DOCSLIB.ORG

£Oii£-Q3/T></7S~

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

£oii£-q3/t></7S~- MIT-ANP-CP-002 o PROCEEDINGS OF THE 0 w§r 2nd MIT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE' ON THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY October 25-26,1993 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ITEI Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Sponsored by The Program for Advanced Nuclear Power Studies Professor Michael W. Golay, Chairman 1SUTI0N OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use• fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spe• cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac• turer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom• mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. *Sr 0^ TABLEl A„K^ V£{) AGENDA Q 2nd MIT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY 25 October 1993 8:00am Registration 8:45am Introductory Remarks: Prof. Michael W. Golay, Conference Chairman 9:00am Session 1 What Role Should Nuclear Power Play, and What Would Life Be Without It? Author: Michael W. Golay, Nuclear Engineering Dept, MIT Respondent: Dr. Robert H. Socolow, Director, Center for Energy & Environmental Sciences, Princeton University Use this session to focus upon advanced reactors and their possible future roles. Outline how the succeeding sessions focus upon important questions, all of which are related to the last session, regarding what our future nuclear strategy should be. This session should include energy markets that can be served by nuclear power, and averted environmental effects that otherwise would be imposed by competing technologies. Concerning global warming, use this session to explore topics including time scales for responses using different technologies to postulated global warming, energy products from nuclear reactors (e.g., hydrogen), worldwide penetration of nuclear-based energy reactors for developing countries, fuel supply constraints and implications. Discuss factors that may limit the role of nuclear power. 10:30am COFFEE BREAK 10:50am Session 2 How Long will the Current Nuclear Power Reactors Operate? Author: Dr. Andrew Kadak, President, Yankee Atomic Electric Co. Respondent: Mr. Mason Willrich, Pacific Gas and Electric Enterprises Use this session to explore topics including factors of economic performance, relicensing and life extension for the existing reactors, and implications of a prematurely reduced nuclear industrial base as it would affect personnel supply, utility interest in nuclear power, the funding base and time horizons for technological innovation. 12:30pm LUNCH 130pm Session 3 Can Nuclear Power Gain Public Acceptance? Author: Dr. Roger Kasperson, Clark University, Worcester Respondent: Prof. Thomas Hughes, University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia Use this session to explore factors affecting energy technology preferences and aversions, particularly among the general public and among influential minority groups (e.g., environmentalists). Try to distinguish the roles affecting technology acceptance or rejection, of competition for political power, of public attitudes toward organizations identified with different energy technologies and of public judgments of the technologies themselves. 3:00pm COFFEE BREAK 3:20pm Rapporteur's Report - (Rapporteur: Prof. Kent Hansen, Nuclear Engineering Dept., MIT) 11 FOREWORD Structure and Goals of the Conference The Second MIT International Conference on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Technology is organized by the MIT Program for Advanced Power Studies. The Program is an activity which we began at MIT in order to make a contribution for the success of the next generation of nuclear power. In doing this, we believed that there were important questions where we had relevant expertise at MIT, and that it was appropriate for us to play a leadership role so that any next generation technologies were developed, as well as possible, and for us to provide educational opportunities for students who might wish to participate in such work. About five years ago we decided that in addition to research and student education that it was important also for us to become involved in the public debate concerning nuclear power. The reason for this was that we felt that there would not be a second generation of nuclear power, if our society were not to reach an effective consensus that there should be one, as well as, a consensus regarding what form it would take. We felt that at a university we had the opportunity to provide a forum for that kind of consensus-oriented debate, which we did not see occurring elsewhere. Rather, the kinds of discussions of nuclear power which were visible were generally organized to attract an audience which would agree with the organizers, but where one did not encounter clashing views that would eventually lead to an effective consensus. So, we initiated a series of conferences focused upon the future of nuclear power. This Conference is our second. Our goal was to try to attract a variety of points of view from well-informed people to debate issues concerning nuclear power. Hopefully from that process a better understanding of what we should be doing will emerge. We note that this meeting was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and also the Electric Power Research Institute. I believe that they share our view that having this kind of discussion is beneficial for everyone. In organizing the Conference we tried to learn from the previous one. So, we continuously made an effort to see to it that the arguments for the alternatives to nuclear power were given abundant time for presentation. This is ultimately because nuclear power is going to have to compete with all of the energy technologies. Thus, in discussing our energy strategy we must consider all of the alternatives in a reasonable fashion. Everyone participating in the Conference did so by invitation. The structure of the conference was explained in the invitation letter which everyone participating had received. The structure used has seven sessions (see Table 1). The first six led up to the final session which was concerned with what the future nuclear power strategy should be. Each session focused upon a question concerning the future. None of these questions has a unique correct answer. Rather, they address topics where reasonable people can disagree. In order to state some of the important arguments for each session's question, we used the combination of a keynote paper followed by a respondent. The respondent's paper is not necessarily included to be a rebuttal to the keynote; but rather, we recognized that two people will look at a complex question with different shadings. Through those two papers we hoped to get out the most important arguments affecting the question for the session. The purpose of the papers was to set the stage for about an hour of discussion. The real product of this Conference is that discussion. We taped the discussion to use in producing the Conference Proceedings. These consist of the papers and the associated discussions. The same format was used in our first Conference, and the feedback was that this format worked reasonably well. Those Proceedings are available for anyone who will find them of interest. The constituencies that we went to for the participants of this meeting are: • People who are critical of nuclear power, particularly as it is used in the United States; • People who are involved in the nuclear power enterprise within the United States; • People from other countries who are involved in their own nuclear power enterprises; and • Scholars of society and technology, people who are particularly interest in socio- technological controversies and the development of technologies. Table 1 (continued) 3:50pm Session 4 What Role Should Renewable Energy Technology Play; What Would Life Be Like With Them? Author: Dr. Robert Williams, Center for Energy & Environmental Sciences, Princeton University Respondent: Profs. Lawrence M. Lidsky and Steven M. Conn, MIT Use this session to explore the status and promise of various renewable (i.e., solar) technologies. What is the reality, expectation, hope? What roles could the renewable technologies play in supplying energy worldwide? What factors might limit their penetration? Is their promise sufficiently great and confident to justify letting the nuclear option collapse if one is concerned that global warming is a serious threat? 5:10pm ADJOURN 630pm Cocktails, Dinner and Speech Mr. E.C. (Tip) Brolin, U.S. Department of Energy 26 October 1993 9:00am Session 5 What to Do About Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, and Do New Reactors to Consume Plutonium Make Sense? Author: Dr. Hal Feiveson, Center for Energy & Environmental Sciences, Princeton University Respondent: Dr. Robert Budnitz, Future Resources Associates Use this session to characterize the nature of the
Recommended publications
  • Submission to the Nuclear Power Debate Personal Details Kept Confidential

