text:
Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 3

Comment
First, there is nothing in "What is German?" that explains or rationalizes his anti-Semitism, it is merely a further example of it. What has the German reunification to do with Wagner's view that Jews were freaks of nature and could only speak in unintelligible voices? There is no cause/effect here, thus no rationalization.

Second, I see no reason to remove specific quotes from Judaism in Music from the article, this will only lead to claims that we are quoting Wagner out of context. It is certainly proper for us to provide quotes from any source document we refer to; if the article gets too long in the process, we need to split it up. --Eloquence 19:28 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Your material in Judaism in Music is already stretching the bounds of quotation out of context. It is sufficient to say that Wagner offered a series of inflammatory insults against Jews in that essay - "freak of nature", "unintelligible voices", and so forth - but those are merely incidental details. They are not central to the thesis of the essay, and not central to understanding Wagner's anti-semitism. To provide an analogy, a description of the Ku Klux Klan could certainly mention the various insults which Klan members directed toward blacks - calling them "animals", and so forth - but the insults should not be mistaken for the Klan's racist goals, which was directed at reversing desegregation.

Wagner, like most other anti-Semites and bigots of other sorts, did not think of themselves as prejudiced people; they generally rationalized their hostility. For Wagner, the "problem" with Jews was that they were a foreign element standing in the way of German culture. Wagner provided this rationalization most clearly in What is German?, but also in his letters and private conversations. Your version paints a cartoon picture of Wagner - Look, here's an anti-Semite! Here are all the ugly things he said! - without providing any deep understanding of the man.

If you wish to go into a long and detailed analysis of Judaism in Music, might I suggest you do it in Das Judenthum in der Musik, which certainly needs work. -- CYD

 * Your "deep understanding" is, frankly, ridiculous. The fact that Wagner held the Jews responsible for stopping the German reunification does not provide any explanation for his anti-Semitic views, it is your interpretation, not Wagner's claims, that one (Wagner's fear of Germany being dominated by this foreign element) led to the other (Wagner's view that Jews are, apparently, somewhere between men and monkeys). Your statement that this is a "cartoon picture" reveals that you are unable to realize the deeply emotional, irrational nature of anti-Semitism, which Wagner himself did realize (read the first paragraphs of Judenthum), instead you presume some sort of hidden rational motives. If you knew a bit more about anti-Semitism, you would know that it is quite cartoonish and idiotic, and the statements by Wagner demonstrate this well, which is why you want them deleted.

 * I can agree to making the presentation of Judenthum somewhat shorter and provide the sordid details in a separate article, but only if his anti-Semitism is not "explained" with your personal interpretation. --Eloquence 20:20 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Please be civil, thanks. I'm well aware that Wagner's prejudices were ultimately irrational (some have argued, for example, that they are due to Wagner's own insecurity over his parentage.) However, the fact remains that he constructed an elaborate argument about this prejudices in the framework of German culture and German reunification. I'm flattered by your description of this as my "interpretation", but it isn't really. From what I've read, the link between his anti-semitism and German reunification is widely acknowledged amongst Wagner scholars.

 * If I dig up references for the link between Wagner's anti-semitism and his thing with German culture and reunification, will that make you happy? -- CYD

 * What is the claim being made here? That Wagner disliked Jews because they stood in the way of unification? This claim is referenced in the article in my last revision. That Wagner's views of Jews as primitive, ugly etc. were caused by this other, somehow more dominant view? Then this is hardly a claim Wagner made himself, but a later interpretation (unless he explicitly said something to the effect of: "Look, yeah, maybe that stuff about the Jews was a bit exaggerated, but I did it to save German culture!") If you want this interpretation in the article, you indeed need to provide a reference, so that other, alternative interpretations can be referenced as well. And if it's an interpretation without a reference or attribution, it is, by definition, your interpretation. --Eloquence 20:52 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * I hope we are not talking past one another, so let me try to be precise. The claim is this: the rationalization which Wagner generally offered for his hostility to Jews was that they are standing in his "project" of "rediscovering" German culture. Do you disagree with this? -- CYD

 * I disagree, because in Judtenthum, he made many other "factual" claims about Jews which were used to justify his hostility towards them. The claim that Jews were somehow subverting the unification is, in that respect, no different from the claim that Jews are ugly and have shrill voices: Both are "factual" claims, both wrong, both supported (at the time) with pseudoscience. --Eloquence 21:10 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Judenthum is a single essay, probably Wagner's shrillest, but he wrote many other essays, plus correspondence. My impression is that his attacks against the Jews were most often couched in cultural terms. But I may be wrong, so I'll concede the point to you for now, while I go check my references. Fair enough? -- CYD

 * Obviously Judenthum is more shrill than his other publications. That's why he originally published it pseudonymously. That does not say anything about a cause/effect relationship, or a rationalization process. Sure, please provide references wherever possible. --Eloquence 21:38 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, we're obviously still miscommunicating. I am not arguing that Wagner's anti-semitism was caused by his preoccupation with German culture; in fact, I wouldn't agree with that statement. What I'm saying is that he turned his anti-semitism into a component of his stated project of reinventing German culture. That's what I meant by "rationalization". -- CYD

 * I'm not sure what you mean with "turned into a component of". Where's the relationship between the reunification and the claims that Jews are annoying freaks? I'm all for a more detailed discussion of Wagner's views, what I am afraid of is an euphemistic intrerpretation, which is what I have edited out. --Eloquence 01:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch, do you mind my asking why you keep removing the alternative URL for dJiM? It is starting to look like you don't want people to read the other one. Is there something wrong with the one that you want to remove, and if so what? And is it the case that the one that you approve of is on your own site or a site with which you are closely linked? or did I get mixed up, in which case I apologise. 138.37.188.109 08:22 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ask yourself this question: how does the alternative link benefit the article? And why did you originally keep removing my link altogether? --Clutch 18:09 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Erm, no thanks, I don't need to ask myself those questions, I asked you to answer a couple of things, which you have failed to do. There's something quite odd about people who answer questions with more questions: the casual observer might wonder what it is that they are trying to evade. Let me try to be more polite than you and answer your points: maybe it will stimulate you into trying to answer mine. Here goes. (1) I don't know how the alternative link benefits the article. I haven't read the contents of both links. That's why I asked you the question - I genuinely wanted to know why your pet link was better than the one you kept deleting. Do you not understand this? It's quite simple - if you know yours is better and can explain why, please do so. (2) Did I originally keep removing your link altogother? I am surprised to hear this but I suppose it is possible. When? I honestly don't think I did, but if you can tell me when that happened I will look at it and see if I can explain it and if not I will apologise. OK? There now, I've answered your questions, you have a little try at mine, it won't hurt. OneEauNine 23:55 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Clutch, weblinks are notoriously unstable. They become useless when websites are reorganized or removed. Therefore it is always useful to have multiple URLs for a given reference. One serves as a backup. I have followed this practice myself in other Wikipedia articles. RK

Unrelated: If the German titles are italicized, why aren't the English? Aren't operas and symphonies and such normally italicized even after being translated? Tuf-Kat

 * Yes, I think so. OneEauNine 23:55 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * So do I. I'll go through the article and fix that now (also, essays should be in quotes, I think, per the Manual of Style). --Camembert

 * Done. I think I've caught them all, anyway. --Camembert

-

Clutch, RK responded to your question and you haven't countered. The alternative link is there in case one of the sites goes down. Tuf-Kat

 * I don't think it even needs to be that - after all we don't normally worry about spare sites for that reason. It would be nice if Clutch were to read and repond to my long paragraph above - ignoring it, and just going ahead and removing the alternate link without addressing the issues in it, was not good manners. I hate edt wars but if the worst comes to the worst I suppose I will just have to keep replacing it until Clutch replies properly to my points. OneEauNine 07:42 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

RK raised irrelevant issues. The real issue is, why did so many people keep replacing my link with another link? It is only recently that some people started putting in an "alternative" link instead of removing mine altogether. Why is that one link so important that it must be put in as an "alternative", even as none of the other links get similar treatment? Inquiring minds want to know. What is so important about putting that particular link in the article? Unlike the one I linked to, it lacks full HTML compliance and spell checking. --Clutch 16:06 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why others kept deleting your original link. No matter the answer, the question at hand is whether or not the alternative link should be kept.  The reason other links don't get duplicates is because either only one copy of them exists, or nobody's found a second copy.  If you can find alternatives for the texts in the Wagner library, feel free to add an alternative link.
 * I can hazard a guess as to why your original link was being removed. Probably, it was because the site is outright racist and people have difficulties linking to it.  None of this has any bearing on the issue at hand, of course.  So to answer your questions: 1) dunno, irrelevant to this issue; 2)nobody's found other links to the same essays; 3)it may be lower quality, but some bizarre people don't want to surf around on racist sites, and in any case, an alternative is useful in case the first site gets shut down. Tuf-Kat

