ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

The Plan to Bring an Asteroid to Earth

Amplify’d from www.wired.com

The Plan to Bring an Asteroid to Earth

PASADENA, California — Send a robot into space. Grab an asteroid. Bring it back to Earth orbit.

This may sound like a crazy plan, but it was discussed quite seriously last week by a group of scientists and engineers at the California Institute of Technology. The four-day workshop was dedicated to investigating the feasibility and requirements of capturing a near-Earth asteroid, bringing it closer to our planet and using it as a base for future manned spaceflight missions.

This is not something the scientists are imagining could be done some day off in the future. This is possible with the technology we have today and could be accomplished within a decade.

A robotic probe could anchor to an asteroid made mostly of nickel-iron with simple magnets or grab a rocky asteroid with a harpoon or specialized claws (see video below) and then push the asteroid using solar-electric propulsion. For asteroids too big for a robot to handle, a large spacecraft could fly near the object to act as a gravity tractor that deflects the asteroid’s trajectory, sending it toward Earth.

“Once you get over the initial reaction — ‘You want to do what?!’ — it actually starts to seem like a reasonable idea,” said engineer John Brophy from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who helped organize the workshop.

In fact, many of these ideas have been on the drawing board for years as part of NASA’s planetary defense program against large space-based objects that might threaten Earth. And there’s no shortage of potential targets. NASA estimates there are 19,500 asteroids at least 330 feet wide — large enough to detect with telescopes — within 28 million miles of Earth.

Though rearranging the heavens may seem an excessive undertaking, the mission has its merits. The Obama administration already plans to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid, a mission that would coop them up in a tiny capsule for three to six months, and involve all the risks of a long deep-space voyage. Instead, robots could shoulder some of that burden by bringing an asteroid close enough for astronauts to get there in just a month.

Parking an asteroid in a gravitationally neutral spot between the Earth and the sun, known as a Lagrange point, would provide a stationary base from which to launch missions further into space. There are several advantages to this. For one, launching materials from Earth requires a lot of power, fuel, and consequently money, to get out of our planet’s deep gravity well. Resources mined from an asteroid with very little gravitational pull could be easily shuttled around the solar system.

And many asteroids have a lot to offer. Some are full of metals such as iron, which can be used to build space-based habitats while others are up to one-quarter water, which would be either used for life-support or broken down into hydrogen and oxygen to make fuel. As well, asteroid regolith placed around a spaceship hull would shield it against radiation from deep space, allowing safer travel to other planets.

An asteroid could be an alternative to setting up camp on the moon, or complement a moon base with more resources for heading further out in the solar system, said engineer Louis Friedman, cofounder of the Planetary Society and another co-organizer of the Caltech workshop.

There’s also the potential for mining asteroid materials to bring back to Earth. Even a small asteroid contains roughly 30 times the amount of metals mined over all of human history, with an estimated worth of $70 trillion. And astronomers would have the chance to get a close-up look at one of the solar system’s earliest relics, generating important scientific data.

Though technically feasible, budging such a hefty target — with a mass in excess of a million tons — would not be easy.

“You’re moving the largest mother lode imaginable,” said former astronaut Rusty Schweickart, cofounder of the B612 Foundation, an organization dedicated to protecting Earth from asteroid strikes.

Most asteroids are irregular chunks of rock that spin chaotically along irregular axes. Engineers would need to be absolutely certain they could control such a potentially dangerous object. “It’s the opposite of planetary defense; if you do something wrong you have a Tunguska event,” said engineer Marco Tantardini from the Planetary Society, referring to the powerful 1908 explosion above a remote Russian region thought to have been caused by a meteoroid or comet. Of course, any asteroid brought back under the proposed plan would be too small to cause a repeat of such an event.

Still, these obstacles are like catnip to engineers, who love to go over every potential difficulty in order to solve it. Actually executing the asteroid retrieval plan would help demonstrate and greatly expand mankind’s space-based engineering capabilities, said Friedman. For instance, the mission would teach engineers how to capture an uncooperative target, which could be good practice for future planetary defense missions, he added.

