So you're looking at buying a new knife, but you can't make heads or tails of all these terms they use to describe the blade. Well don't feel too bad my friend. Even the biggest, baddest knife maker out there had troubles making sense of all these terms when they first started, and once you get the ideas behind the terms down it really isn't as bad as it seems.

Let's start with a drop point blade. One of the two most common blade styles in current use, a drop point blade tends to have a gently curved spine (the back of the blade) that leads to a tip slightly lower than the back of the hilt or handle and a reasonably large "belly" (a curved cutting edge). This tends to result in a knife with good slicing characteristics and a strong tip that is less likely to break than many others. Many hunting knives and most chef's knives have this style of blade. The downside to this style is that it won't pierce things as easily or as well as some other styles.

A style that just as common as the drop point is the clip point, where the front portion of the blades spine appears to have been clipped off. Most Bowie knives use this style of blade as well as most butchers knives. The big advantage here is a tip that is second to none in piercing power coupled with a large belly giving you great slicing ability. The drawback is that the lack of metal in the spine near the tip causes a loss of strength which may lead to you breaking the tip off, especially if you try twisting or prying with the tip.

Another common blade type is the Trailing Point. This style typically has a curving spine that places the tip of the blade above the level of the grip and often a very thin blade. This maximizes the amount of belly available for use resulting in a fantastic slicing knife, which is why many skinning knives and all fillet knives use this style of blade. The downside is that the tip tends to be very weak to the point of being almost useless.

The next blade style is the dagger, also commonly called a spear point or needle point depending on the taper used. These are often, but not always sharpened on both edges, and are primarily designed to stab or make very fine adjustments to what every you're cutting. Many famous fighting knives, such as the V-42 used by the infamous Devil's Brigade of WWII, and most throwing knives use this style of blade. Interestingly enough, the original pen knife used a single edged blade of this style. It got it's name because it was designed to sharpen quill pens, and the name has continued to be used to this day, though it often refers to any traditional style folding pocket knife. Of course the main drawback to this style of blade is that it's for all practical purposes tip only, unless the blades got such a short taper at the very end that it looks more like a drop tip.

The next blade style is the Straight Back, though I don't often see this style used very often anymore. As it's name implies, this blade type feature a straight back or spine placing the tip in line with the top of the hilt. This style of blade makes for a very good chopper since the straight spine can be easily made as thick as one might wish, yet still has enough of a belly that you can make the type of slices needed to remove a hide or trim the excess fat from a hunk of meat. You see this style of blade on some of the old chef's and butcher knives such as Old Hickory or Chicago Cutlery.

The next style that comes to mind is the Sheepsfoot. This one is different from the others is that it features a ruler straight edge and it's the back or spine that curves down to meet the tip. The spine on this style of knife was made to be gripped by the supporting hand when needed, giving the potential for greater control for fine slicing, trimming, and whittling. The name comes from one of this styles earliest uses, trimming the hooves of sheep and horses; but it is best seen today in the kitchen in the form of the very popular santoku chef's knives. The drawback here is the lack of a usable tip.

The next style of blade, and one that has continued to grow in popularity is the tanto. With it's origins in ancient Japan, this knife features a chisel like tip, often with a heavy spine. Give it a heavy enough spine, and you've got a knife that will punch through a car door or almost anything else you might want to pierce without breaking. However since most of them have a straight cutting edge from hilt to start of their tip, while they might chop with the best of them, their slicing ability can be rather limited.

Then there's the spay point. The spay point is similar to the clip point, except that the curve of the blade and the clip are both so far out near the tip that penetrating anything is difficult at best. Originally developed for spay and neutering farm animals, these knives are a great choice for skinning animals where keeping the hide intact is a real concern.

The final style of knife is called the ulu and is based on an Inuit design. This blade is a quarter to two thirds of a circle with the handle in the middle. This produces a blade with no tip whatsoever and a huge belly which makes this style fantastic for scrapping things or cutting long thin strips from something. Perfect for leather working, thin veneers, and believe it or not, making hand rolled cigars. On the other hand, this blade type is as close to a one trick pony as you can get in the knife world, so you might easily go your entire life without ever seeing one outside of pictures.

So there you go, a quickly knife blade styles 101. Are there other styles? Well, maybe. I know some will say I should be more precise, and separate spear point blades and needle point blades into two separate categories, or maybe differentiate a Wharncliffe from a Sheepsfoot; but I personally think that's carrying precision to extremes. After all, the strengths and weaknesses of a Wharncliffe blade is so similar to the strengths and weaknesses of a Sheepsfoot blade that I really don't see any point in trying to separate them out. And with what you now know, coupled with the little bit of practical metallurgy I hope you got from last weeks ramble; picking out that new knife should be at least a bit easier.

In the meantime my friend, I must run. So take care of your self and I hope to see you in this little corner of cyberspace I call my own soon. And always remember, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing with attitude.

