text:
Talk:Robert Gallo

Untitled
Also the congressional investigation into Robert Gallo's fraudulant claim to have isolated HIV using Luc Montagniers HIV cultures are not mentioned at all. It should be mentioned here. Senator Dingell's Wikilink can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingell

And this article in the New Scientist should also be mentioned: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.191.141 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14881-comment-was-robert-gallo-robbed-of-the-nobel-prize.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.191.141 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, could someone explain me why this BMJ article is not used?:

Gallo guilty of AIDS misconduct

Gallo has not been found guilty of misconduct. His co-author Mikulas Popovic was found guilty of misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity at the US Public Health Service. But this was overturned on appeal with the finding that, "“One might anticipate that from all the evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. This is not the case.” This surely exonerates Gallo as well as Popovic. There is no known finding of wrongdoing against Gallo. If my memory is correct, the wiki article used to imply that there was such a finding but it has since been corrected. Nathangeffen (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unheimlich (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I just re-checked WP:SOCK and I realized I was wrong: I am not covered under those rules to create a legit shock, therefore I disclose I, User:Randroide, am User:Unheimlich. Randroide (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing so. I think the article does fail to cover in detail the lengthy wrangling, accusations, investigations, etc which followed from the Gallo-Montaignier dispute. That said, I believe the misconduct finding against Gallo was later dropped by the ORI (see ). There should definitely be more material on this aspect of his biography, but it needs to be handled carefully in accordance with WP:BLP. John Crewdson from the Chicago Tribune wrote a lengthy summary of the case which later became the book Science Fictions; while fairly anti-Gallo in tone, it could conceivably provide an overview of the case which could be fleshed out with contemporaneous coverage from the BMJ, Lancet, Science, Nature, the New York Times, etc. The case had a lot of twists and turns, so we should make sure that a summary covers them all accurately. Additional reading:
 * New York Times, 1992: Describes the misconduct finding by the ORI that you mention above.
 * New York Times, 1993: The misconduct case is "reluctantly" dropped by the ORI.
 * New York Times on the msiconduct charges being dropped; fairly pro-Gallo tone.
 * New York Times review of Crewdson's book (and another)
 * This could conceivably warrant splitting into a sub-article on HIV discovery controversy or some such title, given the plethora of sources and viewpoints and the complexity of the topic. MastCell Talk 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article, I noticed that it did not quite match what I had heard ca. 25 years ago when AIDS Groups all over the world had eductaed teachers. The understanding, then, was that an unknown, highly contagious and aggressive disease caused Kaposi sarcoma and deadly lung and brain infections, accompanied by wasting diarrheas and that the new disease had been the reason for dr. Gallo's and Dr. Montagnier's research and research grants. The way WIKI explains the chronology, one almost gets the impression as though Dr. Gallo had been investigating retroviruses all along and that the interest in the new disease consequently followed. One should also make clear that there was no disease, AIDS, from the start but that this acronym was developed and accepted after isolation of HTLV and HIV andf after a preliminary term, AIDS Related Complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.156.8 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"[']tour de force,['] [']flagship[,'] et cetera not encyclopedic" ??
Please help me become a better Wikipedia editor. I changed this paragraph:

 * Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur.[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the Pasteur Institute and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, examined archival specimens and concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's virus had come from Montagnier's lab. Chang determined that the French group's LAV was a virus from one patient that had contaminated a culture from another. On request, Montagnier's group had sent a sample of this culture to Gallo, not knowing it contained two viruses. It then contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working.[12]

to this:

 * Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur(IP).[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the IP and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's flagship HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Indeed, on request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." Nevertheless, the analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) donor samples is not inconsistent with the contamination explanation: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai. Interestingly, three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures never had AIDS. Chang's tour de force also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing it as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru, for instance - had become HTLV-IIIB.[12]

I changed neither the references nor the Wiki markups (not included here). I described my edit, "improve Chang paper description." RetroS1mone Undid my edit because, "tour de force, flagship et cetera not encyclopedic."

I submit my edit provides a more accurate and comprehensive description of Chang's study. Since the study is quite a significant part of the US government's investigations of Gallo, Popovic, and the LTCB, an accurate and comprehensive description of it, I would have thought, should have been welcomed. Instead, RetroS1mone rejected it as, "...not encyclopedic." I agree the 2 cited expressions may be inappropriate; but only because their contexts were not documented/referenced. However, I disagree my edit should be rejected solely because of 2 expressions. Why didn't RetroS1mone merely edit the 2 expressions, for instance? Perhaps because of other objections - implied by, "et cetera?" What other objections does RetroS1mone have? Anyone else have any criticisms and/or help? RspnsblMntalk 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry there is only so much i can put in a edit summary.

 * Your additions are not encyclopedic with the words you use like tour de force flagship, interestingly.
 * They are original research, you are giving your interpretation of the Chang paper, you are saying nterestingly, nevertheless, what is inconsistent et cetera.
 * It is to much detail, this is about Robert Gallo it is not an article about LAV-Lai and LAV-Bru and all the detials of them.
 * Sorry but you also have a history on this article of adding stuff that gets deleted so i have hard time AGF RetroS1mone   talk  04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "They are original research ... inconsistent et cetera." OK. Politely pointing to contradictions and discrepancies in Gallo's contamination-of-the-pool explanation for HTLV-IIIB being LAV-Lai is no substitute for documenting them explicitly as well as documenting many investigators' conclusion the pool was fabricated in a cover-up (in large part based on Chang's study).

Re: "It is to[o] much detail ... deti[/]als of them." I thought I was editing a subsection of "Retrovirus work" entitled, "HIV/AIDS research and subsequent controversy." The heart of the controversy is whether Gallo's LTCB accidentally or deliberately misappropriated a virus isolate provided to the LTCB by the Institut Pasteur. For years, Gallo denied LTCB had cultured the gift virus. Also, I provided the minimal details required for correct explication of the issues. The previous description was quite inaccurate. I could have described the significance of the env gene sequence variations (as opposed to other genes) among these isolates documented by Chang.

Re: "Sorry[,] but you also have a history..." Incorrect. I have made a handful of edits here. Not one was deleted legitimately. Even in this present case, you can't show my improved description of Chang's paper is inaccurate or that it didn't correct an inaccurate description. Moreover, if you were familiar with the controversy's documentation, you would have improved my edit rather than failing to AGF and deleting it.

What do you think of the following:

 * ... The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's prototype HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Upon request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." The analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) constituent donor samples revealed: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; The HIV of each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai; Three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures, "never had AIDS." The study also showed another important LTCB HIV isolate, MoV, was also LAV-Lai; and an archived specimen from, "a putative [patient] donor of the MoV culture" was not analyzable. Chang's study also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing them as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru - had become HTLV-IIIB and MoV.[12]

