text:
Block grant

A block grant is a grant-in-aid of a specified amount from a larger government to a smaller regional government body. Block grants have less oversight from the larger government and provide flexibility to each subsidiary government body in terms of designing and implementing programs. Block grants, categorical grants, and general revenue sharing are three types of federal government grants-in-aid programs.

Graphical representation

The figure demonstrates the impact of an education block grant on a town's budget constraint. According to microeconomic theory, the grant shifts the town's budget constraint outwards, enabling the town to spend more on both education and other goods, due to the income effect.  While this increases the town's utility, it does not maximize the town's spending on education. Therefore, if the goal of a grant program is to encourage spending on a particular good, a categorical grant may be more effective in achieving this goal than a block grant, as most block grant critics would argue.

United States
A block grant in the United States is a grant-in-aid of a specified amount from the federal government of the United States to individual states and local governments to help support various broad purpose programs, such as law enforcement, social services, public health, and community development.

Through a block grant program for Medicaid, for example, each state would receive a set amount of money from the federal government. The block grants can be set based on "per capita" or on the needs of the state. Each state has to fill any funding gap if there is a difference between their spending and the amount set by the federal government.

Block grants are the topic of debate in the United States. According to the 2014 Congressional Research Service (CRS) advocates, who would like to see Medicaid converted into a block grant, say that block grants assist in reducing the federal deficit, increase government efficiency, redistribute power, improve accountability, and allow for flexibility. Critics, who are specifically against converting Medicaid into block grants, say that block grant "undermine the achievement of national objectives", "reduce government spending on domestic issues" where, for example, the "most vulnerable seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income children" would lose their health care through deep cuts in Medicaid. Critics also say that because block grants are decentralized, it is more challenging to "measure block grant performance and to hold state and local government officials accountable for their decisions".

In February 2017, the national debate in the United States regarding the effectiveness of block grants intensified as the United States Congress decided whether to convert Medicaid to a block grant program.

According to a January 11, 2019 Politico article, the Trump Administration was creating new guidelines to overhaul Medicaid in order to reduce health care costs for the poor through block grants, bypassing Congress. According to the same article, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma had mentioned using CMS' authority to "pursue block grants during a meeting with state Medicaid directors in the fall" of 2018. Verma promotes block grants but she has "faced heavy scrutiny" from CMS lawyers in her attempts to "insert block grant language into federal guidance."

Background
The 2014 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says the first true block grant was in 1966. In 1949, first Hoover Commission's 1949 report recommended the creation of "a system of grants" based "upon broad categories—such as highways, education, public assistance, and public health—as contrasted with the present system of extensive fragmentation." The Eisenhower Administration (1953–1961) created "block grants in the health and public welfare fields". In the 1950s, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was able to consolidate "child health and welfare, vocational education, and vocational rehabilitation areas" into block grants for public health. But most proposals for block grants repeatedly met rejection in the 1950s. Reasons included a political misalignment between federal and state levels, concerns about a lack or reduction of federal controls, and that giving states wider latitude in spending would be a "more effective and efficient use of public funds."

In the late 1960s, with both Congress and the White House under control of the Democratic Party, Congress enacted the 1966 Partnership for Health Act and the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Safe Streets Act). In a March 16, 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article, the authors provided background on health care provisions for the poor in the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to the creation of Medicaid in 1965, health providers were reimbursed directly on a per-capita basis. When the cap was spent, states were responsible for cutting health costs to make up the difference by restricting who, what and how much care one could access. As a result, only 3.4 million people in the US were able to access these benefits in the 1960s before Medicaid. According to an October 1977 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations report, local government officials compared to federal government officials are "closer to the people" and therefore better able to identify local needs. According to the ACIR report, advocates say block grants allow local governments to experiment with new approaches to solving various problems that other state and local officials can learn from. Such innovation would not be possible if funding were provided through restrictive categorical grants.

During the Nixon Administration (1969–1974) a new strategy, called "special revenue sharing" was developed and implemented from 1972 to 1986, to replace block grants. Through revenue sharing, the United States Congress appropriated federal tax revenue to share with states, cities, counties and townships. According to The New York Times, in FY 1986 the year before revenue sharing was eliminated by the Reagan administration, the federal government "distributed $4.5 billion to 39,000 municipalities".

Revenue sharing lost federal support under Reagan and was replaced by block grants in smaller amounts in 1987. The 1981 Community Services Block Grant under President Reagan consolidated 77 existing anti-poverty grants into nine new block grants with a budget representing c.25% less than the programs they replaced. According to the General Accounting Office, from 1980 to 2001, the number of federal block grant programs went from 450 to 700. The grants were aimed at a wide range of activities from education to healthcare, transportation, housing and counterterrorism.

In 1996, HHS and education moved towards "nationalizing trends", there was an attempt made towards devolution of welfare policy. In 1996, Congress "replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant". The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), which provided federal intergovernmental expertise, "played an important role in the design and creation of a host of intergovernmental policy initiatives, including block grants. ACIR was eliminated in 1996.

According to a 2017 CBPP study, since 2000, funding for the 13 major low-income health, housing, and social services block grants has fallen by 37%, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. This sharp reduction in funding can be attributed to the basic structure of block grants. Since block grants are designed to give local governments broad flexibility over their use of federal funds, recipients can turn these grants into savings, or spend them on other matters. As a result, it is often difficult to track in detail how these funds are being used, and what greater impact they have, thus making block grants very vulnerable to funding reductions or freezes.

In 2003, under the state Homeland Security Grant Program and Critical Infrastructure Protection, the least populous state, Wyoming received $17.5 million and the most populous state, California, received $164 million. In fiscal year 2004, Wyoming was guaranteed to receive at least $15 million, California $133 million. Wyoming thus received $35.3 per person, California only $4.7 per person. The formulas for how much money states receive favors small states. Most grant programs have a minimum amount per state, usually 0.5% or 0.75% of the total money given to states in the program. Similar patterns exist for other block grant formulas. An analysis exists in the book Sizing Up the Senate. Additionally, individual states may provide block grants to their political subdivisions, such as counties, towns, and school districts. Despite the various theoretical arguments in favor of block grants, existing research has mainly found that block grants are generally ineffective in achieving policy goals.

According to a 2004 book entitled Block Grants: Details of the Bush Proposals, critics of block grants argued that the flexibility block grant programs gave to local governments diminished the ability of federal administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, especially given that there were often no federal requirements for uniform program data collection across states. Opponents also said that the lack of restriction regarding where local officials spend block grant funding would enable them to retarget resources away from communities with the greatest need, to communities with the greatest political influence. Block grant critics said that the funding for block grants was prone to diminish over time because it was more difficult to regenerate political support for broad-purpose, state-run programs, than for categorical programs focusing on specific purposes.

The budget for FY 2005 under President Bush budget converted many federal programs into block grants to save $1.8 billion. Eighteen community development block grant programs were consolidated into one Commerce Department program.

In 2009, Carl Stenberg wrote that block grants "could contribute a greater degree of flexibility to the intergovernmental system, but their potential [was] often overstated and difficult to realize." He said that there was no empirical evidence that block grants reduce administrative costs as these costs were transferred from the federal government to the recipient states.

According to a 2013 Center for American Progress, from 2008 through 2013, categorical grant funding decreased for 29 out of 50 states as did block grants.

According to a 2009 U.S. Office of Management and Budget report, in 2008 block grants received the lowest average score based on the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a set of questionnaires developed by the George W. Bush Administration to assess the efficacy of various federal funding programs. Out of the seven PART program types in 2008, 30% of block grant programs were rated "results not demonstrated", and 5% were rated "ineffective". Block grant advocates said that PART's strong weighting of program results in its calculations make it a poor measure for evaluating block grant performance. While PART examines how programs achieve a single outcome, many block grant programs contain multiple outcomes which are often contradictory to each other, and thus the overall impact of block grants may be underestimated.

A 2014 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report entitled "Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies" said that there were "21 funded block grants, totaling about $50.8 billion in FY2014" which represented "less than 10% of total federal grant-in-aid assistance." The CRS report provided arguments for both side of the debate on the use of block grants. Those who support block grants, say that they were more cost-effective because they reduce federal administrative costs related to state and local government paperwork requirements.

According to a June 2015 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, the amount of basic assistance that block grants provide has also fallen, as local governments spend their federal funds on other purposes. For example, in 2015, only half of the funds received from the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) block grant were spent on core welfare reform activities such as cash assistance, work activities, and child care. The rest of the funds were spent on a variety of different matters unrelated to the program.

The CBPP study said that, "Unlike block grants, entitlement programs such as Medicaid and SNAP are highly responsive to changes in need. They grow immediately and automatically when need rises. This growth is critically important during recessions...Programs like Medicaid and SNAP would lose this responsiveness if turned into block grants."

