It's a little late for these, but I figured it would still hold some interest as a haunting visual aid associated with the after effects of the Chernobyl incident...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6Dzjudquo&feature=related
kind of chilling to know that these buildings still stand with no inhabitants or action.
-Zach
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
News updates
Hope you've all been keeping your eyes on the Copenhagen talks. I found this backgrounder helpful for understanding all of the parties involved:
New York Times description of the parties in the Copenhagen talks
Back home, senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have drafted a new version of climate legislation, which includes a pretty significant emphasis on nuclear power.
Wall Street Journal article on updated climate legislation draft
As for the ongoing situation with Iran, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is publicly discussing sanctions against Iran:
Los Angeles Times article on potential sanctions
Meanwhile, Iran is claiming they still might be game for a fuel-swap agreement:
AFP Article on remarks by Iran's Foreign Minister
Finally, if you missed Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, it's interesting to read. It follows up on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but nuclear disarmament is only a small piece in this particular speech:
Full text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance remarks
New York Times description of the parties in the Copenhagen talks
Back home, senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have drafted a new version of climate legislation, which includes a pretty significant emphasis on nuclear power.
Wall Street Journal article on updated climate legislation draft
As for the ongoing situation with Iran, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is publicly discussing sanctions against Iran:
Los Angeles Times article on potential sanctions
Meanwhile, Iran is claiming they still might be game for a fuel-swap agreement:
AFP Article on remarks by Iran's Foreign Minister
Finally, if you missed Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, it's interesting to read. It follows up on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but nuclear disarmament is only a small piece in this particular speech:
Full text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance remarks
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Ahmadinejad: Iran will enrich uranium to higher levels to 20%!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8391133.stm
"The Zionist regime [Israel] and its backer [the US] cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran's nuclear work "-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President
-He said Iran would enrich uranium to 20%, despite international attempts to reach a deal to stop it, amid fears Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Negotiations have soured and Iran says it will build 10 new enrichment plants. Civilian nuclear power requires uranium enriched to about 3%, but weapons grade uranium needs to be enriched to 90%. Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely for civilian purposes.
Deal rejected
The nations trying to negotiate a deal with Iran suggested uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear energy could be regulated if Iran handed over its uranium Russia to manage the process. But Iran has rejected the deal saying it would only agree to a simultaneous swap of fuel within its own borders. In his address to a crowd in the southern city of Isfahan on Wednesday, President Ahmadinejad said that the countries it is negotiating with had imposed too many conditions. He condemned as "illegal" a resolution passed last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency condemning its development of a uranium enrichment site in secret.
In what it said was a response to the censure, Iran announced on Sunday that it would build another 10 uranium enrichment sites, although experts say it is thought unlikely to have the resources to do so.
The US and Israel have refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails.
'Mistake'
Russia, previously considered an ally of Iran, joined the vote at the UN International Atomic Energy Agency that condemned Iran for the cover-up of a second nuclear facility in the mountains near Qom.
-Francesca
"The Zionist regime [Israel] and its backer [the US] cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran's nuclear work "-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President
-He said Iran would enrich uranium to 20%, despite international attempts to reach a deal to stop it, amid fears Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Negotiations have soured and Iran says it will build 10 new enrichment plants. Civilian nuclear power requires uranium enriched to about 3%, but weapons grade uranium needs to be enriched to 90%. Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely for civilian purposes.
Deal rejected
The nations trying to negotiate a deal with Iran suggested uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear energy could be regulated if Iran handed over its uranium Russia to manage the process. But Iran has rejected the deal saying it would only agree to a simultaneous swap of fuel within its own borders. In his address to a crowd in the southern city of Isfahan on Wednesday, President Ahmadinejad said that the countries it is negotiating with had imposed too many conditions. He condemned as "illegal" a resolution passed last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency condemning its development of a uranium enrichment site in secret.
In what it said was a response to the censure, Iran announced on Sunday that it would build another 10 uranium enrichment sites, although experts say it is thought unlikely to have the resources to do so.
The US and Israel have refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails.
'Mistake'
Russia, previously considered an ally of Iran, joined the vote at the UN International Atomic Energy Agency that condemned Iran for the cover-up of a second nuclear facility in the mountains near Qom.
-Francesca
Thursday, December 3, 2009
sorry link post didn't work-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4031600/4031603.stm
-francesca
-francesca
Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful
Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.
Why is Iran refusing to obey the Security Council resolutions?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection from the IAEA. Iran is under such inspection. However, only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.
Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel. It blames the Security Council resolutions on political pressure from the US and its allies. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself...
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.
-francesca schaerrer
Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.
Why is Iran refusing to obey the Security Council resolutions?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection from the IAEA. Iran is under such inspection. However, only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.
Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel. It blames the Security Council resolutions on political pressure from the US and its allies. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself...
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.
-francesca schaerrer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Uranium Mill Issue Will Set National Precedent
by Beverly CorbellJul 01, 2009
MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.
Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.
Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.
The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.
“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”
As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.
After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.
Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.
“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.
The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.
“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.
But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.
New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.
The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.
Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.
“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”
But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.
“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”
Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.
“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”
Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.
During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.
Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”
However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.
-Abe Homer
MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.
Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.
Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.
The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.
“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”
As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.
After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.
Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.
“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.
The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.
“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.
But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.
New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.
The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.
Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.
“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”
But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.
“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”
Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.
“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”
Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.
During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.
Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”
However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.
-Abe Homer
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Defiance from Iran
Wow, I wasn't expecting this! This weekend President Ahmadinejad ordered the Iranian nuclear agency to start planning for 10 new uranium enrichment plants! This comes on the tails of an IAEA resolution that was highly critical of Iran's nuclear program. The defiant announcement of plans to build 10 new enrichment plans will definitely change the dynamic of international negotiations, and is likely to hasten talk of serious sanctions.
Here's a BBC article on Iran's announcement.
Also, I followed a link to a long commentary by an Indian newspaper, the Hindu Times. It was a very interesting critique of the Obama administration's handling of this whole situation.
Hindu Times critique of Obama's approach to Iran
For background, here's an article on the IAEA resolution. It's also significant to note that the long-time head of the IAEA is retiring this week, which definitely adds some uncertainty to the situation with Iran.
Wall Street Journal article on IAEA reaching "dead end" with Iran
Here's a BBC article on Iran's announcement.
Also, I followed a link to a long commentary by an Indian newspaper, the Hindu Times. It was a very interesting critique of the Obama administration's handling of this whole situation.
Hindu Times critique of Obama's approach to Iran
For background, here's an article on the IAEA resolution. It's also significant to note that the long-time head of the IAEA is retiring this week, which definitely adds some uncertainty to the situation with Iran.
Wall Street Journal article on IAEA reaching "dead end" with Iran
Sunday, November 22, 2009
So much "nuclear news" lately...
Here's a trio of interesting news stories:
1) We've run out of a key material used to make radiation detectors used in ports around the U.S. The detectors in question are sensitive neutron detectors that are capable of detecting the neutrons produced by Plutonium-240 decay. These are the best detectors for potentially telling that a shipping container or vehicle is carrying plutonium or a plutonium bomb. The material needed for these detectors is Helium-3, which is actually a decay product of tritium, which itself is (ironically) an H-bomb component. The U.S. is no longer making tritium, so we have also run out of our resources of Helium-3 for making bomb-detectors. This is particularly interesting to me since my first couple of years of graduate school were spent building neutron detectors using Helium-3...
New York Times article on shortages in nuclear detector materials
2) There's a high-level committee of civilian scientists in the U.S. called the "Jason panel", who meet every year to advise the government on defense topics. They have just released a report that claims that there is no need to build replacement warheads to maintain our nuclear arsenal. The report claims that simply building replacement parts and maintaining existing warheads should be sufficient, according to current science. That's important - many people have argued that we need to start building weapons again because our arsenal is aging.
New York Times article on Jason panel report
3) A Swiss scientist just published some papers within the scientific community claiming that we might run out of the world's Uranium resources as soon as 2013! That would certainly squash any kind of "nuclear renaissance". This isn't making a lot of news yet but has appeared on a few blogs.
