text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of Environmental Radioactive Impact Associated to Uranium Production

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Improper uranium mining can and has caused excessive radiation in the atmosphere. Milling tailings remain radioactive for extended periods of time, whether they are covered or not. This is harmful to the environment. Contamination has been reported in soil, dirt, surface streams & groundwater.

Methods
The main three procedure types (underground mining, open pit extractions, and leaching procedures) all originate certain amounts of waste. These procedures have led to an overflow of soil and rock with uranium present, leading to an increased environmental hazard. This has led to an increased awareness for both the public and the workers present to protect their health. By using case studies, researchers were able to show the levels of contamination in geographical areas exposed to uranium mining. To obtain data, Environmental radioactivity monitoring and surveillance were used in areas that were around uranium mining and the milling industry.

Results
Areas impacted by uranium mining and the milling industry generally showed that the dose limit of uranium for the public had been exceeded. With the expected demand of Uranium mining to increase over the next decade, it is critical to establish and enforce more stringent radiation exposure laws to ensure the health and safety of life and the environment. In order to keep workers, the public, as well as the overall environment safe, there must be open pit mining controls to minimize the amount of radiation released causing damage and raising health risks for the future.

 * While the article in question did not completely negate the use of uranium mining, it has been shown to be an extremely costly process. In addition, the article states that if environmental cleanup and other precautions were taken into effect, this process could be less harmful for the environment..


text:
Nuclear power greener/A critique of Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems.

(Review Paper) Cited in

Nuclear Power is Greener
Not only is Nuclear energy much safer in terms of lives lost in manufacturing but compared to coal and electricity its carbon foot print is non-existent. Also the process of generating nuclear power creates very little waste or bi products.

Nuclear Power meets 17% of demand of electricity from the world. It also comes very close to being non-existent in the air as a pollutant gas that effects the global climate.

Methods
Nuclear power generators were compared with other energy sources. After considering total deaths, waste products, and sustainability, nuclear power had significantly better outcomes.

Results
In the end, nuclear power comes out as a misunderstood energy source. When looking at it from a humanitarian perspective, producing nuclear power is not as dangerous as other sources. Coal and gas require every day retrieval, which leads to many more deaths and persistent health problems. Nuclear power also has a higher density than other energy sources, with less product resulting in more power. On top of everything else, nuclear power is cheaper and has some of the lowest emission rates, resulting in less ecological deterioration.

Because of the scientific proof of nuclear power containing low emission rates, goals have been made to work towards the improvement of economics of nuclear power. Some of these goals are to decrease the risk there is when it comes to accidents and increase the number of resources of nuclear power.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Nuclear power greener/A critique of Potential threats from a likely nuclear power plant accident: a climatological trajectory analysis and tracer study.

(Review Paper) Cited in


text:
Nuclear power greener/A critique of Risks of nuclear power

(Review Paper) Cited in

Methods
Nuclear power technology produces radiation that is known as "radioactive". This type of radiation can cause serious effects if exposed in the wrong circumstances. Exposure to radioactive materials is likely to cause an increased adverse effect on human health now and in the future.

Although reactor accidents have a low probability of occurring, the outcomes are quite extensive in nature. There is serious potential risk for surrounding areas that inhabit life. It has been determined that high exposure to radiation can destroy parts of the body increasing the chances of death.

Radioactive waste is confined from the population for a very long period of time. Essentially this waste is converted to a rock-like form and placed deep within the earth. It is expected that a rock in this type of environment will live for one billion years. If the radioactive waste acts in the same way as a rock, this will result in one death from every 50 years of operations.

Results
Everyday, human beings are exposed to 15,000 particles of natural radiation every second from natural sources. It is estimated that this type of radiation causes about 1% of all cancers. When humans come into contact with radioactive radiation, the exposure rate increases to about 0.2%, thus increasing cancer risk by 0.002% which essentially reduces life expectancy by one hour.

A mathematical calculation called "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA), was conducted to forecast the probability of a reactor accident. These were the results: "A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths".

Based on the rationale of radioactive waste as stated above, it is determined that the risk of death is very low from the operation of one power plant (one death per 50 years of operation).


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of Impact of the tihange nuclear power plant on the periphyton and the phytoplankton of the Meuse River

(Review Paper) Cited in

Nuclear Power Plants Will Affect Hydrobiolgies
Biology communities of phytoplankton and periphyton saw a change in biomass from the thermal emmissions from a collaboration of nuclear power plants that were upstream from the communities that were tested. Because of the thermal emmissions from the nuclear power plants, the temperature of the water increased 4.2°C as well as a loss of 15% of dissolved oxygen. Nuclear Power Plants Affect Biomass of Hydrobiologies

Methods
Approximately every two weeks, samples of phytoplankton and periphyton were taken at four different sites on the Meuse River in Belgium for approximately six years, starting in 1975. The samples were taken 50 cm below the water surface to get an accurate and consistent reading of the phytoplankton.

From the glass slides that were used in taking samples from the Meuse River, as well as the use of the Lorenzen equations, scientists were able to calculate the chlorophyll and phaeophytin concentrations which saw an increase in biomass for the periphyton and an increase and decrease in biomass for the phytoplankton

Results
The first of the results is based on phytoplankton, which is subjugated by diatoms and green algae. Phytoplankton expansion depends on the control of the flow of the river. Higher the river flow the less concentrated the pollutants therefore more of phytoplankton survives. Biomass reductions mostly occurred during low flow periods which are in turn around the warmest months July to September. The reduction that was observed in the summer months could be directly related to mircopolluants such examples would be heavy metals and organic pollutants. The toxic effects would be increased by the temperature increasing.

The second portion of the results discussed periphyton. From their research there was no impact of the nuclear power plant station on the organism, There was no marked changes in the periphyton community downstream of the station.


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Crituiqe of"Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined".

(Review Paper) Cited in


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined".

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors address the environmental, social, and safety concerns created by solid fuel Uranium reactors.

Thorium reactors are:

 * 1) More cost effective: Approx $2.30 vs $4.00/watt;
 * 2) Are cheaper to manufacturer: $200million;
 * 3) Able to be constructed in as little as 36 months;
 * 4) 45% efficient vs 33% effective in electrical conversion;
 * 5) 90% vs 4% efficient in fuel consumption;
 * 6) Less environmentally dangerous, waste has a half-life of 300 years vs 10,000;
 * 7) Thermally self regulating, they prevent run-away reactions and cannot meltdown;
 * 8) Able to consume existing stored waste from solid fuel Uranium reactors;
 * 9) Unable to produce weaponize materials for use in thermonuclear ordinance;
 * 10) Able to cooled in hours vs months or years;
 * 11) More stable, the fluoride salts don't degrade like Uranium rods do (which require replacement every 18 months);
 * 12) Thorium is more abundant, a waste by-product of mining for rare earths, a fact that has stalled domestic mining;
 * 13) Able to run with little per-processing and doesn't require any enrichment;
 * 14) Not pressurized, and therefore are at no risk of explosion like solid fuel Uranium reactors;

Methods
Dr. Hargraves completed a meta-analysis of the existing literature on the topic. He is an expert on the topic.

