A crash test dummy is a full-scale anthropomorphic test device (ATD) that simulates the dimensions, weight proportions and articulation of the human body, and is usually instrumented to record data about the dynamic behavior of the ATD in simulated vehicle impacts.The Crash Test Dummy is widely used by researchers and automobile companies to predict the biomechanics, force, impact, and injury of a human being in an automobile crash. This data can include variables such as velocity of impact, crushing force, bending, folding, or torque of the body, and deceleration rates during a collision for use in crash tests. The more advanced dummies are sophisticated machines designed to behave as a human body and with many sensors to record the forces of an impact; they may cost over US$400,000. For the purpose of U.S. regulation and Global Technical Regulations and for clear communication in safety and seating design, dummies carry specifically designated reference points, such as the H-point; these are also used, for example, in automotive design. Crash test dummies remain indispensable in the development of and ergonomics in all types of vehicles, from automobiles to aircraft. There are many specialized dummies used for obesity, children, rib impact, and spinal impact. THOR is a very advanced dummy because it uses sensors and has a humanlike spine and pelvis. Special classes of dummies called Hybrid IIIs are designed to research the effects of frontal impacts, and are less useful in assessing the effects of other types of impact, such as side impacts, rear impacts, or rollovers. Hybrid IIIs use dummies that directed towards a specific age, for example, a typical ten year old, six year old, three year old, and a grown man. There are certain testing procedures for Hybrid IIIs to ensure that they obtain a correct humanlike neck flexure, and to ensure that they would react to a crash in a similar way that human bodies would. Using cadavers for these topics of research is more realistic than using a dummy for physiologic reasons, but it arises many moral dilemmas. Going across a moral ethics line, automobile companies have used a human cadaver, a pig, and people have volunteered to be tested upon impact. A pig was used specifically for steering wheel impact because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly via sitting up right in the vehicle. Human cadavers along with animals are not personally able to give consent to research studies, although animal testing is not prevalent today.

A crash test dummy is a full-scale anthropomorphic test device (ATD) that simulates the dimensions, weight proportions and articulation of the human body, and is usually instrumented to record data about the dynamic behavior of the ATD in simulated vehicle impacts.The Crash Test Dummy is widely used by researchers and automobile companies to predict the biomechanics, force, impact, and injury of a human being in an automobile crash. This data can include variables such as velocity of impact, crushing force, bending, folding, or torque of the body, and deceleration rates during a collision for use in crash tests. The more advanced dummies are sophisticated machines designed to behave as a human body and with many sensors to record the forces of an impact; they may cost over US$400,000.

For the purpose of U.S. regulation and Global Technical Regulations and for clear communication in safety and seating design, dummies carry specifically designated reference points, such as the H-point; these are also used, for example, in automotive design. Crash test dummies remain indispensable in the development of and ergonomics in all types of vehicles, from automobiles to aircraft.

There are many specialized dummies used for obesity, children, rib impact, and spinal impact. THOR is a very advanced dummy because it uses sensors and has a humanlike spine and pelvis. Special classes of dummies called Hybrid IIIs are designed to research the effects of frontal impacts, and are less useful in assessing the effects of other types of impact, such as side impacts, rear impacts, or rollovers. Hybrid IIIs use dummies that directed towards a specific age, for example, a typical ten year old, six year old, three year old, and a grown man.

There are certain testing procedures for Hybrid IIIs to ensure that they obtain a correct humanlike neck flexure, and to ensure that they would react to a crash in a similar way that human bodies would. Using cadavers for these topics of research is more realistic than using a dummy for physiologic reasons, but it arises many moral dilemmas.

Going across a moral ethics line, automobile companies have used a human cadaver, a pig, and people have volunteered to be tested upon impact. A pig was used specifically for steering wheel impact because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly via sitting up right in the vehicle. Human cadavers along with animals are not personally able to give consent to research studies, although animal testing is not prevalent today.

There are studies that use specific cadavers including obese cadavers, and children cadavers. Also, studies show how cadavers have been used to modify different parts of a car such as the seatbelt Each new car that is made provides a different structural impact which provides the conclusion that cadavers and crash test dummies will be useful for a long time.