PhysOrg article on potential uranium shortfalls
This was an interesting article to have in mind when I came across another news article about lawsuits blocking a proposed Uranium mine near the Grand Canyon:
Arizona Daily Sun article on conservationist lawsuits blocking a uranium mine
1) We've run out of a key material used to make radiation detectors used in ports around the U.S. The detectors in question are sensitive neutron detectors that are capable of detecting the neutrons produced by Plutonium-240 decay. These are the best detectors for potentially telling that a shipping container or vehicle is carrying plutonium or a plutonium bomb. The material needed for these detectors is Helium-3, which is actually a decay product of tritium, which itself is (ironically) an H-bomb component. The U.S. is no longer making tritium, so we have also run out of our resources of Helium-3 for making bomb-detectors. This is particularly interesting to me since my first couple of years of graduate school were spent building neutron detectors using Helium-3...
New York Times article on shortages in nuclear detector materials
2) There's a high-level committee of civilian scientists in the U.S. called the "Jason panel", who meet every year to advise the government on defense topics. They have just released a report that claims that there is no need to build replacement warheads to maintain our nuclear arsenal. The report claims that simply building replacement parts and maintaining existing warheads should be sufficient, according to current science. That's important - many people have argued that we need to start building weapons again because our arsenal is aging.
New York Times article on Jason panel report
3) A Swiss scientist just published some papers within the scientific community claiming that we might run out of the world's Uranium resources as soon as 2013! That would certainly squash any kind of "nuclear renaissance". This isn't making a lot of news yet but has appeared on a few blogs.
PhysOrg article on potential uranium shortfalls
This was an interesting article to have in mind when I came across another news article about lawsuits blocking a proposed Uranium mine near the Grand Canyon:
Arizona Daily Sun article on conservationist lawsuits blocking a uranium mine
Iran performs military drills to prove it can protect its nuclear sites
Tensions seem to be growing over Iran's nuclear sites. This weekend Iran performed military drills to prove they are capable of defending their nuclear sites, and potentially retaliating. They still claim they are willing to work out the fuel-swap agreement, but only under some additional conditions. The aspect of the whole situation that seems most unstable and complex to me is how the internal political debates in Iran are playing out, and how this has the potential to undermine international dialog.
L.A. Times article on the military drills
Also, it's interesting reading news from Tehran... here's an article making the case that Iran genuinely needs the nuclear fuel for medical purposes:
Tehran Times article on medical need for isotopes generated at reactors
L.A. Times article on the military drills
Also, it's interesting reading news from Tehran... here's an article making the case that Iran genuinely needs the nuclear fuel for medical purposes:
Tehran Times article on medical need for isotopes generated at reactors
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Hey guys, check out Atomic Cafe made in 1982. Its an composition of newsreel footage, government archives, military training films and 1950s music reflecting the chilling and somewhat hilarious Cold War-era paranoia in the United States. You can easily find it with a Google Video search, but here is a link to the first 10 minutes:
Atomic Cafe 82 Min Documentary - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity
- Kelsey
Nuclear Policy readings (plus, link to update on Iran)
Howdy,
Thanks for all the great posts lately. Those postcards from Nevada are amazing! Unbelievable.
Check the portal page for the written assignment due next week in class, and also for one of the three readings. The other two are linked here:
Obama's April speech in Prague on nuclear policy
A 1999 draft document outlining India's nuclear policy
Also, here's an article from today reporting that the IAEA is expressing suspicions that Iran is hiding more secret nuclear plants, beyond the one we've discussed at Qum:
New York Times article on inspectors in Iran
Thanks for all the great posts lately. Those postcards from Nevada are amazing! Unbelievable.
Check the portal page for the written assignment due next week in class, and also for one of the three readings. The other two are linked here:
Obama's April speech in Prague on nuclear policy
A 1999 draft document outlining India's nuclear policy
Also, here's an article from today reporting that the IAEA is expressing suspicions that Iran is hiding more secret nuclear plants, beyond the one we've discussed at Qum:
New York Times article on inspectors in Iran
Nevada Testing Tourism
Nevada always finds a way to make a tourist attraction out of something. The testing site in Nevada is relatively close to Las Vegas somewhere about 75 miles from the strip. The most hilarious is of course Miss Atomic Bomb. The casinos would advertise day trips out to bleachers near the north edge of the city to watch the explosions, sometimes they would be given badges which showed radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_badge_dosimeter. Most of the time they didn't.
Has anyone read the novel Hiroshima by John Hersey? I remember reading it in High School and it was one of the most intense reading experiences of my life. It details the experience of living through the blast from the perspectives of six people on the ground. I'll post some excerpts if I can find them.
--Margot
--Margot
Monday, November 16, 2009
Obama seeking China's co-operation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8362607.stm
"Reviving the global economy, dealing with a warming planet, securing future energy supplies, limiting the spread of nuclear weapons - these are among the biggest issues facing America's president and none can be tackled without China's help."
-Francesca S.
"Reviving the global economy, dealing with a warming planet, securing future energy supplies, limiting the spread of nuclear weapons - these are among the biggest issues facing America's president and none can be tackled without China's help."
-Francesca S.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Right at Your Door
Hi everyone,
A few days back i watched this interesting Movie called
Right at Your Door(2006). It's about a dirty bomb that goes off in Los Angeles, spreading a toxic cloud. The movie shows the after math of a bomb and it kind of throws everyone in panic and noone know what to do. The whole moovie is kind of boring but it starts being interesting towards the end.
You can find a trailer for it on youtube and see if its something you might want to check out.
-Lesya B
A few days back i watched this interesting Movie called
Right at Your Door(2006). It's about a dirty bomb that goes off in Los Angeles, spreading a toxic cloud. The movie shows the after math of a bomb and it kind of throws everyone in panic and noone know what to do. The whole moovie is kind of boring but it starts being interesting towards the end.
You can find a trailer for it on youtube and see if its something you might want to check out.
-Lesya B
For next week: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Hi folks,
For next week, I'd like everyone to familiarize themselves with the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have posted a few interesting articles and videos, but I would actually prefer to have everyone do a little of their own research and see what they find. The topics I would like you all to think about are below. Note that there isn't any written assignment for this week, though.
Questions to try to answer in your readings/viewings/explorations:
The "Manhattan project": what was it? Who was involved?
Why did we bomb Japan in 1945?
What were the differences between the bombs used in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki cases?
What were the initial casualties and effects of both explosions?
What was the experience like for eyewitnesses?
What are some of the legacies?
A few links to get you started:
A U.S. Military video about the bombings, from early 1946 (everyone should watch this - very interesting)
A U.S. Department of Energy online history of the Manhattan Project. This is a very comprehensive site, with probably more information than you want. I would particularly recommend taking a look at the links in the section called the Dawn of the Atomic Era.
A commemorative website from the 60 year anniversary
Some survivor accounts can be found in many different places. A few to try:
"Voice of Hibakusha"
Re-post of art by survivors, which was posted earlier by Matt R.
For next week, I'd like everyone to familiarize themselves with the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have posted a few interesting articles and videos, but I would actually prefer to have everyone do a little of their own research and see what they find. The topics I would like you all to think about are below. Note that there isn't any written assignment for this week, though.
Questions to try to answer in your readings/viewings/explorations:
The "Manhattan project": what was it? Who was involved?
Why did we bomb Japan in 1945?
What were the differences between the bombs used in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki cases?
What were the initial casualties and effects of both explosions?
What was the experience like for eyewitnesses?
What are some of the legacies?
A few links to get you started:
A U.S. Military video about the bombings, from early 1946 (everyone should watch this - very interesting)
A U.S. Department of Energy online history of the Manhattan Project. This is a very comprehensive site, with probably more information than you want. I would particularly recommend taking a look at the links in the section called the Dawn of the Atomic Era.
A commemorative website from the 60 year anniversary
Some survivor accounts can be found in many different places. A few to try:
"Voice of Hibakusha"
Re-post of art by survivors, which was posted earlier by Matt R.
New York Times article
Power for U.S. from Russia's Old Nuclear Weapons
I found this to be very interesting, especially the percentages concerning energy sources in the U.S. Enjoy!
- Christl
I found this to be very interesting, especially the percentages concerning energy sources in the U.S. Enjoy!
- Christl
Monday, November 9, 2009
Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power
Dr. Aris Candris wrote this piece which was published in today's Wall Street Journal. Dr. Candris is president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Co.
As America climbs out of one of its worst recessions in decades, we must keep in mind that long-term economic growth requires an abundant, affordable supply of electricity.
By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level, according to the U.S. Energy Administration. To meet our needs we have several options.
One is to increase our dependence on fossil energy sources. Unfortunately, this will only add to the environmental burden caused by burning carbon-based fuels. Another option, the Obama administration's goal, is to increase the supply of energy sources that reduce the country's carbon footprint. These sources include solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal energy, as well as new domestic sources of natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal.