The reason for the alternative link is relevant. Noone even bothered to look for alternative links to the other articles. Labelling my website, Reactor-Core.org as racist is a slander, a smear, and unjustified. I see this as a personal attack on myself, part of the Judeocentric factions continuing campaign of harassment against non-bias and neutrality. --Clutch 16:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia contributors should discount the above claims. Clutch is a paranoid individual who has been using Wikipedia as a forum to promote anti-Semtism; he repeatedly claims that Wikipedia contributors are part of a Zionist-Jewish conspiracy. (In the past, he has referred to Wikipedia as Zionpedia) This disturbed individual needs to be banned. RK

I think that we should link to http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagjuda.htm rather than http://reactor-core.org/judaism/judaism-in-music.html, because the former link is part of a more comprehensive website which contains Wagner's other essays as well. -- CYD

 * I really don't know what all the fuss is about, as http://reactor-core.org/judaism/judaism-in-music.html appears to be a dead link anyway (I get Connection refused attempting to contact host reactor-core.org). Mkweise 18:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is not a dead link, and works fine for everyone else. I suspect your firewall may be a problem.  What IP are you trying to connect from?  --Clutch 18:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * 1) I reorganized the first paragraph or two and a heading.
 * 2) I think Anti-Semitism and Nazi Appropriation heading would read better as Social and political views

Moreover, I think a lot of the heat on this website about Wagner would simmer down if we used phrases like "widely considered anti-Semitic" rather than matter-of-fact expressions like "his anti-Semitic writings". We might even mention, if applicable, that some of his defenders (and I'm definitely NOT one of them) dispute the label anti-Semitic and don't want it applied to him or his views.

 * Only Jew-haters deny that Wagner was an anti-Semite. Let us not allow neo-Nazis to control Wikipedia, Ok? Wagner was an anti-Semite, and that is a historical fact that all non-rabid-Jew-haters agree on. Even German historians admit this. Let us stop trying to rewrite facts to appease Neo-nazis. RK

In short, don't let the article take sides. Let the article DESCRIBE what those sides are -- without evaluating who's right or wrong. I mean, for crying out loud, the reader can judge Wagner themselves based on passages such as, "all Jews are vermin who should be crushed underfoot" or whatever. Just say that Hyman Kaplonsky "regards this statement alone as definitive evidence of Wagner's lifelong virulent anti-Semitism" or something like that.

 * Don't give in to Clutch's attacks. He is the vandal. Just ban him. RK

We don't need to keep fussing over this point, people. He was a brilliant composer whose views on Jews offended a lot of people. Leave it at that, eh? (Note: I am not going to touch ANYTHING AT ALL regarding the controversial anti-Semitism controversy, because I don't want to get involved in the controversy -- in case I have to do something controversial like 'protecting' the page when the controversy heats up again. --Uncle Ed 17:22 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC))

Ed, what are you talking about? The only fuss today has been about a link to one of Wagners essay. I haven't gone near the anti-Semitism controversy for weeks. Please read the actual edit history. I haven't been altering things. --Clutch 17:27 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Clutch, Reactor-Core is your site. Given the fact that you have made repeated attempts to cover up Wagner's anti-Semitism with ridiculous arguments such as:

 * The question was not if Wagner was anti-Semitic; it's of whether that is appropriate for the Wikipedia article on Wagner. I don't feel it was. Wagner wrote some great music, and that is what he is famous for. Dragging the mans youthful mistakes and dirty laundry out of the closet after he is dead and gone is bad form.

 * I find it hardly appropriate to link to a copy of this text on your site (in addition, a copy with worse HTML formatting). But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept as a compromise to provide an alternative copy, just in case something "funny" happens to the copy hosted by you. Your complete failure to accept this compromise is evidence once again that you are absolutely incapable of working with others. --Eloquence 17:56 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Finally. An admission that you were changing the link because you had a personal beef with me personally. Such partisanship is not neutral, nor is it appropriate for the Wiki. Slipping in ad-hominems like "your HTML is worse than some other HTML" highlights your personal bias, and willingness to ignore the truth in your personal vendetta. --Clutch 18:05 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * I did not change the link, I (and others) added a link to an alternative copy. I did it not because of a "personal beef with you personally", but because of your past behavior with regard to this specific article. "Your HTML is worse than this HTML" is not an ad hominem. Read up on logical fallacies again, Clutch. And then please go away, as you suggested on your user page. --Eloquence 18:14 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Clutch, why not put the others to shame by turning the other cheek? (See: I learned my lesson.) --Uncle Ed

 * You didn't read my response to you on my talk page. I cordially invite you not to bother responding to my comments unless you are willing to change your behavior and come to my defense once in a while.  Since you invariably come down on the side of your fellow Jews, it's obvious how sincere your conversion to Christianity was. As a US Senator once said: if it these things were just happening by accident, then at least some of the time, things should go in our favor. --Clutch 19:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I really don't think this sort of personal attack is warranted or useful. --Camembert

title: Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 3


text:
Propranolol

Propranolol, sold under the brand name Inderal among others, is a medication of the beta blocker class. It is used to treat high blood pressure, a number of types of irregular heart rate, thyrotoxicosis, capillary hemangiomas, performance anxiety, and essential tremors, as well to prevent migraine headaches, and to prevent further heart problems in those with angina or previous heart attacks. It can be taken orally (by mouth) or by intravenous injection (injection into a vein). The formulation that is taken orally (by mouth) comes in short-acting and long-acting versions. Propranolol appears in the blood after 30 minutes and has a maximum effect between 60 and 90 minutes when taken orally.

Common side effects include nausea, abdominal pain, and constipation. It may worsen the symptoms of asthma. Propranolol may cause harmful effects for the baby if taken during pregnancy. Its use during breastfeeding is probably safe. It is a non-selective beta blocker which works by blocking β-adrenergic receptors.

Propranolol was patented in 1962 and approved for medical use in 1964. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. Propranolol is available as a generic medication. In 2021, it was the 91st most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 7million prescriptions.

Medical uses
Propranolol is used for treating various conditions, including:

Cardiovascular

 * Hypertension
 * Angina pectoris (with the exception of variant angina)
 * Myocardial infarction
 * Tachycardia (and other sympathetic nervous system symptoms, such as muscle tremor) associated with various conditions, including anxiety, panic, hyperthyroidism, and lithium therapy
 * Portal hypertension, to lower portal vein pressure
 * Prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and ascites
 * Anxiety
 * Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

While once a first-line treatment for hypertension, the role for beta blockers was downgraded in June 2006 in the United Kingdom to fourth-line, as they do not perform as well as other drugs, particularly in the elderly, and evidence is increasing that the most frequently used beta blockers at usual doses carry an unacceptable risk of provoking type 2 diabetes.

Propranolol is not recommended for the treatment of high blood pressure by the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) because a higher rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared to an angiotensin receptor blocker was noted in one study.

Psychiatric
Propranolol is occasionally used to treat performance anxiety, although evidence to support its use in any anxiety disorders is poor. Its efficacy in managing panic disorder appears similar to benzodiazepines, while carrying lower risks for addiction or abuse. Although beta-blockers such as propranolol have been suggested to be beneficial in managing physical symptoms of anxiety, its efficacy in treating generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder remain unestablished. Some experimentation has been conducted in other psychiatric areas:

 * Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and specific phobias
 * Aggressive behavior of patients with brain injuries
 * Treating the excessive drinking of fluids in psychogenic polydipsia

PTSD and phobias
Propranolol is being investigated as a potential treatment for PTSD. Propranolol works to inhibit the actions of norepinephrine (noradrenaline), a neurotransmitter that enhances memory consolidation. In one small study, individuals given propranolol immediately after trauma experienced fewer stress-related symptoms and lower rates of PTSD than respective control groups who did not receive the drug. Due to the fact that memories and their emotional content are reconsolidated in the hours after they are recalled/re-experienced, propranolol can also diminish the emotional impact of already formed memories; for this reason, it is also being studied in the treatment of specific phobias, such as arachnophobia, dental fear, and social phobia. It has also been found to be helpful for some individuals with misophonia.

Ethical and legal questions have been raised surrounding the use of propranolol-based medications for use as a "memory damper", including: altering memory-recalled evidence during an investigation, modifying behavioral response to past (albeit traumatic) experiences, the regulation of these drugs, and others. However, Hall and Carter have argued that many such objections are "based on wildly exaggerated and unrealistic scenarios that ignore the limited action of propranolol in affecting memory, underplay the debilitating impact that PTSD has on those who suffer from it, and fail to acknowledge the extent to which drugs like alcohol are already used for this purpose".

Other uses

 * Essential tremor. Evidence for use for akathisia however is insufficient
 * Migraine and cluster headache prevention and in primary exertional headache
 * Hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating)
 * Infantile hemangioma Propranolol showed a higher rate of complete response than atenolol.
 * Glaucoma
 * Thyrotoxicosis by deiodinase inhibition

Propranolol may be used to treat severe infantile hemangiomas (IHs). This treatment shows promise as being superior to corticosteroids when treating IHs. Extensive clinical case evidence and a small controlled trial support its efficacy.

