This site states how the Namibian uranium production is substantially increasing, where the once-prosperous diamond industry used to. ("Uranium output to quadruple in 4-5 years")
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5B801320091211
This second URL is to the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia, about 30 miles from where I co-reside (Swakopmund). Kind of scary as the mine is close to large salt deposits (which many people use for cooking and baths) and often tourist-y airplane tours are taken over the mine. It's also the third-largest producer of uranium...
http://www.rossing.com/
Other "powerhouse countries" have had an interest in Namibia's uranium.
http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35621&no_cache=1
-Madeline Snively
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Iran, Obama's Loan Guarantees, and Tritium Leaks in Vermont
There's so much going on in the world that relates to this class, I hardly even know where to start (plus, my head is still reeling from the notion of wearing a dress patterned with a nuclear bomb explosion - cool post, Cat!).
A few news stories worth following:
Iran:
L.A. Times article that gives the current status with the situation with Iran. It sounds like they're boldly proclaiming that they're going to build more uranium enrichment facilities, and also enrich uranium to a higher degree than "allowed" by the international community. It may take us a bit to unravel what all this means, but we'll start this week by discussing what "enrichment" is.
Obama's Nuclear Power Agenda:
Remember last week how we talked about Obama's state of the union address, and his intention to boost the U.S. Nuclear Energy program significantly? Well, the first step towards building new nuclear power plants is to make sure that the companies can get financing. Nuclear power is still viewed as pretty risky, so Obama is promising loan guarantees so that the nuclear power companies can get the financing they need. Remember how we also discussed the potential political payoffs of Obama's nuclear agenda? Here's a New York Times article about that.
Tritium Leaking from a Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont:
As the existing U.S. nuclear power plants age, leaks of radioactive water are likely to become more common. It's pretty hard to control the spread of radioactivity that is carried in water. Here's a transcript of a recent Vermont Public Radio piece on what's going on with just such a leak at the Yankee Nuclear Plant. In class this week another think we'll cover is what tritium is exactly.
A few news stories worth following:
Iran:
L.A. Times article that gives the current status with the situation with Iran. It sounds like they're boldly proclaiming that they're going to build more uranium enrichment facilities, and also enrich uranium to a higher degree than "allowed" by the international community. It may take us a bit to unravel what all this means, but we'll start this week by discussing what "enrichment" is.
Obama's Nuclear Power Agenda:
Remember last week how we talked about Obama's state of the union address, and his intention to boost the U.S. Nuclear Energy program significantly? Well, the first step towards building new nuclear power plants is to make sure that the companies can get financing. Nuclear power is still viewed as pretty risky, so Obama is promising loan guarantees so that the nuclear power companies can get the financing they need. Remember how we also discussed the potential political payoffs of Obama's nuclear agenda? Here's a New York Times article about that.
Tritium Leaking from a Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont:
As the existing U.S. nuclear power plants age, leaks of radioactive water are likely to become more common. It's pretty hard to control the spread of radioactivity that is carried in water. Here's a transcript of a recent Vermont Public Radio piece on what's going on with just such a leak at the Yankee Nuclear Plant. In class this week another think we'll cover is what tritium is exactly.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Christopher Kane

"I wanted something natural, but I'm so fed up with florals," he explained in his London studio. "And then I came across these images of nuclear test explosions from the fifties to the seventies on the Internet. I like the crazy-bright chemical colors. The way they're sinister—but beautiful."
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/review/2010RST-CKANE/
-Cat
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Welcome to the Spring 2010 Unstable Nucleus Class!
It's that time again, to restart regular class blog updates. The first assignment deals with radiation topics in the news. Some of the readings are re-used from last semester, and some are new. The articles I would like you to read are:
1) BBC news article on France's plans to compensate soldiers exposed to nuclear weapons tests
2) New York Times article on radiation from granite countertops
3) Washington Post article on new scanning technology in airports
4) Web MD article on radiation exposure due to medical testing
5) Science Daily article on the National Institutes of Health beginning to monitor radiation exposure from medical tests.