Denmark
Greenland receives a block grant from Denmark. The block grant equals about two-thirds of Greenland's government budget or about one-quarter of the entire GDP of Greenland. Economic stability is seen as a basis for full political independence from Denmark. When Kim Kielsen was reelected with a strong majority as the leader of the largest Greenlandic pro-independence party Siumut in 2017, observers considered it a win for the "slow-independence" faction instead of the "now-independence" faction. (His opponent, Vittus Qujaukitsoq, had argued for independence even if it meant losing the large annual block grant from the Danish state.) If Greenland were to become an independent country, the annual block grant from Denmark to Greenland would cease.

United Kingdom
Since devolution in the United Kingdom was implemented in the late 1990s, creating the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been funded by block grants from the government of the United Kingdom because only a relatively small percentage of the tax revenue is collected by the devolved governments.

Westminster provides a block grant for Transport for London reflecting the expense of operating the London Underground and the fact the Greater London Authority is unable to raise a transport levy on council tax unlike other metropolitan counties in the UK (though since 2012 the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy has been introduced, allowing the Mayor to attach a levy on property development to serve a similar function).

Under the terms of the Scotland Act 2012, the block grant from the United Kingdom government to Scotland will be cut, but the Scottish Government will be able to collect an equivalent amount of income tax.

Netherlands
On the other hand, there is limited research that suggests that block grants have a positive impact on policy outcomes. One study in the Netherlands evaluating the ADHA (Assistance in Daily Housekeeping Activities) block grant finds that for each additional euro of grant money given to local governments, 50 cents is spent on ADHA. Consequently, the authors argue that block grants can achieve important outcomes, and that categorical grants are not necessary to force spending on particular issues. However, block grant critics would likely argue that this 50% spending rate on ADHA is a sign of ineffectiveness, as it means that local governments are spending the rest of the funding on unrelated issues.

title: Block grant


text:
Antonov An-225 Mriya

The Antonov An-225 Mriya (Антонов Ан-225 Мрія; NATO reporting name: Cossack) was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft designed and produced by the Antonov Design Bureau in the Soviet Union.

It was originally developed during the 1980s as an enlarged derivative of the Antonov An-124 airlifter for the express purpose of transporting Buran spacecraft. On 21 December 1988, the An-225 performed its maiden flight; only one aircraft was ever completed, although a second airframe with a slightly different configuration was partially built. After a brief period of use in the Soviet space programme, the aircraft was mothballed during the early 1990s. Towards the turn of the century, it was decided to refurbish the An-225 and reintroduce it for commercial operations, carrying oversized payloads for the operator Antonov Airlines. Multiple announcements were made regarding the potential completion of the second airframe, though its construction largely remained on hold due to a lack of funding. By 2009, it had reportedly been brought up to 60–70% completion.

With a maximum takeoff weight of 640 t, the An-225 held several records, including heaviest aircraft ever built and largest wingspan of any operational aircraft. It was commonly used to transport objects once thought impossible to move by air, such as 130-ton generators, wind turbine blades, and diesel locomotives. Additionally, both Chinese and Russian officials had announced separate plans to adapt the An-225 for use in their respective space programmes. The Mriya routinely attracted a high degree of public interest, attaining a global following due to its size and its uniqueness.

The only completed An-225 was destroyed in the Battle of Antonov Airport in 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced plans to complete the second An-225 to replace the destroyed aircraft.

Development
Work on the Antonov An-225 began in 1984 with a request from the Soviet government for a large airlifter as a replacement for the Myasishchev VM-T. The specifics of this request included the ability to carry a maximum payload of 511,116 lb, both externally and internally, while operating from any runway of at least 11,500 ft. As originally set out, the mission and objectives were broadly identical to that of the United States' Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, having been designed to airlift the Energia rocket's boosters and the Buran-class orbiters for the Soviet space program. Furthermore, a relatively short timetable for the delivery of the completed aircraft meant that development would have to proceed at a rapid pace.

Accordingly, the Antonov Design Bureau produced a derivative of their existing Antonov An-124 Ruslan airlifter. The aircraft was stretched via the addition of fore and aft fuselage barrel sections, while a new enlarged wing centre was designed that facilitated the carriage of an additional pair of Progress D-18T turbofan engines, increasing the total from four to six powerplants. A completely new tail was also required to handle the wake turbulence generated by the bulky external loads that would be carried on the aircraft's upper fuselage. Despite the novelty of its scale, the design of the An-225 was largely conventional. The lead designer of the An-225 (and the An-124) was Viktor Tolmachev.

On 21 December 1988, the An-225 performed its maiden flight. It made its first public appearance outside the Soviet Union at the 1989 Paris Air Show where it was presented carrying a Buran orbiter. One year later, it performed a flying display for the public days at the Farnborough Air Show. While two aircraft had been ordered, only a single An-225, (registration CCCP-82060, later UR-82060 ) was finished. It could carry ultra-heavy and oversized freight weighing up to 250000 kg internally or 200000 kg on the upper fuselage. Cargo on the upper fuselage can be up to 70 m in length.

A second An-225 was partially built during the late 1980s for the Soviet space program, however, work on the airframe was suspended following the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 2000, the need for additional An-225 capacity had become apparent; during September 2006, it was decided that the second An-225 would be completed, a feat that was at one point scheduled to occur around 2008. However, the work was subject to repeated delays. By August 2009, the aircraft had not been completed and work had been abandoned. In May 2011, the Antonov CEO reportedly stated that the completion of the second An-225, which would have a carrying capacity of 250 tons, requires at least $300 million; upon the provision of sufficient financing, its completion could be achieved in three years. According to different sources, the second aircraft was 60–70% complete by 2016.

The revival of space activities involving the An-225 was repeatedly announced and speculated upon throughout its life. During the early 2000s, studies were conducted into the production of an even larger An-225 derivative, the eight-engined Antonov An-325, which was intended to be used in conjunction with Russia's in-development MAKS space plane. In April 2013, the Russian government announced plans to revive Soviet-era air launch projects that would use a purpose-built modification to the An-225 as a midair launchpad.

In May 2017, Airspace Industry Corporation of China (AICC)'s president, Zhang You-Sheng, informed a BBC reporter that AICC had first contemplated cooperation with Antonov in 2009 and made contact with them two years later. AICC intends to modernize the second unfinished An-225 and develop it into an air launch to orbit platform for commercial satellites at altitudes up to 12000 m. The aviation media cast doubt on the production restart, speculating that the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict would prevent various necessary components that would have been sourced from Russia from being delivered; it may be possible that China could manufacture them instead. That project did not move forward but UkrOboronProm, the parent company of Antonov, had continued to seek partners to finish the second airframe.

On 25 March 2020, the first An-225 commenced a series of test flights from Hostomel Airport near Kyiv, after more than a year out of service, for the installation of a domestically designed power management and control system.

Design

The Antonov An-225 was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft that retained many similarities with the preceding An-124 airlifter that it was derived from. It had a longer fuselage and cargo deck due to the addition of fuselage barrel extensions that were fitted both fore and aft of the wings. The wings, which were anhedral, also received root extensions to increase their span. The flight control surfaces were controlled via fly-by-wire and powered by triple-redundant hydraulics. Furthermore, the empennage of the An-225 was a twin tail with an oversized, swept-back horizontal stabilizer, having been redesigned from the single vertical stabilizer of the An-124. The use of a twin tail arrangement was essential to enable the aircraft to carry its bulky external loads that would generate wake turbulence, disturbing the airflow around a conventional tail.

The An-225 was powered by a total of six Progress D-18T turbofan engines, two more than the An-124, the addition of which was facilitated by the redesigned wing root area. An increased-capacity landing gear system with 32 wheels was designed, some of which are steerable; these enable the airlifter to turn within a 60 m runway. Akin to its An-124 predecessor, the An-225 incorporated a nose gear designed to "kneel" so cargo can be more easily loaded and unloaded. Additional measures to ease loading and unloading activities included the four overhead cargo cranes that could move along the whole length of the cargo hold, each of which was capable of lifting up to 11,000 lb. To facilitate the attachment of external loads, such as the Buran orbiter, various mounting points were present along the upper surface of the fuselage.

Unlike the An-124, the An-225 was not intended for tactical airlifting and was not designed for short-field operations. Accordingly, the An-225 does not have a rear cargo door or ramp, as are present on the An-124, these features having been eliminated in order to save weight. The cargo hold was 1300 m3 in volume; 6.4 m wide, 4.4 m high, and 43.35 m long —longer than the first flight of the Wright Flyer. The cargo hold, which was pressurized and furnished with extensive soundproofing, could contain up to 80 standard-dimension cars, 16 intermodal containers, or up to 551,150 lb of general cargo.