And if the challenges for a large asteroid seem too daunting, researchers could always start with a smaller asteroid, perhaps six to 30 feet across. Gradually larger objects could be part of a campaign where engineers learn to deal with progressively greater complications.

Last year, Brophy helped conduct a study at JPL to look at the feasibility of bringing a 6.5-foot, 22,000-pound asteroid — of which there might conceivably be millions — to the International Space Station. This mission would help astronauts and engineers learn how to process asteroid materials and ores in space.

The JPL study suggested the asteroid could be captured robotically in something as simple as a large Kevlar bag and then flown to the space station or placed in a Lagrange point. Of course, such a small object might not have the same emotional impact as a larger destination. “NASA isn’t going to want to go to something that is smaller than our spaceships,” said engineer Dan Mazanek from NASA’s Langley Research Center.

No matter the size of the asteroid, these plans would require hefty investments. Even capturing a small asteroid would consume at least a billion dollars and anything larger would be a multi-billion-dollar endeavor. Convincing taxpayers to foot such a bill could be tricky.

Considering the resources available in any asteroid, private industry might be interested in getting involved. One possible mission would be to simply execute the first part of the plan — pushing the asteroid to near-Earth orbit — and then convene a commercial competition inviting anyone who wants to develop the capabilities to reach and mine the object.

Though the undertaking might be scientifically exciting, this wouldn’t be the primary motivation. An asteroid would provide great insight into the solar system’s formation, it’s not enough to justify the expense of bringing one to Earth. Any interesting science can be done much cheaper with an unmanned robotic spacecraft, said chemist Joseph A Nuth from NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center.

“Ultimately, we would be developing this target in order to help move out into the solar system,” Brophy said.

Though they did not reach a consensus on all the details, the group will reconvene in January to hammer out further specifications and potentially get the interest of NASA.

In the end, many agreed that bringing an asteroid back to Earth could create an interesting destination for repeated manned missions and that the undertaking would help build up experience for future jaunts into space.

Read more at www.wired.com
 

Raw Video: Ariz. Dust Storm Causes Pileups

Boy, age 11, undergoing sex change??

Public Advocate Banner



An 11 year old boy in California has begun the process of "gender reassignment surgery."



Thomas Lobel, who says he prefers to be called Tammy, is undergoing "controversial hormone blocking treatment" that will "stop him from experiencing puberty."



And the not so shocking family circumstances of this confused little boy?



He has two mommies.



Yes, "Tammy" Lobel is being raised by lesbian parents, Debra Lobel and Pauline Moreno.



He has no father, no masculine influence, no male role model to bring him up as a man.



On top of that, his parents are neck deep in homosexual "pride" and "acceptance" -- an anything goes culture.



"We live in the Bay area where lots of alternative lifestyles are in place..." Ms Moreno told reporters.



She and her "wife" claim they have no idea why their "daughter" is so confused, but it's rather obvious what has happened to this poor child...



This boy is the tragic victim of a radical Homosexual Agenda bent on squashing any concept of the reality that is biological gender.



He was so confused by the distorted worldview his "new age" parents were constructing that he even tried to mutilate his own genitals in an attempt to become female!



I weep for Thomas and what he has gone through, and shudder to think of how much worse it will get.



It reminds me of the story of David Reimer.



David was born a male, but after a tragic accident that occurred during circumcision, his family decided to raise him as a girl.



His psychologist, John Money, reported this gender reassignment experiment a huge success and claimed it proved gender "fluidity."



That there was no biological basis for gender differences, that it was just another aspect of your identity to be chosen, like hair color or clothing choice.



This evidence was wildly trumpeted by the Homosexual Lobby and their sympathizers in the media.



It's still quoted to this day by those who seek to advance their own agenda while whitewashing the truth.



You see the truth in this case is an ugly thing...



Eventually, after living a short life plagued with confusion and severe depression, David Reimer killed himself.



Will this be the tragic future of Thomas Lobel, the boy who's activist parents convinced him he is a "girl born in a boy's body?"



When I see a horror like this, I am faced with two options...



...I can turn my face away from this darkness, give up and pretend that nothing is wrong in the world.  It would be the easy thing to do.