Results
Dr. Hargraves feels the government is missing out on the use of thorium technology. Thorium reactors could address our energy problems and the consequenes that come with them, and they should be considered as an equal or better option as solid fuel designs.


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of The role of nuclear energy in 21st century for sustainable development in Korea

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy that can keep up with the increasing` economic development and population growth while being sustainable, environmental friendly and without producing GHG emissions ..

 * It takes 10,000 years for radioactive waste to dissolve... How is this sustainable? Lbora286 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Methods
In comparison to other developed countries Korea has a very high demand for energy because of the rapid industrialization occurring. Currently, Korea has to depend on other countries by purchasing their fossil fuel energy from them and having the energy transported in. The fossil fuel energy produces large amounts of CO2 which is contributing to GHG emissions.

Results
In an attempt to lower its reliance on carbon-based energy resources and therefore its reliance on other countries, Korea plans on using nuclear-based power to produce 50% of its electricity by 2015. By cutting down on its reliance on carbon-based energy production, Korea is not only becoming more independent, but they are also cutting down on the harmful environmental impacts of fossil fuels, such as Greenhouse Gases. This will also have major economical benefits for Korea.

 * Sure nuclear power has less environmental and economical benefits, but what about the health of the people that live around the power plants? The state of the economy will mean nothing when all the people are suffering from cancer and other health problems. :Bmina836 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The death rate from nuclear power versus coal shows us that more people die from coal related power than nuclear. Based on many studies scientists have come to the rational for every person that dies from nuclear power 4,000 die from coal . The death toll on coal is enhanced with the consideration of climate change and destruction of the Ozone which in turn increase the number of disease and cancers to our society.Sambo1428 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that proliferating nuclear reactors is a necessary step in the reduction of greenhouse emissions as well as a viable step to meet the growing energy needs of the worlds populations. We cannot rely on foreign countries for a majority of our manufacturing needs while expecting them to use out dated technologies which creates more pollution than is necessary.  Pollution is not stationary and when piped up into the jet stream, pollution from other nations may have a greater effect on North America than the nations that produced it.Cgree973 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
Nuclear power greener/A critique of Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Based off of two previous studies, the first conducted from 1980-1990 on children under 15 living within a 15km radius of German nuclear power plants and the second from 1991-1995 on children under 5 within a 5km radius of the North German nuclear power plant of Krümmel. This study compiled data based on children under 5 diagnosed between 1980 and 2003 and registered under the German childhood cancer registry (GCCR) living within a 5 km radius of nuclear power plants. When compared to a random control group, the children living within close proximity to the plants were found to have higher rates of leukemia.

Methods
The most recent study was conducted as a case-control study on children registered with the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) under 5 years of age, living within 5 km of 16 independent power plants. The exact distance between the child’s residence and nuclear power plant was used (where the address was unavailable, the distance to the nearest street was used in its place), and covered 41 counties of up to 80 km. The control group subjects were selected based on records from corresponding registrar’s offices with the same age, sex, and year of diagnosis as the case subjects. Eliminating all cases of leukemia that could be a result of other factors such as genetics, the subjects in the study were asked whether or not they had leukemia. This was used to determine whether there was a relationship between diagnosis of leukemia and proximity to the nuclear power plant.

Results
When comparing the 593 case study participants with leukemia with the 1766 control participants, it was found that there is a statistically significant increase in leukemia cases in children under the age of five who lived within five kilometers of the nuclear power plants. There was also a statistically significant increase between the five kilometer area around the power plants and the ten kilometer range. The ten kilometer condition had double the leukemia cases than the five kilometer condition. The results remained consistent when isolating each of the 16 nuclear power plants used in the study. This shows that leukemia rates are not due to any one nuclear power plant, but is a phenomena that is found in all of the nuclear power plants tested. Similar results were also found in the two previous studies that the present study was based of off, but the present study was able to achieve statistical significance while the previous two studies were only able to achieve statistical significance in some aspect while finding only a moderate relationship in other areas.


text:
Talk:Nuclear power/Greener

 * A nuclear power plant may release less C02 emissions but this does not include the building of the plant, uranium mining or transportation and disposal of nuclear waste Jstal531 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is true that nuclear energy is the direction that most countries are moving towards. However, it must be known that not all countries treat Uranium mining equally in order for it to be safe. This is where an international standard for mining Uranium must be established to ensure its safety for not just a few countries, but for all of them. Dlodh574 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Germany has the highest rate of radiation via uranium mining. This country alone has raised awareness of safe radiation levels that should be allowed while mining. There has been an increase in recognition that the current levels are unacceptable and unsafe not only to the public people, but for the workers themselves.

Without a decisive action action plan, co2 will double by 2050. This will increase oil demand which will also heighten concerns over the security of supplies.AnnD9220 (talk)

There is evidence that indicates a relationship between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and also economic growth. Overall, nuclear energy plays a very crucial role in reducing CO2 emissions. Agreeing that Co2 emissions will double, there will also be an increased oil demand that will increase the concerns over the security of supplies.Desi diva007 (talk)

Growing concerns about nuclear energy have brought the importance of both nuclear and renewable energy.Renewable and nuclear energy play an important role in energy security and in also reducing emissions.There is a long-run relationship between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy,and economic growth. In the long-run nuclear energy reduces emissions, with a increase in nuclear energy consumption associated with a 0.477% decrease in emissions.AnnD9220 (talk)

Yes. Nuclear energy and renewable energy sources provide many solutions to the problems of energy security along with environmental degradation. An increase in nuclear energy consumption decreases renewable energy consumption.Desi diva007 (talk)

All energy resources used by humans contain some sort of negative implication whether it be heavy oil production causing the contamination of rivers and eco systems or sustainable alternatives like wind power killing thousands of birds on a monthly basis. --Shagor475 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC) talk)

Increase in cancer post Three Mile Island disaster
You mentioned a study of cancer but no results of the study. I read that the cement surrounding the failed reactor did its job and contained all radiation. You can't claim an increase in cancer without submitting the results of the study showing this increase in cancer. Acct student M (talk)

title: Talk:Nuclear power/Greener


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of CANDU reactors and greenhouse gas emissions

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Nuclear power plants release less carbon dioxide.

Methods
They measured the greenhouse gases produced during the construction and maintenance of the nuclear plants. The values that were found: building, function and decommission of CANDU reactors is only 3.2 kt/TWh compared to carbon fossil fuels 15.41 kt/Twh. This supports that there is less carbon dioxide released by nuclear power used.