The flight deck of the An-225 was at the front of the upper deck, which was accessed via a ladder from the lower deck. This flight deck was largely identical to that of the An-124, save for the presence of additional controls to manage the additional pair of engines. To the rear of the flight deck was an array of compartments which, amongst other things, accommodated the crew stations for the aircraft's two flight engineers, navigator, and communication specialist, along with off-duty rest areas, including beds, which facilitated long range missions to be flown. Even when fully loaded, the An-225 was capable of flying non-stop across great distances, such as between New York and Los Angeles.

As originally constructed, the An-225 had a maximum gross weight of 600 t, however, between 2000 and 2001, the aircraft received numerous modifications at a cost of US$20million, such as the addition of a reinforced floor, which increased the maximum gross weight to 640 t.  Both the earlier and later takeoff weights establish the An-225 as the world's heaviest aircraft, exceeding the weight of the double-deck Airbus A380 airliner. Airbus claims to have improved upon the An-225's maximum landing weight by landing an A380 at 591.7 t during testing.

Operational history

The Antonov An-225 Mriya was originally operated between 1988 and 1991 as the prime method of transporting Buran-class orbiters for the Soviet space program. Its first pilot was Oleksandr Halunenko, who continued flying it until 2004. "Antonov Airlines" was concurrently founded in 1989 after it was set up as a holding company by the Antonov Design Bureau as a heavy airlift shipping corporation. This company was to be based in Kyiv, Ukraine, and operate from London Luton Airport in partnership with Air Foyle HeavyLift. While operations began with a fleet of four An-124-100s and three Antonov An-12s, the need for aircraft larger than the An-124 became apparent by the late 1990s.

By this time, the Soviet Union was no longer in existence and the Buran program had been terminated; consequently, the sole completed An-225 was left unused and without a purpose. As early as 1990, Antonov officials were openly speaking on their ambitions for the aircraft to enter commercial use. Despite this, in 1994, it was decided to put the An-225 into long-term storage. During this time, all six of its engines were removed for use on various An-124s, while the second uncompleted An-225 airframe was also stored. As the 1990s progressed, it became clear that there was sufficient demand for a cargo liner even bigger than the An-124. Accordingly, it was decided that the first An-225 would be restored.

The aircraft was re-engined, received modifications to modernise and better adapt it to heavy cargo transport operations, and placed back in service under the management of Antonov Airlines. It became the workhorse of the Antonov Airlines fleet, transporting objects once thought impossible to move by air, such as 130-ton generators, wind turbine blades, and even diesel locomotives. It also became an asset to international relief organizations for its ability to quickly transport huge quantities of emergency supplies during multiple disaster-relief operations.

Under Antonov Airlines, the An-225 received its type certificate from the Interstate Aviation Committee Aviation Register (IAC AR) on 23 May 2001. The type's first flight in commercial service departed from Stuttgart, Germany, on 3 January 2002, and flew to Thumrait, Oman, with 216,000 prepared meals for American military personnel based in the region. This vast number of ready meals was transported on 375 pallets and weighed 187.5 tons. The An-225 was later contracted by the Canadian and U.S. governments to transport military supplies to the Middle East in support of coalition forces. An example of the cost of shipping cargo by An-225 was over dkk2 million (about €266,000) for flying a chimney duct from Billund, Denmark, to Kazakhstan in 2004.

During 2016, Antonov Airlines ceased cooperation with Air Foyle and partnered with Volga-Dnepr instead. This in turn led to the An-225's blue and yellow paint scheme, was added in 2009. These matched the colors of the Ukrainian flag and led to the An-225 becoming "Ukraine's winged ambassador to the world," in the words of The New York Times.

When the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the world in early 2020, the An-225 participated in the relief effort by conducting flights to deliver medical supplies from China to other parts of the world.

The aircraft was popular with aviation enthusiasts, who frequently visited airports to view its scheduled arrivals and departures.

Records
On 11 August 2009, the heaviest single cargo item ever sent by air was loaded onto the An-225. At 16.23 m long and 4.27 m wide, its consignment, a generator for a gas power plant in Armenia along with its loading frame, represented a payload of 189980 kg, It also transported a total payload of 247000 kg on a commercial flight.

On 11 September 2001, carrying five main battle tanks at a record load of 253.82 t of cargo, the An-225 flew at an altitude of up to 10750 m over a closed circuit of 1000 km at a speed of 763.2 km/h. During 2017, the hired cost was US$30000 (GB£23220) per hour.

On 11 June 2010, the An-225 carried the world's longest piece of air cargo, two 42.1 m test wind turbine blades from Tianjin, China, to Skrydstrup, Denmark.

On 27 September 2012, the An-225 hosted the highest altitude art exhibition in the world at 10150 m above sea level during the AviaSvit-XX1 Aerospace Show at Antonov Airport. The exhibition was part of the Globus Gallery based in Kyiv and consisted of 500 artworks by 120 Ukrainian artists.

In total, the An-225 has set 240 world records, which is unique in aviation.

Destruction

The aircraft's last commercial mission was from 2 to 5 February 2022, to collect almost 90 tons of COVID-19 test kits from Tianjin, China, and deliver them to Billund, Denmark, via Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. From there, it returned on 5 February to its base at Antonov Airport in Hostomel, where it underwent an engine swap. On the advice of NATO it was prepared for evacuation, scheduled for the morning of 24 February, but on that day Russia invaded, with the airfield being one of their first targets. A ban on civilian flights was quickly enacted by Ukrainian authorities. During the ensuing Battle of Antonov Airport, the runway was rendered unusable.

On 24 February, the An-225 was said to be intact. On 27 February, a photo was posted on Twitter of an object tentatively identified as the An-225 on fire in its hangar. A report by the Ukrainian edition of Radio Liberty stated that the airplane was destroyed during the Battle of Antonov Airport, which was repeated by Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and by Ukroboronprom, Antonov's parent organisation. The Antonov company initially refused to confirm or deny the reports, and said it was still investigating them.

Also on 27 February, a press release by Ukroboronprom stated that the An-225 had been destroyed by Russian forces. Several other aircraft were in the same hangar as the An-225 at the time of its destruction, and were also destroyed or damaged during the battle; these include a Hungarian-registered Cessna 152, which was crushed by the An-225's left wingtip after the latter fell on top of it.

Ukroboronprom said that they planned to rebuild the plane at the Russians' expense. The statement said: "The restoration is estimated to take over 3 billion USD and over five years. Our task is to ensure that these costs are covered by the Russian Federation, which has caused intentional damage to Ukraine's aviation and the air cargo sector." The Ukrainian government also said that it would be rebuilt.

Aftermath
On 1 March, a new photograph, taken since the initial conflict, was tentatively identified as the tail of the aircraft protruding from its hangar, suggesting that it remained at least partly intact, however, further evidence proved to show that the aircraft is inoperable due to the extreme damage it sustained. On 3 March, a video circulated on social media, showing the aircraft burning inside the hangar alongside several Russian trucks, confirming its likely destruction. Nonetheless, Antonov stated again that until the aircraft is inspected by experts, its official status could not be fully known. On 4 March, footage on Russian state television Channel One showed the first clear ground images of the destroyed aircraft, with much of the front section missing. Following Russia's withdrawal from northern Ukraine, the second unfinished aircraft airframe was reported to be intact, despite Russian artillery strikes on the hangar housing it at the Antonov factory at Sviatoshyn Airfield.

Major Dmytro Antonov, the pilot of the An-225, alleged on 19 March 2022 that Antonov Airlines knew that an invasion was imminent for quite some time, but did nothing to prevent the loss of the aircraft. On his YouTube channel, Antonov accused company management of not doing enough to prevent the destruction of the aircraft, after having been advised by NATO to move the aircraft (ready to fly status) to Leipzig, Germany, in advance. Multiple Antonov staff have denied his allegations.

On 1 April, drone footage of Hostomel Airport showed the destroyed Mriya, with the forward fuselage completely burned and destroyed, but with the wings partly intact. It was later revealed that the right wing had been broken, but was held up only by its engines resting on the ground.

Investigations into rebuilding the An-225 are being undertaken, including the possibilities of cannibalising the second, incomplete An-225, or salvaging the remnants of the first plane to finish the second. However, there are several obstacles to rebuilding. Many of the aircraft's Soviet-made components were from the 1980s and are no longer made. Engineers quote a price of US$350–500 million, although there is uncertainty regarding whether or not it would be commercially viable and worth the cost. However, Andrii Sovenko, a former An-225 pilot and aviation author, said: "It's impossible to talk about the repair or restoration of this aircraft -- we can only talk about the construction of another Mriya, using individual components that can be salvaged from the wreckage and combining them with those that were, back in the 1980s, intended for the construction of a second aircraft."

