Download Full PDF Version
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF D. Erik Ellis for the degree of Master of Science in History of Science, presented on December 17,2002. Title: The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest. 1943 to 1965. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: William G. Robbins The scientific endeavors that took place at Hanford Engineer Works, beginning in World War II and continuing thereafter, are often overlooked in the literature on the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and in regional histories. To historians of science, Hanford is described as an industrial facility that illustrates the perceived differences between academic scientists on the one hand and industrial scientists and engineers on the other. To historians of the West such as Gerald Nash, Richard White, and Patricia Limerick, Hanford has functioned as an example of the West's transformation during in World War II, the role of science in this transformation, and the recurring impacts of industrialization on the western landscape. This thesis describes the establishment and gradual expansion of a multi-disciplinary research program at Hanford whose purpose was to assess and manage the biological and environmental effects of plutonium production. By drawing attention to biological research, an area in which Hanford scientists gained distinction by the mid 1950s, this study explains the relative obscurity of Hanford's scientific research in relation to the prominent, physics- dominated national laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission. By the mid 1960s, with growing public concern over radiation exposure and changes in the government's funding patterns for science, Hanford's ecologically relevant research provided a recognizable and valuable identity for the newly independent, regionally-based research laboratory. -
09-Mai1986.Pdf
Endlich erschienen!!! Prof. Jens Scheer (Universität Bremen) Dr. Helmut Hirsch (Gruppe Ökologie) Aktivisten und kritische Wissenschaftler aus R. Paul, 8. Weidmann (Redaktion atom) der Anti-AKW-Bewegung haben ein neues Michael Pefster, Manfred Wallenschus Buch herausgebracht. Es ist der längst Oberfäl• lige Versuch, die nationalen und internationa len ~ntwicklungen in der sogenannten >~friedli chen Nutzung der Atomenergie« der letzten Jahre zu analysieren und darzustellen. Schwer punkte des Buches sind · • die weltweite Krise der Atomindustrie * Geschichte des deutschen Atomprogramms * Aussichten bis zum Jahr 2000 * die Macht der Stromkonzerne * Harrisburg u. neue Sicherheitsstudien * die Gefahren im Normalbetrieb * die Unmöglichkeit der Entsorgung * die Gefahren der Wiederaufarbeitung Autoren dieses Bu~hes sind u.a. Jens Scheer, am H. Hirsch (Gruppe Okologie) und einige Redak tionsmitglieder der >~atom<<. Das Buch ist erschienen im Verlag Die Werk· statt (Göttingen), kostet 14.80 DM u. ist in jeder guten Buchhandlung erhältlich. 81's u.a. Wie· derverkäufer erhalten ab 5 Stck. 30% Rabatt. Bestellungen an: Göttinger AK gegen Atome· nergie, Postfach 1945 in 3400 Göttingen oder Verlag Die Werkstatt direkt an den Verlag Die Werkstatt, Lotzestr.24a, 34 Göttingen, Tei.0551·7700557 2 INHALT Impressum Die Atom, frOher Atom Express und At.om· Bundeskonferenz . • • . • . 4 mOIIzeltung wird herausgegeben vom Ver· ein für eine umwelktgerechte Energlepoll· Weckersdorf ...... .. .. ... ............... ... 5 tlk e.V. und vom LOneburger Arbeitskreis Chronik der Ereignisse . .......... • . ·. • . 6 gegen Atomanlagen (LAGA). Ostermarsch '86 .. ... ••••.•....•.... .. ... 10 Redaktlonsanschrlften: Autonomer Widerstand gegen die WAA. • . •. 14 Zur Gewaltfrage . • . 16 Atom Express Reinhauser Landstraße 24, Postfach 1945 Repression . • . 21 3400 GOttlngen, Tel.: 0551/n00158 Theater, Herzschläge u. Diskussion . 24 AtommOllzeitung . Siemens und WAA ........ -
Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008
Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS. -
Der URANATLAS Ist Ein Kooperationsprojekt Besonderer Dank Und Wird Gemeinsam Von Le Monde Dr