Results
During preparation and construction of power plants, energy from fossil fuels is usually required. This energy could be used for things such as transport trucks, heat, earth moving, etc. These fossil fuels do release some greenhouse gases. However, the amount of greenhouse gas produced by nuclear power plants is smaller than the amount released by other types of power plants. When the construction phase is over, nuclear power plants can use some of the energy that they produced to power their plant. On the other hand, steam power plants, for example, require fossil fuels to keep powering the plant, which therefore releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. In the end, nuclear power plants produce 100 times less carbon dioxide than other power plants do.


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique of Recent Advances in Nuclear Power: A Review

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Nuclear power is currently economically viable which is why it has grown to meet greater than 20% of the worlds electricity needs.

The level of CO2 emissions generated through the use of nuclear power are significantly lower (two orders of magnitude) than the amount generated through the use of fossil fuels.

China alone has a huge demand for power and by the year 2050 it is estimated that they would require the equivalent of 3360 million tons of oil to meet their demands. This illustrates the need for nuclear power to offset the tremendous CO2 emissions that would be generated.

Currently there is three common ways to contain immediate waste:

1) Vitrification       2) Ion exchange 3) Synroc - An Australian synthetic rock.

As well there are several long term solutions:

1) Storage facilities       2) Geological Disposable 3) Transmutation       4) Reuse of waste 5) Space disposal

There is a very small amount of waste that is generated when compared with the amount of energy that is created.

Currently, the United States Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is developing new ways of disposal through separation technologies. This is basically an attempt to more efficiently remove large amounts of spent fuel and heat generating elements.

 * Economically viable is not synonymous with greener technology or being environmentally friendly. What is economically viable has historically been extremely detrimental to the environment. It is often ignored that humans are part of the global environment, as we usually view ourselves simply as manipulators of the environment. While nuclear power may not create as much CO2 waste, it does create a different type of waste- nuclear waste. This could be especially harmful as we have not had long to study the long term effects of this type of waste on humans and the environment. Much like other technologies that were adopted too quickly, such as refrigerators cooled with chlorofluorocarbons, we do not know what will happen with our nuclear waste in 100 years.
 * Alaxative (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Methods
This article is a review that was created by Mazen M. Abu-Khader in which he interprets the results of many academic papers and consolidates the information regarding nuclear power into several categories. He examines the factors of nuclear economics, nuclear safety, reactor designs, waste management, and spent fuel processing.

Results
New technological advances in the reduction and management of nuclear waste are promising as there are storage, disposal and conversion strategies in place that turn nuclear waste into a non-toxic product, and there are a variety of relatively non harmful long-term disposal options available for the remainder of nuclear waste. Due to the anticipated necessity of energy in the not so distant future, nuclear power is a practical option in regards to safety and the environment when taking CO2 emissions into consideration.

 * The new way of storing the nuclear waste is very important and it should continue to be stored very well so that it could never be able to harm a human body.Bomor394 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


text:
Nuclear power greener/a critique of Nuclear power: renaissance or relapse? Global climate change and long-term Three Mile Island activists’ narratives.

(Review Paper) Cited in

Many Warnings
A survey was conducted on activists of Three Mile Island (TMI), the site of the worst nuclear power plant disaster in US history. Activists gave numerous reasons why nuclear power is an unsafe source of energy.

Methods
The survey was conducted on 26 long-term, operative TMI activists who could be considered "key informants". Interviews were conducted and recorded over telephone, and participants were asked simply what their thoughts were about new initiatives to build nuclear power plants based on their experiences as long-term TMI activists. The question was open-ended so that each participant would have the opportunity to include experiences and perspectives that the researches may not have previously considered.
 * It is ultimately the public who fund, pay for and inherit all the risk of a nuclear power plant. It is only approriate that the people who have lived through a "worst case" scenario be surveyed. Of course the public will be emotional when weighing in on nuclear power and bias is part of that emotion because people care for their lives and the lives of their loved ones, just as the companies that want to build nuclear reactors are biased because they care about money and profit and subsidies. In the case of nuclea power, the public should be consulted and should be the deciding factor.Tlouc287 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Results
This research showed that nuclear power is not green because of the consequences that the use of nuclear power implicates. some of these consequenses are:

Nuclear waste: 85% of the TMI people said that nuclear waste is hard to keep and in their case after the disaster in TMI it is kept in the region and consequently continues to affect their environment with all that lives there.

Nature of risk/consequences: 77% of them said that compared to other source of energy, nuclear energy is highly dangerous to use.

Management and government: 73% of the participant said that because the people who manage the nuclear energy are unable to correctly inform and protect the population of the risk that nuclear energy has.

Health: 69% of the participant were concerned of the health effect that are linked to nuclear activities. One participant mentioned that Pennsylvania had the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the US.

Economic; 65 % of participant said that because the private sectors refuses to contribute to funding of nuclear power, it is subsidies with people taxes.

Environmental; 62% of participant said that nuclear power risk are high. One of them sustained this and said that the regular use of nuclear plants releases radiation.

Evacuation; 54% of participant said that there wer not a clear plan for evacuation in case of a nuclear disaster. however, some of them said that since the TMI disaster better strategies have come up.

National security: 46% of participant said that as the knowledge of nuclear energy increases, it may become more easily accessible to politically unstable nations. Hence, creates potential for a global terror.

 * Nuclear power is nuclear power, there is no way around it except getting rid of all these technology that has and had already taken people's lives.Bomor394 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Aging plants/re-licensing issues:38% of the participant said that nuclear plants have a limited time of usage and that aging plant were not good to use. However they were concerned about the re-licenced of some of the aging plants.


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/A critique of Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems.

 * According to a different article chosen for this topic, the scientists found that as a result from the nuclear power plants, the thermal emissions and waste were causing an increase of in an average of 4.2 degrees celsius and a loss of 15% in oxygen. The closer to the plan the higher the concentration of emissions and a decrease in microbiolgia life. Therefore, the nuclear power waste that is created is harmful. Jrach339 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Although coal related injuries are relevant in this debate, we should still keep in mind the people of whom were killed from nuclear power plant explosions, such as Chernobyl. Not only were there deaths that resulted because of the immediate blast, but the after effects of radiation poisoning are still an issue there. Sjorg89 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While there is less by-product produced by nuclear power than by coal and gas, disposal of this by-product is still a problem. Nuclear power may produce less waste per unit, but waste will still accumulate quickly as the world uses so much energy every day. The current solution of dropping it into the ocean is very dangerous as we risk contaminating the water, harming and/or killing underwater life and creating potential for leaks into our ground water. It is comparable to a child cleaning his room by stuffing everything into his closet: it only hides the mess rather than eliminating it. PolkaDots576 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately the waste that is created is not being disposed of as so much it is being stored. The amount of waste is accumulating and nothing is being done with it. There are processes to safely dispose and manage the waste, however because there is no political agreeing on how to properly create such a policy the waste will simply just keep accumulating. The waste being highly toxic and deadly, I would disagree that nuclear power is greener than other alternatives.Tlouc287 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/A Critique of Impact of the tihange nuclear power plant on the periphyton and the phytoplankton of the Meuse River