Toward that end, the proposed Senate climate-change bill, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.), provides incentives to electric companies to use energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. The bill also expands federal loan guarantees to support the financing of new nuclear plant projects.
These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that's needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country's economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.
To be sure, the U.S needs to embrace all forms of renewable and sustainable energy technologies whenever possible. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that all renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage of our total electricity output. Wind and solar combined, for example, account for less than 5% of the total U.S. electricity supply. It is doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term.
Greater energy efficiency and conservation also make good business and environmental sense. But a 21% growth in demand for electric power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone.
Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions. The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself.
To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse's work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.
Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.
These projections are grounded in reality. To date, 25 new nuclear power plants have been announced for the U.S., 14 of them by Westinghouse. We expect the first of these new plants to come online about 2016.
Meanwhile, China and India have announced major nuclear power construction programs that will bring as many as 50 new plants online in each country over the next two decades. Nuclear power plants have proven to be the low-cost source of baseload electricity (electricity in large volume that is required all the time, and which is generated essentially only by coal and nuclear fuel). And as countries such as China and India increase the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy, American businesses and manufacturing companies will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they are forced to rely on electricity generated by comparatively more expensive energy sources.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his belief that nuclear energy must play an important part in America's energy future, and he supports the Senate climate-change bill. In a town-hall meeting in New Orleans on Oct. 15, the president said: "We need to increase domestic energy production, employ safe nuclear energy like France, but also develop new sources of energy efficiency."
Mr. Obama's reference to France is highly relevant to the controversial issue of how to manage used reactor fuel rods. Until very recently, the U.S. government and nuclear energy utilities had planned to place this material in deep storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, because of political considerations, storage at Yucca Mountain will likely never happen.
Instead, Westinghouse and others in the industry are exploring alternatives such as the recycling of used fuel. This technology, developed in the 1970s, is used in France, which is the world's most nuclear-dependent and energy-independent country. Used fuel rods contain upwards of 85% of their original energy. Tapping this energy through recycling is environmentally sound and consistent with the goal of energy independence.
With huge new finds of domestic natural gas and a commitment to renewables, the U.S. has never been closer to realizing true energy independence. But to seize this opportunity, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources must be developed in harmony to provide the abundant clean energy that the American economy needs to grow.
As America climbs out of one of its worst recessions in decades, we must keep in mind that long-term economic growth requires an abundant, affordable supply of electricity.
By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level, according to the U.S. Energy Administration. To meet our needs we have several options.
One is to increase our dependence on fossil energy sources. Unfortunately, this will only add to the environmental burden caused by burning carbon-based fuels. Another option, the Obama administration's goal, is to increase the supply of energy sources that reduce the country's carbon footprint. These sources include solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal energy, as well as new domestic sources of natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal.
Toward that end, the proposed Senate climate-change bill, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and John Kerry (D., Mass.), provides incentives to electric companies to use energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. The bill also expands federal loan guarantees to support the financing of new nuclear plant projects.
These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that's needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country's economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.
To be sure, the U.S needs to embrace all forms of renewable and sustainable energy technologies whenever possible. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that all renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage of our total electricity output. Wind and solar combined, for example, account for less than 5% of the total U.S. electricity supply. It is doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term.
Greater energy efficiency and conservation also make good business and environmental sense. But a 21% growth in demand for electric power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone.
Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions. The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself.
To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse's work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.
Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.
These projections are grounded in reality. To date, 25 new nuclear power plants have been announced for the U.S., 14 of them by Westinghouse. We expect the first of these new plants to come online about 2016.
Meanwhile, China and India have announced major nuclear power construction programs that will bring as many as 50 new plants online in each country over the next two decades. Nuclear power plants have proven to be the low-cost source of baseload electricity (electricity in large volume that is required all the time, and which is generated essentially only by coal and nuclear fuel). And as countries such as China and India increase the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy, American businesses and manufacturing companies will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they are forced to rely on electricity generated by comparatively more expensive energy sources.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his belief that nuclear energy must play an important part in America's energy future, and he supports the Senate climate-change bill. In a town-hall meeting in New Orleans on Oct. 15, the president said: "We need to increase domestic energy production, employ safe nuclear energy like France, but also develop new sources of energy efficiency."
Mr. Obama's reference to France is highly relevant to the controversial issue of how to manage used reactor fuel rods. Until very recently, the U.S. government and nuclear energy utilities had planned to place this material in deep storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, because of political considerations, storage at Yucca Mountain will likely never happen.
Instead, Westinghouse and others in the industry are exploring alternatives such as the recycling of used fuel. This technology, developed in the 1970s, is used in France, which is the world's most nuclear-dependent and energy-independent country. Used fuel rods contain upwards of 85% of their original energy. Tapping this energy through recycling is environmentally sound and consistent with the goal of energy independence.
With huge new finds of domestic natural gas and a commitment to renewables, the U.S. has never been closer to realizing true energy independence. But to seize this opportunity, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources must be developed in harmony to provide the abundant clean energy that the American economy needs to grow.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
U.S. Nuclear Power, Waste Issues, and Non-Proliferation Policy
There is so much going on in the "nuclear world" right now that I found it impossible to pick just a couple of articles to assign for next week. Consequently, I would like to have you read a whole bunch of articles, and I have scaled back the written questions so that they are pretty minimal (check the portal page for the pdf file with homework questions).
I hope that you'll find these topics as interesting as I do. We'll talk about these a bit at the beginning of class next week but then we will also start launching into discussions about nuclear weapons. The final article in this list is a first step in that direction, since it deals with current U.S. non-proliferation policy.
Future of Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S.:
New York Times article on our aging reactors
New York Times article on delays in the planning for new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
Politics of Nuclear Power in the U.S.:
A.P. article on how nuclear power is finding a way in to the debates on climate legislation
Nuclear Waste Issues, in the post-Yucca-Mountain era:
Scientific American article on nuclear waste issues
New York Times article on the Nuclear waste Technical Review Board's current activities
An Opinion Piece on Reprocessing:
L.A. Times editorial from mid-September by Frank von Hippel
U.S. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy
Foreign Policy article by Hilary Clinton
I hope that you'll find these topics as interesting as I do. We'll talk about these a bit at the beginning of class next week but then we will also start launching into discussions about nuclear weapons. The final article in this list is a first step in that direction, since it deals with current U.S. non-proliferation policy.
Future of Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S.:
New York Times article on our aging reactors
New York Times article on delays in the planning for new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
Politics of Nuclear Power in the U.S.:
A.P. article on how nuclear power is finding a way in to the debates on climate legislation
Nuclear Waste Issues, in the post-Yucca-Mountain era:
Scientific American article on nuclear waste issues
New York Times article on the Nuclear waste Technical Review Board's current activities
An Opinion Piece on Reprocessing:
L.A. Times editorial from mid-September by Frank von Hippel
U.S. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy
Foreign Policy article by Hilary Clinton
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
On Monuments
Here is the famous poem "Ozymandias" by Shelley (1818), which seems to relate to this question we discussed today about designing monuments that will last (and warn future peoples) for tens of thousands of years:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[1]
More:
(from the DOE site)
(from an online exhibit)
Yucca mountain monument contest winning entry: blue genetically engineered cacti by ashok sukumaran)
(concept by Michael Brill and art by Safdar Abidi, from WIPP exhibit on messages for 12000AD)
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[1]
More:
(from the DOE site)
(from an online exhibit)
Yucca mountain monument contest winning entry: blue genetically engineered cacti by ashok sukumaran)
(concept by Michael Brill and art by Safdar Abidi, from WIPP exhibit on messages for 12000AD)
Friday, October 30, 2009
A puzzling article on Iran
There is something I definitely don't understand here. This article:
LA Times article on Iran potentially stalling with the uranium enrichment deal
states that Iran is further stalling the agreement to ship its low-enriched uranium to other countries for enrichment to highly enriched uranium.
Here is what I don't get. What Iran seems to be asking for is that they basically should be allowed to trade their low-enriched uranium for highly-enriched uranium fuel rods that are ready to go in their research reactor immediately. This doesn't seem too crazy to me. They seem to be saying they just want to be really sure they get what was promised to them up front, rather than allowing the international community to take forever in delivering the highly enriched uranium fuel rods (or perhaps never deliver them).