URAN Atlas Daten und Fakten über den Rohstoff des Atomzeitalters IMPRESSUM Der URANATLAS ist ein Kooperationsprojekt Besonderer Dank und wird gemeinsam von Le Monde Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin, diplomatique, der Nuclear Free Future Almoustapha Alhacen, Dennis Baldin, Foundation, der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Oleg Bodrow, Dr. Stefan Cramer, sowie dem Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Dr. Gordon Edwards, Nadezhda Kutepowa, Deutschland herausgegeben. Jeffrey Lee, Anthony Lyamunda, Prof. Dr. Andreas Nidecker, 1. Auflage: September 2019 Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, Dave Sweeney V.i.S.d.P. Projektleitung Claus Biegert, [email protected] Dr. Horst Hamm, [email protected] Druck Redaktionsleitung pva, Druck und Mediendienstleistungen Claus Biegert, Dr. Horst Hamm GmbH; Klimaneutral gedruckt auf 100 % Redaktion Recyclingpapier Thorben Becker, Andreas Bohne, Franza Drechsel, Günter Wippel Art-Direktion, Infografik und Herstellung Tanja Hoffmann Beiträge Thorben Becker, Claus Biegert, Dr. Horst Hamm, Günter Hermeyer, Gefördert durch Mittel des Manfred Kriener, Winona LaDuke, Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Linda Pentz Gunter, Mia Pepper, Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ). Mycle Schneider, Susi Snyder Für die Inhalte sind alleine die Herausgeber*innen verantwortlich; die Übersetzungen dargestellten Positionen müssen nicht Richard Freeman zwangsläufig den Standpunkt des Schlussredaktion Zuwendungsgebers widerspiegeln. Dominik Baur Kartenvorlagen Mike Berwanger, tausendblauwerk.de, Philippe Rivière, visionscarto.net Covermotive Yvonne Margarula, Älteste der Mirrar- Dieses Werk mit Ausnahme des Coverfotos Bestelladresse Gundjeihmi vor der Ranger Mine in steht unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Namensnennung – 4.0 international (CC BY Australien, Atomkraftwerk Temelín in Franz-Mehring-Platz 1 Tschechien, Atombombenversuch der USA 4.0). Die einzelnen Infografiken des Atlas auf dem Bikini-Atoll am 25. -
NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament: Challenges for the for 10th and Disarmament: Challenges Conference NPT Review Non-proliferation of Nuclear and the Frameworks NATO Research Paper Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina International Security Programme | May 2020 NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Challenges for the 10th NPT Review Conference Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina with Yasmin Caughley, Tim Chatham House Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Background 5 3 NATO and the NPT 8 4 NATO: the NPT and the TPNW 15 5 NATO and the TPNW: Legal Issues 20 6 Conclusions 24 About the Authors 28 Acknowledgments 29 1 | Chatham House NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Summary • The 10th five-yearly Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT) was due to take place in April–May 2020, but has been postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • In force since 1970 and with 191 states parties, the NPT is hailed as the cornerstone of a rules-based international arms control and non-proliferation regime, and an essential basis for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. But successive review conferences have been riven by disagreement between the five nuclear weapon states and many non-nuclear weapon states over the appropriate way to implement the treaty’s nuclear disarmament pillar. • Although the number of nuclear weapons committed to NATO defence has been reduced by over 90 per cent since the depths of the Cold War, NATO nuclear weapon states, and their allies that depend on the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence for their own defence, favour continued retention of the remaining nuclear weapons until the international security situation is conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament. -
Broschüre NFFA 2020 Als Pdf Zum Download
the nuclear free future award 2020 the work of nfff The Nuclear Free Future Foundation educates about the dangers of using nuclear technology for civil and military purposes. A central focus of our work concerns the extraction of the raw material without which nuclear bombs and nuclear power would not be possible: Uranium. In 2019, the foundation was charged with the responsibility for producing the world’s first URANIUM ATLAS and with collecting data and facts about the raw material of the nuclear age. The English edition followed on July 16th 2020, the 75th anniversary of the first atomic bomb test. Further editions in French, Italian and other lan- nuclear free future foundation guages are planned. Since 1998 we have been awarding the Nuclear How we work Free