The only true political virtue is obedience to authority, and the only true political sin is independence. Independence renders authority useless, and that is what infuriates it so. You have been undoubtedly told that you are mentally ill, for daring to say that the emperor, called Psychiatry has no clothes, and not to mention stupid, and unscientific. The Controversy concerning the myth about Psychiatry is not about the science of medicine, it is about power. What do we know, that is true, that the cult of Psychiatry, keeps telling us, that’s false? First, the idea is that there is a known idea causing mental illness, but the truth is, is that we cannot tell who is mentally ill, and who is not, by looking at pictures of their brains or by analyzing their blood. Psychiatrists had to invent their own book of diseases, because pathologists would have nothing to do with them. It is called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, the D.S.M., and a great work of fiction. What is the difference between the D.S.M., and a scientific book of disease? Every disorder in the D.S.M. is invented, every disease listed in a pathology textbook is discovered. Real disease is found in a cadaver, at autopsy, mental illness refers to something that a person does, real disease refers to something that a person has. It takes one person to have a real disease, it takes two people to have a mental illness.

Welcome to my blog! IlluminatiFAQS.com

             The only true political virtue is obedience to authority, and the only true political sin is independence.  Independence renders authority useless, and that is what infuriates it so.  You have been undoubtedly told that you are mentally ill, for daring to say that the emperor, called Psychiatry has no clothes, and not to mention stupid, and unscientific. 

                The Controversy concerning the myth about Psychiatry is not about the science of medicine, it is about power.  What do we know, that is true, that the cult of Psychiatry, keeps telling us, that’s false?  First, the idea is that there is a known idea causing mental illness, but the truth is, is that we cannot tell who is mentally ill, and who is not, by looking at pictures of their brains or by analyzing their blood.

                Psychiatrists had to invent their own book of diseases, because pathologists would have nothing to do with them.  It is called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, the D.S.M., and a great work of fiction.

                What is the difference between the D.S.M., and a scientific book of disease?  Every disorder in the D.S.M. is invented, every disease listed in a pathology textbook is discovered.  Real disease is found in a cadaver, at autopsy, mental illness refers to something that a person does, real disease refers to something that a person has.  It takes one person to have a real disease, it takes two people to have a mental illness.

                If you are alone on an island you could develop cancer or a heart disease, but you could not develop a mental illness, such as Hyperactivity or Schizophrenia, this is because mental illness is always based on some sort of social conflict.  When people do something that others find objectionable, they can be diagnosed as mentally ill.  If a person that is doing the diagnosing is more powerful than the person being diagnosed, then there is trouble.  In this sense, the diagnosis of mental illness is always a weapon, not so when diagnosing a real disease.

                Think about how when people get angry with one another, they inevitably always think, “you’re crazy”, “you’re mentally ill”, “you’re paranoid.”  Can you imagine somebody getting angry with someone and saying “you have Diabetes”, “you have Parkinson’s disease?”

                Social conflict has nothing to do with developing a real disease.  You don’t develop Diabetes because someone does not like the way you think, speak, or behave.  You have to have someone present to judge whether or not your behavior is morally good or bad in order to have a mental illness.

                So, diagnoses is a weapon, a tool that people use against one another, especially when there is some type of power conflict present.

                And what of treatment?  Look at our criminal justice system.  When someone commits a crime and a Psychiatrist is present in the courtroom, the defendant may go to a mental institution instead of a prison.  Can you imagine a judge saying, “I sentence you to treatment for your Cancer?”

I submit to you, that Psychiatric treatment is worse than prison.  For in prison, they do not judge how long a person should be deprived of liberty, on the basis of what they think about themselves, and the world.  In a mental institution, this is the case.  If you don’t think about yourself, and the rest of the world correctly, you will be punished longer.

                Psychiatrists love to say that mental illness is a real disease just like Cancer.  The analogy between mental illness and real disease is not reciprocal, it does not hold both ways, having Cancer is not like being depressed.  We don’t shock people who don’t have Cancer to make them better, especially if they don’t want to be shocked. 