However, here is a quote from the article:
"Western officials have hinted that they would reject such a stipulation, worried it would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stockpile of enriched uranium to maintain the quantity that could allow it to fuel a nuclear bomb"
Does anyone see how this works? Why would arranging an exchange of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods somehow accelerate the time frame for Iran to get a nuclear bomb? Are they worried about a plutonium path to the bomb?
Curious whether anyone is able to follow what is going on here...
LA Times article on Iran potentially stalling with the uranium enrichment deal
states that Iran is further stalling the agreement to ship its low-enriched uranium to other countries for enrichment to highly enriched uranium.
Here is what I don't get. What Iran seems to be asking for is that they basically should be allowed to trade their low-enriched uranium for highly-enriched uranium fuel rods that are ready to go in their research reactor immediately. This doesn't seem too crazy to me. They seem to be saying they just want to be really sure they get what was promised to them up front, rather than allowing the international community to take forever in delivering the highly enriched uranium fuel rods (or perhaps never deliver them).
However, here is a quote from the article:
"Western officials have hinted that they would reject such a stipulation, worried it would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stockpile of enriched uranium to maintain the quantity that could allow it to fuel a nuclear bomb"
Does anyone see how this works? Why would arranging an exchange of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods somehow accelerate the time frame for Iran to get a nuclear bomb? Are they worried about a plutonium path to the bomb?
Curious whether anyone is able to follow what is going on here...
Links for this week's assignment
The suggested references for this week's assignment (on pros and cons of nuclear power) are at the top of the assignment, but the links are also below. If you do your own research and find interesting articles or websites, please post them!
Pro nuclear power:
World Nuclear Association pro-nuclear essay
Interview with Greenpeace founder
Anti nuclear power:
Greenpeace position on nuclear power
Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power
Both sides summarized:
Wall Street Journal article giving the arguments on both sides.
Pro nuclear power:
World Nuclear Association pro-nuclear essay
Interview with Greenpeace founder
Anti nuclear power:
Greenpeace position on nuclear power
Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power
Both sides summarized:
Wall Street Journal article giving the arguments on both sides.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Rise of Nuclear Alarmism
BY JOHN MUELLER | OCTOBER 23, 2009
At the dawn of what came to be dubbed our "nuclear era," strategist Bernard Brodie, in a book dramatically titled The Absolute Weapon, laid out two facts about the new bomb: "It exists" and "its destructive power is fantastically great." Brodie certainly got his facts right. But his implication -- that the bomb would prove to be fantastically important -- has scarcely been borne out over the ensuing decades.
In fact, the bomb's impact on substantive historical developments has been minimal: Things would likely have turned out much the same if it had never been developed. The only real effect of nuclear weapons is humanity's unhealthy obsession with them, a preoccupation that has inspired some seriously bad policy decisions. With a declarative certainty he never would have used in discussing physics, Albert Einstein once proclaimed that nuclear weapons "have changed everything except our way of thinking." But instead it seems that the weapons actually changed little except our way of thinking -- as well as of declaiming, gesticulating, deploying military forces, and spending lots of money.
Nuclear weapons are, of course, routinely given credit for preventing or deterring a major war, especially during the Cold War. However, it is increasingly clear that the Soviet Union never had the slightest interest in engaging in any kind of conflict that would remotely resemble World War II, whether nuclear or not. Its agenda mainly stressed revolution, class rebellion, and civil war, conflict areas in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant.
Nor have possessors of the weapons ever really been able to find much military use for them in actual armed conflicts. They were of no help to the United States in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq; to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; to France in Algeria; to Britain in the Falklands; to Israel in Lebanon and Gaza; or to China in dealing with its once-impudent neighbor Vietnam.
In fact, a major reason so few technologically capable countries have actually sought to build the weapons, contrary to decades of hand-wringing prognostication, is that most have found them, on examination, to be a substantial and even ridiculous misdirection of funds, effort, and scientific talent.
But though they may have failed to alter substantive history, nuclear weapons have had a great impact on our collective subconscious. As historian Spencer Weart notes, "You say 'nuclear bomb' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world." In service of that perspective, Earth has been routinely depopulated by nuclear bombs on film and videotape, twice in 1959 alone.Because of this anxiety, legions of strategists have spent entire careers agonizing over "nuclear metaphysics," as the late Robert H. Johnson labeled it in his brilliant but neglected book, Improbable Dangers. However, while the metaphysicians were calculating how many MIRVs could dance on the head of an ICBM, few bothered to consider that the threat of military aggression they were attempting to deter essentially didn't exist.
The result was a colossal and absurd waste of funds. During the Cold War alone, it has been calculated, the United States spent enough money on these useless weapons and their increasingly fancy delivery systems to have purchased somewhere between 55 and 100 percent of everything in the country except the land.
We have also endured decades of hysteria over the potential for nuclear proliferation, even though the proliferation that has actually taken place has been both modest and substantially inconsequential. When the quintessential rogue state, communist China, obtained them in 1964, CIA Director John McCone sternly proclaimed that nuclear war was "almost inevitable." But far from engaging in the "nuclear blackmail" expected at the time by almost everyone (except Johnson, then working at the State Department), China built its weapons quietly and has never made a nuclear threat.
Still, the proliferation fixation continues to flourish. For more than a decade, U.S. policy obsessed over the possibility that Saddam Hussein's pathetic and technologically dysfunctional regime in Iraq could in time obtain nuclear weapons (it took the more advanced Pakistan 28 years), which it might then suicidally lob, or threaten to lob, at somebody. To prevent this imagined and highly unlikely calamity, a war has been waged that has probably resulted in more deaths than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Today, alarm is focused on the even more pathetic regime in North Korea, which has now tested devices that if detonated in the middle of New York's Central Park would be unable to destroy buildings on its periphery. There is even more hysteria about Iran, which has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of developing the weapons. If that regime changes its mind or is lying, it is likely to find that, except for stoking the national ego for a while, the bombs are substantially valueless, a very considerable waste of money and effort, and "absolute" primarily in their irrelevance.
As for the rest of the world, the nuclear age is clearly on the wane. Although it may not be entirely fair to characterize disarmament as an effort to cure a fever by destroying the thermometer, the analogy is instructive when it is reversed: When a fever subsides, the instrument designed to measure it loses its usefulness and is often soon misplaced. Thus far the former contestants in the Cold War have reduced their nuclear warheads by more than 50,000 to around 18,000. Other countries, like France, have also substantially cut their nuclear arsenals, while China and others have maintained them in far lower numbers than expected.
Total nuclear disarmament hardly seems to be in the offing -- nuclear metaphysicians still have their skill sets in order. But a continued decline seems likely, and experience suggests that formal disarmament agreements are scarcely necessary in all this -- though they may help the signatories obtain Nobel Peace Prizes. With the demise of fears of another major war, many of the fantastically impressive, if useless, arms that struck such deep anxiety into so many for so long are quietly being allowed to rust in peace.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/the_rise_of_nuclear_alarmism?page=0,0&%24Version=0&%24Path=/&%24Domain=.foreignpolicy.com,%20%24Version%3D0
-Saraswati Rowe & Marissa Plasko
At the dawn of what came to be dubbed our "nuclear era," strategist Bernard Brodie, in a book dramatically titled The Absolute Weapon, laid out two facts about the new bomb: "It exists" and "its destructive power is fantastically great." Brodie certainly got his facts right. But his implication -- that the bomb would prove to be fantastically important -- has scarcely been borne out over the ensuing decades.
In fact, the bomb's impact on substantive historical developments has been minimal: Things would likely have turned out much the same if it had never been developed. The only real effect of nuclear weapons is humanity's unhealthy obsession with them, a preoccupation that has inspired some seriously bad policy decisions. With a declarative certainty he never would have used in discussing physics, Albert Einstein once proclaimed that nuclear weapons "have changed everything except our way of thinking." But instead it seems that the weapons actually changed little except our way of thinking -- as well as of declaiming, gesticulating, deploying military forces, and spending lots of money.
Nuclear weapons are, of course, routinely given credit for preventing or deterring a major war, especially during the Cold War. However, it is increasingly clear that the Soviet Union never had the slightest interest in engaging in any kind of conflict that would remotely resemble World War II, whether nuclear or not. Its agenda mainly stressed revolution, class rebellion, and civil war, conflict areas in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant.
Nor have possessors of the weapons ever really been able to find much military use for them in actual armed conflicts. They were of no help to the United States in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq; to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; to France in Algeria; to Britain in the Falklands; to Israel in Lebanon and Gaza; or to China in dealing with its once-impudent neighbor Vietnam.