On 20 May 2022, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced his intentions to complete the second An-225, to replace the destroyed aircraft and as a tribute to all the Ukrainian pilots killed during the war. In November 2022, Antonov confirmed plans to rebuild the aircraft at an estimated cost of $500 million. At the time, the company did not state whether parts from the wrecked aircraft and the incomplete airframe would be combined to create a new flying aircraft or where funding might come from. Four months later, Antonov confirmed that parts had been removed from the wrecked aircraft for future mating to the unfinished fuselage.

In March 2023, the Ukrainian government announced that it detained two of three Antonov officials suspected of preventing the Ukrainian National Guard from setting up defenses at Hostomel Airport in anticipation of an invasion.

In April 2023, Ukrainian prosecutors charged the former head of Antonov, Serhii Bychkov, with "official negligence" for failing to order the aircraft flown to Leipzig, Germany, ahead of the Russian invasion. The Ukraine Security Service (SBU) who investigated the case stated, "according to the investigation, on the eve of the full-scale invasion, the An-225 was in proper technical condition, which allowed it to fly outside Ukraine. Instead, the general director of the company did not give appropriate instruction regarding the evacuation of Mriya abroad. Such criminal actions of the official led to the destruction of the Ukrainian transport plane."

Former operators

 * Antonov Airlines for Soviet Buran program, the company (and aircraft) passed to Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
 * Antonov Airlines for commercial operations from 3 January 2002, until 24 February 2022, the sole aircraft was destroyed during the Battle of Antonov Airport.
 * Antonov Airlines for commercial operations from 3 January 2002, until 24 February 2022, the sole aircraft was destroyed during the Battle of Antonov Airport.
 * Antonov Airlines for commercial operations from 3 January 2002, until 24 February 2022, the sole aircraft was destroyed during the Battle of Antonov Airport.

Variants

 * An-224
 * Original proposal with a rear cargo door. Not built.

 * An-225
 * Variant without the rear cargo door. One built, second aircraft incomplete.

 * An-225-100
 * Designation applied to the An-225 after its 2000 modernization. Upgrades included a traffic collision avoidance system, improved communications and navigation equipment, and noise reduction features.

 * An-325

 * Proposed enlarged, eight-engined aircraft, specifically designed to launch spacecraft of various purposes into orbit. Initially designed for the MAKS program, the An-325 eventually evolved to a joint cooperation between British Aerospace and the Soviet Ministry of Aviation Industry as a part of the Interim HOTOL program. It remains unbuilt.

 * AKS
 * Intended to carry the Tupolev OOS air-launch-to-orbit spaceplane; a twin-fuselage design consisting of two An-225 fuselages, with the OOS to be carried under the raised center wing. Multiple engine configurations were proposed, ranging from 18 Progress D-18T turbofans to as many as 40 engines, with placements both above and below the wings. An alternative design for the AKS was to use entirely new fuselages, each with a single tail. The AKS was deemed unfeasible, and no prototypes were ever built.

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

title: Antonov An-225 Mriya


text:
User talk:Cypherx

Vfd?
Please read WP:GVFD, the guide to VfD. In general, if there's a 2/3 majority for deletion, the article is deleted (and also in a few other cases, such as copyright violation). If not, the article is kept in some form, which may or may not include merging, renaming and moving. The latter three do not require a formal vote, so if you want something merged, redirected etc, it doesn't go on VFD. Radiant_ >|< 10:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

An appology
I think I buggered up my edit of the zionist terrorism vfd page so that my vote was before your sig not after. My fault and I appologise - mistake not malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.14 (talk • contribs)

Pandamonium (disease)
Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and NPOV. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! -- Vary | Talk 04:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Zabara listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zabara. Since you had some involvement with the Zabara redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Tigerboy1966  19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cypherx


text:
Leo I, Prince of Armenia

Leo I (Լևոն Ա), also Levon I or Leon I, (unknown – Constantinople, February 14, 1140) was the fifth lord of Armenian Cilicia (1129 /1130 -1137 ).

He learned to exploit the open, yet restrained, hostilities between the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader principalities of Edessa and Antioch. Most of his successes benefited from Byzantium’s pre-occupation with the threats of Zengi (the atabeg of Mosul) from Aleppo and the lack of effective Frankish rule, especially in the Principality of Antioch.

He expanded his rule over the Cilician plains and even to the Mediterranean shores. In his time, relations between the Armenians and the Franks (the Crusaders), two former allies, were not always as courteous as before: a major cause of dissension between them was the ownership of the strongholds of the southern Amanus, and on the neighboring coasts of the Gulf of Alexandretta.

Leo was captured after being invited to a meeting by the Byzantine Emperor John II Comnenus, who had sworn a false promise of peace. Leo and two of his sons were taken captive and imprisoned in Constantinople where Leo died shortly after.

His early life
Leo was the younger son of Constantine I, lord of Armenian Cilicia. It is likely that his mother was the great-granddaughter of Bardas Phokas.

When Constantine I died, Leo’s brother Thoros I succeeded him; Leo may have ruled in the eastern part of “the Mountains” during the lifetime of his brother (although the basis of this proposition is not known). Sometime between 1100 and 1103, Count Baldwin II of Edessa gave his sister in marriage to Leo; but the name and origin of his wife are not known with certainty. It is also possible that his wife was Baldwin II’s sister-in-law, a daughter of the Armenian Gabriel of Melitene.

In 1111, Sultan Malik Shah of Iconium entered Armenian territories, and two of the commanders of Leo’s brother were killed in battle. Saddened by this loss, Leo was so enraged that he launched a savage attack against the Turks and drove them into retreat. In 1118, Leo assigned by his brother brought a contingent to help Prince Roger of Antioch at the siege of Azaz (today A'zāz in Syria).

"/Leo/ invited many famous warriors to join him, and allured them by great rewards. Forward in battle, he prepared himself, and often fought against the foreigners or infidels, took their forts and put all the inhabitants to the sword. He was the admiration of warriors, and the fear of foreigners or infidels, so that they called him the new Ashtahag."

- Vahram of Edessa: The Rhymed Chronicle of Armenia Minor

His rule
Thoros I died in 1129 (or in 1130), and his son Constantine II died a few months later, in the course of a palace intrigue. Other authors (e.g., Jacob G. Ghazarian, Vahan M. Kurkjian) suggest that Thoros I died without a male heir and was directly succeeded by Leo.

Conflicts with the Franks
In February 1130, Bohemond II, Prince of Antioch, whose ambition was to restore his principality, thought that the moment had come to recover Anazarbus (a former Antiochene town which had fallen into the possession of Thoros I). He marched with a small force up the river Jihan towards his objective. Leo was alarmed and appealed for help to the Danishmend emir, Ghazi. As Bohemond II progressed carelessly up the river, meeting only light resistance from the Armenians, the Danishmend Turks fell on him and massacred the whole of his army. However, it was due to Byzantine intervention that the Turks did not follow up their victory; and Anazarbus remained in Armenian hands – Michael the Syrian says that John II Comnenus at once started an offensive against the Turks.

Soon after Bohemond II’ death, Leo protected in his rear by an alliance with the Danishmend emir, descended into the plain; after a brief unsuccessful siege of Seleucia, he seized the three cities of Mamistra, Tarsus and Adana in 1131. In 1133, Leo captured Sarventikar, on the slopes of the Amanus Mountains, from Baldwin of Marash. But the Armenian hold over Cilicia was weak: bandits found refuge there, and pirates hung about its coasts.

In 1136, the new prince of Antioch, Raymond I decided that his first action must be to recover Cilicia. With the approval of King Fulk of Jerusalem he marched with Baldwin of Marash against Leo. But Leo, with the help of Count Joscelin II of Edessa (who was his nephew), drove back the Antiochene army. Triumphant, Leo agreed to have a personal interview with Baldwin of Marash, who treacherously made him prisoner and sent him off to captivity in Antioch.

In Leo’s absence his three sons quarreled: the eldest, Constantine, was eventually captured and blinded by his brothers. Meanwhile, the Danishmend emir, Mohammed II ibn Ghazi, invaded Cilicia, destroyed the harvest. Shaken by these disasters, Leo bought his freedom by offering to give up the Cilician cities (Sarventikar, Mamistra and Adana) to Raymond I; in addition he paid 60,000 gold pieces and gave his son as a hostage; but on his return home he forgot his promise. A desultory war broke out again, till, early in 1137, Joscelin II patched up a truce between the combatants. An alliance was then formed against the Emperor John II Comnenus, who was then pressing his claims against Antioch as well as Cilicia.

The (re-)occupation of Cilicia by the Byzantines
In the spring of 1137, the imperial army, with the Emperor and his sons at its head, assembled at Attalia (today Antalya in Turkey) and advanced eastward into Cilicia. Leo moved up in an attempt to check its progress by taking the Byzantine frontier fortress of Seleucia, but was forced to retire. The Emperor swept on, past Mersin, Tarsus, Adana and Mamistra, which all yielded to him at once.