Future Award and with this prize we honor, thank and network people and ini- A central focus of our activities: tiatives worldwide who are working for a Leave uranium in the ground future free of nuclear power and nucle- ar weapons, either in resistance, education or the development of solution strategies. The “Nuclear Free Future Award” is presented annually at different places: it started in Salzburg, Austria in 1998, but in later years it also travelled to Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA; St. Petersburg, Russia; Jaipur, India; Window Rock, Arizona, capital of the Diné Nation; Washington, DC; Basel and Heiden, Switzerland; Johannesburg, South Africa; in some years, it returns to Munich, Germany, where the home office is located. This changing venue for the award ceremonies reflects the extent and the diversity of the global anti-nuclear and anti-uranium movement. -
Project Chariot: Part
9/3/2019 The Nuclear Legacy of Project Chariot - Part I Project Chariot: The Nuclear Legacy of Cape Thompson, Alaska Norman Chance "In 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] established the 'Plowshare Program' to "investigate and develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives." In early 1958, the AEC selected a site at the mouth of the Ogotoruk Creek near Cape Thompson, approximately 30 miles southeast of the Inupiat Eskimo village of Point Hope. Shortly thereafter, they developed plans for an experimental harbor excavation to be called Project Chariot. Late in 1962, after extensive scientific studies, the AEC announced that it "would defer further consideration of the proposed Chariot experiment," due in part to public criticism.... Douglas L. Vandegraft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Part One of this case study traces the process of events from the initial design of Project Chariot to its cancellation in 1962. Part Two addresses recent developments stemming from a 1990s investigation of contaminated radioactive soil that had been left at the site thirty years previously. Also included is a Postscript analyzing allegations that without their knowledge, the Inupiat and other Alaskan Natives were injected with radioactive iodine/131 in the 1950s as part of a U.S. military research project to determine whether soldiers "could be better conditioned to fight in cold conditions." Part One [There was] a general atmosphere and attitude that the American people could not be trusted with the uncertainities, and therefore the information was withheld from them. I think there was concern that the American people, given the facts, would not make the right risk-benefit judgments. -
Bob Farquhar
1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano. -
Consent-Based Siting
Consent-Based Siting From: Karen Hadden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:00 AM To: Consent Based Siting <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding Consent‐Based Siting 1 SEED Coalition and No Nuclear Waste Aqui Comments – July 31, 2016 In Response to DOE Invitation for Public Comment regarding Consent-Based Siting Dear U.S. Department of Energy, These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, a non-profit environmental organization based in Texas, with 2500 members, and the No Nuclear Waste Aqui network, which includes individuals and organizations in Texas and New Mexico. Several of our members attended the Tempe meeting, at great expense. Everyone had to fly to the meeting since it was too far to drive. It’s 743 miles to Tempe from Andrews, Texas. Former State Rep. Lon Burnam from Ft. Worth, Humberto Acosta from Andrews, Rose Gardner from Eunice and Noel Marquez from Artesia, NM, and I joined others from New Mexico at the Tempe meeting. I was also able to attend the Minneapolis meeting and listened to several other meetings through internet. Our comments address the questions that you have asked as well as some that should have been asked. They include: 1) How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair? 2) What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process? 3) Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role? 4) What information and -
Document Metadata:DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018
