JuryFury.com                                                                              A New Issue Every Monday !   SUBSCRIBE NOW !!
Online School of Politics

JuryFury Chat     I-Traderschool     QuietPoly.com    Contributors   Research     Future Discussions                               
Areas of Interest



THE USA

American Foreign Policy

US House and Senate
US Presidents
State & Local Politics





Regional Politics
Politics of China
The British Commonwealth
Indian Subcontinent
Middle East
The European Union
Africa
Latin America
ASEAN
NATO
United Nations
The Non-aligned Movement
Eastern Europe
New Nations of the 20th Century



General Topics
Constitutional Law
Human Rights
Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties
International Warfare
Environmental Law
Peace Treaties
Economic & Social Alliances
International Organizations
Journalism & Media
Racism and Democracy
Women in the Workplace
Family Law
Courts and Practices
The Judicial System
Higher Education
Education and Government
Health Care & Insurance
Rights of the Disabled
Copyright & Working Online
Legal Representation
Legal Insurance
Pornography
Domestic Violence
Religion & Law
Workers Rights
Employers Rights
Prison & Life after
Social Organizations
Welfare & Poverty
Taxation and Democracy
Third World Aid Programs
Space Exploration
Alternative Energy
Petroleum Industry & Cars
Nuclear Power
Programs for the Arts
Sports Education
Policing the Internet
Privacy and freedom
Immigration
Food and Regulation
War on Drugs
War on Pharmaceuticals
Public Housing
Pollution and Control
Sexual Harrassment
Discrimination
Electoral Process
Consumers Rights
Investors Rights
Abortion
Death Penalty
Social Security

Gender & Sexuality




Grassroots Organization
ACLU
World Watch
Oxfam
UNICEF
United Negro Fund
Ford Foundation

(suggestions welcome at  our chatsite)




Law of the Economy

Join
I-Traderschool,
our sister magazine,
for debates and news.




The Nuclear Option





More Nuclear Power Plants Approved by Congress
forwarded by moviemaniababy@yahoo.com


The House Committee on Science released this news:
http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108-078.htm



Committee on Science
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, Ranking Democrat
Press Contacts:
Heidi Mohlman Tringe
Jeff Donald
(202) 225-4275



UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR RESEARCH PROGRAMS NEED TO EVOLVE TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS



WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2003 - A panel of expert witnesses today called for increased funding for university nuclear research programs even as they disagreed sharply on the likelihood that the nuclear power industry would build new nuclear power plants. Increased funding for university programs would strengthen nuclear research and improve nuclear engineering programs that train the workforce of tomorrow, the witnesses said


"Now, more than ever, nuclear scientists and engineers are needed for
much more than simply operating nuclear power plants," said Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert (R-IL).


"Regardless of how many new plants are built, there will still be a need for educated, well-trained nuclear scientists. The question is one of supply and demand, and right now, the level of future demand is uncertain. DOE, with the help of industry, must work to ensure its university programs support the facilities and research necessary to attract and educate the nuclear workforce of the future."


Subcommittee Ranking Member Nick Lampson (D-TX) said,

"Given the
crucial role the Department of Energy's university science programs play in the domestic nuclear power industry we must do all we can to attract talented students to established or emerging fields within
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. I have seen
first-hand how important these undergraduate and graduate scholarships
and fellowships are in fostering innovations and cutting-edge
technologies. Texas A&M and the University of Texas are examples of
how partnerships with the DOE nuclear energy program produces large
numbers of high quality graduates to fill the growing needs of the
nuclear power industry and related fields."

With a new emphasis on nuclear energy, particularly as a result of
President Bush's National Energy Policy, industry has set a goal of
building 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear energy production said
Angelina S. Howard, executive vice resident of the Nuclear Energy
Institute. Higher demand for nuclear energy and an anticipated surge
in retirements throughout the industry are setting the stage for a
scenario where "the need for nuclear engineers and health physicists
will outstrip supply," Howard explained. "It will be vital that the
new employees coming into the industry are highly skilled upon
entrance and the best and brightest out nation has to offer."