    Submission to the Nuclear Power Debate Personal Details Kept Confidential

    Submission to the Nuclear power debate Personal details kept confidential __________________________________________________________________________________________ Firstly I wish to say I have very little experience in nuclear energy but am well versed in the renewable energy one. What we need is a sound rational debate on the future energy requirements of Australia. The calls for cessation of nuclear investigations even before a debate begins clearly shows that emotion rather than facts are playing a part in trying to stop the debate. Future energy needs must be compliant to a sound strategy of consistent, persistent energy supply. This cannot come from wind or solar. Lets say for example a large blocking high pressure weather system sits over the Victorian, NSW land masses in late summer- autumn season. We will see low winds for anything up to a week, can the energy market from the other states support the energy needs of these states without coal or gas? I think not. France has a large investment in nuclear energy and charges their citizens around half as much for it than Germany. Sceptics complain about the costs of storage of waste, they do not suggest what is going to happen to all the costs to the environment when renewing of derelict solar panels and wind turbine infrastructure which is already reaching its use by dates. Sceptics also talk about the dangers of nuclear energy using Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fuklushima as examples. My goodness given that same rationale then we should have banned flight after the first plane accident or cars after the first car accident.
  • Chapter 3: the Rise of the Antinuclear Power Movement: 1957 to 1989