                Consider Melanoma as a disease here, just as in Northern India.  If you have Melanoma, does it cease to exist if you move to another country?  Of course not.  If you are wandering the foothills of the Himalayas for 15 hours a day you may be well called a holy man in India.  Take that same person and have him walk across the grounds of Washington D.C., and he is diagnosed a Paranoid Schizophrenic, and committed to a mental hospital.

                What do you think that Psychiatrists would do today if Jesus was living, or Buddha, or Mohammed?  Bada bing, bada bing, right into a mental hospital, and injected with drugs to stop their crazy ideas and beliefs, and speech.  Psychiatrists are the true grand inquisitors of today, they would crucify the Holy men of yesterday in an instant.

                If we don’t place close attention to the parallels between how the Nazi’s were not taken seriously before the holocaust, and the parallels of human civilization not taking seriously the adverse effects that Psychiatry has caused tens of millions of people, (under the mask of helping people) hence the number of deaths as the direct result of individuals drugged by Psychiatrists, (only to include the number of deaths over the last 60 years) exceeded the total number of deaths of all American soldiers that fought and died in every American war from 1776 through 2015.

February 2001, the Human Genome Project (HGP) published its results to that date: a 90 percent complete sequence of all three billion base pairs in the human genome. (The HGP consortium published its data in the February 15, 2001, issue of the journal Nature. The project had its ideological origins in the mid-1980s, but its intellectual roots stretch back further. Alfred Sturtevant created the first Drosophila gene map in 1911. The crucial first step in molecular genome analysis, and in much of the molecular biological research of the last half-century, was the discovery of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson. The two researchers shared the 1962 Nobel Prize (along with Maurice Wilkins) in the category of "physiology or medicine." In the mid-1970s, Frederick Sanger developed techniques to sequence DNA, for which he received his second Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1980. (His first, in 1958, was for studies of protein structure). With the automation of DNA sequencing in the 1980s, the idea of analyzing the entire human genome was first proposed by a few academic biologists. The United States Department of Energy, seeking data on protecting the genome from the mutagenic (gene-mutating) effects of radiation, became involved in 1986, and established an early genome project in 1987. In 1988, Congress funded both the NIH and the DOE to embark on further exploration of this concept, and the two government agencies formalized an agreement by signing a Memorandum of Understanding to "coordinate research and technical activities related to the human genome."

February 2001, the Human Genome Project (HGP) published its results to that date: a 90 percent complete sequence of all three billion base pairs in the human genome. (The HGP consortium published its data in the February 15, 2001, issue of the journal Nature. The project had its ideological origins in the mid-1980s, but its intellectual roots stretch back further. Alfred Sturtevant created the first Drosophila gene map in 1911.

The crucial first step in molecular genome analysis, and in much of the molecular biological research of the last half-century, was the discovery of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson. The two researchers shared the 1962 Nobel Prize (along with Maurice Wilkins) in the category of "physiology or medicine."

In the mid-1970s, Frederick Sanger developed techniques to sequence DNA, for which he received his second Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1980. (His first, in 1958, was for studies of protein structure). With the automation of DNA sequencing in the 1980s, the idea of analyzing the entire human genome was first proposed by a few academic biologists.

The United States Department of Energy, seeking data on protecting the genome from the mutagenic (gene-mutating) effects of radiation, became involved in 1986, and established an early genome project in 1987. In 1988, Congress funded both the NIH and the DOE to embark on further exploration of this concept, and the two government agencies formalized an agreement by signing a Memorandum of Understanding to "coordinate research and technical activities related to the human genome."

James Watson was appointed to lead the NIH component, which was dubbed the Office of Human Genome Research. The following year, the Office of Human Genome Research evolved into the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR). In 1990, the initial planning stage was completed with the publication of a joint research plan, "Understanding Our Genetic Inheritance: The Human Genome Project, The First Five Years, FY 1991-1995." This initial research plan set out specific goals for the first five years of what was then projected to be a 15-year research effort.