In fact, a major reason so few technologically capable countries have actually sought to build the weapons, contrary to decades of hand-wringing prognostication, is that most have found them, on examination, to be a substantial and even ridiculous misdirection of funds, effort, and scientific talent.
But though they may have failed to alter substantive history, nuclear weapons have had a great impact on our collective subconscious. As historian Spencer Weart notes, "You say 'nuclear bomb' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world." In service of that perspective, Earth has been routinely depopulated by nuclear bombs on film and videotape, twice in 1959 alone.Because of this anxiety, legions of strategists have spent entire careers agonizing over "nuclear metaphysics," as the late Robert H. Johnson labeled it in his brilliant but neglected book, Improbable Dangers. However, while the metaphysicians were calculating how many MIRVs could dance on the head of an ICBM, few bothered to consider that the threat of military aggression they were attempting to deter essentially didn't exist.
The result was a colossal and absurd waste of funds. During the Cold War alone, it has been calculated, the United States spent enough money on these useless weapons and their increasingly fancy delivery systems to have purchased somewhere between 55 and 100 percent of everything in the country except the land.
We have also endured decades of hysteria over the potential for nuclear proliferation, even though the proliferation that has actually taken place has been both modest and substantially inconsequential. When the quintessential rogue state, communist China, obtained them in 1964, CIA Director John McCone sternly proclaimed that nuclear war was "almost inevitable." But far from engaging in the "nuclear blackmail" expected at the time by almost everyone (except Johnson, then working at the State Department), China built its weapons quietly and has never made a nuclear threat.
Still, the proliferation fixation continues to flourish. For more than a decade, U.S. policy obsessed over the possibility that Saddam Hussein's pathetic and technologically dysfunctional regime in Iraq could in time obtain nuclear weapons (it took the more advanced Pakistan 28 years), which it might then suicidally lob, or threaten to lob, at somebody. To prevent this imagined and highly unlikely calamity, a war has been waged that has probably resulted in more deaths than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Today, alarm is focused on the even more pathetic regime in North Korea, which has now tested devices that if detonated in the middle of New York's Central Park would be unable to destroy buildings on its periphery. There is even more hysteria about Iran, which has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of developing the weapons. If that regime changes its mind or is lying, it is likely to find that, except for stoking the national ego for a while, the bombs are substantially valueless, a very considerable waste of money and effort, and "absolute" primarily in their irrelevance.
As for the rest of the world, the nuclear age is clearly on the wane. Although it may not be entirely fair to characterize disarmament as an effort to cure a fever by destroying the thermometer, the analogy is instructive when it is reversed: When a fever subsides, the instrument designed to measure it loses its usefulness and is often soon misplaced. Thus far the former contestants in the Cold War have reduced their nuclear warheads by more than 50,000 to around 18,000. Other countries, like France, have also substantially cut their nuclear arsenals, while China and others have maintained them in far lower numbers than expected.
Total nuclear disarmament hardly seems to be in the offing -- nuclear metaphysicians still have their skill sets in order. But a continued decline seems likely, and experience suggests that formal disarmament agreements are scarcely necessary in all this -- though they may help the signatories obtain Nobel Peace Prizes. With the demise of fears of another major war, many of the fantastically impressive, if useless, arms that struck such deep anxiety into so many for so long are quietly being allowed to rust in peace.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/the_rise_of_nuclear_alarmism?page=0,0&%24Version=0&%24Path=/&%24Domain=.foreignpolicy.com,%20%24Version%3D0
-Saraswati Rowe & Marissa Plasko
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Iran missed the Friday deadline
The United States has basically decided that their position on Iran hangs on whether or not Iran goes through with the proposed deal to ship their uranium out of the country for enrichment, and here they seem to be stalling. It's quite interesting... what's going to happen next?
New York Times article on Iran's delayed decisions
New York Times article on Iran's delayed decisions
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Readings for next week
There's no written assignment, but please read these documents and be prepared to talk about them. In particular, I want everyone to be pretty familiar with what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. If you do some additional research to understand these events, please post any interesting links! One of the readings is also just a basic review of nuclear power, for context (and to reinforce some of what we discussed today).
How Stuff Works page giving the basic details of nuclear power (think you know it all already? Try their little quiz and see!)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission backgrounder on Three Mile Island (this is the basic, bare-bones factual information given from the perspective of the main nuclear power regulatory agency. You may want to do a little snooping to find out information from other points of view.)
World Nuclear Association backgrounder on Chernobyl. (This is coming from the perspective of a nuclear industry organization, so it definitely has a propaganda aspect. You should have no trouble at all finding contrasting viewpoints if you do a little research).
How Stuff Works page giving the basic details of nuclear power (think you know it all already? Try their little quiz and see!)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission backgrounder on Three Mile Island (this is the basic, bare-bones factual information given from the perspective of the main nuclear power regulatory agency. You may want to do a little snooping to find out information from other points of view.)
World Nuclear Association backgrounder on Chernobyl. (This is coming from the perspective of a nuclear industry organization, so it definitely has a propaganda aspect. You should have no trouble at all finding contrasting viewpoints if you do a little research).
The Higgs Boson is a particle God doesn't want us to find!
xplosions, scientists arrested for alleged terrorism, mysterious breakdowns — recently Cern’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has begun to look like the world’s most ill-fated experiment.
Is it really nothing more than bad luck or is there something weirder at work? Such speculation generally belongs to the lunatic fringe, but serious scientists have begun to suggest that the frequency of Cern’s accidents and problems is far more than a coincidence.
The LHC, they suggest, may be sabotaging itself from the future — twisting time to generate a series of scientific setbacks that will prevent the machine fulfilling its destiny.
At first sight, this theory fits comfortably into the crackpot tradition linking the start-up of the LHC with terrible disasters. The best known is that the £3 billion particle accelerator might trigger a black hole capable of swallowing the Earth when it gets going. Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.
This time, however, their ridicule has been rather muted — because the time travel idea has come from two distinguished physicists who have backed it with rigorous mathematics.
What Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, are suggesting is that the Higgs boson, the particle that physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be “abhorrent to nature”.
What does that mean? According to Nielsen, it means that the creation of the boson at some point in the future would then ripple backwards through time to put a stop to whatever it was that had created it in the first place.
This, says Nielsen, could explain why the LHC has been hit by mishaps ranging from an explosion during construction to a second big bang that followed its start-up. Whether the recent arrest of a leading physicist for alleged links with Al-Qaeda also counts is uncertain.
Nielsen’s idea has been likened to that of a man travelling back through time and killing his own grandfather. “Our theory suggests that any machine trying to make the Higgs shall have bad luck,” he said.
“It is based on mathematics, but you could explain it by saying that God rather hates Higgs particles and attempts to avoid them.”
His warnings come at a sensitive time for Cern, which is about to make its second attempt to fire up the LHC. The idea is to accelerate protons to almost the speed of light around the machine’s 17-mile underground circular racetrack and then smash them together.
In theory the machine will create tiny replicas of the primordial “big bang” fireball thought to have marked the creation of the universe. But if Nielsen and Ninomiya are right, this latest build-up will inevitably get nowhere, as will those that come after — until eventually Cern abandons the idea altogether.
This is, of course, far from being the first science scare linked to the LHC. Over the years it has been the target of protests, wild speculation and court injunctions.
Fiction writers have naturally seized on the subject. In Angels and Demons, Dan Brown sets out a diabolical plot in which the Vatican City is threatened with annihilation from a bomb based on antimatter stolen from Cern.
Blasphemy, a novel from Douglas Preston, the bestselling science-fiction author, draws on similar themes, with a story about a mad physicist who wants to use a particle accelerator to communicate with God. The physicist may be American and the machine located in America, rather than Switzerland, but the links are clear.
Even Five, the TV channel, has got in on the act by screening FlashForward, an American series based on Robert Sawyer’s novel of the same name in which the start-up of the LHC causes the Earth’s population to black out for two minutes when they experience visions of their personal futures 21 years hence. This gives them a chance to change that future.
Scientists normally hate to see their ideas perverted and twisted by the ignorant, but in recent years many physicists have learnt to welcome the way the LHC has become a part of popular culture. Cern even encourages film-makers to use the machine as a backdrop for their productions, often without charging them.
Nielsen presents them with a dilemma. Should they treat his suggestions as fact or fiction? Most would like to dismiss him, but his status means they have to offer some kind of science-based rebuttal.
