text:
Was Pulling the J &J Vaccine The Right Move? A Q &A With Dr. Megan Ranney
Posted to Politics April 14, 2021 by Michael Graham
Dr. Megan Ranney is a practicing emergency physician, researcher, and advocate for innovative approaches to health. She is also the Associate Dean of Strategy and Innovation for the Brown University School of Public Health. She spoke to Michael Graham of Delaware Valley Journal about the Biden administration's decision to call a halt to the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the level of risk from the shots, and how America's public health leaders have handled their mission.
What was your reaction when you heard the federal government was recommending a halt to distributing the J & J vaccine based on the fact that six cases of blood clots had resulted from 7 million doses of the vaccine?
I'll be honest: My first reaction was a deep sigh. 'Oh my God, we are already struggling with confidence in vaccines in this country. Do we really need to pause on J & J?' But then my second reaction, as I started to read about it, is I really think this was the right thing to do. Because based on the data we have, it looks like there really is an association between the vaccine and these blood clots, and it's the job of the FDA and CDC to be careful.
But we've also got to be really careful about the messaging, about the fact that the risk really is one in a million. It's far smaller than the risk of blood clots from birth control pills, blood clots from COVID, or the risk of catching COVID itself.
So, while my first reaction was a sinking feeling in my stomach about what this is going to do to vaccine confidence, I think it also demonstrates the CDC and FDA are not covering anything up. They're going to follow the data.
When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic and all the statistics and data, is the biggest challenge facing public health policy the fact that Americans really don't understand math?
Well, no one is as good at math as they think they are — including physicians. But I think that the real problem is that we constantly misjudge risk. We all overestimate the risks of certain things and underestimate the risk of others. And this is just part of human nature. I think that's one of the really big issues with COVID.
And our interpretation of the data is always biased by who we hang out with and our cultural environment. Two people may look at the same data and even when the numbers are clear, remember that old trope: 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.' I think folks can look at the data and interpret it in two different ways, depending on how they want to interpret it — especially on a subject where the data keeps changing, which is so true for COVID. The job of good science is to get high-quality data, and then make the conclusion and the story that the data tells very clear, to reduce the chance of unintentionally creating those "damn lies."
If a person of typical health, somewhere between 25 and 45 years old, had the choice to wait a month until some other vaccine comes available or to get the J&J vaccine today, what would your advice be?
For a woman of childbearing age — which is the women we've seen with the highest risk of this unusual form of clots — I would say that in the short term, they need to make an individual decision based on whether they have a family history of blood clots or anything else that would make you think you're at higher risk. Do you smoke? Are you overweight? Do you have a family history of clotting disorders? If any of those are true, I might suggest you be very careful with your masking and in your social distancing and consider waiting until we have a little more information,
But for someone like me, who doesn't smoke, is not overweight and has no family history of clotting disorders or autoimmune problems — if my choice was the J&J vaccine today or nothing for another month, I would probably choose theJ&J vaccine today, because I work in the ER and I'm exposed to COVID patients on every single shift. And so the risk to me of catching COVID is pretty darn high. That's a much higher risk than the risk of the J&J vaccine.
For other folks who are at high risk of catching COVID, or of having bad outcomes with COVID, I would also advise getting the J&J vaccine rather than getting nothing. The risk of these bad outcomes for the average person – based on the data we have today – is almost vanishingly small. This side effect is unusual, and can be dangerous, but seems to be very very rare for most of us.
Finally, I'd remind people that this data is ONLY about the J&J vaccine. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are manufactured with very different technologies.
Do you agree that the public health messaging hasn't been handled well and that pulling the J&J vaccine is going to send yet another message that will promote vaccine hesitancy?
There've been a lot of folks who've made mistakes over the last year. And yes, some people in the scientific establishment, the public health messengers, have made mistakes. But so have some politicians, and the media; pretty much everybody's made mistakes because we've all been operating with limited knowledge and with the need to make decisions really quickly.
I think what influenced the decision to make this announcement is that something very similar was reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. And it's the same kind of unusual, rare side effect, and in many ways the J&J vaccine is similar to AstraZeneca's. And I think that's probably what shifted them.