In 1992, Watson resigned, and Michael Gottesman was appointed acting director of the center. The following year, Francis S. Collins was named director. The advent and employment of improved research techniques, including the use of restriction fragment-length polymorphisms, the polymerase chain reaction, bacterial and yeast artificial chromosomes and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, enabled rapid early progress. Therefore, the 1990 plan was updated with a new five-year plan announced in 1993 in the journal Science (262: 43-46; 1993).

Indeed, a large part of the early work of the HGP was devoted to the development of improved technologies for accelerating the elucidation of the genome. In a 2001 article in the journal Genome Research, Collins wrote, "Building detailed genetic and physical maps, developing better, cheaper and faster technologies for handling DNA, and mapping and sequencing the more modest-sized genomes of model organisms were all critical stepping stones on the path to initiating the large-scale sequencing of the human genome."

Also in 1993, the NCHGR established a Division of Intramural Research (DIR), in which genome technology is developed and used to study specific diseases. By 1996, eight NIH institutes and centers had also collaborated to create the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), for study of the genetics of complex diseases. In 1997, the NCHGR received full institute status at NIH, becoming the National Human Genome Research Institute in 1997, with Collins remaining as the director for the new institute. A third five-year plan was announced in 1998, again in Science, (282: 682-689; 1998).

In June 2000 came the announcement that the majority of the human genome had in fact been sequenced, which was followed by the publication of 90 percent of the sequence of the genome's three billion base-pairs in the journal Nature, in February 2001.

Surprises accompanying the sequence publication included: the relatively small number of human genes, perhaps as few as 30,000; the complex architecture of human proteins compared to their homologs - similar genes with the same functions - in, for example, roundworms and fruit flies; and the lessons to be taught by repeat sequences of DNA.

The Future of Eugenics. Eugenics, although based on the science of genetics, is not itself a sciences, for it must above all concern itself with social values, with the question: Whither mankind? Perhaps general Agreement could be had that freedom from gross physical or mental defects and the the freedom from gross physical or mental defects and the possession of sound health, high intelligence, general adaptability, and mobility of sprier are the major goals toward which eugenics should aim; perhaps even that diversity of nature is better than uniformity of type. But hour far ought selective reproduction to inters with human freedoms: Genetically, as in other respects, "there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us" that it is hared to asses the worth of the manifest hereditary characteristics of a person; and the numerous hidden recessive genes or genes of low penetrance make it quit impossible. Nor can on determine to what extent a person's manifest characteristics a the product of environment, particularly for this qualities what eugenics' major concern: con health, high intelligence, and the like.

The Future of Eugenics. Eugenics, although based on the science of genetics, is not itself a sciences, for it must above all concern itself with social values, with the question: Whither mankind? Perhaps general Agreement could be had that freedom from gross physical or mental defects and the the freedom from gross physical or mental defects and the possession of sound health, high intelligence, general adaptability, and mobility of sprier are the major goals toward which eugenics should aim; perhaps even that diversity of nature is better than uniformity of type.

But hour far ought selective reproduction to interfere with human freedoms: Genetically, as in other respects, "there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us" that it is hared to asses the worth of the manifest hereditary characteristics of a person; and the numerous hidden recessive genes or genes of low penetrance make it quit impossible. Nor can on determine to what extent a person's manifest characteristics a the product of environment, particularly for this qualities what eugenics' major concern: con health, high intelligence, and the like. The Jukes and Kallikaks were horrible examples of degenerate humanity, but what might they have been in a better world: Were their alcoholism, their crime and their vice inescapable products of their genes? It seems very doubtful.

Only the experiment of putting them from earliest infancy in to an optimum environment could possible yield and answer. It is easier to define the essentials of a optimum environment--not forgetting that it need not be the same for everyone--than to modify gene frequencies by wise selection. Once mankind has produced an approximation of that optimum environment, the eugenic task will be simpler. In fact, that natural selection exerted by such an environment may make eugenics quite unnecessary.

See also Birth Control; Genetics. -H. Bentley Glass

The words above are written in the Colliers Encyclopedia in Volume 9 on page 387, copyright 1963, Chief Editor, Louis Shores Ph.D., published by Crowell Colliers Publishing Company