Contraindications
Propranolol may be contraindicated in people with:

 * Reversible airway diseases, particularly asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
 * Slow heart rate (bradycardia) (<60 beats/minute)
 * Sick sinus syndrome
 * Atrioventricular block (second- or third-degree)
 * Shock
 * Severe low blood pressure

Adverse effects
Propranolol should be used with caution in people with:

 * Diabetes mellitus or hyperthyroidism, since signs and symptoms of hypoglycaemia may be masked
 * Peripheral artery disease and Raynaud's syndrome, which may be exacerbated
 * Phaeochromocytoma, as hypertension may be aggravated without prior alpha blocker therapy
 * Myasthenia gravis, which may be worsened
 * Other drugs with bradycardic effects

Pregnancy and lactation
Propranolol, like other beta blockers, is classified as pregnancy category C in the United States and ADEC category C in Australia. β-blocking agents in general reduce perfusion of the placenta, which may lead to adverse outcomes for the neonate, including lung or heart complications, or premature birth. The newborn may experience additional adverse effects such as low blood sugar and a slower than normal heart rate.

Most β-blocking agents appear in the milk of lactating women. However, propranolol is highly bound to proteins in the bloodstream and is distributed into breast milk at very low levels. These low levels are not expected to pose any risk to the breastfeeding infant, and the American Academy of Pediatrics considers propranolol therapy "generally compatible with breastfeeding".

Overdose
In overdose propranolol is associated with seizures. Cardiac arrest may occur in propranolol overdose due to sudden ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiogenic shock which may ultimately culminate in bradycardic PEA.

Interactions
Since beta blockers are known to relax the cardiac muscle and to constrict the smooth muscle, beta-adrenergic antagonists, including propranolol, have an additive effect with other drugs which decrease blood pressure, or which decrease cardiac contractility or conductivity. Clinically significant interactions particularly occur with:

 * Verapamil
 * Epinephrine (adrenaline)
 * β2-adrenergic receptor agonists
 * Salbutamol, levosalbutamol, formoterol, salmeterol, clenbuterol etc.
 * Clonidine
 * Ergot alkaloids
 * Isoprenaline (isoproterenol)
 * Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
 * Quinidine
 * Cimetidine
 * Lidocaine
 * Phenobarbital
 * Rifampicin
 * Fluvoxamine (slows down the metabolism of propranolol significantly, leading to increased blood levels of propranolol)

Pharmacodynamics
Propranolol is classified as a competitive non-cardioselective sympatholytic beta blocker that crosses the blood–brain barrier. It is lipid soluble and also has sodium channel blocking effects. Propranolol is a non-selective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, or beta blocker; that is, it blocks the action of epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) at both β1- and β2-adrenergic receptors. It has little intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, but has strong membrane stabilizing activity (only at high blood concentrations, e.g. overdose). Propranolol is able to cross the blood–brain barrier and exert effects in the central nervous system in addition to its peripheral activity.

In addition to blockade of adrenergic receptors, propranolol has very weak inhibitory effects on the norepinephrine transporter and/or weakly stimulates norepinephrine release (i.e., the concentration of norepinephrine is increased in the synapse). Since propranolol blocks β-adrenoceptors, the increase in synaptic norepinephrine only results in α-adrenoceptor activation, with the α1-adrenoceptor being particularly important for effects observed in animal models. Therefore, it can be looked upon as a weak indirect α1-adrenoceptor agonist in addition to potent β-adrenoceptor antagonist. In addition to its effects on the adrenergic system, there is evidence that indicates that propranolol may act as a weak antagonist of certain serotonin receptors, namely the 5-HT1A, 5-HT1B, and 5-HT2B receptors. The latter may be involved in the effectiveness of propranolol in the treatment of migraine at high doses.

Both enantiomers of propranolol have a local anesthetic (topical) effect, which is normally mediated by blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels. Studies have demonstrated propranolol's ability to block cardiac, neuronal, and skeletal voltage-gated sodium channels, accounting for its known membrane stabilizing effect and antiarrhythmic and other central nervous system effects.

Mechanism of action
Propranolol is a non-selective beta receptor antagonist. This means that it does not have preference to β1 or β2 receptors. It competes with sympathomimetic neurotransmitters for binding to receptors, which inhibits sympathetic stimulation of the heart. Blockage of neurotransmitter binding to β1 receptors on cardiac myocytes inhibits activation of adenylate cyclase, which in turn inhibits cAMP synthesis leading to reduced PKA (Protein Kinase A) activation. This results in less calcium influx to cardiac myocytes through voltage gated L-type calcium channels meaning there is a decreased sympathetic effect on cardiac cells, resulting in antihypertensive effects including reduced heart rate and lower arterial blood pressure. Blockage of neurotransmitter binding to β2 receptors on smooth muscle cells will increase contraction, which will increase hypertension.

Pharmacokinetics
Propranolol is rapidly and completely absorbed, with peak plasma levels achieved about 1–3 hours after ingestion. More than 90% of the drug is found bound to plasma protein in the blood. Coadministration with food appears to enhance bioavailability. Despite complete absorption, propranolol has a variable bioavailability due to extensive first-pass metabolism. Hepatic impairment therefore increases its bioavailability. Propranolol can be absorbed along the whole intestine with the main absorption site being colon, which means people who have lost their colon due to surgery may absorb relatively less percentage of propranolol. The main metabolite 4-hydroxypropranolol, with a longer half-life (5.2–7.5 hours) than the parent compound (3–4 hours), is also pharmacologically active. Most of the metabolites are excreted in the urine.

Propranolol is a highly lipophilic drug achieving high concentrations in the brain. The duration of action of a single oral dose is longer than the half-life and may be up to 12 hours, if the single dose is high enough (e.g., 80 mg). Effective plasma concentrations are between 10 and 100 mg/L. Toxic levels are associated with plasma concentrations above 2000 mg/L.

Idropranolol
Idropranolol is a beta blocker, similar in structure to propranolol, that was never marketed.

History
Scottish scientist James W. Black developed propranolol in the 1960s. It was the first beta-blocker effectively used in the treatment of coronary artery disease and hypertension. In 1988, Black was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for this discovery. Propranolol was inspired by the early β-adrenergic antagonists dichloroisoprenaline and pronethalol. The key difference, which was carried through to essentially all subsequent beta blockers, was the inclusion of an oxymethylene group (-O-CH2-) between the aryl and ethanolamine moieties of pronethalol, greatly increasing the potency of the compound. This also apparently eliminated the carcinogenicity found with pronethalol in animal models.

Newer, more cardio-selective beta blockers (such as bisoprolol, nebivolol, carvedilol, or metoprolol) are now used preferentially in the treatment of hypertension.

Society and culture
In a 1987 study by the International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians, it was reported that 27% of interviewed members said they used beta blockers such as propranolol for musical performances. For about 10–16% of performers, their degree of stage fright is considered pathological. Propranolol is used by musicians, actors, and public speakers for its ability to treat anxiety symptoms activated by the sympathetic nervous system. It has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug in sports where high accuracy is required, including archery, shooting, golf, and snooker. In the 2008 Summer Olympics, 50-metre pistol silver medalist and 10-metre air pistol bronze medalist Kim Jong-su tested positive for propranolol and was stripped of his medals.

Brand names
Propranolol was first marketed under the brand name Inderal, manufactured by ICI Pharmaceuticals (now AstraZeneca), in 1965. "Inderal" is a quasi-anagram of "Alderlin", the trade name of pronethalol (which propranolol replaced); both names are an homage to Alderley Park, the ICI headquarters where the drugs were first developed.

Propranolol is also marketed under brand names Avlocardyl, Deralin, Dociton, Inderalici, InnoPran XL, Indoblok, Sumial, Anaprilin, and Bedranol SR (Sandoz). In India it is marketed under brand names such as Ciplar and Ciplar LA by Cipla. Hemangeol, a 4.28 mg/mL solution of propranolol, is indicated for the treatment of proliferating infantile hemangioma.

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

title: Propranolol


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 1

I notice that 10 January is available as a redirect to January 10, which is really really convenient for articles on military topics, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Is there any reason not to create all the others? Stan Shebs 04:32 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * The only problem I can see is it would be likely to decrease the conformity of dates across Wikipedia, which might be a problem in, for example, biographies.  Anyone using 13 February at the moment gets an empty link and can see immediately that that's not the standard way of formatting the date.  But this is a small thing, and conformity in date formats might not be important enough to negate the convenience of having the redirects. -- sannse 07:29 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

My vote? I'd prefer all the dates to be uniform throughout the Wikipedia. -- Anon.