Jhill171 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)It is important to acknowledge that there was not a large difference in the biomass of phytoplankton below the plant throughout the year. The phytoplankton slightly increases during the coldest months of the year and conversely decreases slightly during the warmest months of the year. There was however a noted reduction of phytoplankton biomass at the furthest downstream sites due to the commutation of toxins, organic pollution and thermal discharges.


text:
Nuclear power greener/A Critique Of On the casual dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
The rapid consumption of expensive fossil fuels emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. These emissions may account for alarming hazardous climate changes on Earth in which nuclear energy may be the answer to a more desirable outcome. Nuclear energy has a low carbon dioxide output, is a renewable energy source, and offers the opportunity for economic growth.

Methods
Twenty countries are a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which took part in a dynamics study monitoring carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear and renewable energy consumption, and economic growth from 1984–2007 using a panel error correction model (complicated mathematical algorithms that monitor variable changes over a given time). These panels aid not only in the observation of shared economic and financial problems of OECD countries, but also energy emissions, consumption, and real output. The results produced by these mathematical formulas used by the models are stack and then related to one another in a criss-cross correlating fashion. This allows the panels to compare the countries as well as perceive change. These panels indicate nuclear energy consumption decreases carbon dioxide emissions. It is also noted that although all renewable energy sources have a positive impact when it comes to emissions, nuclear energy consumption has more of a positive impact on the economy than any other renewable resource. So in turn nuclear energy not only reduces emissions and helps the economy, but also is a plays a part in energy security in the fact it is renewable as opposed to fossil fuels which are not.

Results
Based on the panel error correction model there is significant positive relationships between nuclear energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emissions. This supports nuclear energy to be the more favorable renewable energy source as opposed to others. The heterogeneous panel error correction model can be used by many countries to establish a method to best meet the needs of the economy in the best environmentally responsible way possible. The panel proves that the best long-term solution is the production and consumption of nuclear energy. Not only does nuclear energy not put off as much carbon dioxide but the consumption of nuclear energy actually reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The panel showed that carbon dioxide emissions were lowered by 0.477% when nuclear energy consumption was raised by 1%

 * Nuclear power may decrease the carbon dioxide emissions, but what is the risk that is associated with generating this type of toxins for consumption. I must agree that finding new environmentally friendly ways of reducing toxins is important; however, the risk associated with nuclear energy are extremely high. One meltdown or nuclear leak could create catastrophic effects for local populations or the world as a whole - i.e. Japan in 2011. There were many benefits for the plants in Japan, but when there was a shift in weather conditions and the plant was disrupted it created a potential for negative effects to the worlds water supply. So the question that should be further investigated would be do the benefits of nuclear power out way the risks associated with producing it? Swats376 (talk)9:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC).


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/A Critique of Environmental Radioactive Impact Associated to Uranium Production

Jhill171 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)It is crucial to ensure that the mining of uranium is done in the safest manor in order to limit radiation in the atmosphere and keep workers safe. Even though there is waste produced with uranium mining we need to realize that there is waste production with all forms of energy production. If weighing the benefits vs. disadvantages to uranium mining while striving to make it safer we may end up with a cleaner way of producing energy.

 * I agree with the above discussion, but just want to strive the point that more regulations need to be made with regards to the safety of the environment as well as humans that deal with uranium mining. This article does not disagree that nuclear power is "greener" than conventional fossil fuel methods but makes the point that uranium mining should be done in a safer and more reliable way.--Colinc (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/A critique of Risks of nuclear power

I totally agree with this point because radiation can affect our health by being expose our immune system could be weaken. Also, there could be human errors that can cause negative effects. More importantly, a natural disaster can take place and humans are underpowered to control the release of materials held on this power plantArodr451 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

 * The safety standards of nuclear power plants are increasing leading to fewer accidents. In 2005, the industrial accident rate for nuclear power plant workers was 0.24 per 200,000 worker hours. This is compared to manufacturing industry accidents which are 14.6 times greater having 3.5 accidents per 200,000 worker hours.

--Randana (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Exposure to radioactive material is not always a bad thing. As in most things, dosage matters. The granite in the earth under the feet of Calgarian’s is radioactive, as is the marble countertops in their kitchens. The dirt contains thorium which is also radioactive. The issue is about dosage, how much for how long. Extended periods of high exposure are cause for concern, but it does not necessarily follow that the existence of a nuclear power plant will expose people to these high, prolonged doses. Reactors are designed, managed and maintained in a manner that negates these risks, and reactor technologies other than solid-fuel reactors have reduced risks. The point is correct, but lacks specificity, which can lead to unfounded fears in the public.

Ixby, Not what you expect. (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/A Critique Of On the casual dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.

This article examines nuclear energy consumption with renewable energy consumption in terms of how much carbon dioxide is produced. It could have been much more specific in opening up the renewable energy sources and examining them on an individual basis (for ex. specifically looking at solar energy, wind power, hydro power, etc.). The article too broadly blankets the term renewable energy source and the results could have been more specific had they closely examined all of the energy sources Nzurg (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC).


text:
Talk:Nuclear power greener/a critique of Nuclear power: renaissance or relapse? Global climate change and long-term Three Mile Island activists’ narratives.

All the people who participated in the research were social scientist and could be biased because they are not in favor of the nuclear energy. They could not prove that some of the health consequences were the results of other factors.Lfamc (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Although nuclear power has caused some problems, the incidents are few and far between. With energy sources such as oil, the harmful outcomes occur more often, with explosions and fires. Also, with the constant retrial of coal and gas, daily exposure cause horrible health concerns for those working in that industry. Cthom4751 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Expose to nuclear power is very dangerous for our body, in a country where there is less nuclear power, people there has little or no cancer in their body which comes to prove that technologies with radiations has too much nuclear to slowly take someone's life.Bomor394 (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The public may not be able to give a reasonable scientific response to the issue because public sentiment is based on emotion and speculation rather than informed fact. As the survey is based on the opinions of activists, their opinions may be biased towards one side. While it is true that the Three Mile Island event is considered the worst nuclear environmental disaster, it is only so because it has been the only nuclear environmental disaster in US history. LaurenAL (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * This is only one case it has been proven that Nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy while being sustainable, environmental friendly and without producing GHG emissions.This also save money for many economies and this can operation can be run without is being a disaster.