? RspnsblMntalk 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Currant version is short, sweet, accurate. No changes pls. Also pls do not accuse people they do not know the papers. RetroS1mone   talk  00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
This is obviously a tricky page to get right, since Gallo has been a tremendously controversial but major figure in HIV studies. So I apologize for generalizing so thoroughly in the introduction to the piece, but crediting Gallo upfront for co-discovery of HIV without caveat seems to put forth a falsely facile answer to a problematic question, as the rest of the article makes clear. We can say without controversy, however, that he is best known for his work on HIV. I hope that will suffice. If someone would still prefer to credit him with co-discovery in the intro again, it would be more consistent with the rest of the article to mention the controversy in the same line. Londonbroil (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Fortunately, we're not tasked with getting it "right", simply with following the reliable sources. Gallo is consistently credited as a co-discoverer of HIV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I am following the reliable sources. The Nobel Prize Committee has clearly NOT credited Gallo as co-discoverer of HIV, which means that Gallo is, contrary to your assertion here, noticeably inconsistently credited. Londonbroil (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is discussed it the body. The lead is correct and backed by WP:RS. The Nobel prize committee did not make a statement that Gallo was not involved, and drawing an inference like that would be WP:OR. Verbal   chat
 * This is silly. I am only proposing an introduction that makes no claims for co-discovery and is obviously factually true and backed by all sources, as opposed to an introduction that gives a skewed representation of the article that follows and is inconsistent with various reliable sources. (Gallo at this point is best known for not getting the Nobel Prize, frankly.) There is no original research in any of the edits I have made, if you will check the history. Londonbroil (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not getting the Nobel prize doesn't mean the committee thought he wasn't involved. There are various reasons for this. Making the inference from not winning the Nobel prize means he wasn't involved or was thought to be uninvolved is would be OR. Note that not all the people involved in the discovery of DNA won the Nobel prize for the discovery, and that there is a limit on how many can win. Verbal   chat  16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is in response to Verbal. I think you have misunderstood what was going on. I had not made the Nobel assertion on the actual article. I was replying to Keepcalmandcarryon, who had asserted here that Gallo should be described as co-discoverer of HIV because he is "consistently" credited as such. I was correcting the word "consistently". (I understand the Nobel. Three can win. Two won for HIV and one for HPV that year. There was room for Gallo, which was why the press was a-tizzy.) I could also bring up Crewdson's thorough coverage in the Chicago Tribune, which, regardless of what you think of it, certainly does not give credit to Gallo. In fact, a large number of sources have failed to give credit to Gallo, so the claim that the credit has been consistently given is just not accurate. Again, I did not bring the Nobel into my edit, so this is all moot, although if I wanted to I would have plenty of sources for the assertion that much of the press coverage assumed the Nobel was a snub. But that is not what I'm trying to do here. I am trying to improve this Wiki article by bringing it in line with the actual source material. The entire Nobel issue aside, since it doesn't come into the edit I proposed, all reliable sources show that Gallo's papers came later than Montagnier's and identified the same virus; if that's discovery, I co-discovered the boiling point of water in high school chemistry class. Gallo (or at least a researcher in his lab) is credited with the technology of creating T-cell lines, very important to this story, and he is usually given credit for asserting forcefully early on that LAV/HTLV-III was the cause of AIDS, as opposed to Montagnier who took some time to come around. The one thing Gallo most clearly did not do if you read the sources is discover that virus! 77.103.124.148 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that above was me Londonbroil (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well and good, but again, many reliable sources credit Gallo as co-discoverer with Montagnier. See also the papers the two co-authored on the discovery process. Montagnier's lab was probably the first to isolate the virus. The work of characterising it and identifying it as the cause of AIDS was not done by any one laboratory or person, and Gallo's contribution was deemed sufficient by many reliable sources to name him a co-discoverer. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know what reliable sources, "credit Gallo as co-discoverer with Montagnier." RspnsblMntalk 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 * You could start with a few of the sources for the article. If that doesn't satisfy you, enter Gallo and co-discoverer on Google or Google News. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Come on, "Keepcalmandcarryon." Please show me: which sources for the article and what others? RspnsblMntalk 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As this piece from Science 2008 notes, Gallo and Montaignier were proclaimed "co-discoverers" of HIV by the governments of the US and France in the late 1980s. The piece notes that "Gallo and Montagnier accepted that compromise and buried the hatchet," but credits (if "credit" is the right word) John Crewdson with again inflaming the debate in 1990. Gallo and Montaignier themselves have long accepted roles as co-discoverers and praised each others' contributions. Per Science 2008, "Gallo and Montagnier each wrote essays... in 2002 in which they concluded that both made important contributions to the discovery of the virus." They again credited each others' roles in a joint article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 . MastCell Talk 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to what I felt was rapidly becoming an attack piece. It's important to remember that this article is a biography of a living person, not a forum for airing dropped accusations and not a showcase for Crewdson's various stories. The article should note the historical controversy without dwelling too closely on minor details like the Dingell report and quotes selected for maximum smear effect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
After reading Randy Shilts' book when it was published and just now getting around to reading John Crewdson's, I'm glad to see this article is well-written with clear chronology, revealing many aspects of the controversies. Excellent work, Wiki editors. Bravo. Skywriter (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Supplied references and baseless conclusion

 * I've just noticed that this article stated that Gallo's accusations were dropped while the article it linked to claimed that he was repeatedly found guilty of research misappropriation. It would be better if people checked the references as they are being used to back up contradicting and opposite claims -- Mecanismo | Talk 10:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It would also be a good idea to read through the article history and check on the issue itself before making BLP-sensitive claims. Political machinations and charges that were later dropped are hardly appropriate to include as if they were standing felony convictions. If the current references are inadequate, ask for improvement. Don't replace text with BLP violations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer",the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus". http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/ User:apl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.61.193 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"reputed"
I changed "discovery" to "reputed discovery" in the first paragraph because, while Gallo got the Lasker Award, the 2008 Nobel went to the Pasteur team, with no mention of Gallo, His work is clouded by controversy, which is not yet resolved. Can we say this more diplomatically? Without lying? Donfbreed (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, there is an extensive WP discussion of this matter, which I don't understand fully. I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone who does should settle this. If I'm wrong, you can revert my change. Donfbreed (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012
Current image is outdated.Request that main image be changed to RCGallo 9-08

Lrobe52993 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012
Peikang (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012
This entry claims that Gallo and his team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". There is no indication or scientific proof that this is the case. I suggest that in order to make such a claim you would at least need to provide a footnote to a credible source supporting this information. I am not aware of such a source. So please 1) delete this claim, or 2) provide a credible source which supports the statement that Gallo's team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". Please be loyal to the spirit of Wikipedia!

Peikang (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There's no such thing as "scientific proof". A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. A few people, including at least one prominent researcher, dispute this, but it would violate restrictions on undue weight to mention that in the context of this article. In any event, there is a citation to The New York Times that supports what you call the "claim". Rivertorch (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. Lack of discussion is one symptom of consensus, but it can equally be a symptom of other, less flattering circumstances such as peer pressure, fear of authority, fear of losing one's job and even lack of true scientific interest. True consensus is always preceded by a lively discussion exchange, something that has been averted by all means possible in the case of HIV/AIDS, including refusal of "HIV discoverers" to engage and censoring of papers written by critic virologists. --145.64.134.242 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is not the place to engage in general discussion about medical theories, fringe or otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The section on Priority & the 2008 Nobel is too biased. "priority has been controverial.." may be true, but there is NO serious controversy that the French "discovered HIV". Gallo himself says so.  Also, the claim is made that Gallo's group "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS".  I have three quibbles with this: 1. Why is what his "group" did relevant to an article on him? 2. In writing about priority, the date of this demonstration needs be cited. 3. Montagnier himself writes:"In the spring of 1984, Gallo published more convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS.." but his (Montagnier) team had published much evidence previously, which he admits was not fully accepted as conclusive by many of his scientific peers. In fact, it is indisputable that the virus first isolated was from a gay (high-risk) male with lymphadenopathy which IS a symptom of HIV infection and is known to precede AIDS.  That is Montagneir got it right, but his evidence was too weak to be called definitive.  The Gallo group's work in 1983 was grossly contaminated, and of questioable value. Gallo's contributions to the science of retroviruses is indisputable. His group was accused of scientific misconduct, a report finding scientific misconduct was issued, and was later withdrawn. In these two matters I would say A. His group was "the first to conclusively demonstrate" (or 'robustly'?) and B. Accusations of scientific misconduct in his laboratories was investigated and ultimately not found to be valid. (for this last, I'm a little hazy on what the findings actually did say...withdrawal of a finding of misconduct is NOT the same (not necessarily) as a finding of no scientific misconduct. It would be nice if someone could find out what actually ultimately resulted. According to the NYT we have the following:

"The [Federal Office of Research Integrity] report said Dr. Gallo intentionally misled scientific colleagues by saying he had grown an AIDS virus in his laboratory for study and he had not grown or studied a similar French strain of the virus. In fact, Dr. Gallo himself had grown the French virus and used it in furthering his own research, the report said." "After three years of investigations, the Federal Office of Research Integrity today found that Dr. Robert C. Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the cause of AIDS, had committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS." "The new report said Dr. Gallo had intentionally misled colleagues to gain credit for himself and diminish credit due to his French competitors. The report also said that his false statement had "impeded potential AIDS research progress" by diverting scientists from potentially fruitful work with the French researchers." And: "In addition, the report found that Dr. Gallo warranted censure on these four other counts: Referring to his role as a referee for a different article submitted to a journal by his French competitors, in which he altered several lines to favor his own hypothesis about the AIDS virus, the report said the revisions were "gratuitous, self-serving and improper." As to the many errors in the 1984 paper, which was co-authored with Dr. Popovic, the report concluded, "In light of his role as senior author, Dr. Gallo must bear substantial responsibility for the numerous discrepancies, including four instances of scientific misconduct attributed to Dr. Popovic." On the standards of Dr. Gallo's laboratory record-keeping, the report said, "Especially in the light of the ground-breaking nature of this research and its profound public health implications, O.R.I. believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to trace the important steps taken." Dr. Gallo, the report said, also failed to determine in a timely way the exact origin of some of the crucial cells in which he grew the finicky virus. Like the viruses themselves, the cells were also found to have been borrowed from another scientist without giving him due credit in the paper. Later Dr. Gallo also refused to share the cells freely with other scientists trying to duplicate the important work, the report said." -=-=- Again, this report, as I understand it was withdrawn, but it is clear to me that NOT all of these findings are therefore not based on fact. Here's one take on the withdrawal: Chicago Tribune- After two years of perusing laboratory notebooks and interviewing Gallo and several of his assistants, NIH investigators uncovered 20 "discrepancies" between assertions in the Science article and the data on which it was based. Some of the discrepancies, several of which were first brought to light in a 1989 Tribune article on the history of the discovery of the AIDS virus, were ascribed by NIH to honest error. Some were attributed to "poor judgment" or a "lack of scientific rigor." Others were deemed deliberate falsifications, ultimately including Gallo's assertion in the Science article that the French virus "has not yet been transmitted to a permanently growing cell line for true isolation." -=-=- But based on new guidelines that require "ORI must prove deliberate intent to deceive" on the part of someone held responsible for a false statement in a research publication, that the false statement "have a material or significant effect on the research conclusions of the paper, and that there be no possibility of honest error." " No possibility of honest error??! Well, ok. If record keeping was so poor (we're talking about a GOVERNMENT LAB paid for with your and my tax dollars) then it follows that "deliberate intent with no possibility of human error" would require what? NSA surveilance audio-video? Mind reading? This seems to be a ridiculously high standard.  Higher even than "beyond reasonable doubt", and we execute people using that...Anyway, it is what it is. Perhaps something should be said without getting too specific about a negative report being issued and then retracted based on its findings not being held to a sufficiently high standard? That seems to fit the bill, or does wikipedia remove any mention of guilty verdicts if its overturned on appeal? Seems like the wrong way to do history. -=-=- The NYT article goes on to state:"A panel of consultants from the National Academy of Sciences concluded last year that Gallo's failure to freely distribute the cells was "essentially immoral in view of the growing seriousness of the AIDS epidemic." I think this is important and seems to be independent of the ORI finding (or lack there-of).Abitslow (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns
Recent edits have given an accusatory tone to the piece and introduce original synthesis. The lead now reduces Gallo's indisputably central role in the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS to dubious "claims", while the investigation into allegations against Gallo's lab is presented in the ugliest light possible, based on original research. I will revert these edits shortly and invite the editor who introduced them to discuss proposed changes on the talk page per WP:BRD. While we encourage "balance" and a proper "historical" view, we need to use sources appropriately and in keeping with WP:BLP. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon (talk), The overriding issue with the version of Robert Gallo's wikipage prior to my edits is that it is quite one-sided in favor of Dr. Gallo, placing the majority of events in a positive light for Dr. Gallo when in fact he was found guilty of scientific misconduct (later vacated on appeal) for co-opting the French Pasteur Lab's LAV sample into his own, which led to him claiming credit for the discovery of HIV and later the HIV test, both of which were based on the French LAV sample. Notwithstanding HHS vacating the misconduct determination due to a change in the definition and application, this misappropriation was proven in later years when the French successfully obtained additional royalties from the HIV test following two genetic determinations (Pasteur and NIH) that found Gallo's HLTV-3B to be identical to the French LAV. Furthermore, the NIH analysis casts doubt to the claim that this was a result of contamination because it openly questioned whether Gallo's HLTV-3B ever existed at all. As a result, the wikipage should document Gallo's "controversial" role in the identification of HIV and the subsequent HIV test. The wikipage, as it stands now without my edits, does not even mention that he was found guilty of scientific misconduct (only says "cleared of all wrongdoing"), his misappropriation of the French LAV sample for both the initial HIV discovery and the later HIV test, or Gallo's other tactics that were documented in the HHS rebuke of his methods during this period. --Gtagg (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 * There seems to be a concerted effort by Gallo's fans to continue to include the word "discovery of HIV" in any statement that Gallo's group published good, strong evidence that the French discovered HIV virus caused AIDS. It is quite an exaggeration to claim this is a discovery, since clear (but not sufficient) evidence had been accumulating for several years that it was indeed the AIDS virus. I would like to see this reworded to disentangle his group's true contribution (which was NOT the "discovery of HIV"). You shouldn't have to carefully parse each word in a Wikipedia sentence like a lawyer's mumbo-jumbo, imho. Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of good work (and some bad work), but using misleading phrases is a bit beneath where I'd hope wikipedia can be.Abitslow (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead
I appreciate your concerns but these phrases (see below) are either off topic (coatrack) or unneeded detail for the lead which is supposed to be a brief summary. They could be removed or moved to the body of the article without detracting from the subject's achievements IMO.
 * the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
 * two longtime scientific collaborators, Robert R. Redfield and William A. Blattner
 * which develops and commercializes technologies to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by human viral diseases, including HIV
 * Gallo states that his choice of profession was influenced by the early death of his sister from leukemia, a disease to which he initially dedicated much of his research.
 * -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Keithbob for these good suggestions. I have edited the lead in response to the first three points. I'm unsure how to handle the last one but agree that it could be moved into the body of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved some things around without changing any content (except section headings). Se what you think. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Please, add reference to key players in the discovery of chemokines as HIV inhibitors, who are not mentioned in the existing version, delete inaccurate statement ("halt the progression of AIDS") since no demonstration was reported, and add/modify missing/incorrect references:

Original text: In 1995, Gallo published his discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, can block HIV and halt the progression of AIDS. This was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs within the same year of his publication.[17]

Proposed revision: In 1995, Gallo with his colleagues Paolo Lusso and Fiorenza Cocchi published their discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, are potent and specific HIV inhibitors. This discovery was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs-of-the-year.[ ]

PLwiki 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Please correct name of Dr. Salahuddin and correct erroneous reference:

Original text: In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Saira Salahuddin discovered Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[16] later found to cause Roseola, an infantile disease.

Proposed revision: In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Syed Zaki Salahuddin discovered human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[ ] later found to cause Roseola infantum, an infantile disease.

PLwiki 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019
The link for the first citation is currently defunct - please change it to a wayback machine link to the 2015 site*, or find another source with the same information.

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150707151929/https://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/innovators/bio_gallo.html Limnanthes (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 14:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021
2601:14D:8701:5880:7DE1:4AC1:CC00:E1C3 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Dr. Luc Montagnier discovered the AIDS virus NOT Gallo
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021
Robert Gallo had no role in the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The two French French virologists Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier discovered this and sent their findings to Gallo who took their results and claimed them as his own. When he finally met with the French virologists, they agreed to share credit because Gallo was a better-known virologist. But the two French virologists won the Nobel prize. Gallo was not included since he stole their research. He DID, however, develop the HIV blood test. So I’m suggesting that you please remove part of the second sentence in the first paragraph that gives him credit for discovering HIV.

It looks like you have the correct information in the body of the document so I don’t think anything else needs to be changed. Thank you very much. Dreemsnake (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021
In December of 1992, after three years of investigation, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found Robert C. Gallo committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS. 66.41.212.46 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Gallo


text:
Talk:Epistle to the Ephesians

Looking to Revamp this article
I am looking to revamp this page with more scholarship and would like help if anyone is able. Leave me a note if you are able to help coldfire136

Quite a lot has been added since you posted your note. A Georgian (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Authorship
The section on Authorship I think is quite unbalanced, failing to present a NPOV. It is pretty inconceivable that Paul could have written both Collossians and Ephesians at the same time but yet have such a marked difference in Theology. Furthermore the language used by the author, referring to a Universal 'Church' ekkleisia, is unlike him. Reference to the ascension and the descension actually make it seem more akin to Luke than Paul, as well as the fact that 25 of the 40 words in Ephesians not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus are found in Luke. Also, reference to "Holy Apostles and Prophets" found in Luke and Revelation, while Paul certainly did not think of himself as holy, being otherwise quite modest. Problem with calling the Holy Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the Church, going directly against 1 Cor, where Jesus is the only Foundation of the Church...