Leo relied on the great fortifications of Anazarbus to hold him up. Its garrison resisted for 37 days, but the siege engines of the Byzantines battered down its walls, and the city was forced to surrender. Leo retreated into the high Taurus Mountains, while the emperor led his forces southward into the plain of Antioch.

After the emperor had asserted his authority over the Principality of Antioch, he returned to Cilicia to finish off its conquest. The family castle of Vahka (today Feke in Turkey) held out for some weeks. Eventually, John invited Leo to a meeting under a false promise of peace, where the prince was captured. Leo and two of his sons, Roupen and Thoros, were subsequently taken prisoner.

His last years in exile
Leo and his two sons were sent to prison in Constantinople. They were soon allowed to live in the court under surveillance and John acted more honorably towards Leo, with the two dining and going on hunting parties together. Leo's son Roupen was later murdered by Byzantine grandees that were envious of his strength.

Leo died in Constantinople.

Marriage and children
The name and the origin of his wife are not known with certainty. Orderic Vitalis states that Leo was "uncle to the wife of Bohemond II of Antioch". On this basis, some authors have proposed that his wife was either an unnamed daughter of Count Hugh I of Rethel, or she may have been an unnamed daughter of Gabriel of Melitene.
 * (?) unnamed daughter, who was the wife of a “Frankish knight from Antioch”, and mother of the Regent Thomas
 * unnamed daughter, the wife of Vasil Dgha
 * (?) Constantine (? – Edessa, 1138/1144)
 * Thoros II of Cilicia (? – February 6, 1169)
 * Stephen (before 1110 – February 7, 1165)
 * Mleh I of Cilicia (before 1120 – Sis, May 15, 1175)
 * Roupen (after 1120 – Constantinople, 1141)

(Leo’s second marriage proposed by Rüdt-Collenberg is speculative.)

title: Leo I, Prince of Armenia


text:
Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo

The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo (Asociación Civil Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo) is a human rights organization with the goal of finding the children stolen and illegally adopted during the 1976–1983 Argentine military dictatorship. The president is Estela Barnes de Carlotto.

The organization was founded in 1977 to locate children kidnapped during the repression, some of them born to mothers in prison who were later "disappeared", and to return the children to their surviving biological families. Around 30,000 people between the ages of 16 and 35 are believed to have disappeared; around 30% were women, and of those women, around 3% were pregnant. The work of the Grandmothers, assisted by United States geneticist Mary-Claire King, has led to the location of about 25 percent of the estimated 500 children kidnapped or born in detention centers. During the military era they were illegally adopted, with their original identities hidden.

By 1998 the identities of about 71 missing children had been documented. Of those, 56 were located alive and 7 others had died. The Grandmothers' work led to the creation of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team and the establishment of the National Bank of Genetic Data. Aided by breakthroughs in genetic testing, the Grandmothers succeeded in returning 31 children to their biological families. In 13 other cases, adoptive and biological families agreed to jointly raise the children after they had been identified. The remaining cases are bogged down in court custody battles between families. As of December 2022, their efforts have resulted in finding 131 grandchildren.

The kidnapped babies were part of a systematic government plan during the "Dirty War" to pass the children for adoption by military families and allies of the regime and thereby avoid raising another generation of subversives. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the junta feared that "the anguish generated in the rest of the surviving family because of the absence of the disappeared would develop, after a few years, into a new generation of subversive or potentially subversive elements, thereby not permitting an effective end to the Dirty War".

As an offshoot of the Silvia Quintela case, former dictator Jorge Videla was detained under house-arrest in 2010 on multiple charges of kidnapping children. In July 2012 he was convicted and sentenced to fifty years in prison for the systematic stealing of babies.

On 14 September 2011 the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo received the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize in Paris for their work in defense of Human Rights.

The Dirty War and methodology
The war began in 1976 under the government of Lieutenant General Jorge Rafaél Videla. It was a period of state-sponsored violent purges directed towards everyone deemed to be a leftist supporter. Part of Videla's campaign aimed to deter the possibility of a new generation growing up subversive. Although men and women were abducted, children were of higher value and importance in shaping the future of Argentina. There was a waiting list of military families who wanted to adopt the trafficked children. These families specified ideal physical characteristics such as sex, hair and eye color. The children who were not chosen by new families were placed in orphanages and adopted later in their lives. It was not until almost a decade later that general elections resumed and democracy was restored to the country with the election of democrat and leader of the Radical Civic Union Raúl Alfonsín.

The Dirty War is considered an infamous period of time in Latin America for the disappearance of almost 30,000 people. No one demographic of people were abducted. Any person suspected as a threat to the dictatorship would be taken; this includes men and women, young and old, pregnant women, students, middle class workers, lawyers, scientists etc. The military tactics such as Operation Condor and a "night and fog" regime allowed the Argentine government along with other countries surrounding it to deny its actions. While hundreds of people were taken and placed into detention centers that were widely scattered across South America, the government could say that it had never heard of such allegations. With these tactics, the government was able to carry out mass executions. Victims were also thrown from airplanes into the sea, died in captivity or were killed by other torture methods.

The legacy of the war
Following the military dictatorship, psychologists and other mental health workers have determined that the damages of the war have had long-term effects on three generations of Argentines: the first category being the parents of those who had disappeared under Operation Condor, the second being the children of those who disappeared, and the last of course being the disappeared themselves. Each generation suffering from some sort of long-term psychological harm due to living through a time that legitimized crime. Studies have also noticed that there is conflict in human rights to privacy.

The purpose of the grandmothers forming their organization was to find those who went missing during the war as well as provide rehabilitation to those they are able to identify, a cause that is still being fulfilled. However, even today there is a conflict with that aim because on one hand, the grandmothers deserve to know what happened to their loved ones. On the other hand, the children sometimes refuse identification methods such as DNA testing and refuse to reunite with their biological family. The refusal has both been voluntary and involuntary; voluntary if the children truly do not want to reunite with their biological family, involuntary if the children have been threatened or intimidated out of reuniting, most likely by the government or other military personnel who had adopted the children at the time of the kidnappings. Many of the children who were abducted decline the option to meet their biological family because they believe that they are not their true relatives due to the fact that the children were deprived of being raised by their biological parents. Meeting with relatives such as the grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo may open up dark memories that the children cannot handle. Whatever the circumstance of the child, the organization still believes in providing the abducted the opportunity to learn more about themselves and their family history no matter how tragic it is, which is why the grandmothers have continued their movement, periodically protesting to gain more followers. They make sure to continue to protest at the plaza to remind the people of Argentina that their work is not finished.

Formation
The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo was founded in 1977 to protect children's rights as a response to state sponsored terrorism. Initially they were known as Argentine Grandmothers with Disappeared Little Grandchildren (Abuelas Argentinas con Nietitos Desaparecidos), but later adopted the name The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo (Las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo). In 1983 the constitutional government was re-established and the grandmothers searched for missing children using anonymous tips and conducted their own investigations, but were unable to prove the children's identities. Geneticists from the United States worked with the Grandmothers and were able to store blood samples from family members in the National Genetic Data Bank until the grandchildren could be located and could confirm the relatedness with an accuracy rate of 99.99%. The Grandmothers fought through the court systems to annul the unlawful adoptions. By the mid 1990s legal battles of custody were no longer appropriate because the missing grandchildren were now legal adults. The grandmothers adapted their strategy and started public awareness campaigns to direct the missing grandchildren to contact the organization. As of 2008, their efforts had resulted in finding 97 grandchildren.

Work with Identity Archive
In 2000, the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo partnered with the Identity Archive to provide collections of photos, films, audiotapes, diaries, significant objects, and personal stories from families whose children and grandchildren had disappeared. This was done because some of the grandparents were aging and dying without finding their grandchildren and the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo wanted to provide these accounts if children were found in the future.

Public awareness campaigns
In the mid to late 1990s, the missing grandchildren that the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo sought became legal adults. The Grandmothers then turned to public awareness campaigns to achieve their goals. The difference between Argentina's case and other child trafficking cases is that the disappeared children likely did not know that they were adopted. The organization turned to a commercial campaign and joined with actors to appeal to younger audiences. Their goal was to use popular culture to create doubt within the minds of a group of people who would have never questioned their family.

Besides the public protests at the time of the trafficking, the grandmothers have continued to put their efforts into locating more people to this day. Today, the women are known for providing other services such as legal counseling, assistance in investigations, as well as certain forms of psychological support for other women and their families. With these resources, families are able to receive comfort and rehabilitation. The women of the organization also provide training and seminars to teach new volunteers how to assist in rehabilitation services as well as learn more on human rights work.

