident
On January 28, 2019, an unidentified man drove through a security checkpoint near Mercury, Nevada,
in an apparent attempt to enter the base. After an 8-mile
(13-kilometer) vehicle pursuit by base security, the man exited his
vehicle carrying a "cylindrical object" and was shot dead by NNSS
security officers and sheriff's deputies after refusing to obey requests
to halt. There were no other injuries reported.
UFO and other conspiracy theories
During the 2019 Raid of Area 51, protestors and UFO conspiracy theorists gathered at the back gate of Area 51
Area 51 has become a focus of modern conspiracy theories due to its
secretive nature and connection to classified aircraft research. Theories include:
The storage, examination, and reverse engineering of crashed alien spacecraft, including material supposedly recovered at Roswell, the study of their occupants, and the manufacture of aircraft based on alien technology
Meetings or joint undertakings with extraterrestrials
The development of time travel and teleportation technology
The development of exotic propulsion systems related to the Aurora Program
Activities related to a shadowy one-world government or the Majestic 12 organization
A closed-circuit TV camera watches over the perimeter of Area 51.
Many of the hypotheses concern underground facilities at Groom or at Papoose Lake
(also known as "S-4 location"), 8.5 miles (13.7 km) south, and include
claims of a transcontinental underground railroad system, a disappearing
airstrip nicknamed the "Cheshire Airstrip", after Lewis Carroll's Cheshire cat, which briefly appears when water is sprayed onto its camouflaged asphalt, and engineering based on alien technology.
In the mid-1950s, civilian aircraft flew under 20,000 feet while
military aircraft flew up to 40,000 feet. The U-2 began flying above
60,000 feet and there was an increasing number of UFO sighting reports.
Sightings occurred most often during early evening hours, when airline
pilots flying west saw the U-2's silver wings reflect the setting sun,
giving the aircraft a "fiery" appearance. Many sighting reports came to
the Air Force's Project Blue Book,
which investigated UFO sightings, through air-traffic controllers and
letters to the government. The project checked U-2 and later OXCART
flight records to eliminate the majority of UFO reports that it received
during the late 1950s and 1960s, although it could not reveal to the
letter writers the truth behind what they saw.
Similarly, veterans of experimental projects such as OXCART at Area 51
agree that their work inadvertently prompted many of the UFO sightings
and other rumors:
The shape of OXCART was
unprecedented, with its wide, disk-like fuselage designed to carry vast
quantities of fuel. Commercial pilots cruising over Nevada at dusk would
look up and see the bottom of OXCART whiz by at 2,000-plus mph. The
aircraft's titanium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the
sun's rays in a way that could make anyone think, UFO.
They believe that the rumors helped maintain secrecy over Area 51's actual operations. The veterans deny the existence of a vast underground railroad system, although many of Area 51's operations did occur underground.
Lincoln County deputies guard the back gate of Area 51 during the 2019 raid
Bob Lazar claimed in 1989 that he had worked at Area 51's "Sector Four (S-4)", said to be located underground inside the Papoose Range near Papoose Lake. He claimed that he was contracted to work with alien spacecraft that the government had in its possession. Similarly, the 1996 documentary Dreamland directed by Bruce Burgess
included an interview with a 71-year-old mechanical engineer who
claimed to be a former employee at Area 51 during the 1950s. His claims
included that he had worked on a "flying disc simulator" which had been
based on a disc originating from a crashed extraterrestrial craft and
was used to train pilots. He also claimed to have worked with an
extraterrestrial being named "J-Rod" and described as a "telepathic
translator".
In 2004, Dan Burisch (pseudonym of Dan Crain) claimed to have worked on
cloning alien viruses at Area 51, also alongside the alien named
"J-Rod". Burisch's scholarly credentials are the subject of much debate,
as he was apparently working as a Las Vegas parole officer in 1989
while also earning a PhD at State University of New York (SUNY).
In July 2019, more than 2,000,000 people responded to a joke proposal to storm Area 51 which appeared in an anonymous Facebook post.
The event, scheduled for 20 September 2019, was billed as "Storm Area
51, They Can't Stop All of Us", an attempt to "see them aliens".
Air Force spokeswoman Laura McAndrews said the government "would
discourage anyone from trying to come into the area where we train
American armed forces".
Two music festivals in rural Nevada, "AlienStock" and "Storm Area 51
Basecamp", were subsequently organized to capitalize on the popularity
of the original Facebook event. Between 1,500 and 3,000 people showed up
at the festivals, while over 150 people made the journey over several
miles of rough roads to get near the gates to Area 51.Seven people were reportedly arrested at the event.