Anyway, the arguments are extensive against Pauline authorship. I think the argument against Pauline authorship be strengthened on this page. Perhaps also there should be a bit on other hypotheses - such as Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus as suggested by Goodspeed, or Tychicus as suggested by Mitton. Or even the writer of Luke-Acts as suggested by Martin? --Chopz 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should just add, I think the hypothesis of a "round robin" is incredibly unlikely. As has been recognised by numerous scholars, in the days before printing writing was a laborious process. I think a more likely defense of Pauline authorship would be evidence (such as by Coutts) that Colossians is dependent on Ephesians. The argument that the letter was sent to the Laodiceans falls down simply because it stems from the reference to a letter in Col 4, sent to Laodicea, a larger neighbouring town to Colossae, as noted by Marcion. One can just as easily argue that the Ephesian letter is genuine because of the letter mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:12, which Tertulian saw to be the Ephesian letter. So either way that argument doesn't hold.

I cannot currently properly reference all the material so I cannot edit the article myself - I can though draw upon the article. When I can I will edit that section. Any Thoughts? Chopz 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I am not an NT scholar, but certainly my impression from an undergrad introduction (including my textbook,

Norman Perrin's The New Testament, an introduction), the books and papers that I've read, and a look in top hits on Google and Google Scholar with the search {ephesians pauline OR deutero} indicate that Ephesians is widely accepted to be deutero-Pauline (ie, not written by Paul of Tarsus). The churches the apostles left behind, by conservative scholar Raymond E. Brown, asserts that "about 80% [of critical scholarship judges] that he [Paul] did not write Ephesians". It seems this page is far from NPOV, or at least, very far indeed from representing the field. Mikalra (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mikalra, for your attentiveness to the authorship issue, and for taking the time to research the matter. I agree with your assessment and have included your research. Best to you in your studies! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I am upset about the way that you put accross the view of non Pauline authorship, and even describe the possibility of Pauline authorship as being plagued with "insurmountable difficulties". The true picture is quite the reverse! The person who argues about words used by Paul and Luke misses the point that for many years Luke and Paul were best of friends and close travelling companions. Their use of language would not be as different as supposed. A non Pauline author would have to write, in the first person, pretending to be Paul, chained up in Rome because of his ministry as apostle to the Gentiles, without further explanation, at a time when all of the churches knew Paul to be dead! Can you imagine such a lying text being accepted as Canon? I cannot! As for differences in theology betweeen Colossians and Ephesians, this really is the stuff of nonsense, with whole sections being virtually identical, it is reasonable to suppose that Paul dictated them both to different amenuensis at approx. the same time. The personal greetings given in Ephesians, its theology and its pastoral prayers, are entirely Pauline. If 80% of scholars disagree then 80% of scholars are not worth their bursaries. In view of my concerns, might it be possible to add some balance to this article's introduction, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew Bartlett (talk • contribs) 09:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd also like to point out that with Wikipedia's summary style, the introduction is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Instead, that majority of the introduction is dedicated with emphasizing a particular POV regarding authorship (aparently widely-accepted, but POV nonetheless). Whether or not those statements are accurate is not the point though, most of that belongs in the Authorship section, leaving a brief mention in the introduction to lead into the section. A reader interested in authorship will pursue the more detailed Pauline authorship article, the average reader is more likely wanting a more well-rounded summary of all aspects of this topic. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... the mobile version makes the introduction look a lot longer. On second thought, we could just add more summary from the rest of the article to balance it a bit. Like I said before, it's too focused on the authorship issues without addressing what the epistle actually talks about and its cultural and religious impact.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say but Chopz's emphasis on a "marked difference in theology" from Colossians is an overstatement. There's practically nothing aside from a couple of words and phrases such as "mysterion" "ekklesia" (aren't we all tired of that one being brought up), and phrases such as Eph. 3:5 and 2:20f., which I think are adequately explained by some of the links defending authorship. Please don't overstate your case with empty words. Cornelius (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The references in this section do not support the claims made in it, nor are very new. This section seems biased and poorly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C067:201:41FD:6768:693A:5569 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The way to "fix" thing is not to add more unsourced claims, add the sources relevant to your additions. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, perhaps it's time I make an account here and fix it. The whole list of scholars is outdated, none are contemporary voices, save Wallace. Similarly, I must ask have you, who are reverting my edits actually checked the sources cited? My assumption is no, otherwise you'd support removing them also. - Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C067:201:584D:3A04:CCB3:4246 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, make an account and above all don't editwar. I might even support you if I saw your specific complaints and suggestions for new sources.  Doug Weller  talk 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Marriage?
I removed the following:

''The Epistle to Ephesians is important as it outlines the role of marriage in Christian life. A central passage is the following: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church. (Ephesians 5:22-24.) This serves as a spirtual basis for the the concept of a Christian wife.''

I have the following objections to the above:
 * 1) This is not a unique significance of the book of Ephesians. This is stated almost identically in Colossians 3:18. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is also somewhat similar.
 * 2) The author failed to properly explain the Scriptural relationship between husband and wife. Instead, a tiny portion of Scripture was quoted out of context. The section of Scripture in which this appears speaks of several commonplace relationships and shows the ways in which BOTH parties in the relationship ought to submit. That is why it begins with the general statement "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (5:21).
 * 3) A proper explanation of this relationship would require it's own article which, IMHO, has no place in an encyclopedia. If it does have a place then it is not in an article on the Epistle to the Ephesians or an article entitled "Christian Wife" (surely THAT is not an article title we need in wikipedia?). Perhaps there is an article, or group of articles, on marriage in wikipedia. This would be a much more appropriate place for this discussion.
 * 4) The author failed to fit this section in with the flow and organization of the article and instead simply inserted it at the top. If it couldn't be properly merged it should at least have been inserted in its own section at the bottom.

-- kpearce

Agreed. This passage was handled badly and should have been removed the way it was. However, the ideas contained in this particular passage, while not totally unique to Ephesians, are an important part of the book and provide the basis for many sermons and scriptural teachings. On this basis, I believe it warrants its own section.

The passage is not about the concept of a "Christian Wife". This passage describes two relationships by comparing them: that between Husband and Wife and between Christ and the Church. On one level, it's a picture that is recurrant throughout the New Testament: that of Christ as a Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride. The Church should honor Christ with faithfulness, obedience and service. Christ listens to prayers, protects, guides and provides for the Church with an undying, selfless, self-sacrificing love.

On the other level, it's a picture of the ideal relationship between husband and wife. "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church." The husband's role in the marriage covenant is supposed to mirror Christ's love for the Church ie. listen to, protect, guide and provide for his wife with undying, selfless, self-sacrificing love. His wife should return this love with faithfulness, honor and the practical manifestations of obedience and service. These last two, because of the modern connotations, can cause controversy, but they do not mean that the wife is supposed to be submissive or subservient to the husband. In fact, the Book of Proverbs and many other sections of Scripture describe a "Godly Woman" or "Godly Wife" as strong, assertive, capable of conducting business, etc. "Obedience" is simply not subverting the Husband's authority as Head of the Family and "Service" means the little (and sometimes not so little) things/chores that one enjoys doing for the one they love.