...Or I can recommit myself to the fight, with renewed vigor, determined to restore the American family and prevent future David Reimers and Thomas Lobels from falling victim to the radical Homosexual Agenda.



There are not many in this country who are willing to stand up to the power of the Homosexual Lobby, to suffer their slings and arrows.



So I will.



You and I simply cannot allow them to win.  The cost is too high.



For the Family,





Eugene Delgaudio

President, Public Advocate of the United States

"Bank Of America Customers Get The Heck Out Of That Bank!" Senator Dick Durbin

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

"Bank Of America Customers Get The Heck Out Of That Bank!" Senator Dick Durbin

October 03, 2011 C-SPAN
http://MOXNews.com


See more at www.youtube.com
 

URGENT, NEW WORLD ORDER IS NOW SET. On September 30 Obama WAS asserted new power to EXECUTE any American citizen.


On the 4th Nov 2010. I Simon Brown posted on my web site This disturbing


and serious information about Prisoner Boxcars With Shackles, and


guillotines built to terminate Christians and firm Bible believers. If you haven't


read this click here to read the full articles. See the link at the bottom.


If you have please read on to understand why this message and article is so


important not just to believers. In my previous article  I STATED IS THIS


TRUE.

Well in short please let me remind you. Thousands of prisoner boxcars with


shackles and guillotines, are manufactured in Portland by GUNDERSON


STEEL FABRICATION. Concentration camps are located across America,


Canada and Alaska for the hour of martial law and the seizure of this nation


for the New World Order.Camps have been established to detain and


ultimately terminate Christians and firm Bible believers, and what they


consistently referred to as "the Resisters of the New World Order."






After posting this article I received some very interesting information from


people who are literally interested in fulfillment of bible prophecy. I also prayed


hard over this that I would know the truth.






Well I received comments from


Christian friends of which some who laughed about this as I did in the beginning of my


search. After there research none of them who came back were laughing any


more yes they also now believed it was serious.




Well only yesterday I received this information by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts The Day America Died: The only Future for Americans is a Nightmare




In short Paul states,


Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a "threat," without due process of law.




In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence.




On September 30 Obama used this asserted new power of the president and had two American citizens, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan murdered. Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat.




The New World Order is set.


Are you laughing like I was, then read the evidence and see why many are now trembling.






How good are you at reading signs?  Jesus expects his disciples to read the signs of the times accurately!

Jesus warns us that there are consequences for being unprepared.

We will not be prepared to meet the Lord, face to face, when he calls us unless we listen to him today. As in Jesus' story of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) being caught off-guard.



Do you allow your work to totally absorb you and to keep you from the thought of God?


PLEASE DON'T BE ASLEEP. READ THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.








Revelation 20:4 concerning the future beheading of believers during the reign of the Antichrist
Whether or not this is true we can be certain of this Bible verse.

Revelation 20:4 concerning the future beheading of believers during the reign of the Antichrist



I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years







Do Not Allow President Obama To Impose Martial Law

Amplify’d from theintelhub.com

Do Not Allow President Obama To Impose Martial Law

By Scott Lazarowitz

LewRockwell.com

October 4, 2011

Some people are predicting that there will be a major economic collapse, caused by unsustainable debts and other government intrusions into private economic matters, and by central banks’ excessive money-printing.

In America, the Federal Reserve’s continued irresponsible and reckless actions will result in further devaluing the currency and huge increases in price inflation, especially in food and energy prices.

Some are predicting that there will be food shortages, looting, rioting, and civil unrest and violence in America.

There are some people who believe that such events will be followed by President Obama imposing a nationwide martial law. Recent terrorism drills, such as the major drill last week in Denver, are believed to be part of the U.S. government’s preparation for either terrorism or false flag events, or part of preparation for planned martial law.

Obama was recently in Denver. One hopes that what former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has documented, a possible huge underground government or military facility at the Denver airport, and other similar places, are not true.

But the subject of martial law needs to be discussed, because it’s important that the people of the U.S. states have an understanding of this before Obama imposes martial law, which is essentially a presidential-military-rule dictatorship.