James Gillies, a trained physicist who heads Cern’s communications department, said Nielsen’s idea was an interesting theory “but we know it doesn’t happen in reality”.
He explained that if Nielsen’s predictions were correct then whatever was stopping the LHC would also be stopping high-energy rays hitting the atmosphere. Since scientists can directly detect many such rays, “Nielsen must be wrong”, said Gillies.
He and others also believe that although such ideas have an element of fun, they risk distracting attention from the far more amazing ideas that the LHC will tackle once it gets going.
The Higgs boson, for example, is thought to give all other matter its mass, without which gravity could not work. If the LHC found the Higgs, it would open the door to solving all kinds of other mysteries about the origins and nature of matter. Another line of research aims to detect dark matter, which is thought to comprise about a quarter of the universe’s mass, but made out of a kind of particle that has so far proven impossible to detect.
However, perhaps the weirdest of all Cern’s aspirations for the LHC is to investigate extra dimensions of space. This idea, known as string theory, suggests there are many more dimensions to space than the four we can perceive.
At present these other dimensions are hidden, but smashing protons together in the LHC could produce gravitational anomalies, effectively tiny black holes, that would reveal their existence.
Some physicists suggest that when billions of pounds have been spent on the kit to probe such ideas, there is little need to invent new ones about time travel and self-sabotage.
History shows, however, it is unwise to dismiss too quickly ideas that are initially seen as science fiction. Peter Smith, a science historian and author of Doomsday Men, which looks at the links between science and popular culture, points out that what started as science fiction has often become the inspiration for big discoveries.
“Even the original idea of the ‘atomic bomb’ actually came not from scientists but from H G Wells in his 1914 novel The World Set Free,” he said.
“A scientist named Leo Szilard read it in 1932 and it gave him the inspiration to work out how to start the nuclear chain reaction needed to build a bomb. So the atom bomb has some of its origins in literature, as well as research.”
Some of Cern’s leading researchers also take Nielsen at least a little seriously. Brian Cox, professor of particle physics at Manchester University, said: “His ideas are theoretically valid. What he is doing is playing around at the edge of our knowledge, which is a good thing.
“He is pointing out that we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, so we haven’t yet proved rigorously that sending information into the past isn’t possible.
“However, if time travellers do break into the LHC control room and pull the plug out of the wall, then I’ll refer you to my article supporting Nielsen’s theory that I wrote in 2025.”
This weekend, as the interest in his theories continued to grow, Nielsen was sounding more cautious. “We are seriously proposing the idea, but it is an ambitious theory, that’s all,” he said. “We already know it is not very likely to be true. If the LHC actually succeeds in discovering the Higgs boson, I guess we will have to think again.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece
Is it really nothing more than bad luck or is there something weirder at work? Such speculation generally belongs to the lunatic fringe, but serious scientists have begun to suggest that the frequency of Cern’s accidents and problems is far more than a coincidence.
The LHC, they suggest, may be sabotaging itself from the future — twisting time to generate a series of scientific setbacks that will prevent the machine fulfilling its destiny.
At first sight, this theory fits comfortably into the crackpot tradition linking the start-up of the LHC with terrible disasters. The best known is that the £3 billion particle accelerator might trigger a black hole capable of swallowing the Earth when it gets going. Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.
This time, however, their ridicule has been rather muted — because the time travel idea has come from two distinguished physicists who have backed it with rigorous mathematics.
What Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, are suggesting is that the Higgs boson, the particle that physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be “abhorrent to nature”.
What does that mean? According to Nielsen, it means that the creation of the boson at some point in the future would then ripple backwards through time to put a stop to whatever it was that had created it in the first place.
This, says Nielsen, could explain why the LHC has been hit by mishaps ranging from an explosion during construction to a second big bang that followed its start-up. Whether the recent arrest of a leading physicist for alleged links with Al-Qaeda also counts is uncertain.
Nielsen’s idea has been likened to that of a man travelling back through time and killing his own grandfather. “Our theory suggests that any machine trying to make the Higgs shall have bad luck,” he said.
“It is based on mathematics, but you could explain it by saying that God rather hates Higgs particles and attempts to avoid them.”
His warnings come at a sensitive time for Cern, which is about to make its second attempt to fire up the LHC. The idea is to accelerate protons to almost the speed of light around the machine’s 17-mile underground circular racetrack and then smash them together.
In theory the machine will create tiny replicas of the primordial “big bang” fireball thought to have marked the creation of the universe. But if Nielsen and Ninomiya are right, this latest build-up will inevitably get nowhere, as will those that come after — until eventually Cern abandons the idea altogether.
This is, of course, far from being the first science scare linked to the LHC. Over the years it has been the target of protests, wild speculation and court injunctions.
Fiction writers have naturally seized on the subject. In Angels and Demons, Dan Brown sets out a diabolical plot in which the Vatican City is threatened with annihilation from a bomb based on antimatter stolen from Cern.
Blasphemy, a novel from Douglas Preston, the bestselling science-fiction author, draws on similar themes, with a story about a mad physicist who wants to use a particle accelerator to communicate with God. The physicist may be American and the machine located in America, rather than Switzerland, but the links are clear.
Even Five, the TV channel, has got in on the act by screening FlashForward, an American series based on Robert Sawyer’s novel of the same name in which the start-up of the LHC causes the Earth’s population to black out for two minutes when they experience visions of their personal futures 21 years hence. This gives them a chance to change that future.
Scientists normally hate to see their ideas perverted and twisted by the ignorant, but in recent years many physicists have learnt to welcome the way the LHC has become a part of popular culture. Cern even encourages film-makers to use the machine as a backdrop for their productions, often without charging them.
Nielsen presents them with a dilemma. Should they treat his suggestions as fact or fiction? Most would like to dismiss him, but his status means they have to offer some kind of science-based rebuttal.
James Gillies, a trained physicist who heads Cern’s communications department, said Nielsen’s idea was an interesting theory “but we know it doesn’t happen in reality”.
He explained that if Nielsen’s predictions were correct then whatever was stopping the LHC would also be stopping high-energy rays hitting the atmosphere. Since scientists can directly detect many such rays, “Nielsen must be wrong”, said Gillies.
He and others also believe that although such ideas have an element of fun, they risk distracting attention from the far more amazing ideas that the LHC will tackle once it gets going.
The Higgs boson, for example, is thought to give all other matter its mass, without which gravity could not work. If the LHC found the Higgs, it would open the door to solving all kinds of other mysteries about the origins and nature of matter. Another line of research aims to detect dark matter, which is thought to comprise about a quarter of the universe’s mass, but made out of a kind of particle that has so far proven impossible to detect.
However, perhaps the weirdest of all Cern’s aspirations for the LHC is to investigate extra dimensions of space. This idea, known as string theory, suggests there are many more dimensions to space than the four we can perceive.
At present these other dimensions are hidden, but smashing protons together in the LHC could produce gravitational anomalies, effectively tiny black holes, that would reveal their existence.
Some physicists suggest that when billions of pounds have been spent on the kit to probe such ideas, there is little need to invent new ones about time travel and self-sabotage.
History shows, however, it is unwise to dismiss too quickly ideas that are initially seen as science fiction. Peter Smith, a science historian and author of Doomsday Men, which looks at the links between science and popular culture, points out that what started as science fiction has often become the inspiration for big discoveries.
“Even the original idea of the ‘atomic bomb’ actually came not from scientists but from H G Wells in his 1914 novel The World Set Free,” he said.
“A scientist named Leo Szilard read it in 1932 and it gave him the inspiration to work out how to start the nuclear chain reaction needed to build a bomb. So the atom bomb has some of its origins in literature, as well as research.”
Some of Cern’s leading researchers also take Nielsen at least a little seriously. Brian Cox, professor of particle physics at Manchester University, said: “His ideas are theoretically valid. What he is doing is playing around at the edge of our knowledge, which is a good thing.
“He is pointing out that we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, so we haven’t yet proved rigorously that sending information into the past isn’t possible.
“However, if time travellers do break into the LHC control room and pull the plug out of the wall, then I’ll refer you to my article supporting Nielsen’s theory that I wrote in 2025.”