It must also be said that while Christ is divine and ONLY capable of the love necessary to make this kind of relationship work, Man is obviously not. But it is a husbands duty as a Christian to strive for this type of love for his wife. And it is his wife's duty as a Christian to "obey" and "serve" only to the extent to which her husband's love and care resembles Christ's.  That is to say, if a man is treating his wife disrespectfully, or leading her to do things that are detrimental to her health or spiritual well-being or, worse yet, physically harming her, he has strayed from the Biblical mandate to love her as Christ loves the Church and she is obviously not bound to obey. WilliamThweatt 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
User:CheeseDreams added the NPOV disclaimer to this article, which says "Please see its talk page." The edit summary was "If collossians is one of the disputed texts and ephesians isn't then the description of ephesians being the copy from collossians isn't NPOV" I'm afraid I don't follow. What part of the article is disputed? – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Theology?
It seems like theology is a rather awkward title for the section on wives submitting to husbands. Would not ethics be a better word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.69.224 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref
Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding new links
I would like to suggest a link be added to this site: Ephesians Reading Room Tyndale Seminary Neufast (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the following links to be added to the site:

http://www.raystedman.org/ephesians/ - Expository Messages on Ephesians by Ray Stedman This is a very good sermons by Ray Stedman containing both text (PDF files) and audio version (MP3).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFFefIazUpw - Piercing Words Ephesian Performance Part I Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFFefIazUpw - Piercing Words Ephesian Performance Part II Youtube video This is a very good performance with Ephesians as the text.

Danny Sutanto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eesutant (talk • contribs) 08:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ephesus as Original Audience
It is quite likely that a letter written with a primary audience of Asia Minor would have first traveled through Ephesus, it being a primary port into Asia Minor. While some early manuscripts do not specifically refer to Ephesus, one can assume that any letter from Rome would first travel to Ephesus be read there and then commence its travels through Asia Minor. It is also likely that the letter would have been addressed to them in practicality, if not doctrinal necessity, as a first stop in its travels throughout the Church world. The possibility that the letter was not first addressed to the Ephesians is overshadowed by the probability that they were the first congregation in Asia Minor to see the letter. A quick review of any Asia Minor map of the first century will collaborate this information and make this a very distinct possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.199.34 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
How come the picture in the infobox is from Corinthians, and not Ephesians? The P46 includes Ephesians, so can we get a more appropriate image? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an infobox - it's a template: Template:Books of the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right about that. Perhaps we need an infobox then.  Or would people find it too hard to agree on one word facts that could be placed there? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Epistle to the Ephesians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090104184919/http://www.nccbuscc.org:80/nab/bible/ephesians/intro.htm to http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ephesians/intro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Small contradiction
Under "Composition", it is stated that critical scholars date this epistle to "between AD 80 and 100." Under "Place, date, and purpose of the writing of the letter" it is stated that such critics date it "to between 70–80 AD." This contradiction should be resolved. seberle (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An anonymous user has changed the second date to "between 60-63 AD," but kept the same reference. Is this correct for this reference? The first date still reads "between AD 80 and 100," so the dates are still contradictory. --seberle (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous edit has been undone, but the contradiction remains. --seberle (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Other possible writers
Barnabas may have written this just before he died (61 AD), Or the Apostle Mark, or Silas. Logawinner (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources when you make claims. That's your responsibility. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Founding of the Church at Ephesus - Correction
The opening three sentences of this section have, I think, been composed from memory and require correction. I would suggest amending as follows:

"Paul's first and hurried visit to Ephesus is recorded in Acts 18:18–22. The work he began on this occasion was carried forward by Aquila and Priscilla and subsequently by Apollos[18:24–26]. On his second visit, some time later[18:22-23,27 & 9:1,] he remained at Ephesus for at least 27 months[19:8,10,22], for he found it was the key to the western provinces of Asia Minor."

By way of further explanation, it should be noted that Paul's first visit took place during his voyage to Syria. His companions, Aquila and Priscilla, disembarked at Ephesus; whereas Paul continued his journey to Caesarea. Stopovers of a few days on a long voyage for loading/unloading, or to await better weather, were commonplace and Luke's account makes no mention of an extended stay (the '3 months' mentioned in the article appears to have been confused with Acts 19:8). This is even more apparent when compared with the Western text of Acts, which reads:

"And he came to Ephesus, and on the next sabbath he left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and discoursed with the Jews. And when they asked him to abide a longer time, he consented not…" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.226.192 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"According to one scholarly source"
Which one of the seven cited? Srnec (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Epistle to the Ephesians


text:
Manukau City

Manukau City was a territorial authority district in Auckland, New Zealand, that was governed by the Manukau City Council. The area is also referred to as "South Auckland", although this term never possessed official recognition and does not encompass areas such as East Auckland, which was within the city boundary. It was a relatively young city, both in terms of legal status and large-scale settlement – though in June 2010, it was the third largest in New Zealand, and the fastest growing. In the same year, the entire Auckland Region was amalgamated under a single city authority, Auckland Council.

The name Manukau, originating from the Manukau Harbour west of the city, is of Māori origin, and means "wading birds", although it has been suggested that the original name of the harbour was Mānuka, meaning a marker post with which an early chief is said to have claimed the area.

History
Manukau City is a culturally significant place to Waiohua iwi, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua, who are the Mana Whenua iwi of the Manukau area.

Manukau City was formed by the amalgamation of Manukau County and Manurewa Borough in 1965. The council originally housed their offices at the Nathan Estate (now the Auckland Botanic Gardens, until permanent offices were constructed. The city expanded in a 1989 New Zealand-wide re-organisation of local government, absorbing Papatoetoe City and Howick Borough, but losing some land to the newly formed Papakura District. On 1 November 2010, Manukau City Council was abolished, and the governed area was amalgamated into the Manukau, Howick, Manurewa-Papakura, and Franklin wards of the new Auckland "super city".

The district was named in 1965 by a poll of residents, ahead of other suggestions that included Churchill (after Sir Winston Churchill); Hobson and Fergusson (after governors general); Massey and Savage (after prime ministers); Kennedy, Rutherford, Ngarimu, Herewini, Snell, Mananui and Manukaurewa.

Manukau County
In 1923, Manukau County covered 195 mi2 and had a population of 6,146, with 163 mi of gravel roads, 90 mi of mud roads and 115 mi of tracks.

Geography
The Manukau City area is concentrated immediately to the south of the Ōtāhuhu isthmus, the narrowest connection between Auckland City and the Northland region and the rest of the North Island. At its narrowest, between the Otahuhu Creek arm of the Tamaki River (itself an estuarial arm of the Hauraki Gulf) in the east and the Māngere Inlet (an arm of the Manukau Harbour) to the west, the isthmus is only some 1500 metres across.

The area to the south of the isthmus contains the heart of Manukau, sprawled on either side of state highways 1 and 20, the latter of which approaches from the west after crossing Māngere Bridge. The area known as Manukau Central is located close to the junction of these two highways, some 20 kilometres southeast of the centre of Auckland city.

Considerable rural and semi-rural land to the east of Manukau Central was within the city council district. This extended towards the Hunua Ranges close to the Firth of Thames, and took in such communities as Clevedon and Maraetai.

Beyond Manukau City to the south is Papakura and the Franklin District, which are less urban, but still part of the Auckland Region, and to some extent regarded as an integral part of Auckland's urban area.

Auckland Airport is located in Māngere, in the west of Manukau, close to the waters of the Manukau Harbour. Manukau City includes the theme park Rainbow's End, and one of the oldest shopping malls in the country, now called Westfield Manukau City.

Transport
In 2009, work started on the Manukau Branch passenger railway line from the North Island Main Trunk at Puhinui. The branch line opened on 15 April 2012 with Manukau railway station as the terminus for Eastern Line services. The Manukau Institute of Technology university campus building is built over the top of the station, which serves the Manukau city centre. On 7 April 2018, a 23-bay bus station (Manukau bus station) was opened on a lot adjacent to the train station to create a transport hub serving most of the southern Auckland Region.

Population
For some years before the 1989 re-organisation of local government, Manukau City had the highest population of any city or district in the country.

Like most of the rest of the region, Manukau is ethnically diverse, and is home to many people, especially Māori and members of Polynesian ethnicities, with a recent concentration of Asians in and near Howick. It is densely populated by New Zealand standards, despite having very few apartments or other forms of attached housing.

As of the late 2000s, slightly less than 50% of the city's population identified as European, with 17% as Māori, 27% as Pacific, and 15% as Asian, with the balance made up of other groups.