6) Chicago Tribune article on radium issues in neighboring Joliet
1) BBC news article on France's plans to compensate soldiers exposed to nuclear weapons tests
2) New York Times article on radiation from granite countertops
3) Washington Post article on new scanning technology in airports
4) Web MD article on radiation exposure due to medical testing
5) Science Daily article on the National Institutes of Health beginning to monitor radiation exposure from medical tests.
6) Chicago Tribune article on radium issues in neighboring Joliet
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What ever happened with the START follow-up negotiations?
This amazing image of Obama and Putin staring each other down is from Foreign Policy's The Cable blog, from a posting by Josh Rogin on December 30, 2009.
If you've been following the "nuclear news", you'll remember that the START treaty (a long-standing, and successful, arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia) expired December 5. Negotiations have been underway to put in place some kind of follow-up agreement, but they keep hitting snags. Since no agreements were ready by the December 5 deadline, Obama and Putin agreed to uphold the terms of the original START I treaty for some indefinite period of time until negotiations made some progress.
The latest (and potentially significant) snag in the negotiations is Putin's recent re-awakening of the missile defense issue. You may remember that there used to be a treaty in place between the U.S. and Russia called the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This treaty prevented both sides from building "missile defense shields", and it was seen as crucial in maintaining the cold-war balance of power and limiting the offensive arms race. As a part of President Bush's nuclear policy, the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty, and began working on a new missile shield in Europe. Ostensibly, this missile shield is intended to protect against nuclear attacks from Iran or North Korea, not Russia. However, Putin warns that the U.S. missile defense agenda could drive Russia to develop new offensive capabilities. A relatively recent article on this can be found here:
New York Times article on Putin's recent statements
While this may just be a negotiating tactic, Putin is holding up START treaty negotiations over the missile defense issue. Negotiations are supposed to restart in the middle of this month.
Meanwhile, back home, a group of republican senators is claiming they will oppose a follow-up START treaty unless the Obama administration funds modernization efforts for our existing nuclear arsenal:
Wall Street Journal opinion piece
Overall, what we are seeing here is Obama's idealistic nuclear disarmament agenda being confronted with real world complexities. It will be a very interesting year to keep tabs on the "nuclear news"!
If you've been following the "nuclear news", you'll remember that the START treaty (a long-standing, and successful, arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia) expired December 5. Negotiations have been underway to put in place some kind of follow-up agreement, but they keep hitting snags. Since no agreements were ready by the December 5 deadline, Obama and Putin agreed to uphold the terms of the original START I treaty for some indefinite period of time until negotiations made some progress.
The latest (and potentially significant) snag in the negotiations is Putin's recent re-awakening of the missile defense issue. You may remember that there used to be a treaty in place between the U.S. and Russia called the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This treaty prevented both sides from building "missile defense shields", and it was seen as crucial in maintaining the cold-war balance of power and limiting the offensive arms race. As a part of President Bush's nuclear policy, the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty, and began working on a new missile shield in Europe. Ostensibly, this missile shield is intended to protect against nuclear attacks from Iran or North Korea, not Russia. However, Putin warns that the U.S. missile defense agenda could drive Russia to develop new offensive capabilities. A relatively recent article on this can be found here:
New York Times article on Putin's recent statements
While this may just be a negotiating tactic, Putin is holding up START treaty negotiations over the missile defense issue. Negotiations are supposed to restart in the middle of this month.
Meanwhile, back home, a group of republican senators is claiming they will oppose a follow-up START treaty unless the Obama administration funds modernization efforts for our existing nuclear arsenal:
Wall Street Journal opinion piece
Overall, what we are seeing here is Obama's idealistic nuclear disarmament agenda being confronted with real world complexities. It will be a very interesting year to keep tabs on the "nuclear news"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)