This weekend, as the interest in his theories continued to grow, Nielsen was sounding more cautious. “We are seriously proposing the idea, but it is an ambitious theory, that’s all,” he said. “We already know it is not very likely to be true. If the LHC actually succeeds in discovering the Higgs boson, I guess we will have to think again.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece
Monday, October 19, 2009
Updates on Iran, North Korea, and other Nuclear News
There seems to be much more going on in the nuclear world than any single person can possibly follow. Here are a few updates on Iran and North Korea:
Iran:
Newsweek Interview with Hillary Clinton on her recent negotiations with Russia
New York Times article on the start of talks between Iran, the U.S., Russia, and France
A Christian Science Monitor article summarizing the current status of the situation
North Korea:
Reuters article on U.S. stance: North Korea must re-engage in six-party talks over its nukes
AP article: South Korea's top diplomat urges North Korea to disarm
Iran:
Newsweek Interview with Hillary Clinton on her recent negotiations with Russia
New York Times article on the start of talks between Iran, the U.S., Russia, and France
A Christian Science Monitor article summarizing the current status of the situation
North Korea:
Reuters article on U.S. stance: North Korea must re-engage in six-party talks over its nukes
AP article: South Korea's top diplomat urges North Korea to disarm
Friday, October 16, 2009
radioactive rabbit droppings in the New York Times
Remember how we talked a little bit in class last week about certain cold-war nuclear sites that have an enormous amount of radioactive pollution? One of the worst is the Hanford nuclear site in eastern Washington. Here is an article about tracking radioactivity dispersed in rabbit droppings, from rabbits grazing on the Hanford grounds and then traveling outside those grounds.
New York Times article on radioactive cleanup at Hanford
New York Times article on radioactive cleanup at Hanford
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Obama and nuclear disarmament
Hi folks,
This is a little "last week", but here's one (of many) little articles out there on the importance of Obama's anti-nuke agenda to why he received the Nobel Peace Prize:
Scientific American article on Obama's Peace Prize
I'm interested to look back over what Obama has done in the last year and to put together a better picture of what he has actually done on the issue of nuclear weapons. Would love to have your help in this - let me know what you find! In April, he gave a big foreign policy speech in Prague calling for the U.S. to lead the world in phasing out nuclear weapons. But I am not sure how much actual policy has changed since he took office.
Also, I found this interesting opinion piece from Slate.com that criticized that speech and called the very idea of U.S. nuclear disarmament laughable and pointless:
Slate.com critique of Obama's April Foreign Policy Speech
This is a little "last week", but here's one (of many) little articles out there on the importance of Obama's anti-nuke agenda to why he received the Nobel Peace Prize:
Scientific American article on Obama's Peace Prize
I'm interested to look back over what Obama has done in the last year and to put together a better picture of what he has actually done on the issue of nuclear weapons. Would love to have your help in this - let me know what you find! In April, he gave a big foreign policy speech in Prague calling for the U.S. to lead the world in phasing out nuclear weapons. But I am not sure how much actual policy has changed since he took office.
Also, I found this interesting opinion piece from Slate.com that criticized that speech and called the very idea of U.S. nuclear disarmament laughable and pointless:
Slate.com critique of Obama's April Foreign Policy Speech
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Grave of the Fireflies
The trailer for a full length animated film following a family directly after the bombing of Hiroshima. It has won all sorts of awards.
post by eli skipp
post by eli skipp
Bunker: A Post-Apocalyptic Short
"Bunker, a short film by Paul Doucet, is about a woman alone in a bunker beneath Paris after a nuclear war. Marie pleads over her radio for someone to respond to her. Finally, a voice answers."
Not quite on topic, but short, interesting, and great.
post by eli skipp
Not quite on topic, but short, interesting, and great.
post by eli skipp
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Fusion-Fission Hybrid
The article is a little old and doesn't sufficiently explain how it will work, but it is still interesting. 
Julie Brower
Julie Brower
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Readings for this week's Homework, and more followup
For the homework this week, I've asked you to read a couple of online documents (plus one that I posted to the portal page - check under week 5). The online documents are:
the EPA website overview of common radionuclides (radioactive isotopes) - an overview of the radioactive isotopes that the EPA most commonly deals with, both when it is concerned with cleanup of sites with large amounts of radioactive contamination, and also when it is concerned with regulating usage of radioactive isotopes in medicine and technology.
A training module from Princeton University on health effects of ionizing radiation
I'd like to point out that both of these sites are worth exploring for more information. The EPA website has a pretty decent general introduction to radiation physics - you could almost use it as a backup "textbook" for this class. Also, there are a couple of brochures you can get in their public information section that give you the current-day flavor of government communications about radiation (interesting to contrast with cold-war era documents).
The Princeton training module is part of the radiation safety classes you have to take if you work with radioactive isotopes in your laboratory or workplace. The rest of the training manual is also online, and you might find it interesting to browse other sections.
Finally, as a follow-up link, some interesting government studies on fallout:
CDC website on global fallout from nuclear weapons testing
the EPA website overview of common radionuclides (radioactive isotopes) - an overview of the radioactive isotopes that the EPA most commonly deals with, both when it is concerned with cleanup of sites with large amounts of radioactive contamination, and also when it is concerned with regulating usage of radioactive isotopes in medicine and technology.
A training module from Princeton University on health effects of ionizing radiation
I'd like to point out that both of these sites are worth exploring for more information. The EPA website has a pretty decent general introduction to radiation physics - you could almost use it as a backup "textbook" for this class. Also, there are a couple of brochures you can get in their public information section that give you the current-day flavor of government communications about radiation (interesting to contrast with cold-war era documents).
The Princeton training module is part of the radiation safety classes you have to take if you work with radioactive isotopes in your laboratory or workplace. The rest of the training manual is also online, and you might find it interesting to browse other sections.
Finally, as a follow-up link, some interesting government studies on fallout:
CDC website on global fallout from nuclear weapons testing
More interesting readings on Iran
As we discussed this morning, things have taken an interesting turn with Iran. Iran appears to be cooperating, and last week's international talks appear to have been somewhat productive. Although, depending on who you ask, the emphasis on "appear" may be especially apt. In particular, Iran has agreed to allow inspectors into its previously secret Qom enrichment plant on October 25. They have also agreed to begin talks with Russia on October 16, to arrange for Russia to perform additional enrichment on Iran's Uranium stockpile, so that it can be used in Iranian research reactors. This latter development is particularly intriguing and we should keep our eyes on it. Will that actually happen? Does such a concession by Iran mean that they will be making further demands of the international community in the future?
There is a very broad range of opinions out there on how to interpret Iran's statements and actions on the nuclear issue. I found the following opinion round-up interesting:
New York Times "opinionator" blog, with excerpts from many different opinion pieces
Is Iran ahead? Are we ahead? What's going on exactly?
I also took a quick peek at your homeworks for this week, and I think it's worth posting links to a handful of opinion pieces that you all discovered. The articles that you found (and your reactions to them) show a huge range of possible opinions on this issue - many more than we really explored in class today. Wish we'd heard from more of you! It's tough to get discussion going at 9a.m.
"Pinches of Nuclear Salt" from the Daily Times, in Pakistan - compares the current situation to the WMD situation before we invaded Iraq.
"The Subject was Nuclear Weapons" a New York Times Editorial - discusses a recent U.N. Security Council resolution and why it should have been stronger. Interesting thing to me - the article claims we should, in particular, place limits on the use of highly enriched Uranium for medical research. I guess that's Iran's claim - that that's why they need highly enriched Uranium?
"Negotiating with Tehran" another New York Times Editorial - argues that Iran is just playing along in order to buy more time, and we shouldn't trust them.
"Obama's Iran Talks will Fail" a Washington Times Editorial - written before the talks started, claiming that they would fail. Paints Iran as definite bad guys.
"Lifting Iran's Nuclear Veil" yet another New York Times Opinion Piece - argues that the Qom enrichment plant doesn't make sense unless it's a part of a bigger enrichment program.
Blogger Juan Cole's site - here is a completely different perspective, claiming that Iran really isn't out for nuclear weapons and we should believe them in their claims. This is the set of opinions Jesus described in class - offers a very interesting counter-point to most of the stuff we are finding in the New York Times and our usual news sources.
There is a very broad range of opinions out there on how to interpret Iran's statements and actions on the nuclear issue. I found the following opinion round-up interesting:
New York Times "opinionator" blog, with excerpts from many different opinion pieces
Is Iran ahead? Are we ahead? What's going on exactly?
I also took a quick peek at your homeworks for this week, and I think it's worth posting links to a handful of opinion pieces that you all discovered. The articles that you found (and your reactions to them) show a huge range of possible opinions on this issue - many more than we really explored in class today. Wish we'd heard from more of you! It's tough to get discussion going at 9a.m.
