One issue that I was really interested in was the nuclear energy policy in Australia. They have some of the largest reserves of Uranium in the world, but they do not utilize the resource for nuclear energy in the country. Out of curiosity, I asked my Australian friend about this debate. He said that most of the Uranium is located on the lands that belong to the indigenous Australians, the aborigines. Thus because of this a portion of the sales of this Uranium goes back to the aborigines. I also inquired if Australia used any nuclear medicine. He said that they did, but other than nuclear medicine, the citizens of the country were scared of nuclear energy. "Due to the political nature of the country, no official would be elected if they had any desire to enact policies that would utilize nuclear energy," said my Australian friend Andrew.
Out of curiosity I researched more into the Australian policies that deal with nuclear energy, and found several articles that discuss various aspects of this. The first article has to do with nuclear non-proliferation, trade and security in relation to the Australian policy on Uranium exports. http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/aus_uran_exp_policy.html
The second article that I found in relation to this has to do with the way that citizens feel about nuclear power. The main argument against nuclear energy is that Australia has many other energy sources that make the need for nuclear energy unnecessary. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-rejects-nuclear-power-in-australia-20100217-ocdu.html
Caroline Kircher
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Nuke the moon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/11/28/atomic-bomb-moon-secret-mission-nuke-cold-war_n_2199615.html
Who would want to nuke the moon? It's never attacked us....do we know something the moon doesn't? (Joking)
Anthony
Who would want to nuke the moon? It's never attacked us....do we know something the moon doesn't? (Joking)
Anthony
Extra resources on nuclear weapons
Here are a few places to look for perspectives and information on nuclear weapons policy issues:
Against Nuclear Weapons:
1) Global Zero: an anti-nuclear weapons movement. A set of links across the top of this page may be useful for researching anti-nuclear arguments. Also, at the bottom of this page you can download a complete report proposing a new version of the U.S. "Nuclear Posture" that will help to achieve global zero.
2) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: This is a long-standing anti-nuclear journal/website with lots of articles about different aspects of nuclear weapons topics from an anti-nuclear stance. One useful example: an opinion essay claiming the notion that nuclear weapons aid stability is false.
3) Union of Concerned Scientists: This group takes a moderate anti-nuclear weapons stance, arguing for arms reduction and stronger treaties. There are many very useful policy papers and fact sheets here. In some additional pages on the site, like this one, you can also get technical critiques of missile defense plans and other key topics that are under current debate.
For Nuclear Weapons:
There aren't really "pro-nuclear weapons" organizations out there the same way that there are anti-nuclear weapons groups. However, here are a few specific opinion pieces that represent a pro-nuclear stance and may be useful starting points for understanding those perspectives.
1) A very recent opinion piece by three senators on Obama's budget for nuclear weapons "modernization," arguing that more money needs to be spent on this.
2) A policy backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, that lays out a role for a strong ongoing U.S. nuclear weapons program.
3) Opinion pieces from the National Review on why nuclear disarmament is naive and why "global zero" is a bad idea. You may also find more recent articles on this web site if you search for specific topics.
4) Time Magazine opinion essay on why nuclear weapons should get the nobel peace prize.
5) The case against the CTBT, again from the Heritage Foundation.
Finally, two documents that are important for understanding the current U.S. stance:
1) Text of President Obama's speech in Prague in 2009
2) The current U.S. Nuclear Posture Review: Outlines U.S. nuclear policy - you can download the whole document from the website. Also on the website you can find information about missile defense and other topics.
Against Nuclear Weapons:
1) Global Zero: an anti-nuclear weapons movement. A set of links across the top of this page may be useful for researching anti-nuclear arguments. Also, at the bottom of this page you can download a complete report proposing a new version of the U.S. "Nuclear Posture" that will help to achieve global zero.
2) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: This is a long-standing anti-nuclear journal/website with lots of articles about different aspects of nuclear weapons topics from an anti-nuclear stance. One useful example: an opinion essay claiming the notion that nuclear weapons aid stability is false.
3) Union of Concerned Scientists: This group takes a moderate anti-nuclear weapons stance, arguing for arms reduction and stronger treaties. There are many very useful policy papers and fact sheets here. In some additional pages on the site, like this one, you can also get technical critiques of missile defense plans and other key topics that are under current debate.
For Nuclear Weapons:
There aren't really "pro-nuclear weapons" organizations out there the same way that there are anti-nuclear weapons groups. However, here are a few specific opinion pieces that represent a pro-nuclear stance and may be useful starting points for understanding those perspectives.
1) A very recent opinion piece by three senators on Obama's budget for nuclear weapons "modernization," arguing that more money needs to be spent on this.