Shayd948 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
A Linguistic Approach to Arabic Pronunciation

Welcome to A Linguistic Approach to Arabic Pronunciation!

A good Arabic accent is hard to get.

The aim of this course is to make pronouncing Arabic make sense to an English speaker through simple spoken practice.

Please note that this course does not aim to teach writing the letters. Letters will be presented separated and left-to-right.

Note that this course is contained entirely in the notes at the bottom. The lessons only offer guidance and additional detail.

Project in brief

 * Suggested Prerequisites:
 * Native English.
 * Suggested Resources:
 * A place where you feel comfortable talking out loud.
 * A voice.
 * A native speaker.
 * Time investment:
 * 5-10 minutes a lesson, if that
 * ~35 lessons
 * Portal: Humanities
 * School: Language and Literature
 * Department: Arabic
 * Level:
 * Not for natives
 * Beginner to Advanced

Tasks to Improve Project

 * Content
 * Information about each letter
 * Audio
 * Diagram of phonetics
 * Checking/Fixing broken links
 * Formatting
 * Checking consistency between pages
 * Logically ordering answers to practice at bottom of page

Lessons
Under construction...

Introduction
Welcome to this learning center. This course is incredibly easy; all you have to do is try saying things!

It's recommended that you simply browse through the pages below. They're already in an order conducive to learning.

Here's the layout of the pages.

The Vowels
Vowels refer to sounds in a language.
 * /Ee = ي/
 * /ي's short= ـِ/
 * /Oo: و/
 * /و's short = ـُ/
 * /Ah = أ/
 * /أ's short= ـَ/

The Easy Letters
Easy letters exist in English and Arabic. They have no confusing companions.
 * B = ب
 * J = ج
 * Sh = ش
 * F = ف
 * L = ل
 * M = م
 * N = ن

The Easy Letter Families
These letters are simple to figure out. They are all related to each other, hence the "family".
 * About the relationships
 * T = ت
 * ت's emphatic = ط
 * ت's voiced = د
 * ت's voiced emphatic = ض
 * Re-examining the ت family
 * Th = ث
 * ث's voiced= ذ
 * ث's voiced emphatic = ظ
 * S = س
 * س's emphatic = ص
 * س's voiced = ز

The Foreign Letter Families
Unfortunately, a lot of these letters are nonexistent in the English language and lack any similarities to English letters. They require a little more work.
 * R = ر
 * H = ه
 * ه's "emphatic" = ح
 * ه's voiced "emphatic" = ع
 * Kh: خ
 * خ's voiced = غ
 * K: ك
 * ك's "emphatic": ق

Conclusion
Valedictions

Resources
Under construction...

Summary Notes
These notes summarize the learned concepts in the lesson.

Under construction...

 * All Letters
 * Table of All Letters
 * The Vowels
 * The Easy Letters
 * The Easy Letter Families
 * The Foreign Letter Families
 * Linguistic Terms
 * Table of All Letters (Linguistic)

Active participants
Active participants in this Learning Group
 * Sarruby: The Creator.
 * Add user here...


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/diagnosis

The main tests used to help diagnose prostate cancer in Australia are the PSA (prostate specific antigen) blood test and the DRE (digital rectal examination)(2).

 * PSA test - This is not a cancer specific test. This blood test examines the number of serum prostate specific antigen. This type of protein is produced by prostate cells, so an increased number of this protein suggests that there has been some sort of growth of the prostate. The higher the number the more chance of a cancer and really high numbers suggest the cancer may have started to spread.
 * DRE - This test involves a doctor inserting a gloved finger into the anus of a patient and feeling the prostate for any hard lumps that could be cancerous tissue.

A combination of these two tests is usually recommended.

Abnormalities in these tests leads to the suspicion of prostate cancer, a biopsy may then be recommended to confirm or deny these suspicions. The biopsy involves a small sapmle of tissue being taken by a spring loaded needle. Samples are then analysed to determine the stage and grade of the cancer, this provides a definitive answer as to whether or not the patient has prostate cancer.

Men over 40 with a family history are advised to get tested annually and so are all men over the age of 50. In the early stages of prostate cancer there can be no signs or symptoms in some cases, so getting tested is usually the only way to detect it. Early detection is vital as far as whether or not the cancer can be cured.


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/Prevalence

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in Australian men. Each year around 3 300 men die from the diseae. Close to 20 000 men are diagnosed each year and this number appears to be rising(2).

In the period from 1978 to 1992 the incidence of prostate cancer increased from 33.8 per 100 000 to 53.5, in Australia. These rates have tended to increase as the number PSA (prostate specific antigen) tests have increased over the years, suggesting that there may be any number of undiagnosed cases of prostate cancer.

The prevalence of prostate cancer increases greatley as a man gets older, jumping from 1 in 1 000 men in their 40's being diagnosed, up to 80 in 1 000 for men in their 70's. Australian men have a 1 in 5 chance of developing the disease by the age of 85. As mentioned, the likelihood of being diagnosed increases with age and also if there is a family history. The risk is nearly double if a family history exists. Men who live in rural areas also have a 21% higher diagnosis rate when compared to men living in the city. .

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is becoming a more and more popular treatment method for men with prostate cancer. From 2003 to 2009 the use of ADT increased by more than 40%. Up to 50% of prostate cancer patients now receive ADT.


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/Pathophysiology

Anatomy Background
The prostate is a group of exocrine glands of the male reproductive system that produce, store and secrete seminal fluid. This alkaline fluid assists spermatozoa longevity post ejaculation. The prostate itself surrounds a section of the urethra and is adjacent to the urinary bladder, seminal vesicle and rectum. The function of the prostate is regulated by androgens (male sex hormones).The androgen testosterone forms dihydrotestosterone once in the prostate, which is the major regulatory hormone of the prostate itself. [12]

Adenocarcinoma Background
Prostate cancer is an adenocarcinoma or glandular tumour formed by the uncontrolled and unregulated cell division and growth of prostate cells.[12] This tumour may grow overtime obstructing ejaculation and urination.[12] Once large enough the tumour may metastasise to surrounding tissues such as the bladder, seminal vesicle and rectum or travel to more distant areas of the body such as bones and lymph nodes via invading the blood stream and/or lymphatic ducts.[1]

An animated video of the pathophysiology of prostate cancer is available through http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg3j5Ig4dJY&feature=related

Androgen Deprevation Therapy
Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) is effective in slowing many prostate cancers. There are many forms of ADT which all aim to decrease systemic levels of androgens upon which cancer cells growth is dependent on. ADT aims to decrease testosterone levels to <0.7-1.7nmol/L in order to stunt cancer growth as much as possible.