"Pinches of Nuclear Salt" from the Daily Times, in Pakistan - compares the current situation to the WMD situation before we invaded Iraq.
"The Subject was Nuclear Weapons" a New York Times Editorial - discusses a recent U.N. Security Council resolution and why it should have been stronger. Interesting thing to me - the article claims we should, in particular, place limits on the use of highly enriched Uranium for medical research. I guess that's Iran's claim - that that's why they need highly enriched Uranium?
"Negotiating with Tehran" another New York Times Editorial - argues that Iran is just playing along in order to buy more time, and we shouldn't trust them.
"Obama's Iran Talks will Fail" a Washington Times Editorial - written before the talks started, claiming that they would fail. Paints Iran as definite bad guys.
"Lifting Iran's Nuclear Veil" yet another New York Times Opinion Piece - argues that the Qom enrichment plant doesn't make sense unless it's a part of a bigger enrichment program.
Blogger Juan Cole's site - here is a completely different perspective, claiming that Iran really isn't out for nuclear weapons and we should believe them in their claims. This is the set of opinions Jesus described in class - offers a very interesting counter-point to most of the stuff we are finding in the New York Times and our usual news sources.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Space radiation hits record high
Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.Galactic cosmic rays are speeding charged particles that include protons and heavier atomic nuclei. They come from outside the solar system, though their exact sources are still being debated.
Earth dwellers are protected from cosmic rays by the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. But outside Earth's protective influence, cosmic rays can play havoc with spacecraft electronics – they may be responsible for some recent computer glitches on NASA's Kepler spacecraft, which temporarily halted its planet-hunting observations. They can also damage astronaut DNA, which can lead to cancer.
Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago.
Read the rest, you know you want to after the Starship Enterprise reference.
--Sooah Yoo
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Ground Zero 1945: Pictures by Atomic Bomb Survivors
HORIKOSHI Susumu 堀越 進 (ほりこし すすむ)
Growing mushroom cloud, glittering silver under the mid-summer sun.
真夏の太陽に照らされて銀色に輝き大きくなっていったキノコ雲
Year of Birth: 1938 \ Age at time of blast: 6 \ Age when image created: 36
Date of image depicted: 1945/8/6
Distance from hypocenter in meters: 30000
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
GE03-02
The following is unaltered text from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum database:
Silver mushroom cloud / Drawing / Susumu Horikoshi / Approx. 30km from the hypocenter, Kake-cho, Yamagata-gun / Susumu Horikoshi (then 6) saw the flash and heard a loud roar as if lighting had struck nearby. Soon, from the other side of the mountain, a mushroom cloud rose into the sky. As the cloud gradually swelled it glinted a brilliant silver under the sun.
銀色のきのこ雲 / 絵／堀越進氏爆心地から約30km / 山県郡加計町 / 堀越進さん(当時6歳)は､ピカッと光った後､雷が落ちたような大きな音を聞きました｡まもなく山の向こうにきのこ雲が立ち上っていました｡きのこ雲は､太陽に照らされ銀色に輝き､徐々に大きくなっていきました｡
＊＊絵中 : 昭和二〇年八月六日午前八時十五分 / ピカーと光り三秒位い後にドカーンと雷が落ちたような大きな音がし、まもなく山の向うに大きなキノコ雲が真夏の太陽に照らされて銀色に輝き、だんだん大きくなっていった。 / 当時八才だった私は爆心地より北方約三〇キロ広島県山県郡加計町安野渡畑より見る。 / ＊＊裏 : 堀越進絵 (原爆の絵)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ©2005 Visualizing Cultures
- Matt Ruiz
Ground Zero
Ground Zero II
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a nuclear bomb goes off in your city? With Google's Maps framework and a bit of Javascript, you can see the outcome. And it doesn't look good.
Now with Nuclear Fallout, Wind and Pressure
Just what you need to be safe in these turbulent times: enter the address of that boss, teacher, colleague or loved one and then Nuke It
Use the Tabs to navigate to other views. Use the Wind Rose to change the dispersion of fallout.
About Ground Zero II
- Where's the older version?
Still hosted with us - Just click here to see it - GZ II doesn't work!
Make sure your browser supports the jQuery library: most of the post-2005 browsers do. - The screen is too small
GZ II may not display correctly or the page layout may overlap and obscure the map. A large screen will solve this.Science Caveat
The damage caused by a nuclear explosion is affected by a multitude of variables, and some of these require powerful super-computers to be simulated properly. The terrain, buildings and weather patterns are not part of the calculations used to map the damage.
Fallout shows the possible dispersion of radioactive isotopes after six hours of the explosion, assuming a constant gentle breeze.
The formulas used here are in the public domain, and were sourced from the websites of the Federation of American Scientists and from Wikipedia
With thanks to: Jenn, Google and all those who posted witty and valuable comments, with praise and loathe for Ground Zero.
Disclaimer: This code is posted "as is", with a Creative Commons license and neitherCarlos Labs nor any of its representatives guarantee the suitability of this script, or assume any responsibility for your actions.This script is free to use on any software project, free or otherwise, provided you credit Carlos Labs and you do not remove the header in the script.
Project: 200903A
To help visualize the extent of the damage created by a nuclear blast. If your having trouble with the embedded link here is the link.
Thanks.
- Matt Ruiz
Where we get our oil:
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
July 2009 Import Highlights: September 29, 2009
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in July 2009 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 65 percent of United States crude oil imports in July while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 82 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for July were Canada (2.110 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.137 million barrels per day), Mexico (0.985 million barrels per day), Venezuela (0.865 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.858 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Brazil (0.375 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.365 million barrels per day), Angola (0.320 million barrels per day), Columbia (0.286 million barrels per day), and Russia (0.267 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.227 million barrels per day in July, which is an increase of (0.055) million barrels per day from June 2009.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in July, exporting 2.639 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.529 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.316 million barrels per day.
| Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Jul-09 | Jun-09 | YTD 2009 | Jul-08 | YTD 2008 |
| CANADA | 2,110 | 2,001 | 1,916 | 1,976 | 1,934 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1,137 | 902 | 1,063 | 1,676 | 1,538 |
| MEXICO | 985 | 1,099 | 1,136 | 1,200 | 1,197 |
| VENEZUELA | 865 | 1,134 | 1,015 | 1,187 | 1,035 |
| NIGERIA | 858 | 769 | 668 | 741 | 992 |
| BRAZIL | 375 | 269 | 342 | 241 | 224 |
| IRAQ | 365 | 390 | 453 | 696 | 677 |
| ANGOLA | 320 | 435 | 504 | 640 | 517 |
| COLOMBIA | 286 | 286 | 261 | 178 | 182 |
| RUSSIA | 267 | 305 | 272 | 202 | 127 |
| KUWAIT | 261 | 170 | 183 | 122 | 205 |
| UNITED ARAB EMIRATES | 161 | 75 | 62 | 0 | 7 |
| ALGERIA | 143 | 232 | 231 | 232 | 308 |
| EQUATORIAL GUINEA | 123 | 51 | 91 | 66 | 60 |
| ECUADOR | 112 | 148 | 201 | 226 | 197 |
| | |||||
| Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Jul-09 | Jun-09 | YTD 2009 | Jul-08 | YTD 2008 |
| CANADA | 2,639 | 2,529 | 2,450 | 2,417 | 2,506 |
| MEXICO | 1,316 | 1,183 | 1,280 | 1,292 | 1,306 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1,153 | 959 | 1,095 | 1,690 | 1,554 |
| VENEZUELA | 959 | 1,237 | 1,147 | 1,329 | 1,193 |
| NIGERIA | 879 | 830 | 708 | 822 | 1,052 |
| RUSSIA | 637 | 578 | 637 | 572 | 491 |
| BRAZIL | 392 | 299 | 361 | 275 | 251 |
| IRAQ | 365 | 374 | 455 | 696 | 677 |
| ALGERIA | 329 | 458 | 462 | 456 | 526 |
| ANGOLA | 320 | 447 | 513 | 652 | 527 |
| COLOMBIA | 305 | 313 | 286 | 192 | 203 |
| VIRGIN ISLANDS | 273 | 268 | 301 | 294 | 330 |
| KUWAIT | 261 | 179 | 187 | 122 | 209 |
| UNITED KINGDOM | 188 | 268 | 252 | 187 | 218 |
| UNITED ARAB EMIRATES | 161 | 75 | 64 | 0 | 0 |
Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.
-eli skipp
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)