Notable members

 * Alicia Zubasnabar de De la Cuadra – first President of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo
 * Estela de Carlotto – Current President of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo
 * Rosa Tarlovsky de Roisinblit
 * Nélida Gómez de Navajas
 * María Isabel Chorobik de Mariani

Originally 13 grandmothers gathered to form the organization,  including Mirta Acuña de Baravalle.

title: Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo


text:
Environmental remediation

Environmental remediation is the cleanup of hazardous substances dealing with the removal, treatment and containment of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment. Remediation may be required by regulations before development of land revitalization projects. Developers who agree to voluntary cleanup may be offered incentives under state or municipal programs like New York State's Brownfield Cleanup Program. If remediation is done by removal the waste materials are simply transported off-site for disposal at another location. The waste material can also be contained by physical barriers like slurry walls. The use of slurry walls is well-established in the construction industry. The application of (low) pressure grouting, used to mitigate soil liquefaction risks in San Francisco and other earthquake zones, has achieved mixed results in field tests to create barriers, and site-specific results depend upon many variable conditions that can greatly impact outcomes.

Remedial action is generally subject to an array of regulatory requirements, and may also be based on assessments of human health and ecological risks where no legislative standards exist, or where standards are advisory.

Remediation standards
In the United States, the most comprehensive set of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) is from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). A set of standards used in Europe exists and is often called the Dutch standards. The European Union (EU) is rapidly moving towards Europe-wide standards, although most of the industrialised nations in Europe have their own standards at present. In Canada, most standards for remediation are set by the provinces individually, but the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment provides guidance at a federal level in the form of the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines and the Canada-Wide Standards|Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil.

Site assessment
Once a site is suspected of being contaminated there is a need to assess the contamination. Often the assessment begins with preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The historical use of the site and the materials used and produced on site will guide the assessment strategy and type of sampling and chemical analysis to be done. Often nearby sites owned by the same company or which are nearby and have been reclaimed, levelled or filled are also contaminated even where the current land use seems innocuous. For example, a car park may have been levelled by using contaminated waste in the fill. Also important is to consider off site contamination of nearby sites often through decades of emissions to soil, groundwater, and air. Ceiling dust, topsoil, surface and groundwater of nearby properties should also be tested, both before and after any remediation. This is a controversial step as:
 * 1) No one wants to have to pay for the cleanup of the site;
 * 2) If nearby properties are found to be contaminated it may have to be noted on their property title, potentially affecting the value;
 * 3) No one wants to pay for the cost of assessment.

Often corporations which do voluntary testing of their sites are protected from the reports to environmental agencies becoming public under Freedom of Information Acts, however a "Freedom of Information" inquiry will often produce other documents that are not protected or will produce references to the reports.

Funding remediation
In the US there has been a mechanism for taxing polluting industries to form a Superfund to remediate abandoned sites, or to litigate to force corporations to remediate their contaminated sites. Other countries have other mechanisms and commonly sites are rezoned to "higher" uses such as high density housing, to give the land a higher value so that after deducting cleanup costs there is still an incentive for a developer to purchase the land, clean it up, redevelop it and sell it on, often as apartments (home units).

Mapping remediation
There are several tools for mapping these sites and which allow the user to view additional information. One such tool is TOXMAP, a Geographic Information System (GIS) from the Division of Specialized Information Services of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) that uses maps of the United States to help users visually explore data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund and Toxics Release Inventory programs.

Technologies
Remediation technologies are many and varied but can generally be categorized into ex-situ and in-situ methods. Ex-situ methods involve excavation of affected soils and subsequent treatment at the surface as well as extraction of contaminated groundwater and treatment at the surface. In-situ methods seek to treat the contamination without removing the soils or groundwater. Various technologies have been developed for remediation of oil-contaminated soil/sediments.

Traditional remediation approaches consist of soil excavation and disposal to landfill and groundwater "pump and treat". In-situ technologies include but are not limited to: solidification and stabilization, soil vapor extraction, permeable reactive barriers, monitored natural attenuation, bioremediation-phytoremediation, chemical oxidation, steam-enhanced extraction and in situ thermal desorption and have been used extensively in the USA.

Barriers
Contaminants can be removed from a site or controlled. One option for control are barrier walls, which can be temporary to prevent contamination during treatment and removal, or more permanent. Techniques to construct barrier walls are deep soil mixing, jet grouting, low pressure grouting with cement and chemicals, freezing and slurry walls. Barrier walls must be constructed of impermeable materials and resistant to deterioration from contact with waste, for the lifespan of the barrier wall. It wasn't until the use of newer polymer and chemical grouts in the 1950s and 1960s that Federal agencies of the US government recognized the need to establish a minimum project life of 50 years in real world applications.

The Department of Energy is one US government agency that sponsors research to formulate, test and determine use applications for innovative polymer grouts used in waste containment barriers. Portland cement was used in the past, however cracking and poor performance under wet-dry conditions at arid sites need improved materials to remedy. Sites that need remediation have variable humidity, moisture and soil conditions. Field implementation remains challenging: different environmental and site conditions require different materials and the placement technologies are specific to the characteristics of the compounds used which vary in viscosity, gel time and density:

"'The selection of subsurface barriers for any given site which needs remediation, and the selection of a particular barrier technology must be done, however, by means of the Superfund Process, with special emphasis on the remedial investigation and feasibility study portions. The chemical compatibility of the material with the wastes, leachates and geology with which it is likely to come in contact is of particular importance for barriers constructed from fluids which are supposed to set in-situ. EPA emphasizes this compatibility in its guidance documents, noting that thorough characterization of the waste, leachate, barrier material chemistry, site geochemistry, and compatibility testing of the barrier material with the likely disposal site chemical environment are all required.'"

These guidelines are for all materials - experimental and traditional.

Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption is a technology for soil remediation. During the process a desorber volatilizes the contaminants (e.g. oil, mercury or hydrocarbon) to separate them from especially soil or sludge. After that the contaminants can either be collected or destroyed in an offgas treatment system.

Excavation or dredging
Excavation processes can be as simple as hauling the contaminated soil to a regulated landfill, but can also involve aerating the excavated material in the case of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Recent advancements in bioaugmentation and biostimulation of the excavated material have also proven to be able to remediate semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) onsite. If the contamination affects a river or bay bottom, then dredging of bay mud or other silty clays containing contaminants (including sewage sludge with harmful microorganisms) may be conducted. Recently, ExSitu Chemical oxidation has also been utilized in the remediation of contaminated soil. This process involves the excavation of the contaminated area into large bermed areas where they are treated using chemical oxidation methods.

Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR)
This is used in removing non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) from aquifer. This is done by pumping surfactant solution into contaminated aquifer using injection wells which are passed through contaminated zones to the extraction wells. The Surfactant solution containing contaminants is then captured and pumped out by extraction wells for further treatment at the surface. Then the water after treatment is discharged into surface water or re-injected into groundwater.

In geologic formations that allow delivery of hydrocarbon mitigation agents or specialty surfactants, this approach provides a cost-effective and permanent solution to sites that have been previously unsuccessful utilizing other remedial approaches. This technology is also successful when utilized as the initial step in a multi-faceted remedial approach utilizing SEAR then In situ Oxidation, bioremediation enhancement or soil vapor extraction (SVE).

Pump and treat
Pump and treat involves pumping out contaminated groundwater with the use of a submersible or vacuum pump, and allowing the extracted groundwater to be purified by slowly proceeding through a series of vessels that contain materials designed to adsorb the contaminants from the groundwater. For petroleum-contaminated sites this material is usually activated carbon in granular form. Chemical reagents such as flocculants followed by sand filters may also be used to decrease the contamination of groundwater. Air stripping is a method that can be effective for volatile pollutants such as BTEX compounds found in gasoline.

For most biodegradable materials like BTEX, MTBE and most hydrocarbons, bioreactors can be used to clean the contaminated water to non-detectable levels. With fluidized bed bioreactors it is possible to achieve very low discharge concentrations which will meet or exceed discharge requirements for most pollutants.

Depending on geology and soil type, pump and treat may be a good method to quickly reduce high concentrations of pollutants. It is more difficult to reach sufficiently low concentrations to satisfy remediation standards, due to the equilibrium of absorption/desorption processes in the soil. However, pump and treat is typically not the best form of remediation. It is expensive to treat the groundwater, and typically is a very slow process to clean up a release with pump and treat. It is best suited to control the hydraulic gradient and keep a release from spreading further. Better options of in-situ treatment often include air sparge/soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) or dual phase extraction/multiphase extraction (DPE/MPE). Other methods include trying to increase the dissolved oxygen content of the groundwater to support microbial degradation of the compound (especially petroleum) by direct injection of oxygen into the subsurface, or the direct injection of a slurry that slowly releases oxygen over time (typically magnesium peroxide or calcium oxy-hydroxide).