Obviously, any imposition of martial law by the U.S. government would be not only a gross violation of state sovereignty, thus making the states even further subservient to the authoritarian rule of the federal government, but martial law goes against the Founders’ ideas of inalienable rights and liberty.

Martial law includes the suspension of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and dissent, the right to bear arms and self-defense, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to presumption of innocence.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of each and every human being to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are inalienable, pre-existing rights, meaning that they are natural and inherent rights, not given to us by any government.

That means that no one, including government officials, police or military, may violate these rights or remove them – otherwise, they could not be considered inalienable.

Specifically, the right of the individual to life and liberty includes the right to own and control one’s life, and the right to be free from the aggressions of others, including police and military.

The right of the individual to one’s life and liberty includes the “right to be secure” in one’s person, property and effects. In America, there are supposed to be no intrusions into the person or property of the individual without actual suspicion that a specific individual has committed a specific crime against someone else’s person or property.

Even in those cases, the people were advised by the Founders to nevertheless question the official judgments of government agents.

Any suspension of these rights and civil liberties such as under a martial law would thus be an act of criminality by government officials, including the president, military and police, against the people.

There have been many aspects of the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” including the Patriot Act and new warrantless surveillance intrusions, and due-process-free policies of apprehension and detention of Americans by federal agents, that some people believe to have been a back-door means for military rule in America.

As I wrote in my article, Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon, the rights to presumption of innocence (and thus the right to be left alone without suspicion) and due process have greatly diminished in America since the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to expand the federal government’s intrusive police powers over Americans.

Putting such policies as the Patriot Act into place, and allowing for the apprehension, detention and assassination of Americans as well as foreigners, policies that remove presumption of innocence and due process, has made the U.S. government a much bigger threat to our liberty than terrorists ever could be.

Given Obama’s assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process, without having been convicted or even charged with terrorism, but by merely having been labeled a “terrorist” by government officials, and given the preponderance of historical evidence as to why we should not trust the judgment of government officials, Americans need to be vigilant.

Why? Just one example is how current administration officials’ continuously label government protesters and Tea Party activists, antiwar protesters and even anti-ObamaCare activists as threats and “terrorists.” The crackdowns on peaceful protesters show more clearly how America is quickly turning into the Soviet Union.

Now, if you are a governor, and President Obama imposes martial law and orders you as governor of your state to enforce such an order, you are obligated by law to disobey that order, because it would be an unlawful order.

Government officials recite an oath as they take their office, as do police and military personnel. Part of the oath for governor of a state – and local police officers for that matter – includes “support” of the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions.

In some cases, the oath states that they will “obey and defend” the Constitution.

Some police officers’ oaths state that they will “obey the orders of superior officers” on the force. And the oath for enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces does include mention of obeying the orders of the President of the United States.

However, when a superior officer or president gives an unlawful order, such as one that violates an individual’s right to due process or right to free speech or dissent, then the soldier or officer is obligated to disobey that order.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, explains here in this video why such unlawful orders must be disobeyed. The Oath Keepers organization notes that

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

The Oath Keepers organization views the soldier, military officer or police officer’s primary obligation of service as being to the people, not the president, and that their loyalty is to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

If the President of the United States orders governors, National Guardsmen, military soldiers, police officers, to enforce federal martial law, the purpose of which is to remove civil liberties and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then such an order, therefore, is an unlawful order, and government personnel are obligated to disobey such orders.

Here is the Oath Keepers’ list of orders they would not obey, particularly because, as the Oath Keepers themselves note, such orders are “unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people.

Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason.”



    1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people

    2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

    3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

    4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

    5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

    6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

    7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

    8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

    9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

    10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


I never thought that in my lifetime I would see such a strong possibility of economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law in America. But all of this is completely avoidable.

How are economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law avoidable? First, get rid of the causes of food price inflation.

That means ending the Federal Reserve, ending central planning in money and banking, and allowing for free, competitive banking and competing currencies.

Encourage the people to use gold, silver or something else of value as their medium of exchange, or a currency that is at least backed by something of value. Get the government out of money and banking, period.

Second, end the federal government’s intrusions into, restrictions on and subsidization of food production and distribution. Decentralize the entire food industry, and make the federal government stop infringing on the rights of local farmers and food producers, food distributors, retailers and grocers.

