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

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

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.

Bunker - English subtitles
by bebealien

post by eli skipp

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

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

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.

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