ADT Methods
Orchiectomy or castration involves completely removing the testosterone producing testes in order to lower serum levels of testosterone and inhibit prostate cancer growth. Medical or chemical castrations pharmacology such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-As) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists reduces the production of lutenizing hormone through decreased pituitary receptors, leading to castration levels of testosterone. Orchiectomy removes the testes which does not inhibit the production of testosterone from the adrenal glands. Many androgen receptor antagonists may therefore be used in combination to ensure as low serum testosterone as possible via blocking the adrenal production of testosterone. Currently there are many androgen receptor inhibitors available including flutamide, bicalutamide, and nilutamide.

ADT side effects
As androgens play an essential role in sexual function, psychological health, bone mineral regulation and skeletal muscle (body composition) maintenance ADT also has many negative side effects.

 * Erectile dysfunction

Low testosterone is directly related to poor libido and erectile dysfunction in men. Two of the major chemicals involved in the process of an erection are nitric oxide and cyclic guanosine monophosphate. These are regulated by dihydrotestosterone, the major androgen that ADT aims to decrease, potentially causing erectile dysfunction.

 * Bone mineral density and skeletal muscle mass

Leutenizing hormone is responsible for the production of testosterone and estrogen. Estrogen plays a large role in bone remodelling and therefore bone mineral density. Estrogen stimulates the production of osteoclasts which lay down further bone matrix, while also inhibiting osteoclast production which cause the break down these bone mineral deposits. Therefore a decrease in testosterone and estrogen levels through ADT may cause a loss of BMD.

Muscle atrophy can be directly related to low testosterone levels. Testosterone is an anabolic androgen meaning it causes the building or growth of tissue, including protein synthesis and cellular hypertrophy in skeletal muscle. Catabolism of this tissue gradually occurs overtime as protein is used in low quantities as a fuel source. Testosterone also inhibits this catabolism of muscle tissue, allowing greater net protein synthesis and muscle growth. This catabolic effect is not as well balanced by the anabolic and inhibitory effect of testosterone when the body has very low testosterone levels. This demonstrates how the lack of testosterone caused by ADT can potentially lead to decreased muscle mass and therefore strength and muscular endurance. [2]

 * Anaemia

Testosterone is involved in the stimulation of erthropoiesis or the production of red blood cells. Therefore low serum levels of testosterone may cause a decline in red blood cell production, red blood cell concentration in the blood and therefore anaemia in ADT patients. Anaemia in many sufferers causes lethargy as the body’s ability to carry oxygen to working cells for energy is reduced. This may explain why any ADT patients report increased a fatigue during activities of daily living.


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/Medical and Clinical Considerations

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has proven to be very effective in treating prostate cancer. This is why so many prostate cancer patients undergo this type of treatment. But ADT has been shown to cause a number of side-effects, all of which need to be taken into consideration when dealing with someone undergoing ADT. Some of the more common side effects are listed below:

 * Muscular endurance decreased

 * Muscular strength decreased(1)

 * Decreased bone mineral density, leading to significantly increased risk of osteoporosis . This then also leads to an increased risk of bone fractures

 * Sexual dysfunction(2)

 * Increased fat mass(2)(3)(6)

 * Decreased skeletal muscle (6)

 * Reduced gait speed

 * Decreased insulin sensitivity

 * Acute coronary syndrome

 * Increased risk of falls

 * There is also thought that ADT may be associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes(6).

As a result of these side-effects quality of life tends to be significantly decreased(1)(2).

The majority of these-side effects are due to decreased testosterone levels(7).

All of these factors need to be considered when determining appropriate exercise programs.


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/Exercise Training

Many men suffering from prostate cancer are undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to combat the cancer. This type of treatment has proven to be quite effective, but it is also associated with a number of side-effects. Some of these side-effects include an increased likelihood of osteoporosis, increased body fat and decreased lean body mass, sexual dysfunction and decreased quality of life. Exercise is becoming more and more recognised as an effective way of dealing with or slowing down these known side-effects. The goal of exercise for patients undergoing ADT is obviously to help improve their quality of life. There has been only a small amount of research on ADT and exercise. Most of this research focuses on resistance training, with a small amount dealing with combined aerobic and resistance exercise. Positive results have been seen in the small amount of research that has been conducted(2), in regards to decreasing the side-effects of ADT. Below resistance training is discussed as an ADT intervention, as well as resistance training combined with aerobic training following that, then finally the benefits of exercise for ADT patients are summarised.

Resistance training

 * Resistance training has been suggested as a possible intervention method for patients undergoing ADT partly for the positive effect it can have on the patients bone density, as ADT patients suffer from decreased bone mineral density and are at an increased risk of osteoporosis.

 * There has not been a great amount of research conducted on resistance training for ADT patients, but from the little research that has been conducted some interesting and positive results have been seen . In a 12 week study conducted in 2003 fatigue and quality of life were assessed in patients undergoing ADT, this was then compared with an experimental group participating in resistance training . It was found that as a result of resistance training fatigue levels were decreased and quality of life was improved. While fatigue and quality of life are difficult things to measure, relying on self-reporting, significant differences were seen between the 2 groups.

 * Similar results were seen in another study which assessed the effects of a 20 week resistance training exercise program on ADT patients . This study only had a small number of partcipants, that being 10, but significantly improved results were seen in relation to muscular strength, muscular endurance, the performance of functional tests and balance. Muscle thickness was also increased.

 * In both of these studies no significant, positive changes in body composition were observed, but lean body mass was preserved in most cases along with no changes to fat mass. Also in both of these studies no adverse side-effects were seen as a result of resistance training.

 * More research is required in this area but from these results it appears resistance training could be a very useful mechanism for maintining or improving quality of life in patients undegoing ADT. Future research with resistance training could look to examine the effects of someone participating in resistance training prior to undergoing ADT and also the long term effects that resistance training has on ADT side-effects.

Combined aerobic and resistance training

 * Positive results were also seen in a study that examined the effects of a 12 week combined aerobic and resistance training program . Participants only took part in 2 combined aerobic and resistance sessions per week but still saw significant improvements in muscle mass, strength, physical function and balance. Improvements were also seen in relation to fatigue levels and general health, both of these outcome measures approached significance. Interestingly, similar results were seen compared to that of the studies that focused solely on resistance training when it came to body composition, with no significant changes in fat mass. But a significant increase in lean mass was observed, this was also similar to the results seen in the other studies dealing with resitance training. This suggests that it is possible to increase muscle size with depleted levels of testosterone.

 * Another study also examined the effects of an exercise program that incorporated aerobic and resistance training . In this study participants were given a theory-based take home exercise program which advised them to exercise 3 to 5 times per week. In this case the resistance training portion of the program was only light. In the space of 12 weeks participants were able to significantly increase their functional capacity, based on the results of a 6 minute walk test. Distance covered increased while heart rate and perceived exerction decreased. This was coupled with fatigue levels improving and quality of life improvements approaching significance. A possible reason for quality of life changes not reaching significance could be due to the fact that some participants took part in far fewer training sessions than others, therefore not everyone gained the full benefits of the program.