Solidification and stabilization
Solidification and stabilization work has a reasonably good track record but also a set of serious deficiencies related to durability of solutions and potential long-term effects. In addition CO2 emissions due to the use of cement are also becoming a major obstacle to its widespread use in solidification/stabilization projects.

Stabilization/solidification (S/S) is a remediation and treatment technology that relies on the reaction between a binder and soil to stop/prevent or reduce the mobility of contaminants.
 * Stabilization involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material (e.g. soil or sludge) to produce more chemically stable constituents; and
 * Solidification involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material to impart physical/dimensional stability to contain contaminants in a solid product and reduce access by external agents (e.g. air, rainfall).

Conventional S/S is an established remediation technology for contaminated soils and treatment technology for hazardous wastes in many countries in the world. However, the uptake of S/S technologies has been relatively modest, and a number of barriers have been identified including:
 * the relatively low cost and widespread use of disposal to landfill;
 * the lack of authoritative technical guidance on S/S;
 * uncertainty over the durability and rate of contaminant release from S/S-treated material;
 * experiences of past poor practice in the application of cement stabilization processes used in waste disposal in the 1980s and 1990s (ENDS, 1992); and
 * residual liability associated with immobilized contaminants remaining on-site, rather than their removal or destruction.

In situ oxidation
New in situ oxidation technologies have become popular for remediation of a wide range of soil and groundwater contaminants. Remediation by chemical oxidation involves the injection of strong oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, ozone gas, potassium permanganate or persulfates.

Oxygen gas or ambient air can also be injected to promote growth of aerobic bacteria which accelerate natural attenuation of organic contaminants. One disadvantage of this approach is the possibility of decreasing anaerobic contaminant destruction natural attenuation where existing conditions enhance anaerobic bacteria which normally live in the soil prefer a reducing environment. In general, aerobic activity is much faster than anaerobic and overall destruction rates are typically greater when aerobic activity can be successfully promoted.

The injection of gases into the groundwater may also cause contamination to spread faster than normal depending on the hydrogeology of the site. In these cases, injections downgradient of groundwater flow may provide adequate microbial destruction of contaminants prior to exposure to surface waters or drinking water supply wells.

Migration of metal contaminants must also be considered whenever modifying subsurface oxidation-reduction potential. Certain metals are more soluble in oxidizing environments while others are more mobile in reducing environments.

Soil vapor extraction
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an effective remediation technology for soil. "Multi Phase Extraction" (MPE) is also an effective remediation technology when soil and groundwater are to be remediated coincidentally. SVE and MPE utilize different technologies to treat the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated after vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface and include granular activated carbon (most commonly used historically), thermal and/or catalytic oxidation and vapor condensation. Generally, carbon is used for low (below 500 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams, oxidation is used for moderate (up to 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration streams, and vapor condensation is used for high (over 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams. Below is a brief summary of each technology.

 * 1) Granular activated carbon (GAC) is used as a filter for air or water. Commonly used to filter tap water in household sinks. GAC is a highly porous adsorbent material, produced by heating organic matter, such as coal, wood and coconut shell, in the absence of air, which is then crushed into granules. Activated carbon is positively charged and therefore able to remove negative ions from the water such as organic ions, ozone, chlorine, fluorides and dissolved organic solutes by adsorption onto the activated carbon. The activated carbon must be replaced periodically as it may become saturated and unable to adsorb (i.e. reduced absorption efficiency with loading). Activated carbon is not effective in removing heavy metals.
 * 2) Thermal oxidation (or incineration) can also be an effective remediation technology. This approach is somewhat controversial because of the risks of dioxins released in the atmosphere through the exhaust gases or effluent off-gas. Controlled, high temperature incineration with filtering of exhaust gases however should not pose any risks. Two different technologies can be employed to oxidize the contaminants of an extracted vapor stream. The selection of either thermal or catalytic depends on the type and concentration in parts per million by volume of constituent in the vapor stream. Thermal oxidation is more useful for higher concentration (~4,000 ppmV) influent vapor streams (which require less natural gas usage) than catalytic oxidation at ~2,000 ppmV.
 * Thermal oxidation which uses a system that acts as a furnace and maintains temperatures ranging from 1350 to 1500 F.
 * Catalytic oxidation which uses a catalyst on a support to facilitate a lower temperature oxidation. This system usually maintains temperatures ranging from 600 to 800 F.
 * 1) Vapor condensation is the most effective off-gas treatment technology for high (over 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams. The process involves cryogenically cooling the vapor stream to below 40 degrees C such that the VOCs condensate out of the vapor stream and into liquid form where it is collected in steel containers. The liquid form of the VOCs is referred to as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) when the source of the liquid consists predominantly of solvents or light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) when the source of the liquid consists predominantly of petroleum or fuel products. This recovered chemical can then be reused or recycled in a more environmentally sustainable or green manner than the alternatives described above. This technology is also known as cryogenic cooling and compression (C3-Technology).

Nanoremediation
Using nano-sized reactive agents to degrade or immobilize contaminants is termed nanoremediation. In soil or groundwater nanoremediation, nanoparticles are brought into contact with the contaminant through either in situ injection or a pump-and-treat process. The nanomaterials then degrade organic contaminants through redox reactions or adsorb to and immobilize metals such as lead or arsenic. In commercial settings, this technology has been dominantly applied to groundwater remediation, with research into wastewater treatment. Research is also investigating how nanoparticles may be applied to cleanup of soil and gases.

Nanomaterials are highly reactive because of their high surface area per unit mass, and due to this reactivity nanomaterials may react with target contaminants at a faster rate than would larger particles. Most field applications of nanoremediation have used nano zero-valent iron (nZVI), which may be emulsified or mixed with another metal to enhance dispersion.

That nanoparticles are highly reactive can mean that they rapidly clump together or react with soil particles or other material in the environment, limiting their dispersal to target contaminants. Some of the important challenges currently limiting nanoremediation technologies include identifying coatings or other formulations that increase dispersal of the nanoparticle agents to better reach target contaminants while limiting any potential toxicity to bioremediation agents, wildlife, or people.

Bioremediation
Bioremediation is a process that treats a polluted area either by altering environmental conditions to stimulate growth of microorganisms or through natural microorganism activity, resulting in the degradation of the target pollutants. Broad categories of bioremediation include biostimulation, bioaugmentation, and natural recovery (natural attenuation). Bioremediation is either done on the contaminated site (in situ) or after the removal of contaminated soils at another more controlled site (ex situ).

In the past, it has been difficult to turn to bioremediation as an implemented policy solution, as lack of adequate production of remediating microbes led to little options for implementation. Those that manufacture microbes for bioremediation must be approved by the EPA; however, the EPA traditionally has been more cautious about negative externalities that may or may not arise from the introduction of these species. One of their concerns is that the toxic chemicals would lead to the microbe's gene degradation, which would then be passed on to other harmful bacteria, creating more issues, if the pathogens evolve the ability to feed off of pollutants.

Entomoremediation
Entomoremediation is a variant of bioremediation in which insects decontaminate soils. Entomoremediation techniques engage microorganisms, collembolans, ants, flies, beetles, and termites. It is dependent on saprophytic insect larvae, resistant to adverse environmental conditions and able to bioaccumulate toxic heavy metal contaminants.

Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly - BSF) is an important entomoremediation participant. H. illucens has been observed to reduce polluted substrate dry weight by 49%. H. illucens larvae have been observed to accumulate cadmium at a concentration of 93% and bioaccumulation factor of 5.6, lead, mercury, zinc with a bioaccumulation factor of 3.6, and arsenic at a concentration of 22%. Black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) have also been used to monitor the degradation and reduction of anthropogenic oil contamination in the environment.

Entomoremediation is considered viable as an accessible low-energy, low-carbon, and highly renewable method for environmental decontamination.

Collapsing air microbubbles
Cleaning of oil contaminated sediments with self collapsing air microbubbles have been recently explored as a chemical free technology. Air microbubbles generated in water without adding any surfactant could be used to clean oil contaminated sediments. This technology holds promise over the use of chemicals (mainly surfactant) for traditional washing of oil contaminated sediments.

Community consultation and information
In preparation for any significant remediation there should be extensive community consultation. The proponent should both present information to and seek information from the community. The proponent needs to learn about "sensitive" (future) uses like childcare, schools, hospitals, and playgrounds as well as community concerns and interests information. Consultation should be open, on a group basis so that each member of the community is informed about issues they may not have individually thought about. An independent chairperson acceptable to both the proponent and the community should be engaged (at proponent expense if a fee is required). Minutes of meetings including questions asked and the answers to them and copies of presentations by the proponent should be available both on the internet and at a local library (even a school library) or community centre.