Document Metadata:DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018 Document Details Docket ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004 Docket Title: Requests for Information: Approaches Involving Private Initiatives for Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities Document File: Docket Phase: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Phase Sequence: 1 Original Document ID: DOE_FRDOC_0001-DRAFT-0473 Current Document ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018 Title: Comment on FR Doc # 2016-26018 Number of Attachments: 3 Document Type: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS Document Subtype: Public Comment Comment on Document ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004-0001 Comment on Document Title: Requests for Information: Approaches Involving Private Initiatives for Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities Status: Pending_Post Received Date: 01/25/2017 Date Posted: Posting Restriction: No restrictions Submission Type: Web Number of Submissions: 1 Document Optional Details Submitter Info Comment: As we have previously noted, the lead proposals for centralized interim storage (de facto permanent parking lot dumps) are private initiatives (in fact, there are no proposed federal government owned/operated parking lot dumps). But whether PIs or government ISFs (Interim Storage Facilities, so called), they should be free, fully informed, and genuinely consent-based sitings, as the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future recommended in its Final Report in January 2012. For this reason, all of the public comments submitted to DOE during its so-called "consent-based siting" public comment period in 2016 still apply. The lead private initiative is by Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Andrews County, West Texas, followed by the Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance in Hobbs, New Mexico (less than 50 miles from WCS); AFCI in Loving County, TX; and Culberson County, TX. -
Proquest Dissertations
'RANDOM MURDER BY TECHNOLOGY': THE ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIOMEDICAL EXPERTS IN THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT, 1969 - 1992 LISA A. RUMIEL A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN HISTORY YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO AUGUST 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-54104-3 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-54104-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. -
Ende Des Atomzeitalters?
APuZAus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 61. Jahrgang · 46–47/2011 · 14. November 2011 Ende des Atomzeitalters? Ortwin Renn Wissen und Moral – Stadien der Risikowahrnehmung Joachim Radkau Eine kurze Geschichte der Antiatomkraftbewegung Severin Fischer Das „Modell Deutschland“ und die europäische Energiepolitik Martin Keilhacker · Hardo Bruhns „Energiewende“: Wohin führt der Weg? Konrad Kleinknecht Abkehr vom Klimaschutz? M. Bürger · M. Buck · G. Pohlner · J. Starflinger Fukushima – Gefahr gebannt? Lernen aus der Katastrophe Rafaela Hillerbrand Von Risikoabschätzungen zum „guten Leben“ Philipp Gassert Popularität der Apokalypse: Zur Nuklearangst seit 1945 Editorial Vor einem Jahr beschloss die Bundesregierung, die Laufzeit der deutschen Kernkraftwerke zu verlängern. Unter lautstar- kem Protest der Opposition machte sie damit den Atomaus- stieg rückgängig, den Rot-Grün neun Jahre zuvor mit der In- dustrie ausgehandelt hatte. Heute erscheint dieser Beschluss wie aus einer anderen Zeit. Denn seither hat sich die Lage drama- tisch verändert: Das Reaktorunglück im japanischen Fukushi- ma im März 2011 führte zu einer Neubewertung der Risiken der Kernenergiegewinnung, und nach einem dreimonatigen Mora- torium folgte – für viele überraschend eilig – der erneute, so- gar noch beschleunigte Ausstieg. 2022 soll das letzte deutsche Atomkraftwerk vom Netz gehen. Die Entscheidung fußt auf einem breiten gesellschaftlichen Konsens, und sie stellt einen Sieg dar für die vielen Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die sich seit Ende der 1960er Jahre gegen Atomkraft engagiert haben. Doch ist das „Atomzeitalter“ damit wirklich beendet? Andere EU-Länder, darunter direkte Nachbarn wie Frankreich oder Polen, sind weit davon entfernt, dem deutschen Beispiel zu folgen. Und Deutschland wird möglicherweise selbst eine Zeit lang auf Stromimporte aus ausländischen Kernkraft- werken angewiesen sein. Zugleich stellen sich weitere Fragen hinsichtlich der „Energie- wende“.