    Chapter 3: the Rise of the Antinuclear Power Movement: 1957 to 1989

    Chapter 3 THE RISE OF THE ANTINUCLEAR POWER MOVEMENT 1957 TO 1989 In this chapter I trace the development and circulation of antinuclear struggles of the last 40 years. What we will see is a pattern of new sectors of the class (e.g., women, native Americans, and Labor) joining the movement over the course of that long cycle of struggles. Those new sectors would remain autonomous, which would clearly place the movement within the autonomist Marxist model. Furthermore, it is precisely the widening of the class composition that has made the antinuclear movement the most successful social movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Although that widening has been impressive, as we will see in chapter 5, it did not go far enough, leaving out certain sectors of the class. Since its beginnings in the 1950s, opposition to the civilian nuclear power program has gone through three distinct phases of one cycle of struggles.(1) Phase 1 —1957 to 1967— was a period marked by sporadic opposition to specific nuclear plants. Phase 2 —1968 to 1975— was a period marked by a concern for the environmental impact of nuclear power plants, which led to a critique of all aspects of nuclear power. Moreover, the legal and the political systems were widely used to achieve demands. And Phase 3 —1977 to the present— has been a period marked by the use of direct action and civil disobedience by protesters whose goals have been to shut down all nuclear power plants. 3.1 The First Phase of the Struggles: 1957 to 1967 Opposition to nuclear energy first emerged shortly after the atomic bomb was built.
  • The Commoner Issue 13 Winter 2008-2009

    The Commoner Issue 13 Winter 2008-2009

    In the beginning there is the doing, the social flow of human interaction and creativity, and the doing is imprisoned by the deed, and the deed wants to dominate the doing and life, and the doing is turned into work, and people into things. Thus the world is crazy, and revolts are also practices of hope. This journal is about living in a world in which the doing is separated from the deed, in which this separation is extended in an increasing numbers of spheres of life, in which the revolt about this separation is ubiquitous. It is not easy to keep deed and doing separated. Struggles are everywhere, because everywhere is the realm of the commoner, and the commoners have just a simple idea in mind: end the enclosures, end the separation between the deeds and the doers, the means of existence must be free for all! The Commoner Issue 13 Winter 2008-2009 Editor: Kolya Abramsky and Massimo De Angelis Print Design: James Lindenschmidt Cover Design: [email protected] Web Design: [email protected] www.thecommoner.org visit the editor's blog: www.thecommoner.org/blog Table Of Contents Introduction: Energy Crisis (Among Others) Is In The Air 1 Kolya Abramsky and Massimo De Angelis Fossil Fuels, Capitalism, And Class Struggle 15 Tom Keefer Energy And Labor In The World-Economy 23 Kolya Abramsky Open Letter On Climate Change: “Save The Planet From 45 Capitalism” Evo Morales A Discourse On Prophetic Method: Oil Crises And Political 53 Economy, Past And Future George Caffentzis Iraqi Oil Workers Movements: Spaces Of Transformation 73 And Transition
  • 1 the Politics of Independence: the China Syndrome (1979)

    1 the Politics of Independence: the China Syndrome (1979)

    1 The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning Peter Krämer, University of East Anglia Abstract: This article draws, among other things, on press clippings files and scripts found in various archives to reconstruct the complex production history, the marketing and the critical reception of the nuclear thriller The China Syndrome (1979). It shows that with this project, several politically motivated filmmakers, most notably Jane Fonda, who starred in the film and whose company IPC Films produced it, managed to inject their antinuclear stance into Hollywood entertainment. Helped by the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant two weeks into the film’s release, The China Syndrome gained a high profile in public debates about nuclear energy in the U.S. Jane Fonda, together with her then husband Tom Hayden, a founding member of the 1960s “New Left” who had entered mainstream politics in the California Democratic Party by the late 1970s, complemented her involvement in the film with activities aimed at grass roots mobilisation against nuclear power. If the 1979 Columbia release The China Syndrome (James Bridges, 1979) is remembered today, it is mainly because of an astonishing coincidence. This thriller about an almost catastrophic accident at a nuclear power plant was released just twelve days before eerily similar events began to unfold at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg in Pennsylvania on 28 March 1979, resulting in, as the cover of J. Samuel Walker’s authoritative account of the event calls it, “the worst accident in the history of commercial nuclear power in the United States” (Walker).
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth Again Was Employed by the an Amendment by Mr