Incremental health risk
Incremental health risk is the increased risk that a receptor (normally a human being living nearby) will face from (the lack of) a remediation project. The use of incremental health risk is based on carcinogenic and other (e.g., mutagenic, teratogenic) effects and often involves value judgements about the acceptable projected rate of increase in cancer. In some jurisdictions this is 1 in 1,000,000 but in other jurisdictions the acceptable projected rate of increase is 1 in 100,000. A relatively small incremental health risk from a single project is not of much comfort if the area already has a relatively high health risk from other operations like incinerators or other emissions, or if other projects exist at the same time causing a greater cumulative risk or an unacceptably high total risk. An analogy often used by remediators is to compare the risk of the remediation on nearby residents to the risks of death through car accidents or tobacco smoking.

Emissions standards
Standards are set for the levels of dust, noise, odour, emissions to air and groundwater, and discharge to sewers or waterways of all chemicals of concern or chemicals likely to be produced during the remediation by processing of the contaminants. These are compared against both natural background levels in the area and standards for areas zoned as nearby areas are zoned and against standards used in other recent remediations. Just because the emission is emanating from an area zoned industrial does not mean that in a nearby residential area there should be permitted any exceedances of the appropriate residential standards.

Monitoring for compliance against each standards is critical to ensure that exceedances are detected and reported both to authorities and the local community.

Enforcement is necessary to ensure that continued or significant breaches result in fines or even a jail sentence for the polluter.

Penalties must be significant as otherwise fines are treated as a normal expense of doing business. Compliance must be cheaper than to have continuous breaches.

Transport and emergency safety assessment
Assessment should be made of the risks of operations, transporting contaminated material, disposal of waste which may be contaminated including workers' clothes, and a formal emergency response plan should be developed. Every worker and visitor entering the site should have a safety induction personalised to their involvement with the site.

Impacts of funding remediation
The rezoning is often resisted by local communities and local government because of the adverse effects on the local amenity of the remediation and the new development. The main impacts during remediation are noise, dust, odour and incremental health risk. Then there is the noise, dust and traffic of developments. Then there is the impact on local traffic, schools, playing fields, and other public facilities of the often vastly increased local population.

Homebush Bay, New South Wales, Australia
Dioxins from Union Carbide used in the production of now-banned pesticide 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and defoliant Agent Orange polluted Homebush Bay. Remediation was completed in 2010, but fishing will continue to be banned for decades.

Bakar, Croatia
An EU contract for immobilization of a polluted area of 20,000 m3 in Bakar, Croatia based on solidification/stabilization with ImmoCem is currently in progress. After three years of intensive research by the Croatian government, the EU funded the immobilization project in Bakar. The area is contaminated with large amounts of TPH, PAH, and metals. For the immobilization, the contractor chose to use the mix-in-plant procedure.

General links

 * Biodegradation
 * Bioremediation
 * In-situ capping of subaqueous waste
 * In Situ Oxidation
 * In-situ thermal desorption
 * Ecotoxicity
 * Electrokinetic remediation
 * Electrical resistance heating
 * Environmental degradation
 * Environmental restoration
 * Groundwater remediation
 * Natural attenuation
 * Mold Remediation
 * Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
 * Phytoremediation
 * Restoration ecology
 * Soil contamination
 * Soil vapor extraction
 * Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement

Legislation about remediation

 * Superfund (United States)
 * Contaminated Land Management Act (New South Wales, Australia)
 * Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (Western Australia, Australia)
 * 'Wet Bodembescherming' (Soil Protection Act, Netherlands)
 * 'Wet Verontreiniging Oppervlaktewater' (Surfacewater Pollution Act, Netherlands)
 * 'Environmental Management Act' (Canada)

Environmental groups with information

 * CHEJ (US - Grew out of Love Canal controversy)
 * Greenpeace (International organisation with National sites)

Environmental protection agencies

 * United States Environmental Protection Agency
 * NSW EPA (NSW, Australia)
 * Environment Canada
 * Canadian EPA Summary Table

title: Environmental remediation


text:
Talk:January 14

Seah Jun Hao
Seah Jun Hao's birthday. He's forever 21.

Dec 2003 entry
whats the deal albout this site what is it then its nothing to do with daniel sites are bad or good it doesnt matter at all if it doesnt that wasnt him either i mean to say anything bad words or anything like jerry springer show i never use one of those i swear it god i never use anything cussing thing or being rude all that also i cant used either at all in my whole tireing life ever i no what that means. specialy one im inlove with daniel radcliffe the real person plays harry potter im sure of it that im his boyfriend that im really wishing for in my life perhaps im maingly in love with him also i feel so bad to have him to as a real boyfriend that i need so badly to in my heart that i never forget it im sure one these days that i would like to marry him i really want to do this its my life or his not my business or anything in my tireing life i never forget about him either im promise with that i love him more then ever i wish i really could specialy with real daniel radcliffe as harry potter i wish he was mine not being cuses. -- 204.210.31.9

 * Someone please translate into English? -- Timwi 04:14, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think someone has a crush on Harry Potter. God knows how he/she found this page since Radcliffe isn't mentioned here... And it appears as though he/she signed using three tildes, which would seem to indicate a degree of Wikipedia regularity that makes a noteworthy age discrepancy between the writer and Radcliffe likely. But who knows...Tuf-Kat 04:28, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * No, they didn't sign their message at all. Sorry for being deceitful :/ I only added it so one could see who it was from without browsing the history. -- Timwi 04:37, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, well, nevermind. It's some kid with a crush... How cute. Tuf-Kat 04:40, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes. Cute. :-) -- Timwi 04:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * They said much in only two sentences. :-) Chris Roy 02:05, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hudson Motor Car Company
The event entry "The Hudson Motor Car Company merges with Nash-Kelvinator forming the American Motors Corporation." doesn't have a date.--Silverhand 19:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it myself. Yay me!--Silverhand 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Day
This date is listed as Freedom Day, worldwide. I can't find any reference to this celebration, anywhere. Unless it can be substantiated I'll remove the reference in a couple of days. Arcturus 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Orders
According to the constitution article, this was merely the first North American written constitution, making the current selected anniversary description rather misleading. Modest Genius talk 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 1977 – Darren Purse, English footballer
He is born on Feb 14, 1977  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanine Mason
Jeanine Mason is the 2009 winner of So You Think You Can Dance Season 5. She was born on January 14, 1991. Could somebody please add this to the list? Playsockfilms (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Add Hakeem Nicks (Professional American Football Player) to 1988
Hakeem Nicks, who plays for the NY Giants, was born on January 14, 1988.

William Nutt 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Steinhaus, Tarski
Please consider adding the following to the Births section:
 * 1887 - Hugo Steinhaus, Polish mathematician and educator (d. 1972)
 * 1901 - Alfred Tarski, Polish logician and mathematician (d. 1983)

 * Done Josh Parris 08:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Gantt
An American architect and politician who ran for the senate and was famous for being the first black to be admitted into Clemson college among other things was born on a 14th of January.

Catherine of Habsburg
Please change the link for Catherine of Habsburg from the default (disambiguation page) to point to the proper page. Change Catherine of Habsburg to Catherine of Habsburg

Done —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maria Theresia of Tuscany
editsemiprotected Please change the link for Maria Theresia of Tuscany from the default (disambiguation page) to point to the proper page. Change Maria Theresia of Tuscany to Maria Theresia of Tuscany Thanks, Moobler (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligent  sium  18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please Add Marco Hietala, born in 1966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.140.250 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Two entries for Odoric of Pordenone
Odoric of Pordenone has just been added under Christian Feast Days. I've accepted the pending revision, but was looking for some policy clarification. Odoric of Pordenone is *also* listed as a 1331 death. Is it appropriate to have both entries? FWIW, Devasahayam Pillai and Eivind Berggrav have Feast Day entries, but no death entries despite both having died on January 14. Rwessel (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Holidays and observances / Sidereal winter solstice
Is there really such a thing as the "Sidereal winter solstice"? I don't doubt that there is a holiday celebrating Uttarayana on, or about, January 14, but is it really called "Sidereal winter solstice" (which doesn't really make sense)? Rwessel (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: there's a similar entry on April 14. Rwessel (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

holidays and observations: feast of the ass
This is no longer celebrated. Thus it should be removed from here. no historical celebrations I think.--134.153.8.19 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

holidays and observations: Ratification Day (US)
nothing in the linked article indicates that this is an observation. It seems more fitting as an historical 'event'--134.153.8.19 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1967 - The New York Times reports that the U.S. Army is conducting secret germ warfare experiments.
I would recommend this be removed. The sole link to the New York Times has no mention of 1967 reporting on biological warfare experiments, and the Wikipedia section on the U.S. Biological Weapons Program also does not mention reporting by the NYT during this period. The NYT has reported on U.S. biological weapons programs in the 1980s and 1990s, but that's not what this entry asserts.Eltrace (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Event
2005: huygens spacecraft from the Cassini huygens mission landed on saturn on 14 January 2005. Dravidd.sv (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:January 14