Administrative divisions
Prior to being merged into Auckland Council on November 2010, Manukau City was divided into seven wards; each of them consisting of the following populated places (i.e.: suburbs, towns, localities, settlements, communities, hamlets, etc.):

Currently in Manurewa and Manukau Wards (post-2010)

 * Manurewa Ward
 * Manurewa
 * Manurewa East
 * Clendon Park
 * Wiri
 * Manukau
 * Manukau Heights
 * Weymouth
 * Waimahia Landing
 * Wattle Cove
 * Wattle Downs
 * Silkwood Heights
 * The Gardens
 * Totara Heights
 * Randwick Park
 * Redoubt Park
 * Heron Point
 * Murphy's Heights
 * Mahia Park
 * Hill Park
 * Goodwood Heights
 * Porchester Park
 * Settlers Cove
 * Greenmeadows

 * Māngere Ward
 * Māngere East
 * Favona
 * Māngere Bridge
 * Māngere
 * Airport Oaks
 * Ihumatau
 * Papatoetoe Ward
 * Papatoetoe
 * Puhinui
 * Middlemore
 * Otara Ward
 * Ōtara
 * Clover Park
 * Chapel Downs
 * East Tāmaki (south portion)
 * Flat Bush (west portion)

Currently in Howick Ward (post-2010)

 * Pakuranga Ward
 * Bucklands Beach
 * Eastern Beach
 * Half Moon Bay
 * Farm Cove
 * Sunnyhill
 * Pakuranga
 * Pakuranga Heights
 * Howick Ward
 * Mellons Bay
 * Howick
 * Cockle Bay
 * Highland Park
 * Botany Downs
 * Somerville
 * Shelly Park
 * Meadowlands

 * Botany-Clevedon Ward
 * Botany Community Board
 * East Tāmaki (north portion)
 * Flat Bush (east portion)
 * Burswood
 * Golflands
 * Hungtingdon Park
 * North Park
 * Shamrock Park
 * Dannemora
 * East Tāmaki Heights
 * Botany
 * Greenmount
 * Ormiston
 * Mission Heights
 * Regis Park
 * Tuscany Estates
 * Donegal Park
 * Fairborn
 * Bremner Ridge
 * Donegal Glen
 * Vista Estate
 * Baverstock
 * Hilltop
 * Tuscany Heights
 * Botany Junction

 * Clevedon Community Board
 * Whitford
 * Brookby
 * Beachlands
 * Maraetai
 * Clevedon
 * Kawakawa Bay
 * Orere Point
 * Ardmore (partially)
 * Alfriston (partially)

 * Notes:

Prominent people

 * Len Brown, former Mayor, and former Mayor of Auckland
 * Jim Anderton, former city councillor, who rose to be the country's Deputy Prime Minister
 * Sir Barry Curtis, former long-serving Mayor, from 1983 to 2007
 * David Lange, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Member of Parliament for Māngere
 * Award-winning rapper and former member of The Deceptikonz, Savage

Local government
The Manukau City Council was the elected local authority of the city from 1965 until November 2010 when the Auckland Council was created.

Manukau City had an elected Youth Council which primarily acted as an advisory committee and advocate for youth in the city.

Sister city

 * 🇯🇵 Utsunomiya, Tochigi, Japan

title: Manukau City


text:
Millimeter cloud radar

Millimeter-wave cloud radars, also denominated cloud radars, are radar systems designed to monitor clouds with operating frequencies between 24 and 110 GHz (Table 1). Accordingly, their wavelengths range from 1 mm to 1.11 cm, about ten times shorter than those used in conventional S band radars such as NEXRAD.

Table 1: Millimetre cloud radar operating bands
The main purpose of these radars is the investigation of cloud properties and evolution. They typically operate at 35 GHz in the Ka band and at 94 GHz in the W band, where the atmospheric transmission is maximum. These frequencies correspond to wavelengths around 8 and 3 mm. Millimeter cloud radars have a high temporal and range resolution: temporal resolution is adjustable and typically ranges from 1 to 10 seconds, while the range resolution ranges from a few meters for cloud radars using frequency modulation of the transmitted signal (e.g. 4 m for the Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) 94 GHz cloud radar operating at UK Met Office), to several meters for magnetron based cloud radars (e.g. from 15 to 60 m for MIRA systems). The maximum detection range is between 14 and 20 km and the Doppler velocity resolution is of few cm/s. Most of the cloud radars are polarimetric, being able to measure the particles irregularity by means of the linear depolarization ratio (LDR). Usually they operate pointing to the zenith, but an increasing number of them have nowadays scanning units, that allow to retrieve additional information such as volume information when performing various Range Height Indicator (RHI) scans at different angles and at a relatively high speed, and vertical wind profiles, when performing plan position indicator (PPI) at few degrees from the zenith.

Regarding the different cloud radars operating wavelengths, it must be taken into account that longer wavelengths are less attenuated by drizzle and rain, while shorter wavelengths are more sensitive to smaller particles. Accordingly, radar signals are less attenuated in Ka-band than in W-band, while W-band radars are able to detect smaller particles. Even though, the cloud radar beams are much less attenuated by cloud or precipitation particles than the lidar beam.

Cloud radars are used nowadays to determine cloud boundaries (e.g. cloud bases and tops) and to estimate clouds microphysical properties, such as particle size and mass content, which aids in understanding how clouds reflect, absorb and transform radiant energy passing through the atmosphere. They are also intensively used to investigate fog. Furthermore, cloud radars are being used for entomology studies for more than 40 years, since Ka and W-band radars detect almost exclusively insect targets on warm cloudless days, and more recently are also used for the study of giant aerosols.

Even though most cloud radar systems are ground-based, they can also be airborne and space-based. Examples of airborne systems are cloud radars installed on HALO (High Altitude and Long Range Research Aircraft) and Wyoming KingAir Research Aircraft. An example of spaceborne Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) is operating in the CloudSAT satellite since 2006. The first spaceborne CPR with Doppler capability will be launched in March 2023 aboard the Earth Clouds, Aerosols and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) mission.

Measuring with a radar: from IQ to spectra
Pulsed Radar systems are considered active instruments because they transmit in the atmosphere an electromagnetic wave and receive the signal reflected back from the atmosphere. In such radars, the antenna sends out the electromagnetic wave, and then collects the returned signal. Radars are composed of different hardware parts, each of which contains different elements. The figure on page 9 in Clothiaux et al. 1996 is showing such units.

The electromagnetic wave sent in the atmosphere is an EM wave of the form shown in figure on page 10 of. Such wave is generated by an oscillator in the transmitter unit and then transferred through wave guides to the antenna, which radiates it in the atmosphere. The theory of propagating waves in rectangular shaped waveguides having a vertical axis of symmetry shows that by setting appropriate dimensions of the waveguide, the resulting electric field is propagating parallel to the interior space of the waveguide in the vertical direction, having a y sinusoidal in time component (transverse wave).

The expression of the electric field radiated at a distance $$r$$ far from the antenna is, adopting complex notation in spherical coordinate system $$(r; \theta; \phi)$$:

where $$\omega_c$$ is the carrier frequency of the wave, $$t$$ is the time, $$c$$ is the speed of light, $$r$$ is the distance from the antenna, $$k_c$$ is the wavenumber and $$\lambda_c$$ is the wavelength, while $$A_i$$ is the amplitude of the wave which depends on the power delivered to the antenna, on its characteristics and it is affected by the power losses in the waveguides. The function $$U(t-2r/c)$$ is a modulating function which is 1 when its argument is between 0 and $$\tau$$, and 0 elsewhere. Therefore, such electromagnetic (EM) field is oscillating sinusoidally in time within the pulse width $$T_{pw}$$ and is zero outside the pulse envelope, as shown in figure 3 on page 10 of. This EM wave is sent to the atmosphere: every pulse is scattered by a volume of air filled with hydrometeors and comes back to the radar. The antenna collects the returned signal, which is then filtered to remove the high carrier frequency, amplified and then downconverted and digitized.