I don't understand -- why do military topics need the "10 January" format? --Eloquence

Accounts of military doings tend to have lots of dates, and they standardized on "10 January 1952" long ago; it looks pretty old-fashioned to read "January 10, 1952". Thinking to find an explanation for the difference, I consulted my Bible, 13th edition, and it says (8.36) "The University of Chicago press prefers that in all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation", which goes a long way towards explaining why most (though not all) of my recently-published history books have been using the "military" style for all their dates. :-) Stan Shebs 11:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * Fowler also says "10 January". I had assumed "January 10" was the US style, but if Fowler & Chicago agree I think we have to consider changing our own Manual of Style policy -- Tarquin 12:23 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * While not requiring dates in the "10 January" form The Elements of Style (Strunk & White) states:
 * The form is an excellent way to write a date; the figures are separated by a word and are, for that reason, quickly grasped.
 * If we were to change it, there are thousands and thousands of dates in the other form, every biographical article, for instance. Of course, our own software uses the other form, as shown in the signatures here. Ortolan88 15:52 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it should suffice to allow both forms, add the redirects, and perhaps express a preference. If all dates are habitually wikified, it becomes trivial to convert to a single standard later.  (Chicago just expresses a preference, not a rule; my guess is that day-month is today more of an academic/professional thing, and month-day is more "normal".  Imagine it in an article about a grunge band, seems positively stuffy.) Stan Shebs 13:05 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hm, no, I don't think so - from my perspective here in the UK "month day comma" seems a strange way to express dates. I have a feeling that it might have been used 40 years ago, but nowadays day-month-year seems normal. Arwel 19:10 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * On a grunge band's CD sleeve maybe, but an encyclopedia article about a grunge band should be just as serious as any other. It would take a VERY long time to convert all mentions of dates; so even with a change of standard there'd be a certain amount of cohabitation -- Tarquin 15:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easy for a programmer to create a bot to search all Wikipedia articles for month day, formatted links and convert them to day month ? I've already suggested that we should standardize on the international format. mav

Despite having suggested the use of day-month-year, I can't say that I'm 100% keen to try to change to it and/or enforce it everywhere. To take an opposite example, the authors and editors of the 1911EB had very definite ideas about "proper" subjects and "proper" ways to talk about them - and at the distance of a century, it all looks like a curious relic of a vanished age. I think that's why Chicago hesitates to require day-month-year of their authors - I just recently bought a 2000-published book Broadsides: the Age of Fighting Sail by Nathan Miller, solid history, but aimed at a less-technical audience, and it uses month-day-year. Wikipedia aspires to be solid content, but an encyclopedia with dozens of entries on Tolkien characters, comic strips, and video games is really aiming for the broadest possible readership rather than to be some sort of highbrow 21st-century EB. If day-month-year becomes popular, it will be obvious in the new articles that are being added. Stan Shebs 20:30 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * The esteemed Shebs omits what was the latest thing in dates for the 1911EB, which was the form 19th of March 1821. Ortolan88

 * Actually, many of us are working towards a highbrow 21st century EB. The Tolkien and Simpsons stuff is just along for the ride ;) It'll be first up against the wall when the Larry sifter project comes... -- Tarquin 20:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * Drifting off-topic, but I do see the range of subjects as a Wikipedia strength rather than a weakness. Classical scholars today would give their right pinkies just to know what the ancient Greeks really thought about homosexuality, all because at the time nobody thought it important enough to document as carefully as Alcibiades' personal failings.  In fact, to use the Simpsons as an example, there are important archived software design discussions today that could not be understood 2000 years from now without an explanation of what "Doh!" is all about. Stan Shebs 21:21 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Just to throw a simian wrench into the mill (being fresh out of wooden shoes), the reallio truelio military format is yyyyMMMdd; e.g. 2003FEB25. It sorts good, too. --the Epopt

VOTE HERE ''well, maybe not. Better try the top of the page then!''

I thought a vote block might be handy - it's getting confusing keeping track of what everyone thinks... Approval Voting - pick one or more positions :)

Oh please, please do day/month/year. It is pain in the neck doing month/day/year on Wiki when here in Ireland nobody uses that form and everyone writes d/m/y. I keep having to remind myself on non-Wiki stuff to write d/m/y, then on Wiki to use m/d/y. According to my eMac settings

d/m/y is used by
 * Australia
 * Austria
 * Belgium
 * Brazil
 * Canada
 * Catalonia
 * Denmark
 * Finland
 * France
 * Germany
 * Ireland
 * Italy
 * Netherlands
 * Norway
 * Spain
 * Switzerland
 * UK

m/d/y is used by
 * US

y/m/d is used by
 * Portugal
 * Sweden
 * Japan
 * Korea

So if the Mac is right (and I'm going on what the setting say), of the countries listed, month/day/year is purely an American version. Elsewhere, most people use day/month/year. JTD 22:55 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

True, though my understanding is that the ISO standard date format is yyyy-mm-dd Arwel 01:41 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

It looks like nobody wants the status quo so I say we need to expand the exposure of this discussion. Hopefully a bot-writer will offer his/her services too. --mav

JTD, we are talking about dates with a spelled-out month here. Nobody wants to use the stupid 04/29/03 numerical format. There are times when it flows better and reads more clearly to say "On the 10th September the king said ..." and times when it reads better some other way. If you want to link to a date, sure, you find out what the Wiki convention is and do it that way so that the link works, but trying to specify writing style in this level of detail as a global policy is a draconian and quite daft idea. Tannin

That's what I'd much prefer to use. The point I was making is that most people outside the US use the format of d/m/y anyway, whether writing it out or in the numerical form. And the computer allows you to have the date in numeral or spelt out month form. It is the natural format whether written or numerical, in most places outside the US.
 * It isn't natural, it is only conventional. Let's convert February 14 to Day 45 (February 29 can be Day 59-L).  You non-United-States-of Americans are so non-United-States-of-Americocentric.  :=)  BTW - I have used the 10 January form since I first read about in Strunk & White 40 years ago and so do millions of others in this country without a name.Ortolan88

I don't see much benefits to change the format of dates. My position is always not to much concern about the format because the format cannot be consistent forever. -- Taku 01:16 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Besides, it is possible to get new version of wikipedia software have some kind of rendering engine. In Japanese wikipedia, currently there is a discussion about the standard timezone. In USA history, Peral harbor happended December 10, 1941. But in Japan, it did in December 9, 1941. I am using the format like August 15, 2003 JST in Gyokuon housou because the date varies in country. The smart render should recognize some standard format including US style, EU style and display the date in uniform format. -- Taku 01:22 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened on December 7, 1941 Hawaii time/date. This issue has come-up before many times - it is best to indicate the date and time of the event where it happened. So the Pearl harbor attack happened on the morning of Dec 7, not on the date in Japan, Dec 8. --mav

 * Just so, Mav. The date to use is the one that appled in the place of significance to the event. So, for most purposes, Pearl Harbor was the 7th of December. But when considering palace politics in Japan (as in Hirohito), the correct date to use is the 8th. Tannin

 * Then you are talking about a different event that happened in the palace. So same logic applies: The article whose subject is the event in Hirohito's palace would say the 8th and the article whose subject is the attack would say the 7th. --mav

 * First forgive my ignorance about history event date (I can't believe I didn't when Pearl Harbor happended as Japanese!), what about the declaration of war? In Japan, it is December 7, 2003. In the USA, it is Dec 8, 2003. I guess. (Please please overlook historcal accuracy here). But if you say, this is a really rare case so MoS needn't cover, I can agree. Anyway, sorry this is off-topic.

Some years ago an American student I knew at university went into a panic when she received a note informing her that her exams were scheduled to start on 03.05.91. She went into a severe weekend of cramming (studying for 18+ hours per day), until she was almost hospitalised from exhaustion. Only then did she realise that her exams didn't start on the 5th of March - two weeks from the date she got the notice - but the 3rd of May. The problem was a couple of her American friends initially presumed that the date mentioned was read as dd/mm/yy, but when the saw her reaction, then presumed she must be right and began studying like hell also. And her moment of doubt disappeared when she saw them studying like mad, presuming that if they are studying she must be correct in reading the date as mm/dd/yy. The end result was five extremely exhausted and highly embarrassed American students, who were never let forget their mistake by all other students, who teased them unmercifully afterwards. JTD 01:28 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * This is a typical example about confusing of dates format. How can anyone be sure about which day is 01/02/03? -- Taku 02:31 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps five students who, for the one and only time in their lives, started studying for an exam at a sensible time instead of leaving it till the day before to start cramming? - Tannin (Who never started studying for any exam until 24 hours before!)

Now a really dumb question: What dates are we talking about here? Is this:

 * (a) all dates anywhere in the text of any entry?
 * (b) Only dates that are links to a date entry?
 * (c) Just the names of the date entry pages themselves?
 * (d) Dates only in particular circumstances, e.g., birth and death dates in a biographical entry?

Tannin 02:18 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'd like to know the answers to Tannin's questions too. Catherine

 * Personally, I'm interested in what to do with all dates in the text of each article. (That's why I'm not so keen to force a change; I'm sure there are bunches that want to be left alone (such as quotes from a book), and nobody's head is going to explode if they see both 10 January and February 28, even mixed in the same article.) Stan 04:39 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * To quote from the main Manual of Style (and almost every other publications style book):
 * A Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things look alike - it is a style guide. The following rules don't claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, the Wikipedia will be easier to read and easier to use, not to mention easier to write and easier to edit.