I was talking to a new expectant mother over the weekend and when I mentioned that I worked in the hospital she went off on me as if I was Satan's number one man on earth. It seems that this young, misinformed lady has bought into all the hype some people are still spreading about how vaccines cause autism, and of course, being a health care professional, I must be covering for big pharmaceutical companies just so they can make more money. Course just how helping big pharm make obscene amounts of money benefits me was something she "hadn't figured out yet", but obviously I must be benefiting from it somehow. The truly sad part of the whole exchange? While there are numerous legitimate reasons not to get your child vaccinated, she hadn't given thought to even one of them.

The idea that vaccines, and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, & Rubela) vaccine in particular, all started in 1998 when a British Doctor named Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent study claiming a link between the two. As you can imagine, this hit the medical establishment and parents of autistic children like a load of bricks. Could we have in fact done this to our children? Were we in fact the reason our precious children developed autism? But as time passed, no one else was able to reproduce the results Dr. Wakefield claims in his paper; and so people began taking a closer look at his study to find out what they were doing wrong. So what was found out? Why couldn't we confirm his study? Well for starters, the new researchers didn't lie about their results. When going back over Dr. Wakefield's notes, they found that he was diagnosing some children with problems they did not have and also sending them for unnecessary and often invasive tests performed at facilities he had a finicial interest in. It was also discovered that some of his subjects might not have even existed, though this last item is so murky it could be argued either way.

And so the Lancet (the British Medical journal that originally published his study) disavowed it and the British authorities revoked his license. Since then several groups have tried to prove him right, but to date no organization with any reputation worth mentioning has managed to do so.

Okay you say, but what about all those dangerous chemicals they add to vaccines! Surely those have some negative effect? Hell, I heard that they even use mercury in them, and another is only one molecule away from being a poison! That has to be bad!

Ok, let's touch on the "one molecule away from being a poison" bit first. Whether some want to admit it or not, there are many, many things that kind of sort of fit that description. Water is one. If you add one atom of oxygen to water it goes from H2O to H2O2, aka Hydrogen Peroxide. There's absolutely no way you can stay alive with out consuming a minimum amount of water, but drinking hydrogen peroxide will kill you. Carbon monoxide is another one, albeit in the other direction. Once a molecule of carbon monoxide binds itself to a red blood cell, it's there for the life span of that cell; blocking it from ever being used to transport oxygen to your cell like a red blood cell should. Add anther atom of oxygen though and you get the carbon dioxide that we exhale every day, day in and day out. If I wanted to, I could drag my sister (who is a researcher for DuPont) in one this and she could go on all day giving us a multitude of examples just like the two I just mentioned. That's just the way chemistry works, so sorry but if you truly believe the "one molecule away" argument then I have to assume you slept through your high school chemistry course.

But what about that Mercury thing I hear you say. What you're referring to is a substance called thimerosal, and I must admit it take a chemist on the level of my sister to understand the reasons why that shouldn't be a problem; except that I've got an even easier point to counter it with. In 1997 congress passed a law that outlawed the use of mercury containing substances in items ment for human consumption. Thus in 2001 the FDA outlawed the use of thimerosal in the use of any vaccines destined for use in the United States, and I'm given to understand that many European nations (including England) banned it's use long before we did. So no matter what Robert DiNero, or any other big celebrity tells you, your child is NOT going to be exposed to any kind of mercury through any vaccine currently used in America.

So, since there IS no link between vaccines and autism, why in the world would anyone in their right mind refuse to allow their child to be vaccinated? Well to be honest, there are a few legitimate reasons. For one thing, much as we hate it, some people are allergic to vaccines. So if you or your child have a reaction to one vaccine, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to avoid them. Nor would it hurt to avoid them for any other children you have as well. Another legitimate reason would be health concerns of family members. We delayed some of my son's vaccinations because his grandmother was having some serious health issues at the time, and the live vaccines he was scheduled for would have ment that she would not have been able to see him for several months. We felt it was more important that he be able to see his grandma during that period of time just in case worse came to worse, and his pediatrician agreed with us so he was a year late in getting that series. There are a host of other legitimate reasons out there, and you pediatrician can tell you about them all.

So no Virginia, vaccines do Not cause autism. What they do do is protect your child from an entire dictionary of diseases that did, and in some countries still do kill children by the thousands. Nor do they just protect your child, but also the poor kid down the street who honestly can't be vaccinated for one reason or another; for if your child can't get the disease then he or she can't give it to the other one. Am I going to change everyone's mind with this ramble? Unfortunately no. There's always someone who is convinced that it's all a big lie, and there always will be. But if I can change even one mind, then this will have done all I could ask. So until next time dear reader, may the road rise up to meet you and may the skies always be clear. And remember, if something's worth doing, it's worth doing with attitude!