The scattered electric field collected by the antenna is a composite of discrete echoes from all the scatterers contained in the volume and can be written as:

where $$A_{r,m}$$ is the amplitude of the electric field scattered by the mth scatterer, $$r_m$$ is the position of the mth scatterer, $$\omega_c$$ is the carrier frequency and $$\omega_{d,m}t$$ represents the shift in phase of the scattered wave in the direction of the radar due to the relative radial velocity of the target with respect to the radar, while $$\phi_{s,m}$$ and $$\phi_{t}$$ are respectively the phase shift upon scattering and the transmitter phase, which can be assumed constants ( $$\phi_{s,m}$$ can depend on time for meteorological targets like vibrating water drops and tumbling ice particles).

As already mentioned, a weather signal is a composite of echoes coming from a very large number of hydrometeors. Such echoes are received continuously at the radar antenna after a delay equal to the time taken by the wave to reach the target and come back to the radar. Since individual echoes are impossible to be resolved individually, we sample the signal coming from the atmosphere at given discrete time delays $$\tau_s$$.

Such $$\tau_s$$ defines the range of the scatterers that contribute mostly to the sample of the signal. The number of distinct resolution volumes in space from which the radar collects information is equal to the number of samples $$N_g$$ that are collected by the radar between any two radar pulses. The expression of the sampled received voltage is:

For every range gate ( $$\tau_s$$) and for every pulse cycle ( $$T_s$$), the so-called I and Q voltages are derived taking the real and imaginary part of the complex voltage given in ($$): Their expressions are:

Therefore, after such sampling of the received signal, a time serie of I/Q signals is associated to every range gate.

As radar transmits coherent pulses with a certain pulse repetition frequency (PRF), the doppler processing technique is applied. A Power spectrum can be calculated from a sequence of $$N_f I_n+iQ_n$$ components in the following way. In every range gate the FFT algorithm is applied to the serie of $$N_f$$ IQ signals, where $$N_f$$ is the number of FFT points used in the FFT. The result of the FFT is a complex spectrum $$S_{compl}(k)$$ where $$k$$ is the Doppler frequency. The power spectra is then easily estimated by

Such spectra is the distribution of radial velocities of the targets in the volume analyzed weighted with the power of the signal.

The Doppler spectra

Usually numerous targets are present in the sample volume of the radar. Each of the individual targets produces a frequency shift according to its radial velocity. Measuring the returned power in any interval of the frequency shift allows the detection of the Doppler spectrum. This is illustrated in the Figure on the right, where a sketch of the Doppler spectrum is shown. The frequency is already converted into velocity in the x axis.

From the Doppler spectrum the reflectivity $Z$ can be calculated using the expression:

The integral of the spectral power $S(v_{d})$ is called the 0-moment of the Doppler spectrum, which equals the reflectivity $Z$. Further, the first moment ($$) and the second moment ($$) of the Doppler spectrum can be calculated:

The first moment of the Doppler spectrum is the mean Doppler velocity $V$. It corresponds to the mean radial velocity in the sampled volume.

The second moment is called the Doppler width $W$. It corresponds to the variance of the Doppler spectrum. The Doppler width basically is a measure of the width of the spectrum of the detected velocities. It can also be a measure of the number of modes the targets size distribution has. A mono-modal distribution gives a small spectral width. A distribution that has several modes yields a larger spectral width, as illustrated in Figure 5. The spectral width is also influenced by turbulent motion of the targets in the sample volume: the spectral width increases with increasing turbulence.

The expressions to calculate the Kurtosis and the Skewness are coming out of mathematical statistics several formulations are used. Some of them can be found in the quoted literature in Kurtosis section.

Doppler velocity
Mean Doppler velocity can be seen as the mean frequency of a power spectrum (Doppler velocity) of the backscattered power.

Given the mean Doppler velocity (mean frequency of the power spectrum) of the measured volume along the line of sight – the radial velocity. For vertical measurements, the Doppler velocities is the sum of terminal velocity of particles, caused by gravity force, and air motions within the measured volume. Terminal velocity contains the information about microphysical properties of cloud particles. In order to obtain the terminal velocity from the cloud-radar observations, the influence of air motions that shift the spectrum have to be removed from the Doppler spectra, improving in this way the microphysics representativity. An approach to correct this shift is given by Kollias et al., improving the accuracy of the relation between the corrected Doppler velocity and the particle fall velocities.

Doppler width
The Doppler width, or Doppler spectrum width, is the standard deviation of the spectrum. Accordingly, small values stand for narrow spectra, while higher spectrum width corresponds to a bigger spreading of the hydrometeors over the velocity domain (frequency domain). Reasons for a higher width could be bi- or multiple-modal spectra. This means that the measured volume contains more than one hydrometeor population, which leads to two or more modes in the Doppler spectrum because of the different terminal velocities. A rapid change in Doppler width in combination with the mean Doppler velocity can also be used to separate two hydrometeor population.

Since the air motion in the atmosphere affects the Doppler width, this parameter provides information about turbulence within the measured volume. Up- and downdrafts slow down the terminal fall velocities and can decrease or increase the Doppler width. If the measurements are not done pointing to the zenith, the horizontal wind component influences the width as well. The knowledge of the actual wind components in the atmosphere can be used to correct the Doppler spectrum, so that the retrieved microphysical parameters can be improved and the uncertainties decreased.

Skewness
The skewness parameter of the Doppler spectrum describes the asymmetry of the spectrum with respect to a symmetric Gaussian distribution.

This parameter relates the location of the spectrum peak in respect to the mean spectrum value. Therefore, a positive skewness value indicates that the peak is located to the left with respect to the mean. A negative skewed spectrum has its peak on the right side with respect to the spectrum mean. A value around zero indicates a symmetric spectrum. In this way, the shape of a Doppler gives information on changes of cloud microphysics or of dynamical changes within the measured volume. The higher the elevation of the radar is, the higher are the dynamical influences on this parameter. Because wind shears lead to a broadening of the Doppler spectrum width, they can lead to rapid changes in skewness as well. To be able to relate the change in skewness of the Doppler spectrum, the Doppler width should be cross-checked as well.

If the radar measurements are done vertically, the skewness of the Doppler spectrum gives information about measured cloud microphysics. The horizontal wind within the measured volumes cause only a shift of the whole spectrum within the Doppler domain. This means that the spectrum is shifted along the Doppler velocity axis but it did not influence the broadening of the spectra. So the changes in skewness give information about:

 * if the minority of the hydrometeors is falling faster or slower as the mean Doppler velocity
 * if the Doppler spectrum is dominated by small hydrometeors (slower than the mean) or bigger particles (faster than the mean Doppler velocity)
 * the shape of the size distribution of the measured hydrometeors
 * changes over height or time can be related to a change in the cloud microphysics

Kurtosis
The kurtosis of the Doppler spectrum also relates to its curve. It describes the tails of the spectrum curve relative to Gaussian.

Since the measure is dominated by the extremes, kurtosis can give information about the spectrum tail weight, helping to describe the spectrum better.

If a Doppler spectrum is exactly normally distributed, then its kurtosis equals 3.0. If in general the kurtosis is >3, then the spectrum is called leptokurtic, or leptokurtotic. It can be assumed that the Doppler spectrum is dominated by one single particle population that leads to a strong and narrow peak, which in some (but not all) cases is indicated by high kurtosis. If the spectrum has kurtosis <3 then it is called platykurtic, or platykurtotic. The shape of such a spectrum (in some cases) may have a lower, wider peak around the mean and thinner tails, but it can also be infinitely peaked, so kurtosis is not a good measure of "peakedness." Examples of such shapes can be found in the kurtosis wiki entry.

The Doppler radar kurtosis analysis started quite recently, so there are still few scientific publications dealing with this parameter. An example can be found in Kollias et al., where kurtosis is used to interpret Doppler spectra and to understand the microphysical changes that it represents.

Polarimetric measurements in cloud radars
Polarimetric methods are considered to be a powerful tool in the remote sensing of the atmosphere, and particularly in radar observations of clouds and precipitation. Polarimetric techniques have been well developed for operational use in weather radar networks such as American NEXRAD and European OPERA, and, currently, are being implemented in ground based and airborne cloud radars. These techniques enable advanced clutter filtering, discrimination between meteorological and non-meteorological targets, and classification of atmospheric scatterers. Another potential of polarimetric measurements of cloud radars is the estimation of ice crystals habit that is one of the main problems in remote observations of mixed-phase clouds. The assumed shape of ice crystals is considered to be the main source of errors in size and number concentration retrievals based on vertical combined lidar and radar observations. Furthermore, in the existing numerical weather prediction models the assumed shape defines the depositional growth rate of ice particles and the area-mass-terminal velocity relations of ice crystals. Thus, ice habit can lead to significant uncertainties.

