Sentences with phrase «how nuclear science»

The issue of how nuclear science is handled in Australia is important.

Not exact matches

My look at how scientists calculate the odds of survival had me checking the Science News basement's viability as a nuclear shelter.

In a new study, researchers at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science examined how the interaction of two genomes in animal cells — the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes — interact to affect adaptation of the Atlantic killifish to different temperatures.

In a recent paper published in The Astrophysical Journal, Boorman (and colleagues from the NuSTAR active galaxies science team) described how data from NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) has been used to study the intrinsic behaviour of a «hidden» supermassive black hole in a galaxy nearby to our own — IC 3639 — some 175 million light years from Earth, relatively close by in cosmic terms.

Françoise Stutz, professor in the Faculty of Science at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and her team have just discovered how nuclear pores also regulate the production speed of these DNA copies.

For example, the treaty forbids igniting devices based on nuclear fission; Küntzel draws attention to how, just a few weeks after West Germany signed the treaty, a working paper published by the Science and Politics Foundation in Ebenhausen emphasised that research into detonating H - bombs with a laser beam was permitted by the treaty, and should be encouraged.

The current political situation, geography and science are also done correctly; this, however, might make the movie less accessible to the general viewers, since the understanding of how a nuclear bomb works is necessary to fully appreciate the ending.

She didn't really understand how her physics lessons applied to the real world until she joined the first group of students sent to CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) to see real science at work.

In the video segment, I note how the evolution and erosion of the nuclear winter hypothesis (which two climate scientists, Stephen H. Schneider and Starley Thompson, later concluded would be more like a «nuclear autumn» *) fit a cycle often seen in consequential science:

Sift back on Dot Earth for how this relates to science and attitudes on power lines, Ebola, genetic engineering, nuclear power and more.

Another important article, «Japanese Rules for Nuclear Plants Relied on Old Science,» shows how efforts to safeguard nuclear plants in Japan lagged way behind science pointing to the need to account for tsunami damage and flNuclear Plants Relied on Old Science,» shows how efforts to safeguard nuclear plants in Japan lagged way behind science pointing to the need to account for tsunami damage and flScience,» shows how efforts to safeguard nuclear plants in Japan lagged way behind science pointing to the need to account for tsunami damage and flnuclear plants in Japan lagged way behind science pointing to the need to account for tsunami damage and flscience pointing to the need to account for tsunami damage and flooding.

We would never want to be in the boat of Carl Sagan who advocated nuclear winter scenarios despite knowing how shaky the foundations for the science were, because that is how his politics went.»

Senator Bernie Sanders (I - VT) spoke this morning at the release of a Greenpeace Energy [R] evolution report that lays out, using quite conservative estimates, how «the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science - based cuts in global warming pollution — without nuclear power or coal.»

It is not how we are using the Nuclear Power Plants that we have, it is how we are not building the ones we need because of junk CO2 science.

Often I encounter people who oppose nuclear power but refuse to listen to any description of its potential benefits or learn about its safety record or how it works because they've decided that all of the science of nuclear power and radiation protection is false, that nuclear energy is bad and that's it.

In one study, he and his colleagues packaged the basic science of climate change into fake newspaper articles bearing two very different headlines --» Scientific Panel Recommends Anti-Pollution Solution to Global Warming» and «Scientific Panel Recommends Nuclear Solution to Global Warming» — and then tested how citizens with different values responded.

No advances in earth science, hydrology, materials science, or engineering will do much to reduce our uncertainties about how spent nuclear fuel will behave underground over the course of tens or hundreds of millennia.

Part one introduces the series themes and basically reviews the current state of the science, while part two outlines how climate change impacts could lead to global demographic, agricultural and political instability and even outright armed conflict, including a nuclear exchange in South Asia over rapidly depleting water supplies.

Speaking as someone who very much accepts the mainstream science on the climate anomaly and who favours robust ubiquitous mitigation measures and regards nuclear power as a legitimate player in the solution, that's not how I read the role of nuclear power in the advocacy of the agnorati.

I'm tempted to write more, but I can't figure out how quickly compare and contrast and also explain that a) climate science could benefit from more formal V&V procedures but b) it should adopt the full nuclear safety V&V requirements.

Art Robinson is the founder of a group called the «Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine» (OISM), which markets, among other things, a home - schooling kit for «parents concerned about socialism in the public schools» and books on how to survive nuclear war.