 * Since there are many thousands of entries in the form January 10, I believe we should just leave it alone. The MOS has many such compromises in it.  Consistency is the goal.  Ortolan88

 * Hence my idea for a date bot. --mav

What dates are we talking about here?

Excuse me repeating myself, but without an answer to this question, discussion of anything else is impossible. Tannin 08:36 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

People who are voting for MoS policy are probably voting for (a),(b),(c),(d), except where in quotes, etc. People who are voting for encouragement are probably voting for changing the names of the date pages, and slight encouragement one way or the other on the dates.

Years in music
I've noticed that several pages relating to music have links of the form 1991, which looks a bit dodgy to me, since when we click on what looks like a year, we generally expect to end up at the ordinary year page. Has any policy been decided about whether or not this is the thing to do? (I don't like it myself, and I've just removed some, but I thought I'd better ask, to see what other people think.) -- Oliver P. 11:45 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Seems okay to me. The 1991 in music page does link to the general 1991 page and someone following that link is probably interested in the surrounding music.  Personally I'm more annoyed when links take you way off the subject, such as the icon reference in [MTV]] taking you to a page about religious icons.  Bagpuss
 * This issue has been decided at Wikiproject Music standards -- I think the discussion is in the talk archive now. Tuf-Kat

 * Thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Kat. (Don't use piped links to the "year in music" articles, in case anyone else is reading this and can't be bothered to follow the link...) -- Oliver P. 23:16 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

-

Date markup
I am not sure about what kind of date markup people here are talking about. But if they think like MathML or Tex, it is not neccesarry. If you know little about Perl or regular expression, you might know that it is a snap to convert various format of date into certain date format. It is not important to make uniform in raw text but the diplaied date should be consistent for the sake of beauty. Again, it is quite possible to make rendering engine render serverl dates format into only one like "01/02/03", "01-02-03", "Jan 2, 03", "January 2, 2003" into 02-01-03 (day-month-year) in display. Remember the representation of data should be separated from data itself. It is a basic lession from software enginnering. -- Taku 20:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * I have written a Perl routine that

The format flag is to allow users to set a preference indicating how they want to see dates formatted.
 * accepts a string (probably submitted to the routine because it was found surrounded by " - ")
 * parses the string into a day, a month, and a year for a wide variety of formats
 * returns one of four things:
 * month day, year if a flag was set to "American"
 * day month year if a flag was set to "European"
 * original string if the date was similar to "1/2/2003"
 * original string if it couldn't figure it out at all

Does anyone care? --the Epopt

 * Sounds good. To make your life more complicated (hehe) can you get it to make links to December 2002, etc, if the date is after the start of 2001?
 * Also, does it handle BC dates as well?

I have given up on trying to partipate in this discussion since no-one seems to want to bother trying to define just what dates it is we are talking about. If we can't even spell out WTF it is we are supposed to be discussing, how on earth is anyone supposed to be able to make up their minds about it? My thanks to Martin for his courtesy in at least having a guess at this fundamental question. But guesswork is not good enough. The first step in any discussion must always be to define the question clearly. Tannin 09:12 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * On the one hand, I think at the moment there's plenty of room for different styles, as Stan said. We've got plenty of other things to worry about besides a draconian date consistency.

 * On the other hand, lack of consistency can end up looking unprofessional; in that sense, I think any decision would have to apply to ALL dates, linked or not.

 * I've gone back and forth on the date markup idea. Originally my thought was that it would allow a date entered in ANY format to link consistently with the proper date page -- something that would automagically add links to December 17, 2002 OR 28 February, 2003, or whatever.  This remains the most compelling reason to use it, for me.  It would also make it easy to change things to a consistent format sometime in the future, if we decide it's needed, or to customize the display in user preferences.  I do think that if it were implemented, we'd also need a tag to prevent changes to book quotes or similar uses.

 * However, as it's been pointed out on the mailing list, it's one more markup for a user (esp. a newbie) to remember; it's unlikely to be used consistently by every user, meaning a lot more editorial cleanup to make it work; and in the end, dates are fairly easy to find and replace programmatically even without markup (with some human oversight). Are the benefits worth the cost?  I'm not sure -- it depends on what decision is reached about consistency, or user preferences (which, by the way, will not affect what the average drive-by google searcher is going to see -- only those close enough to the project to log in.)

 * Excellent effort on the code, Epopt. I'm sure it will come in handy one way or another.

 * Personally, (even as an American), I prefer the "28 February" format -- I find it easier to read, type, and edit. I'll continue to watch the discussion, though, and abide by whatever decision is finally reached. -- Catherine 18:50 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * I won't. I'm dammed if I'll abide by decision to specify such a minute and piddling detail of what I (and other contributors) are supposed to write (which does not and cannot take account of context) when no-one can even be bothered stating what the "decision" is supposed to apply to. Tannin

There is no ISO standard for writing dates. That's a great misunderstanding. The standard has to do with representing dates as numbers only. Says Russ rowlett, in A Dictionary of Units of Measurement:

 * "The international standard covers numeric representations only; it doesn't prohibit traditional statements of the date, using words, in whatever the local style is. Thus "April 5, 2001" remains perfectly acceptable. However, non-standard numeric representations, such as 04/05/01 [should be 2001-04-05], should not be used, because these representations are interpreted differently in different countries."

Arthur 00:34 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Whatever about 04/05/01 (mm/dd/yy) I would absolutely be opposed to yy/mm/dd. It is rarely used and when it is is usually regarded as absurd. Most people use dd/mm/yy, some (mainly in the US) use mm/dd/yy, but where on the planet uses yy/mm/dd? dd/mm/yy is the obvious one to use. mm/dd/yy those who don't use it can tolerate, but yy/mm/dd? Use that and you'll confuse and annoy everyone JTD 00:45 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, YY/MM/DD is common, JTD. It's used as the standard in Japan, several other places too (I think), and has become the standard numerical form for multi-national cooperative ventures (web discussion pages, for example). It's common as mud, and is the only unambiguous numerical method of writing a date. However, because Wikipedia has (very sensibly) chosen to go with spelled-out dates for the most part, it is not something we need consider using here. Tannin 00:54 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * The reason it would be used is that it's easily sortable, JTD; 'twas not a consideration in previous eras, but it certainly is now. Not necessarily easy to parse for those of us raised with a different "obvious" system, but I think I could get used to it pretty quickly.  Just not in the text of 'pedia articles.  :) Catherine

It may well be used in Japan and for multi-national corporative ventures but it isn't used generally in academic source books, is not used generally in Europe, Africa or much of Asia. And in ordinary discourse outside places Japan it is almost completely unknown. Its principal use would be as an unambiguous numerical method that would not be understood by the vast majority of users and potential users. Thankfully we do spell out dates so the problems that would arise here wouldn't occur, but if we ever want to totally confuse the vast majority of users, this is the system to use. JTD 01:09 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The point is moot: we ain't using numeric dates now and we ain't planning to. Printed books don't use it, JTD, because (a) they mostly use spelled-out dates, and (b) if in doubt, you only have to look inside the flyleaf to see if it's American (in which case you have to put up with the absurd 05/29/79 format) or anywhere else (in which case it's 29/05/79). So for most printed things, there is no risk of ambiguity. The better quality electronic publications, where a spelled-out date is not appropriate, use 79/05/29 as routine. No-one is in the least confused by it. Tannin

 * This entire section is silly -- NEVER USE TWO-DIGIT YEARS, unless discussing the years from 10 through 99. --Brion 04:41 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The only time anybody should be thinking about copyediting dates is when they're ambiguous and as long as we spell out the month, we won't have ambiguous dates. If it's decided that we have to stick to one date style for reasons of consistency, it can only be a matter of time before it's decided that we have to stick to one spelling style for reasons of consistency. That way lie extremely silly and pointless disputes between people who know what the "correct" style is and people who don't. And consistency is not necessary in the way that NPOV and unambiguity is. It just makes it more difficult for new contributors to add "acceptable" material without a lengthy "training" process and the "training" process is long enough when it just involves NPOV, never mind all the other standards which have grown like weeds round here. We've learned to avoid a lot of pointless arguments over spelling by allowing any widely recognised spelling of a word to be used. Let's learn from that and apply it to dates -- Derek Ross 01:40 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well said. No unambiguous form should be disallowed. I'm embarrassed that I didn't see relation to the already solved spelling issue. Arthur

 * I like standards. I think if it were made policy that dates can be used in any way people want, visitors to the Wikipedia would find the inconsistency off-putting. When I first arrived, I was horrified by the American-style dates, and tried to avoid using them. But soon I was swayed by the fact that even if it was an unpleasant convention, it gave the place a nice uniform feel, and so I gave in and started writing dates that way. I accepted that following the convention would make the Wikipedia more coherent, and thus more professional-looking. Of course, my actual contributions may not be very professional-looking, but I do try... :) -- Oliver P. 03:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

We are all talking a lot about this issue, but what is the decision? When will it be made? Or is this an open-ended vote where nothing will be decided because the vote never will actually end? We can decide to make a decision. Or decide not to make a decision. But can we at least decide if we are actually going to take a decision here!