 * These results were supported in a similar study which examined a 16 week exercise program on ADT patients. The exercise program was very similar, mainly consisting of home based sessions made up of aerobic and light resistance exercises . Although this study had quite a high drop out rate, Significant positive changes were seen for girth measures and blood pressure, whilst depression and fatigue approached significant positive change.

 * Similar to the resistance training studies, no adverse side-effects were seen due to increased exercise in any of these mentioned studies. There is currently no research on aerobic training as a stand alone method for improving quality of life for patients undergoing ADT, this is an area where future research could look to explore.

Exercise and ADT benefits
While further research is required, based on the research that has been conducted to date it appears that the approriate exercise can lead to prostate cancer patients suffering significantly decreased side-effects from ADT and therefore enjoying an improved quality of life. The benefits of exercise for ADT patients are summarized below:
 * Increased bone mineral density(2)
 * Decreased fatigue levels(4)(7)
 * Increased muscular strength(5)
 * Increased muscular endurance(5)
 * Increased physical functioning(7)(5)
 * Improved balance(6)
 * Increased muscle thickness(5)(6)
 * Increased cardiac endurance(7)
 * Lean body mass preserved or increased(6)(5)(4)
 * Fat mass stops increasing(6)(5)(4)
 * Improved general health(6)
 * Decreased girth measures(8)
 * Decreased blood pressure(8)
 * Decreased symptoms of depression(8)


text:
Exercise and metabolic disease/prostate/Exercise Prescription

Note: All exercise guidelines are to be carried out once the client has passed a pre-exercise screening questionnaire (ESSA) and been cleared by appropriate specialists. Also note that ADT patients may also have a number of co-morbities and risk factors which exercise may be contraindicated for in certain circumstance. Refer to specific contraindications on the following “Exercise Training” page.

Aerobic training during ADT
Aerobic training has not been investigated as much as resistance training in ADT populations. An explanation for this is that many adverse effects of ADT are more directly related to the benefits of resistance training such as increase in skeletal muscle mass, bone density, muscular endurance and strength. However, aerobic training has been studied in combination with resistance training for patients undergoing ADT producing borderline results.[1] This may be due to this form of training being less effective or the fact that study protocols used much lower amounts of aerobic training compared to healthy population guidelines for aerobic improvement.

Studies finding positive effects of combined aerobic and resistance training used aerobic training in the following way:

 * Frequency: 2-3 times per week

 * Intensity: 65-80% of maximum heart rate (11-13 Borg scale)

 * Time: 15-20 minutes (for at least 6 weeks)

Note: Program included 2-3 sessions of resistance training which may contribute to overall aerobic gains and functional improvement in tests such as 6 minute walk etc.
 * Type: Cycle, walk or jog

Aerobic training for prostate cancer patients

 * Frequency – Daily

 * Intensity – blood lactate concentration kept at 3 ± 0.5 mmol•L-1

 * Time – 30-60 minutes

 * Type – treadmill walking

Resistance training during ADT
Currently there is broad research suggesting that resistance training is a safe and effective method of reducing many of the common negative side effects experienced by patients during and after ADT. Such research has discovered that suitable resistance training will not raise serum testosterone levels but may cause a reduction in general fatigue, improvements in quality of life, increases in muscular strength / endurance and reduction in BMD losses for prostate cancer patients undergoing various forms of ADT.

The protocols used to bring about such results were all similar and all lasted for at least 12 weeks. This suggests that a suitable progressive long term program is most appropriate for ADT patients. It should be noted that many studies utilised the direct supervision of subjects by fitness professionals or exercise physiologists whilst undergoing training. [1] [2] [3] [4]

 * Frequency: 2-4 times per week

 * Intensity: 2-3 sets of 60-70 % of 1RM (or 6-12 repetitions)

 * Type - Whole body machine resistance program including compound and isolated exercises. 6-9 exercises comprising of all or some of the following: leg extension, calf raises, leg curl, chest press, latissimus pull-down, overhead press, triceps extension, biceps curls, and modified curl-ups.

 * Progression: Weight increased by 2kgs once more then 12 repetitions is achieved on current weight. Post 12 week assessment, exercises may be varied and difficulty may be increased but very gradual progression is advised.

For further depth on exercise for prostate cancer sufferers the following source is available. http://exerciseismedicine.org.au/wpcontent/ uploads/2011/03/Prostate-cancer_full.pdf


text:
User:Kaihsu/Books/IMlawA

Section A: The scope of the four freedoms

 * User:Kaihsu/IMlawA2
 * User:Kaihsu/IMlawA3
 * User:Kaihsu/IMlawA4
 * User:Kaihsu/IMlawA5
 * User:Kaihsu/IMlawA6

title: User:Kaihsu/Books/IMlawA


title: File:Sampling.2.B.BandPass.20120307.pdf


text: File:2F2S Meeting 4.pdf

title: File:2F2S Meeting 4.pdf


title: File:VHDL.Signal.1.A.20120307.pdf


text:
Talk:TAO/Creating Personas and Working with Them

Reference to the TAO Concept
I've moved this to the talk page for now. I guess we could use these categories to organize the personas we collect. --Beat Estermann (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the table of personas (see graphik TAO/Concept) we can difference types of personas with different roles/tasks

End Users
 * Beginner
 * onliner
 * Lurker

Multiplier
 * Volunteers, e.g. senior-helper, instructor, contributor
 * Stakeholder, members of stakeholder groups
 * professionals, e.g. instructor, contributor, Responsible persons in senior education

Provider & Online-Communitys
 * Owner and business manager
 * members of Online-Communitys (e.g. Wikipedians)

Researcher
 * TAO Research Team
 * Researcher from other projects (SeniorKS, Peer, etc.)