2) A policy backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, that lays out a role for a strong ongoing U.S. nuclear weapons program.
3) Opinion pieces from the National Review on why nuclear disarmament is naive and why "global zero" is a bad idea. You may also find more recent articles on this web site if you search for specific topics.
4) Time Magazine opinion essay on why nuclear weapons should get the nobel peace prize.
5) The case against the CTBT, again from the Heritage Foundation.
Finally, two documents that are important for understanding the current U.S. stance:
1) Text of President Obama's speech in Prague in 2009
2) The current U.S. Nuclear Posture Review: Outlines U.S. nuclear policy - you can download the whole document from the website. Also on the website you can find information about missile defense and other topics.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Chernobyl Reactor Structure
This is a video about a structure being built around the Chernobyl reactor.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20121128_06.html
Nick K.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20121128_06.html
Nick K.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Amazing images
Monday, November 5, 2012
Readings for final quiz
Our last quiz is this week! I'd like you to start becoming familiar with some of the most important treaties related to nuclear weapons, so these are a few resources for doing this. Check the portal page for a study guide to highlight the most important details for the purposes of the quiz.
1) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty fact sheet: http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/public_information/CTBT_Ending_Nuclear_Explosions_Sept_2012.pdf
2) An article from the L.A. Times about the New START treaty
ratified in 2010:
3) A fact sheet on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Japan Video
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/movie/feature201211022000.html
According to NHK World, water could be leaking into the Pacific Ocean that contains radioactive materials. Also, forty years is about how long it is expected to decommission Fukushima Daiichi.
Nick K.
According to NHK World, water could be leaking into the Pacific Ocean that contains radioactive materials. Also, forty years is about how long it is expected to decommission Fukushima Daiichi.
Nick K.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Hurricane Sandy and Nuclear Reactors
As a followup to Rosa's post, here are a few articles on the impact of Hurricane Sandy on nuclear reactors on the East Coast.
USA Today article on the shutdown of three nuclear power plants due to the storm. As this article explains, back-up systems worked as they were supposed to in each case.
The nuclear industry claims this is proof that everything is working as it should, as described in this article from the EnergyBiz website.
Some commentators have taken the opposite view: that Hurricane Sandy showed us serious vulnerabilities. Here's one example from the Washington Post.
(In other miscellaneous nuclear news, here's an interesting article about cheating on certification exams by nuclear weapons facility personnel, from the New York Times. )
USA Today article on the shutdown of three nuclear power plants due to the storm. As this article explains, back-up systems worked as they were supposed to in each case.
The nuclear industry claims this is proof that everything is working as it should, as described in this article from the EnergyBiz website.
Some commentators have taken the opposite view: that Hurricane Sandy showed us serious vulnerabilities. Here's one example from the Washington Post.
(In other miscellaneous nuclear news, here's an interesting article about cheating on certification exams by nuclear weapons facility personnel, from the New York Times. )
Writing your paper at the last minute?
If you can't decide what to write about, try reprocessing! An open current debate in the U.S. is whether or not we should reprocess (recycle) spent nuclear fuel. Do you think we should? Or not?
One long-time critic is a guy named Frank von Hippel, who has written a lot of articles about the subject (just google his name). A particularly thorough piece is in Scientific American (you may need to be on the SAIC campus to access this - through the library - but it's a good article if this topic interests you). Here's also a PBS Frontline piece with some interesting material.
Two groups campaigning against reprocessing are the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is one example of an editorial in a small-town newspapers that supports reprocessing, and here is a World Nuclear Society information piece. An MIT study last year claims we don't need to reprocess for a long time because we have plenty of Uranium available. Finally, here's a link to a blog from the Areva company, which does reprocessing in France and advocates for doing it in the U.S. There are lots of interesting links there.
Oh... one more: there's a debate about whether to use the word "recycling" for spent fuel reprocessing. Interesting!
Happy Writing!
One long-time critic is a guy named Frank von Hippel, who has written a lot of articles about the subject (just google his name). A particularly thorough piece is in Scientific American (you may need to be on the SAIC campus to access this - through the library - but it's a good article if this topic interests you). Here's also a PBS Frontline piece with some interesting material.
Two groups campaigning against reprocessing are the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is one example of an editorial in a small-town newspapers that supports reprocessing, and here is a World Nuclear Society information piece. An MIT study last year claims we don't need to reprocess for a long time because we have plenty of Uranium available. Finally, here's a link to a blog from the Areva company, which does reprocessing in France and advocates for doing it in the U.S. There are lots of interesting links there.
Oh... one more: there's a debate about whether to use the word "recycling" for spent fuel reprocessing. Interesting!
Happy Writing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)