    EXTENSIONS of REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth Again Was Employed by the an Amendment by Mr

    April 24, 1979 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth again was employed by the an amendment by Mr. KENNEDY, on serve of the Army and in the Army of the United States, under the provisions of title Commission until his appointment to which there is time limitation of 2 hours, 10, United States Code, sections 3019, 3442 the Disbursing Office on June 1, 1948. He after which Mr. TowER will call up his and 3447: advanced to chief bookkeeper in August amendment, on which there is a 1-hour To be major general, USAR and AUS of 1951 and subsequently became the as­ time limitation; subsequent to which Mr. sistant financial clerk on January 1, HATCH will be recognized to call up his Brig. Gen. William Roger Berkman, 559- 1953, a position he held until his ap­ five amendments, one at a time, of course, 32-4169. pointment as financial clerk on August with a time limitation on each of 1 hour. 23, 1954. Mr. President, as I say, the time limi­ CONFIRMATIONS He is survived by his wife, Elsie, and tations that I have set forth in this state­ Executive nominations confirmed by two children, Barbara and Lisa. ment may be reduced, either by consent the Senate April24, 1979: I am sure the Members of the Senate or by virtue of the parties in control DEPARTMENT OF STATE join me in expressing our condolences to thereof yielding some of the time back. John Prior Lewis, of New Jersey, for the his wife and to his children, and join me There may be other amendments around, rank of Minister during the tenure of his in saying that Mr.
  • Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal (name redacted) Specialist in Energy Policy January 11, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33461 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Summary Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian radioactive waste encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The United States currently has no disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository, which would be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE’s repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. DOE submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to NRC on June 3, 2008. The state of Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, citing excessive water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, human intrusion, and other technical issues. The Obama Administration “has determined that developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not a workable option and the Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal,” according to the DOE FY2011 budget justification. As a result, no funding for Yucca Mountain, OCRWM, or NRC licensing was requested or provided for FY2011 or subsequent years.
  • Three Mile Island : a Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    Three Mile Island : a Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    THREE MILE ISLAND : A NUCLEAR CRISIS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK J. Samuel Walker | 314 pages | 28 Jan 2006 | University of California Press | 9780520246836 | English | Berkerley, United States Three Mile Island : A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective PDF Book Friday, March "Going to Hell in a Handbasket" 7. Three Mile Island. Related articles in Google Scholar. Search Menu. Wednesday March 28 This Is the Biggie. This is the price excluding shipping and handling fees a seller has provided at which the same item, or one that is nearly identical to it, is being offered for sale or has been offered for sale in the recent past. The nuclear crisis at the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima, km from Tokyo, has been getting a lot of attention in the media lately but fears expressed for dangerous levels of radiation reaching areas further than 30km from the stricken nuclear facilities are unfounded and need to be put into perspective. See all 7 - All listings for this product. Berkeley, California. Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released. Prior accounts pale in comparison to this work. Arriving on the third day after the accident as the nrc on-site operative, only Harold Denton, whom President Jimmy Carter wisely designated his personal representative, emerged as a spokesman whose judgment all parties and the public trusted. Stock photo. The accident started early in the morning on March 28, The terrorist attacks of September 11, , for example, raised critical questions about the resilience and safety of nuclear power plants in the event of sabotage or attack.
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc

    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc

    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1725 I STREET, N,W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 202 223-8210 New Yorll. Offiu WesternOfJit:e 122 EAST 42ND STREET 25 KEARNY STREE.T NEW YORI<, N.Y. 10017 SAN FRANCISCO,CALIF. 94108 212 949-0°49 415 4U-6S61 Secrecy and Public Issues Related to Nuclear Power by Thomas B. Cochran A Paper Presented Before The American physical Society 1980 Spring Meeting Washington, D.C. April 30, 19BO •••• 75 l 00% Recycled Paper In 1954 atomic power first emerged from the wraps of military secrecy. Rather than a destroyer of-men, the peaceful uses of atomic energy would be a bountiful provider for social progress. There was already beginning public awareness of the dangers of radiation, and Congress recognized that development of this new power source could continue only if there was public acceptance. In the Atomic Energy Act, it was stated that: The dissemination of scientific and technical information relating to atomic energy should be permitted and encouraged so as to provide that free interchange of ideas and criticism which is essential to scientific and industrial progress and pUblic understanding and to enlarge the fund of technical information. IAtomic Energy Act of 1954, Sec. 141.b. j emphasi.s supplied. ] "The dissemination of infgrmation • • • to provide free interchange of ideas and criticism • essential to . • public understanding" ech'o-es"a~tenet of our society: clearly, in a-democratic society, an essential and minimum ingredient for meaningful exchange of ideas and criticism --for ~ aod ~~te is access by all parties to all relevant facts.
  • Paul Ehrlich Papers SC0223

    Paul Ehrlich Papers SC0223

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt3r29r8pf Online items available Guide to the Paul Ehrlich Papers SC0223 Daniel Hartwig Department of Special Collections and University Archives February 2019 Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford 94305-6064 [email protected] URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Note This encoded finding aid is compliant with Stanford EAD Best Practice Guidelines, Version 1.0. Guide to the Paul Ehrlich Papers SC0223 1 SC0223 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Title: Paul Ehrlich papers creator: Ehrlich, Paul R. creator: Ehrlich, Paul R. Identifier/Call Number: SC0223 Physical Description: 129.5 Linear Feet Date (inclusive): 1954-2001 Abstract: Correspondence, memos, notes, photographs, posters and other papers relating to Paul Ehrlich's publications and public appearances, his work with the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Jasper Ridge Biological Presrve (California), the Zero Population Growth organization, and the Stanford Biological Sciences Department. Correspondents include Norman Cousins, J. Gordon Edwards, Sol Encel, Erich Fromm, Jane Goodall, Daniel McKinley, Margaret Mead, Lawrence Lader, E. C. Pielou, Eliot Porter, and Jonas Salk. Collection also includes materials relating to Dr. Anne Ehrlich's biological research and videotape of Paul Ehrlich's appearance on the Tonight Show. Immediate Source of Acquisition note Gift of Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich, 1980-2001. Information about Access This collection is open for research. Ownership & Copyright All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California 94304-6064.
  • Anomalous Diffusion in Anisotropic Media Felix Kleinschmidt

    Anomalous Diffusion in Anisotropic Media Felix Kleinschmidt

    Anomalous Diffusion in Anisotropic Media Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorw¨urde der Fakult¨at f¨urChemie, Pharmazie und Geowissenschaften der Albert-Ludwigs-Universit¨at Freiburg im Breisgau vorgelegt von Felix Kleinschmidt aus Freiburg im Breisgau 5. April 2005 ”Il faut avoir ´etudi´ebeaucoup pour savoir peu.” Montesquieu (1689-1755) Pens´ees, Nr. 1116 Œuvres compl`etes,Paris 1950 Vorsitzender des Promotionsausschusses: Prof. Dr. G. Schulz Dekan: Prof. Dr. H. Hillebrecht Referentin: Prof. Dr. C. Schmidt Korreferent: Prof. Dr. H. Finkelmann Betreuerin der Arbeit: Prof. Dr. C. Schmidt Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung:09.05.2005 Die vorliegende Arbeit entstand in der Zeit von April 2001 bis April 2005 am Institut f¨urMakromolekulare Chemie der Albert-Ludwigs-Universit¨at Freiburg im Breisgau. Publications and Presentations Publications Kay Saalw¨achter, Felix Kleinschmidt and Jens-Uwe Sommer, Swelling Hetero- geneities in End-Linked Model Networks: A Combined Proton Multiple-Quantum NMR and Computer Simulation Study, Macromolecules 2004, 37, 8556-8568 Felix Kleinschmidt, Markus Hickl, Claudia Schmidt and Heino Finkelmann: Smec- tic Liquid Single Crystal Hydrogels (LSCH): Hygroelastic and 2H NMR Diffusion Measurements, in preparation Felix Kleinschmidt and Claudia Schmidt: Multilamellar Vesicles from C10E3/D2O; NMR Line Shape and Pulsed Gradient Diffusion Measurements, in preparation Scientific Talks Felix Kleinschmidt, Patrick Becker, Laurence Noirez and Claudia Schmidt: Side- Chain Liquid Crystal Polymers under Shear Flow, Meeting
  • Kiejziewicz the Nuclear Technology Debate Returns