Dr. Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy
Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, disagreed with
the predictions of significant growth in the nuclear industry saying,

"A significant increase in nuclear plants is in my view both unlikely
due to opposition, and unnecessary in light of the growing number of
low-carbon alternatives, that include energy efficiency, biomass,
wind, and solar energy. The current set of graduate nuclear science
and engineering programs in the U.S. is more than capable of producing
50-70 new graduates per year, which would be more than enough to
sustain this industry."

Kammen supported efforts to increase support for university nuclear research centers but said there is more of a need to broaden programs and increase investment in cutting edge research, like producing hydrogen from nuclear energy.

Gail Marcus, principal deputy director of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science , and Technology announced
that DOE will devote a percentage, probably 5-10 percent, of the
research funds from all DOE nuclear research to universities. As an
example of a program that could soon be sharing a portion of its
funding with universities, Marcus pointed to the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative. The Initiative is designed to explore innovative ways to
deal with spent nuclear fuel to reduce the need for waste repositories, dramatically reduce the environmental impact of the remaining waste, and allow useful elements of spent nuclear fuel to be recycled.

Several Members questioned whether industry was doing enough to
support university programs. Several panel members agreed that there
could be a greater collaboration between businesses and university
nuclear programs. Dr. Kammen noted that there is not a collaborative
R&D effort in nuclear energy as there is in other energy areas.

Dr. David M. Slaughter, chair of the Nuclear Engineering Program and
director of the Center for Excellence in Nuclear Technology,
Engineering, and Research said that in a time of state budget crunches, businesses can help universities deal with the high costs of training engineering students, particularly nuclear engineers. In turn, Slaughter added,

"
The benefits for industrial partners are that these cooperative research efforts provide relatively inexpensive access to bright minds and cutting-edge expertise in these fields and a conduit to future employees for the specific needs of their business."



By Sophia Barkat
Re: moviemaniababy@yahoo.com



Regarding Nuclear Energy, some nuclear physicists I know say it's very safe these days, which is why I'm open to the possibility. However, the risk with nuclear energy is it's ability to wipe out entire cities if controls fall into the wrong hands. It's a weapon or an useful product depending on who has access.

As such we heard the US grumbling about Iran's Nuclear expansion plan. I don't want to make Iran into a rogue nation but the relationship between US and IRAN has been so sour that one can only expect both nations to have nuclear war-heads directed at each other and very suspicious of each other's nuclear energy plans. If Iran doesn't have nuclear warheads now, it will probably develop it because no one likes to have weapons pointed at them and do nothing about it. Likewise, America's 10,400 nuclear warheads and history of use alone should get every industrialized nation concerned about it's safety.

But nuclear power-plants kill local people only. As such Iran's nuclear plans are a weapon only in enemy hands, and same for US nuclear plants.

If used in the right way nuclear power plants might have been a great way to reduce dependence on the Oil industry. In fact, what if anything is the connection between companies that own nuclear power plants and fossil-fuel driven power plants?

It would be fun to see if Oil industry people finance anti-Nuclear activists, and if nuclear industry folks finance "anti-hydrocarbon/global warming" activists
.

 



Become an Activist

Join an Organization
Get Volunteerism Alert
Write Letters to a local Politician
Start your own Group





Applied Politics Projects
Suggest a Project
Start your Yahoo Groups
Get Internship Credit
Funding for Projects





Encourage Discussion

Join Juryfury Chat
Promote Juryfury.com
Join online discussion Groups





Be In the Spotlight
Let us Interview you :
Authors of political books
Activists
Journalists
Lawyers
Law Enforcement
Politicians
Politican Scientists





Archives





Be A Columnist

Get Internship Credit
Write twice a Month
Get Heard
Start a Yahoo Group






Advertise with Us
Books (Free)




About Us

Our Staff & Contributors
Our Magazines
   Quietpoly.com
   I-Traderschool
   Juryfury.com
The Company





Our Address:
QuietPoly Inc.
240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146)

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Tel (928) 214-7365
quietpoly@yahoo.com





Our Affiliations
MoveOn.org
MediaChannel.org
IndyMedia.org