 * Or we could even decide what it is we are making a decision about. (As asked no less than four times already without result.) But it doesn't seem likely. Tannin

Ok - time for answers: JtdIrL 04:36 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Question 1: Which dates are we deciding should be subject to these dates?
 * 1) All dates
 * 2) Dates at the start of Articles

Question 2: When are we taking the decision?'
 * 1) In the next twenty-four hours?
 * 2) In one week?
 * 3) Never?


text:
Hans Bethe

Hans Albrecht Bethe (July 2, 1906 – March 6, 2005) was a German-American theoretical physicist who made major contributions to nuclear physics, astrophysics, quantum electrodynamics, and solid-state physics, and who won the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. For most of his career, Bethe was a professor at Cornell University.

During World War II, he was head of the Theoretical Division at the secret Los Alamos laboratory that developed the first atomic bombs. There he played a key role in calculating the critical mass of the weapons and developing the theory behind the implosion method used in both the Trinity test and the "Fat Man" weapon dropped on Nagasaki in August 1945.

After the war, Bethe also played an important role in the development of the hydrogen bomb, although he had originally joined the project with the hope of proving it could not be made. Bethe later campaigned with Albert Einstein and the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists against nuclear testing and the nuclear arms race. He helped persuade the Kennedy and Nixon administrations to sign, respectively, the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (SALT I).

His scientific research never ceased and he was publishing papers well into his nineties, making him one of the few scientists to have published at least one major paper in his field during every decade of his career, which in Bethe's case spanned nearly seventy years. Freeman Dyson, once his doctoral student, called him the "supreme problem-solver of the 20th century".

Early life
Bethe was born in Strasbourg, which at the time was part of the Reichsland Elsaß-Lothringen, Germany, on July 2, 1906, the only child of Anna (née Kuhn) and Albrecht Bethe, a Privatdozent of physiology at the University of Strasbourg. Although his mother, the daughter of Abraham Kuhn, professor at the University of Strasbourg, had a Jewish background, Bethe was raised Protestant, like his father; and he became an atheist later in life.

His father accepted a position as professor and director of the Institute of Physiology at the University of Kiel in 1912, and the family moved into the director's apartment at the institute. Initially, he was schooled privately by a professional teacher as part of a group of eight girls and boys. The family moved again in 1915 when his father became the head of the new Institute of Physiology at the Goethe University Frankfurt.

Bethe attended the Goethe-Gymnasium in Frankfurt, Germany. His education was interrupted in 1916, when he contracted tuberculosis, and he was sent to Bad Kreuznach to recuperate. By 1917, he had recovered sufficiently to attend the local Realschule and the following year, he was sent to the Odenwaldschule, a private, coeducational boarding school. He attended the Goethe-Gymnasium again for his final three years of secondary schooling, from 1922 to 1924.

Having passed his Abitur, Bethe entered the University of Frankfurt in 1924. He decided to major in chemistry. The instruction in physics was poor, and while there were distinguished mathematicians in Frankfurt such as Carl Ludwig Siegel and Otto Szász, Bethe disliked their approaches, which presented mathematics without reference to the other sciences. Bethe found that he was a poor experimentalist who destroyed his lab coat by spilling sulfuric acid on it, but he found the advanced physics taught by the associate professor, Walter Gerlach, more interesting. Gerlach left in 1925 and was replaced by Karl Meissner, who advised Bethe that he should go to a university with a better school of theoretical physics, specifically the University of Munich, where he could study under Arnold Sommerfeld.

Bethe entered the University of Munich in April 1926, where Sommerfeld took him on as a student on Meissner's recommendation. Sommerfeld taught an advanced course on differential equations in physics, which Bethe enjoyed. Because he was such a renowned scholar, Sommerfeld frequently received advance copies of scientific papers, which he put up for discussion at weekly evening seminars. When Bethe arrived, Sommerfeld had just received Erwin Schrödinger's papers on wave mechanics.

For his PhD thesis, Sommerfeld suggested that Bethe examine electron diffraction in crystals. As a starting point, Sommerfeld suggested Paul Ewald's 1914 paper on X-ray diffraction in crystals. Bethe later recalled that he became too ambitious, and, in pursuit of greater accuracy, his calculations became unnecessarily complicated. When he met Wolfgang Pauli for the first time, Pauli told him: "After Sommerfeld's tales about you, I had expected much better from you than your thesis." "I guess from Pauli," Bethe later recalled, "that was a compliment."

Early work
After Bethe received his doctorate, Erwin Madelung offered him an assistantship in Frankfurt, and in September 1928 Bethe moved in with his father, who had recently divorced his mother. His father had met Vera Congehl earlier that year and married her in 1929. They had two children, Doris, born in 1933, and Klaus, born in 1934.

Bethe did not find the work in Frankfurt very stimulating, and in 1929 he accepted an offer from Ewald at the Technische Hochschule in Stuttgart. While there, he wrote what he considered to be his greatest paper, Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Korpuskularstrahlen durch Materie ("The Theory of the Passage of Fast Corpuscular Rays Through Matter"). Starting from Max Born's interpretation of the Schrödinger equation, Bethe produced a simplified formula for collision problems using a Fourier transform, which is known today as the Bethe formula. He submitted this paper for his habilitation in 1930.

Sommerfeld recommended Bethe for a Rockefeller Foundation Travelling Scholarship in 1929. This provided $150 a month (about $,000 in dollars) to study abroad. In 1930, Bethe chose to do postdoctoral work at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge in England, where he worked under the supervision of Ralph Fowler. At the request of Patrick Blackett, who was working with cloud chambers, Bethe created a relativistic version of the Bethe formula.

Bethe was known for his sense of humor, and with Guido Beck and Wolfgang Riezler, two other postdoctoral research fellows, created a hoax paper On the Quantum Theory of the Temperature of Absolute Zero where he calculated the fine structure constant from the absolute zero temperature in Celsius units. The paper poked fun at a certain class of papers in theoretical physics of the day, which were purely speculative and based on spurious numerical arguments, such as Arthur Eddington's attempts to explain the value of the fine structure constant from fundamental quantities in an earlier paper. They were forced to issue an apology.

For the second half of his scholarship, Bethe chose to go to Enrico Fermi's laboratory in Rome in February 1931. He was greatly impressed by Fermi and regretted that he had not gone to Rome first. Bethe developed the Bethe ansatz, a method for finding the exact solutions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of certain one-dimensional quantum many-body models. He was influenced by Fermi's simplicity and Sommerfeld's rigor in approaching problems and these qualities influenced his own later research.

The Rockefeller Foundation offered an extension of Bethe's fellowship, allowing him to return to Italy in 1932. In the meantime, Bethe worked for Sommerfeld in Munich as a privatdozent. Since Bethe was fluent in English, Sommerfeld had Bethe supervise all his English-speaking postdoctoral fellows, including Lloyd P. Smith from Cornell University. Bethe accepted a request from Karl Scheel to write an article for the Handbuch der Physik on the quantum mechanics of hydrogen and helium. Reviewing the article decades later, Robert Bacher and Victor Weisskopf noted that it was unusual in the depth and breadth of its treatment of the subject that required very little updating for the 1959 edition. Bethe was then asked by Sommerfeld to help him with the handbuch article on electrons in metals. The article covered the basis of what is now called solid state physics. Bethe took a very new field and provided a clear, coherent, and complete coverage of it. His work on the handbuch articles occupied most of his time in Rome, but he also co-wrote a paper with Fermi on another new field, quantum electrodynamics, describing the relativistic interactions of charged particles.

In 1932, Bethe accepted an appointment as an assistant professor at the University of Tübingen, where Hans Geiger was the professor of experimental physics. One of the first laws passed by the new Nazi government was the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Due to his Jewish background, Bethe was dismissed from his job at the university, which was a government post. Geiger refused to help, but Sommerfeld immediately gave Bethe back his fellowship at Munich. Sommerfeld spent much of the summer term of 1933 finding places for Jewish students and colleagues.

Bethe left Germany in 1933, moving to England after receiving an offer for a position as lecturer at the University of Manchester for a year through Sommerfeld's connection to William Lawrence Bragg. He moved in with his friend Rudolf Peierls and Peierls' wife Genia. Peierls was a fellow German physicist who had also been barred from academic positions in Germany because he was Jewish. This meant that Bethe had someone to speak to in German and he did not have to eat English food. Their relationship was professional as well as personal. Peierls aroused Bethe's interest in nuclear physics. After James Chadwick and Maurice Goldhaber discovered the photodisintegration of deuterium, Chadwick challenged Bethe and Peierls to come up with a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon. This they did on the four-hour train ride from Cambridge back to Manchester. Bethe would investigate further in the years ahead.