Those local producers and traders – not government central planners – are the ones who know best how to handle their businesses, and what the consumers want and how much food should cost. No more police S.W.A.T raids on raw milk producers and other food producers.

We just can’t allow America to descend into the third world police state dictatorship that it seems to be becoming (and that is being reinforced in the schools).

One step in the right direction would be to end all restrictions on civilians’ right to self-defense, and protect their right to own, conceal or openly carry weapons. That is what really prevents crime.

And communities need to consider de-monopolizing local policing and security. There’s no good reason for government to monopolize those functions. Let voluntary groups and private, competitive firms handle those things – that is what will end the current police-thug phenomenon.

Also, the federal government needs to end its counter-productive aggressions overseas and War on Drugs.

Finally, besides invoking the 10th Amendment and nullifying federal food, monetary and banking restrictions, and nullifying federal gun laws, if Obama orders martial law, then U.S. state governors must also nullify that, too.

If Obama and federal agents and military insist on forcing martial law in the states against the authority of the states’ leaders, then the states’ governors may have to order state and local officials to arrest federal agents acting in violation of the states’ sovereignty and the people’s rights.

No, the way to deal with economic collapse, civil unrest and looting is not with a federal martial law presidential-military dictatorship.

The way to deal with or prevent such a crisis is by going the other way: through decentralization and de-monopolization, and undoing all the governmental interventions that will have caused the crisis in the first place.

Read more at theintelhub.com
 

BofA Shares Fall To Lowest Level Since March 2009 On European Fears

Amplify’d from www.huffingtonpost.com


BofA Shares Fall To Lowest Level Since March 2009 On European Fears

Bank Of America

Bank of America Corp shares fell nearly 8 percent to their lowest level since March 2009 as investors worried that a slowing domestic economy and European debt woes would batter it and other banks.

Bank of America shares were off 48 cents to $5.64 in afternoon trading, rebounding slightly from earlier losses.

Rivals Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Morgan Stanley were also sharply lower amid a broad industry sell-off.

"We saw this in the industry's third-quarter stock price performance, and that seems to be carrying over into the fourth quarter," said Barclays Capital analyst Jason Goldberg.

The KBW Bank Index was down 3.5 percent

Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank by assets, is shedding properties to raise capital as it tries to cope with billions of dollars in problem mortgages.

Analysts said investors are worried that the weak state of the U.S. economy will crimp profits, further impeding the bank's ability to absorb mortgage losses, and a European debt crisis could affect U.S. lenders.

"The fear trade and uncertainties will drive these shares until clarity is provided in one form or another," said Albion Financial Group analyst Jason Ware.

(Reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte, North Carolina; editing by John Wallace)

Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com
 

Citibank To Impose $20 Fees On Certain Customers

Amplify’d from www.huffingtonpost.com


Citibank To Impose $20 Fees On Certain Customers

City Bank
The Huffington Post

Starting in December, the bank will charge customers of its Easy Checking Package, previously a free service, $15 per month if an account's checking and saving balance does not total a minimum of $6,000, according to the LAT. Citibank also will charge customers of its mid-level Citi Account package $20 per month for a combined account balance of less than $15,000, an increase from $6,000, starting in November, according to the LAT.

These fees follow Citibank's announcement in September that it would charge Basic Checking customers $10 per month on checking and savings accounts with a combined balance of less than $1,500.

Citibank emphasized in an interview with The Huffington Post that most customers can switch to Basic Checking if they would like to avoid fees, so long as they maintain a minimum $1,500 balance. The bank also noted that Basic Checking customers with less than $1,500 in their accounts can avoid paying the fee by making "one direct deposit and one online bill payment during each monthly statement period."



These are the latest in a slew of new fees by major banks that say they are struggling to raise revenue because of new regulations that limit the amount of money they can gain from overdraft fees and debit-card swipe fees, among others.

Bank of America recently announced that it plans to charge its debit card users $5 per month starting early next year. Wells Fargo will start charging debit card users $3 per month this fall.