A number of different polarimetric configurations were evaluated in theoretical and experimental studies  and are explained below.

Most of the existing pulse cloud radars operate in the LDR-mode. In this mode, a radar transmits a horizontally polarized radiation and receives horizontal and vertical components of the scattered radiation in co-polarized and cross-polarized channels, respectively. The ratio of the power in the cross-polarized channel over the power in the co-polarized channel, named as linear depolarization ratio, is the polarimetric variable obtained by cloud radars of this type. Often cloud radars have two receiving units, which allows simultaneous measurements of the orthogonal components of the received signal. Some cloud radars have only one receiving unit and measure the orthogonal components consequently, with pulse-to-pulse switching of the receiving channel. Many of operational cloud radars with LDR-mode are pointed vertically together with other remote sensing instruments in order to retrieve microphysical properties of cloud particles. LDR, measured by vertically pointed cloud radar, is used for the detection of the melting layer (also denominated as bright band) and clutter filtering. The application of LDR-mode for the shape classification in scanning cloud radars is limited by its high sensitivity to the orientation of scatterers.

Some cloud radars operate in the SLDR-mode, that is a modification of traditional LDR-mode. In this mode the antenna system of the radar is rotated by 45°, i.e. the transmitted signal has +45° or -45° polarization. In contrast to LDR-mode, SLDR-mode is less sensitive to the particles orientation and, therefore, it is used in cloud radars for the classification of ice crystals. Determination of ice crystals' habit by ground based cloud radars requires elevation scanning and is based on analysis of the angular changes of the polarimetric variables. Evaluation of SLDR with in-situ observations showed the possibility to discriminate between rounded graupel, dendrite crystals, and aggregated ice particles.

Polarization-agile cloud radars use pulse-to-pulse switching between horizontal and vertical polarization state of the transmitted wave. In addition to LDR, such systems are able to measure differential reflectivity (ZDR) and correlation coefficient (ρHV). The combined analysis of LDR, ZDR, and ρHV can be used not only for classification of ice particle habit but also for characterization of their orientations.

CDR-mode cloud radars transmit a circularly polarized wave and receive co-polarized and cross-polarized components. The output polarimetric variable is the so-called circular depolarization ratio (CDR), and it is calculated as the ratio of cross-polarized power over the co-polarized power. In comparison with LDR, CDR is not affected by particles aligned in polarization plane, e.g. insects or ice crystals in electrified atmospheric conditions.

Measurement example
As the cloud radars sample the atmosphere, they measure the backscatter signal produced by different hydrometeor types (cloud droplets, drizzle, rain drops, ice particles, snow, etc.) and non-hydrometeorological targets. All these targets have different vertical velocities and shapes, and therefore the Doppler spectra and LDR can be used to distinguish between targets. In the figure below, an example of the MIRA-36 cloud radar measurements in Potenza is shown, where using the information given by the different parameters, an identification of targets can be done:

 * Liquid water clouds produce a signature in the reflectivity but not in the LDR, since the liquid droplets are almost spherical.
 * Ice clouds are characterized by relatively high LDR signals due to their irregular shapes.
 * Insects produce high LDR values and are usually within the Convective Boundary Layer (CBL), where up- and downdrafts are observed continuously.
 * The melting layer can be identified by an enhancement of the LDR, which is caused by irregular ice particles coated by liquid water during the phase transition.
 * Rain is characterized by high reflectivity values, high falling velocities and a broadening of the spectra.
 * Liquid layers within mixed-phase clouds can be detected by slightly higher peak width values, in accordance to the higher turbulence within.

Cloud radar systems

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Prosensing Inc. designed the Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (SACR) to monitor clouds overhead at various testing sites of the United States Department of Energy's atmospheric radiation measurement program. The radars operate continuously at these sites in Oklahoma, Alaska and the tropical western Pacific Ocean, and are designed to function for at least ten years with minimal staff oversight. The SACR s operate at a frequency of 35 and 94 GHz, being designated as KaSACR and WSACR respectively.

Since the late 2000s, a meteorological 35.5 GHz Ka-band commercial cloud radar (MIRA-36) designed by METEK GmbH in collaboration with the Institute for Radio Astronomy, Kharkov (Ukraine) is in the market. Nowadays, there are eleven systems monitoring the cloud properties continuously in different sites, most of them in Europe. Cloudnet, a network of stations for the continuous evaluation of cloud and aerosol profiles in operational NWP models, assimilates their data, as well as data acquired by other instruments in the various sites with this purpose.

Outside of these networks, some research sites are also operating cloud radars. For example, at the Chilbolton Observatory (UK), two mm-wavelength radars are operating continuously at 3.2 and 9 mm for the study of insects migrations, while a 35 GHz cloud radar is operating in Cabauw (the Netherlands).

title: Millimeter cloud radar


text:
Soyuz 18

Soyuz 18 (Союз 18, Union 18) was a 1975 Soviet crewed mission to Salyut 4, the second and final crew to man the space station. Pyotr Klimuk and Vitaly Sevastyanov set a new Soviet space endurance record of 63 days and the mark for most people in space simultaneously (seven) was tied during the mission.

Mission parameters

 * Mass: 6570 kg
 * Perigee: 193 km
 * Apogee: 247 km
 * Inclination: 51.6°
 * Period: 88.6 minutes

Mission highlights
The Soyuz 18 crew were the back-up crew for the failed Soyuz 18a mission, carried out that mission's objectives, and continued the work of the previous Soyuz 17 crew. Klimuk and Sevastyanov were launched into space on 24 May 1975 and docked with Salyut 4 two days later. The crew quickly set to performing experiments and fixing or replacing equipment. A spectrometer was repaired, a gas analyzer was replaced, and a pumping condenser in the water regeneration system was switched with a hand pump.

On 29 and 30 May 1975, biological and medical experiments were performed and the Oasis garden was started. Studies of the stars, planets, Earth and its atmosphere were started on 2 and 3 June 1975. Some 2,000 photographs of the Earth and 600 of the Sun were reported taken.

More medical experiments were performed in June 1975, and attempts were made to grow plants, including onions. Experiments were carried out on insects, and experiments on varying the work schedule were carried out. Extensive medical experiments were carried out on 23 June 1975, as the crew surpassed the Soviet space endurance record of 29 days, set by Soyuz 17, the Salyut's previous crew. The all-time record was held then by the Skylab 4 crew at 84 days.

On 3 July 1975, it was announced that the mission would last beyond the upcoming Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). To avoid any conflict of resources, the Soyuz 18 crew was controlled from the old Crimean Control Center, while the ASTP Soyuz 19 mission would be controlled from the Kaliningrad Control Center. The Crimean center had not been used since the Soyuz 12 flight. This was the first time the Soviets had to control two unrelated space missions.

The ASTP crews were launched 15 and 16 July 1975, and the Soyuz 18 crew communicated with the Soyuz 19 crew on two brief occasions. The total of seven people in space tied the record set by the Soyuz 6, Soyuz 7 and Soyuz 8 flights of 1969. Once the American ASTP crew landed 24 July 1975, the Soviets had a near six-year monopoly on crewed space flights until the launch of the first Space Shuttle, STS-1, on 12 April 1981.

The Salyut living conditions were starting to degrade by July 1975, with the environmental control system failing, windows fogged over and green mold growing on the station walls. The crew donned exercise suits and increased their exercise period to over two hours a day, and on 18 July 1975 began to prepare the station for uncrewed flight. The Soyuz craft was activated on 24 July 1975 and the crew returned to Earth two days later, on 26 July 1975. It landed at 56 km at the East of Arkalyk, Kazakhstan. The cosmonauts exited the capsule under their own power, but it was two days before Klimuk could take a 10-minute walk, and a week before he made a full recovery.

Soyuz-18 Rock in Antarctica is named after the mission.

title: Soyuz 18