    Kiejziewicz the Nuclear Technology Debate Returns

    TRANSMISSIONS: THE JOURNAL OF FILM AND MEDIA STUDIES 2017, VOL.2, NO. 1, PP. 117-131. Agnieszka Kiejziewicz Jagiellonian University The nuclear technology debate returns. Narratives about nuclear power in post-Fukushima Japanese films Abstract The presented article revolves around the widespread debate on the Fukushima catastrophe in Japanese cinematography and the artists’ responses to the incident. They give the viewers clues on how to understand the reasons and results of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, as well as how to perceive nuclear technology after the catastrophe. The author analyses the chosen post-Fukushima films, points out the recurring depictions, and deliberates on the ways of presenting nuclear power. The analysis starts with a brief comparison of post-Hiroshima and post-Fukushima cinematography. The author then focuses on activists’ art in the form of anti-nuclear agitation (Nuclear Japan, 2014 by Hiroyuki Kawai) and pictures that can be classified as shōshimin-eiga: Kebo no kuni (The Land of Hope, 2012) and Leji (Homeland, 2014). The third part of the article puts emphasis on the description of the catastrophe as a “new beginning”, as Takashi Murakami presents it in Mememe no kurage (Jellyfish Eye, 2013). The debate on nuclear technology also appears in the remake of the story about the best-known Japanese monster, Godzilla, reactivated by Hideaki Anno in the post-Fukushima film Shin Gojira (New Godzilla, 2016). The last part of the paper presents the Western point of view and covers analysis of films such as Alain de Halleux’s Welcome to Fukushima (2013), Doris Dörrie’s Grüße aus Fukushima (Fukushima, My Love, 2016) or Matteo Gagliardi’s Fukushima: A Nuclear Story (2015).
  • Nuclear Power in Perspective*

    Nuclear Power in Perspective*

    •T\Q.Ki ^OS00£72^ NUCLEAR POWER IN PERSPECTIVE* A.E. RINGWOOD Research School of Earth Sciences Australian National University Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia This paper contains the text of a public lecture given in the series "Energy and Australia" at the Australian National University on April 2, 1980. An abbreviated version was given at the 50th ANZAAS Congress in Adelaide on May 14, 1980. Publication No. 1437, 1980 Research School of Earth Sciences, A.N.U. PROFESSOR RINGWOOD was born in Melbourne in 1930 and attended Melbourne University where he took a Ph.D. in geochemistry in 1956. After a period as research fellow at Harvard, he joined the Australian National University in 1958 and is now Director of the Research School of Earth Sciences at that University. He was elected to the Australian Academy of Science in 1966 and was Vice-President in 1971-72. He has also been elected Fellow of the Royal Society; Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.; Fellow of the American Geophysical Union; Commonwealth and Foreign Member of the Geological Society of London, and Honorary Member of the All-Union Mineralogical Society, U.S.S.R. Among his many honours are the Matthew Flinders Lecture and Medal, Australian Academy of Science; the Bowie Medal, American Geophysical Union; the Brittanica Australia Award for Science; the Arthur L. Day Medal, Geological Society of America; the Rosenstiel Award, Ani. Assoc. Adv. Sci­ ence; the William Smith Lecture, Geological Society of London; the Werner Medaille, German Mineralogical Societ«; the Vernadsky Lecture, U.S.S.R.