In 1933, the physics department at Cornell University, New York, was looking for a new theoretical physicist, and Lloyd Smith strongly recommended Bethe. This was supported by Bragg, who was visiting Cornell at the time. In August 1934, Cornell offered Bethe a position as an acting assistant professor. Bethe had already accepted a fellowship for a year to work with Nevill Mott at the University of Bristol for a semester, but Cornell agreed to let him start in the spring of 1935. Before leaving for the United States, he visited the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen in September 1934, where he proposed to Hilde Levi, who accepted. The match was opposed by Bethe's mother, who despite having a Jewish background, did not want him to marry a Jewish woman. A few days before their wedding date in December, Bethe broke off their engagement. Niels Bohr and James Franck were so shocked by this action by Bethe that he was not invited to the institute again until after World War II.

United States
Bethe arrived in the United States in February 1935, and joined the faculty at Cornell University on a salary of $3,000. Bethe's appointment was part of a deliberate effort on the part of the new head of its physics department, Roswell Clifton Gibbs, to move into nuclear physics. Gibbs had hired Stanley Livingston, who had worked with Ernest Lawrence, to build a cyclotron at Cornell. To complete the team, Cornell needed an experimentalist, and, on the advice of Bethe and Livingston, recruited Robert Bacher. Bethe received requests to visit Columbia University from Isidor Isaac Rabi, Princeton University from Edward Condon, University of Rochester from Lee DuBridge, Purdue University from Karl Lark-Horovitz, the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign from Francis Wheeler Loomis, and Harvard University from John Hasbrouck Van Vleck. Gibbs moved to prevent Bethe from being poached by having him appointed as a regular assistant professor in 1936, with an assurance that promotion to professor would soon follow.

Together with Bacher and Livingston, Bethe published a series of three articles,  which summarized most of what was known on the subject of nuclear physics until that time, an account that became known informally as "Bethe's Bible". It remained the standard work on the subject for many years. In this account, he also continued where others left off, filling in gaps in the older literature. Loomis offered Bethe a full professorship at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, but Cornell matched the position offered, and the salary of $6,000. He wrote to his mother:

"I am about the leading theoretician in America. That does not mean the best. Wigner is certainly better and Oppenheimer and Teller probably just as good. But I do more and talk more and that counts too."

On March 17, 1938, Bethe attended the Carnegie Institute and George Washington University's fourth annual Washington Conference of Theoretical Physics. There were only 34 invited attendees, but they included Gregory Breit, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, George Gamow, Donald Menzel, John von Neumann, Bengt Strömgren, Edward Teller, and Merle Tuve. Bethe initially declined the invitation to attend, because the conference's topic, stellar energy generation, did not interest him, but Teller persuaded him to go. At the conference, Strömgren detailed what was known about the temperature, density, and chemical composition of the Sun, and challenged the physicists to come up with an explanation. Gamow and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker had proposed in a 1937 paper that the Sun's energy was the result of a proton–proton chain reaction: But this did not account for the observation of elements heavier than helium. By the end of the conference, Bethe, working in collaboration with Charles Critchfield, had come up with a series of subsequent nuclear reactions that explained how the Sun shines:

That this did not explain the processes in heavier stars was not overlooked. At the time there were doubts about whether the proton–proton cycle described the processes in the Sun, but more recent measurements of the Sun's core temperature and luminosity show that it does. When he returned to Cornell, Bethe studied the relevant nuclear reactions and reaction cross sections, leading to his discovery of the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle (CNO cycle):

The two papers, one on the proton–proton cycle, co-authored with Critchfield, and the other on the carbon-oxygen-nitrogen (CNO) cycle, were sent to the Physical Review for publication.

After Kristallnacht, Bethe's mother had become afraid to remain in Germany. Taking advantage of her Strasbourg origin, she was able to emigrate to the United States in June 1939 on the French quota, rather than the German one, which was full. Bethe's graduate student Robert Marshak noted that the New York Academy of Sciences was offering a $500 prize for the best unpublished paper on the topic of solar and stellar energy. So Bethe, in need of $250 to release his mother's furniture, withdrew the CNO cycle paper and sent it in to the New York Academy of Sciences. It won the prize, and Bethe gave Marshak $50 finder's fee and used $250 to release his mother's furniture. The paper was subsequently published in the Physical Review in March. It was a breakthrough in the understanding of the stars, and would win Bethe the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967. In 2002, at age 96, Bethe sent a handwritten note to John N. Bahcall congratulating him on the use of solar neutrino observations to show that the CNO cycle accounts for approximately 7% of the Sun's energy; the neutrino observations had started with Raymond Davis Jr., whose experiment was based on Bahcall's calculations and encouragement, and the note led to Davis's receiving a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize.

Bethe married Rose Ewald, the daughter of Paul Ewald, on September 13, 1939, in a simple civil ceremony. She had emigrated to the United States and was a student at Duke University and they met while Bethe was lecturing there in 1937. They had two children, Henry and Monica. (Henry was a contract bridge expert and former husband of Kitty Munson Cooper.)

Bethe became a naturalized citizen of the United States in March 1941. Writing to Sommerfeld in 1947, Bethe confided that "I am much more at home in America than I ever was in Germany. As if I was born in Germany only by mistake, and only came to my true homeland at 28."

Manhattan Project
When the Second World War began, Bethe wanted to contribute to the war effort, but was unable to work on classified projects until he became a citizen. Following the advice of the Caltech aerodynamicist Theodore von Kármán, Bethe collaborated with his friend Edward Teller on a theory of shock waves that are generated by the passage of a projectile through a gas. Bethe considered it one of their most influential papers. He also worked on a theory of armor penetration, which was immediately classified by the army, thus making it impossible for Bethe (who was not an American citizen at the time) to access further research on the theory.

After receiving security clearance in December 1941, Bethe joined the MIT Radiation Laboratory, where he invented the Bethe-hole directional coupler, which is used in microwave waveguides such as those used in radar sets. In Chicago in June 1942, and then in July at the University of California, Berkeley, he participated in a series of meetings at the invitation of Robert Oppenheimer, which discussed the first designs for the atomic bomb. They went over the preliminary calculations by Robert Serber, Stan Frankel, and others, and discussed the possibilities of using uranium-235 and plutonium. (Teller then raised the prospect of a thermonuclear device, Teller's "Super" bomb. At one point Teller asked if the nitrogen in the atmosphere could be set alight. It fell to Bethe and Emil Konopinski to perform the calculations demonstrating the virtual impossibility of such an occurrence.) "The fission bomb had to be done," he later recalled, "because the Germans were presumably doing it."

When Oppenheimer was put in charge of forming a secret weapons design laboratory, Los Alamos, he appointed Bethe director of the T (Theoretical) Division, the laboratory's smallest, but most prestigious division. This move irked the equally qualified, but more difficult to manage Teller and Felix Bloch, who had coveted the job. A series of disagreements between Bethe and Teller between February and June 1944 over the relative priority of Super research led to Teller's group being removed from T Division and placed directly under Oppenheimer. In September it became part of Fermi's new F Division.

Bethe's work at Los Alamos included calculating the critical mass and efficiency of uranium-235 and the multiplication of nuclear fission in an exploding atomic bomb. Along with Richard Feynman, he developed a formula for calculating the bomb's explosive yield. After August 1944, when the laboratory was reorganized and reoriented to solve the problem of the implosion of the plutonium bomb, Bethe spent much of his time studying the hydrodynamic aspects of implosion, a job that he continued into 1944. In 1945, he worked on the neutron initiator, and later, on radiation propagation from an exploding atomic bomb. The Trinity nuclear test validated the accuracy of T Division's results. When it was detonated in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945, Bethe's immediate concern was for its efficient operation, and not its moral implications. He is reported to have commented: "I am not a philosopher."

Hydrogen bomb
After the war, Bethe argued that a crash project for the hydrogen bomb should not be attempted, although after President Harry Truman announced the beginning of such a project and the outbreak of the Korean War, Bethe signed up and played a key role in the weapon's development. Although he saw the project through to its end, Bethe had hoped that it would be impossible to create the hydrogen bomb. He later remarked in 1968 on the apparent contradiction in his stance, having first opposed the development of the weapon and later helping to create it:

"Just a few months before, the Korean war had broken out, and for the first time I saw direct confrontation with the communists. It was too disturbing. The cold war looked as if it were about to get hot. I knew then I had to reverse my earlier position. If I did not work on the bomb, somebody else would—and I had thought if I were around Los Alamos I might still be a force for disarmament. So I agreed to join in developing the H-bomb. It seemed quite logical. But sometimes I wish I were a more consistent idealist."

As for his own role in the project and its relation to the dispute over who was responsible for the design, Bethe later said that:

"After the H-bomb was made, reporters started to call Teller the father of the H-bomb. For the sake of history, I think it is more precise to say that Ulam is the father, because he provided the seed, and Teller is the mother, because he remained with the child. As for me, I guess I am the midwife."

In 1954, Bethe testified on behalf of J. Robert Oppenheimer during the Oppenheimer security hearing. Specifically, Bethe argued that Oppenheimer's stances against developing the hydrogen bomb in the late 1940s had not hindered its development, a topic which was seen as a key motivating factor behind the hearing. Bethe contended that the developments that led to the successful Teller–Ulam design were a matter of serendipity and not a question of manpower or logical development of previously existing ideas. During the hearing, Bethe and his wife also tried hard to persuade Edward Teller against testifying. However, Teller did not agree, and his testimony played a major role in the revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance. While Bethe and Teller had been on very good terms during the prewar years, the conflict between them during the Manhattan Project, and especially during the Oppenheimer episode, permanently marred their relationship.