text:
MakerBot/Filament Changing/Troubleshooting

Changing the Filament
Setup
 * 1. Log on to a computer near the MakerBot Cupcake CNC. Setup Procedure Step 1.jpg
 * 2. Open the “Engineering” folder on the desktop. Setup Procedure Step 2.jpg
 * 3. Click on the program called, “ReplicatorG.” SetUp Procedure Step 3.jpg
 * 4. Plugin the power cord to the MakerBot and an outlet.
 * 5. Plugin the serial cord to the MakerBot and the computer you are currently working on.
 * 6. Turn on the MakerBot Cupcake CNC, the power switch is on the bottom left of the back side.
 * For more assistance, view this video: Setting Up the MakerBot Cupcake CNC
 * 7. Using the connect tool in the top Replicator G menu, connect ReplicatorG to the MakerBot. If the connection is not recognized in ReplicatorG you may need to select a different serial port or rescan for other serial ports. This can be done by going to the “Machine” drop down menu on the tool bar in ReplicatorG. Setup Procedure Step 7.1.jpg Setup Procedure Step 7.2.jpg
 * 8. “Machine HCC Makerbot ready” should appear in green at the top of the ReplicatorG screen. Also, more of the tools at the top of the ReplicatorG screen are available to use.
 * If the box is not green, check the devices in the Control Panel for exclamation points. Unplug the Serial cord and plug it back in to check that the device is the MakerBot. If it has an exclamation mark, right click the device and go to properties > hardware > properties > Driver > Update driver > Browse my computer... > Type or Browse... C:Users\your_student_login_ID\desktop\engineering\replicatorg\drivers. If the device is still not working and it still has an exclamation point, reinstall the drivers again using the same process. If it does not work a second time, make sure that you typed the folder containing the drivers correctly by navigating to it through "My Computer" Libraries or the Browse button in the troubleshooting process.Setup Procedure Step 8.jpg
 * 9. Click on the control panel tool in the ReplicatorG tool bar. Printing Procedure Step 1.jpg
 * 10. In the “Control Panel” window, set the “Target Temperature (C)” to 180.0 and the "Platform Target Temperature (C)" to 110.0. This heats the wire to its appropriate melting temperature and heats the platform to cause the filament to stick to it better. This could take a few minutes.
 * 11. Now wait for the motor’s current temperature to reach the target temperature. Printing Procedure Step 4.jpg
 * 12. Loosen the Thumbscrew. The screw is located on the right side of the motor. Setup Procedure Step 10.jpg
 * 13. Pull out the filament wire and slide the new material into the MakerBot Cupcake CNC motor. The motor is located in the center of the top side of the MakerBot. Setup Procedure Step 9.jpg
 * 14. Tighten the Thumbscrew.


text:
A Linguistic Approach to Arabic Pronunciation/Layout

Letters will be presented here with a short description regarding the pronunciation.

Previous || Top || Next

The English Speaker's Guide
Tips and tricks for the typical English speaker.

The Linguist's Guide
This section will need help from a professional.

Notes about the letter's phonetics, construction, etc. Preferably with a little diagram illustrating it.

Additional Notes
If applicable.

Practice
Some examples will be listed here.

Encouragement
Just what it sounds like! You've done a great job so far; you've shown interest in getting a better accent. That's awesome.

That enough for today? Come back tomorrow! Or you can keep going...


text:
A Linguistic Approach to Arabic Pronunciation/Ee = ي

ي >  makes the "ee" sound in "greet" or the "y" sound in "year".

Previous || Top || Next

Ee
You know this sound already. Just say "me", "tea", or another other word with that distinct, high pitch "ee".

This sound occurs when ي >follows another letter.

Ye
Sometimes, this letter takes on a "y" sound. Say "you", "yawn", or another word with that "y" sound.

This sound occurs when ي >appears at the beginning of the word or when it appears with a little ّ >so that it looks like يّ >or ـيّ >.

The Linguist's Guide
This section will need help from a professional.

Practice
Read the following out loud. Try to figure out what the English word would be. (These are written left to right because the purpose is not to learn the writing but the pronunciation.)

{ (t) ي > { tee|Tee|tea|Tea }
 * type="{}"}

{ (b) ي > { Be|be|Bee|bee }
 * type="{}"}

{ ي ي > { yee|Yee|ye|Ye }
 * type="{}"}

{ ي >(eh) ي > { yay|Yay }
 * type="{}"}

{ ي >(ah) { Yah|yah|ya|Ya|yea|Yea|Yeah|yeah }
 * type="{}"}

{ (ah) ي > { (Shout indicating fear)|AIE|aie|ae }
 * type="{}"}

Encouragement
Woo hoo! You've made it to your first letter. You're on a roll!

That enough for today? Come back tomorrow! Or you can keep going...


text:
Talk:A Linguistic Approach to Arabic Pronunciation

Hey! If you like what you see, drop a comment! Sarruby (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Søren Kierkegaard

Misspellings and grammatical errors have the undesirable effect of affecting the writers credibility. This page needs a proof reading and cleanup. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment Hymnsinger (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Søren Kierkegaard


text:
Volcanoes, list/Mount Cotopaxi

Location and Basic Facts
Mount Cotopaxi is known as a stratovolcano. LOCATION:Ecuador, in South America, near the "Galapagos" and " Peru" Basic Info:   It has a width at its base of about 23 kilometers and about "14 miles". It has one of the few equatorial glaciers on our world, which starts at the height of 5,170 meters(16,400 ft). The mountain is clearly visible on the skyline from "Quito" a city near Ecuador. It is part of the chain of volcanoes that circles the Pacific ocean called and as known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. It is an explosive and currently active volcano. Mount Cotopaxi is the highest volcano in Ecuador at its height at 19,348 feet which is about 5,879 meters. It is the most visited national park in the entire Ecuador. Cotopaxi is a seduction zone kind of volcano. The rocks melt and become lava inside of Mount Cotopaxi. It is a volcano with a tall shape which is called a "Composition" volcano. Range/Region:	Andes Range/Region:	Ecuador Andes Latitude:	-0.680556 Longitude:	-78.437778 Difficulty:	Basic Snow/Ice Climb

After Effects
The last time it erupted was in 2015.The last official eruption of Mt Cotopaxi occurred in 1940. There was some activity in 1975, but not enough to warrant the term "eruption". It caused ashes and mudflows and disaster. Lots of people died not because of the lava impact. It was because of the dirty water, air, and the food that has been polluted more than 100 Hours on total. More people died from pollution than the impact of the volcano. It caused starvation for over four months, and it killed almost 4/5 percentage of the people which is 80% of the people got injured, or killed. Cotopaxi's most violent eruptions occurred in the years 1744, 1768, and 1877. In the 1877 eruption pyroclastic flows descended all five sides of the mountain, with lava traveling more than 100 km into the Pacific Ocean and western Amazon basin draining the valley. There was a major eruption in 1903 through 1904, and some minor activity in 1942 as well as 1975 but it did not produce any major events. In the most recent case, fumarolic activities and sulfuric emissions increased and ice around the inside and on the southeastern side of the cone started to slowly and quietly melt down. The eruptions caused great damage but it also caused global damage. It has a widespread damage.

Deaths and the Lives being taken
During the violent eruptions in 1904, it killed approximately 500 people. It injured about 350 people, either burned or polluted in the respiration system or crushed. The people died slowly, when they interact with the air, food, and water. It killed 500 people, and hurt or injured 350 people. This is all approximately, but it killed lots of people.

title: Volcanoes, list/Mount Cotopaxi


text: File:Test conv.vhdl.20120308.pdf

title: File:Test conv.vhdl.20120308.pdf