JPMorgan Chase tested ATM fees for non-network customers earlier this year, charging $5 in Illinois and $4 in Texas, but they ultimately ended the plan. The banks Regions Financial Corp. and SunTrust Banks Inc. have decided to charge $4 and $5 per month, respectively, for some of their debit card users, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com
 

Cervical cancer virus fuels oral cancer type due to oral sex

HPV - Human Papillomavirus of the throat

Amplify’d from hosted.ap.org
Cervical cancer virus fuels oral cancer type
LAURAN NEERGAARD

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A prolonged sore throat once was considered a cancer worry mainly for smokers and drinkers. Today there's another risk: A sexually transmitted virus is fueling a rise in oral cancer.

The HPV virus is best known for causing cervical cancer. But it can cause cancer in the upper throat, too, and a new study says HPV-positive tumors now account for a majority of these cases of what is called oropharyngeal cancer.

If that trend continues, that type of oral cancer will become the nation's main HPV-related cancer within the decade, surpassing cervical cancer, researchers from Ohio State University and the National Cancer Institute report Monday.

"There is an urgency to try to figure out how to prevent this," says Dr. Amy Chen of the American Cancer Society and Emory University, who wasn't part of the new research.

While women sometimes get oral cancer caused by the HPV, the risk is greatest and rising among men, researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. No one knows why, but it begs the question of whether the vaccine given to girls and young women to protect against cervical cancer also might protect against oral HPV.

HPV vaccination is approved for boys to prevent genital warts and anal cancer, additional problems caused by human papillomavirus. But protection against oral HPV hasn't been studied in either gender, says Dr. Maura Gillison, a head-and-neck cancer specialist at Ohio State and senior author of the new research. That's important, because it's possible to have HPV in one part of the body but not the other, she says.

A spokeswoman for Merck & Co., maker of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, said the company has no plans for an oral cancer study.

Monday's research was funded by the NCI and Ohio State. Gillison has been a consultant to Merck.

There are nearly 10,000 new cases of oropharyngeal cancer a year, and overall incidence has risen by 28 percent since 1988 even as other types of head-and-neck cancer have been declining.

Tobacco and alcohol have long been the main causes of these tumors, which occur in the tonsils, base of the tongue and upper throat. But over the past few years, studies have shown HPV is playing a role in that rise, probably due to an increase in oral sex even as tobacco use was dropping.

The new study took a closer look, tracking HPV over time by directly testing tumor tissue from 271 patients that had been stored in cancer registries in Hawaii, Iowa and Los Angeles. The proportion that were HPV-positive rose from just 16 percent in the late 1980s to nearly 73 percent by the early 2000s.

Translate that to the overall population, and the researchers concluded that incidence rates of the HPV-positive tumors more than tripled while HPV-negative tumors dropped by half.

Oral cancer has always been a bigger threat to men than women. Gillison says women account for only about 1 in 4 cases, and their incidence is holding steady while men's is rising. That raises questions about gender differences in sexual behavior or whether oral HPV infection is likely to linger longer in men.

While HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, studies show women's bodies usually clear the virus from the cervix quickly; only an infection that persists for years is a cancer risk. It's not known if oral HPV acts similarly or even is as common.

Nor is it clear if oral sex is the only way it's transmitted, cautions Dr. Gregory Masters of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, an oncologist at Delaware's Helen Graham Cancer Center.

Regardless, just over 11,000 cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this year, a number that has been dropping steadily thanks to better Pap smears. (It's too soon to know what difference vaccination will make.) Gillison's team calculated that annual cases of cervical cancer will drop to 7,700 by 2020 - compared with about 8,700 cases of HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer by then, about 7,400 of them in men.

The cancer society's Chen urged caution about those numbers, saying more data is needed. But she says two things are clear: First, patients with HPV-linked oral tumors have better survival odds than those with other types of this cancer, possibly because they tend to be younger. Studies are beginning to test if they can scale back today's treatment and thus suffer fewer long-term side effects such as problems with speech and swallowing.

And "just because you're not a smoker or drinker doesn't mean you can't get throat cancer," Chen says - so get checked for symptoms like a throat that's sore for longer than two weeks.

EDITOR'S NOTE - Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press.

Read more at hosted.ap.org