Lamb shift
After the war ended, Bethe returned to Cornell. In June 1947, he participated in the Shelter Island Conference. Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and held at the Ram's Head Inn on Shelter Island, New York, the conference on the "Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" was the first major physics conference held after the war. It was a chance for American physicists to come together, pick up where they had left off before the war, and establish the direction of post-war research.

A major talking point at the conference was the discovery by Willis Lamb and his graduate student, Robert Retherford, shortly before the conference began that one of the two possible quantum states of hydrogen atoms had slightly more energy than that predicted by the theory of Paul Dirac; this became known as the Lamb shift. Oppenheimer and Weisskopf suggested that this was a result of quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, which gave the electron more energy. According to pre-war quantum electrodynamics (QED), the energy of the electron consisted of the bare energy it had when uncoupled from an electromagnetic field, and the self-energy resulting from the electromagnetic coupling, but both were unobservable, since the electromagnetic field cannot be switched off. QED gave infinite values for the self-energies; but the Lamb shift showed that they were both real and finite. Hans Kramers proposed renormalization as a solution, but no one knew how to do the calculation.

Bethe managed to perform the calculation on the train from New York to Schenectady, where he was working for General Electric. He did so by realising that it was a non-relativistic process, which greatly simplified the calculation. The bare energy was easily removed as it was already included in the observed mass of the electron. The self energy term now increased logarithmically instead of linearly, making it mathematically convergent. Bethe arrived at a value for the Lamb shift of 1040 MHz, extremely close to that obtained experimentally by Lamb and Retherford. His paper, published in the Physical Review in August 1947, was only three pages long and contained just twelve mathematical equations, but was enormously influential. It had been presumed that the infinities indicated that QED was fundamentally flawed, and that a new, radical theory was required; Bethe demonstrated that this was not necessary.

One of Bethe's most famous papers is one he never wrote: the 1948 Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper. George Gamow added Bethe's name (in absentia) without consulting him, knowing that Bethe would not mind, and against Ralph Alpher's wishes. This was apparently a reflection of Gamow's sense of humor, wanting to have a paper title that would sound like the first three letters of the Greek alphabet. As one of the Physical Review's reviewers, Bethe saw the manuscript and struck out the words "in absentia".

Astrophysics
Bethe believed that the atomic nucleus was like a quantum liquid drop. He investigated the nuclear matter problem by considering the work conducted by Keith Brueckner on perturbation theory. Working with Jeffrey Goldstone, he produced a solution for the case where there was an infinite hard-core potential. Then, working with Baird Brandow and Albert Petschek, he came up with an approximation that converted the scattering equation into an easily solved differential equation. This then led him to the Bethe-Faddeev equation, a generalisation of Ludvig Faddeev's approach to three-body scattering. He then used these techniques to examine the neutron stars, which have densities similar to those of nuclei.

Bethe continued to do research on supernovae, neutron stars, black holes, and other problems in theoretical astrophysics into his late nineties. In doing this, he collaborated with Gerald E. Brown of Stony Brook University. In 1978, Brown proposed that they collaborate on supernovae. These were reasonably well understood by this time, but the calculations were still a problem. Using techniques honed from decades of working with nuclear physics, and some experience with calculations involving nuclear explosions, Bethe tackled the problems involved in stellar gravitational collapse, and the way in which various factors affected a supernova explosion. Once again, he was able to reduce the problem to a set of differential equations, and to solve them.

At age 85, Bethe wrote an important article about the solar neutrino problem, in which he helped establish the conversion mechanism for electron neutrinos into muon neutrinos proposed by Stanislav Mikheyev, Alexei Smirnov, and Lincoln Wolfenstein to explain a vexing discrepancy between theory and experiment. Bethe argued that physics beyond the Standard Model was required to understand the solar neutrino problem, because it presumed that neutrinos have no mass, and therefore, cannot metamorphosize into each other; whereas the MSW effect required this to occur. Bethe hoped that corroborating evidence would be found by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Ontario by his 90th birthday, but he did not get the call from SNO until June 2001, when he was nearly 95.

In 1996, Kip Thorne approached Bethe and Brown about LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory designed to detect the gravitational waves from merging neutron stars and black holes. Since Bethe and Brown were good at calculating things that could not be seen, could they look at the mergers? The 90-year-old Bethe quickly became enthused and soon began the required calculations. The result was a 1998 paper on the "Evolution of Binary Compact Objects Which Merge", which Brown regarded as the best that the two produced together.

Political stances
In 1968, Bethe, along with IBM physicist Richard Garwin, published an article criticising in detail the anti-ICBM defense system proposed by the Department of Defense. The two physicists described in the article that nearly any measure taken by the United States would be easily thwarted with the deployment of relatively simple decoys. Bethe was one of the primary voices in the scientific community behind the signing of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibiting further atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Bethe campaigned for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. After the Chernobyl disaster, Bethe was part of a committee of experts who analysed the incident. They concluded that the reactor suffered from a fundamentally faulty design and also that human error had contributed significantly to the accident. "My colleagues and I established," he explained "that the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power." Throughout his life Bethe remained a strong advocate for electricity from nuclear energy, which he described in 1977 as "a necessity, not merely an option."

In the 1980s he and other physicists opposed the Strategic Defense Initiative missile system conceived by the Ronald Reagan administration. In 1995, at the age of 88, Bethe wrote an open letter calling on all scientists to "cease and desist" from working on any aspect of nuclear weapons development and manufacture. In 2004, he joined 47 other Nobel laureates in signing a letter endorsing John Kerry for President of the United States as someone who would "restore science to its appropriate place in government".

Historian Gregg Herken wrote: "When Oppenheimer died, Oppie's long-time friend, Hans Bethe, assumed the mantle of the scientist of conscience in this country. Like Jefferson and Adams, Teller and Bethe would live on into the new century which they and their colleagues had done so much to shape."

Personal life
Bethe's hobbies included a passion for stamp-collecting. He loved the outdoors and was an enthusiastic hiker all his life, exploring the Alps and the Rockies. He died in his home in Ithaca, New York, on March 6, 2005, of congestive heart failure. He was survived by his wife, Rose Ewald Bethe, and their two children. At the time of his death, he was the John Wendell Anderson Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Cornell University.

Honors and awards
Bethe received numerous honors and awards in his lifetime and afterward. He became a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1947, and that year, he also received the National Academy of Sciences's Henry Draper Medal and was elected to the American Philosophical Society. He was awarded the Max Planck Medal in 1955, the Franklin Medal in 1959, the Royal Astronomical Society Eddington Medal and the United States Atomic Energy Commission Enrico Fermi Award in 1961, the Rumford Prize in 1963, the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967, the National Medal of Science in 1975, the Oersted Medal in 1993, the Bruce Medal in 2001, and posthumously in 2005, the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Sciences by the American Philosophical Society.

Bethe was elected Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 1957, and he gave the 1993 Bakerian Lecture at the Royal Society on the Mechanism of Supernovae. In 1978 he was elected a Member of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina.

Cornell named the third of five new residential colleges, each of which is named after a distinguished former member of the Cornell faculty, as the Hans Bethe House after him. Similarly named after him is the Hans Bethe Center, 322 Fourth Street NE, Washington, D.C., home to the Council for a Livable World, where Bethe was a longtime board member, as well as the Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics at University of Bonn in Germany. An asteroid, 30828 Bethe, that was discovered in 1990 was named after him. The American Physical Society Hans Bethe Prize was named after him as well.

In popular culture
Bethe was portrayed by Matthew Guinness in the 1980 TV Miniseries Oppenheimer, and by Gustaf Skarsgård in the 2023 film Oppenheimer. In Cities in Flight, a 1950-1962 science fiction series by James Blish, a powerful weapon called a "Bethe Blaster" is named for Bethe.

Selected publications

 * Bethe, H. A. "Theory of High Frequency Rectification by Silicon Crystals", Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Radiation Laboratory, United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Atomic Energy Commission), (October 29, 1942).
 * Bethe, H. A. "Theoretical Estimate of Maximum Possible Nuclear Explosion", Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory-Schenectady, N.Y., United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Atomic Energy Commission), (January 31, 1950).
 * Bethe, H. A.; Rajaraman, R. "Three-body Problem in Nuclear Matter", University of Southern California-Los Angeles, United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Atomic Energy Commission), (1967).
 * Bethe, H. A. "Note on Inverse Bremsstrahlung in a Strong Electromagnetic Field", Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Atomic Energy Commission), (September 1972).
 * Bethe, H. A. "Pauli Principle and Pion Scattering", Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Atomic Energy Commission), (October 1972).
 * Bethe, H. A. "Fusion Hybrid Reactor", Sandia National Laboratories, United States Department of Energy, (August 1981).

title: Hans Bethe