And God forbid that anyone cover this up and wait for a few days before making an announcement. Can you imagine the negative media?!
So they've made the announcement and temporarily halted the shots, which might have undermined confidence in the vaccine. On the other hand, they could have waited and let people get the shot without knowing about the risk as we see it today, and then be accused of trying to hide things from the public or from doctors. So which option is worse? For the public health community, something like this makes them 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.'
I'm not part of the FDA or the CDC, but I can understand why they made this call. Their job is to err on the side of caution. I believe they take their obligations to protect the safety of Americans seriously. I'm hopeful that we'll have more guidance, and more trustworthy data, soon.
Michael Graham is Managing Editor of InsideSources.com.


God desires so much to be in relationship with us! Are we listening and responding to His call?
When we pray as a community and receive Jesus in the Eucharist (a word that means Thanksgiving) we strengthen each other and He strengthens us. Learn why "Eucharist is a Verb, Not a Noun" this summer by attending Lessons from the Vineyard, a 3 night retreat at nearby Sts. Mary & Matthew Faith Community in Livonia, beginning at 7 PM on 6/26, 7/24 & 8/21.
Work weekends? Make your day off your personal Sabbath and go to daily Mass! Through our active participation in the sacraments and making an effort to pray daily He will grow in us. Check out this story of The Hudsons. Participate in ministries, fellowship with other parishioners, join one of our parish's book groups, view Catholic TV and listen to Christian radio. Click the Resources page for more ideas.
The motto of the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministry is Strong Catholic Families, Strong Catholic Youth." See more by clicking here. The Padgetts also have a compelling story.
– May. See the Events schedule for dates, locations and times.
Make time to do the weekly lesson and other family activities together.
Incorporate spiritual reading, listening to Christian radio into your lives.
Attend social events within the parish.
Participate in two service projects each year as a family.
Camp Koinonia Located within our parish boundaries lies this beautiful get away. It offers week-long retreats for families to grow closer, relax and renew their spirits. The program staff consists of a priest, spiritual directors and program directors. Teens are offered a life changing experience as staffers, serving the families and finding lifelong friends. Young adults also have an important place at Camp Koininia, as Holy Helpers. To learn more, click here.


As a member of Columbia Mock Trial, AJ has made irreplaceable friendships and has developed a deep appreciation for the law and the value of public service. AJ continues to participate in the activity because it offers incredibly challenging and enjoyable experiences that push him to be better in all aspects of his life. After undergrad, he hopes to attend law school and pursue a career in the field--a path in which Mock Trial has certainly given him an advantage.
Andrew has competed in mock trial since he was in a middle school and has loved every minute of it. Having helped build a great community on his high school team, he looks forward to diving into and becoming a part of the great mock trial community at Columbia. While it may seem bit out of the ordinary for a physics and math major to love mock trial to such a degree, Andrew believes that mock trial actually is a science in its own rite (one that may actually help him with whatever future physics endeavors await him). When not doing mock trial (or physics for that matter), Andrew likes to read, watch movies, watch baseball (Go Yankees!) and appreciate memes. After Columbia, Andrew hopes to either get a PhD in physics or go to law school.
Alexandra is a rising sophomore at Barnard College. Lovingly referred to as a rabid dog in the courtroom by her coaches, she hopes to continue her legacy of scaring the opposing team in the future. Alexandra loves Mock Trial almost as much as she loves her dog and the four cups of coffee she must down before doing anything every day. So that's saying a lot. Alexandra loves her team to pieces because they are always there for her, in and out of the courtroom.
Carla joined Mock Trial as a Sophomore after sensing, in a moment of inspiration, that she may like to pursue career in law after graduation. In Mock Trial, Carla is most excited to learn how to explain Mock Trial to those who have never done Mock Trial (having never done Mock Trial herself). When she is not at Mock Trial, Carla can usually be found running to dance rehearsal, trying to make dining hall food look somewhat appetizing, or singing in her suite, on the street, while babysitting, or anywhere else she feels the urge to do so. After college, Carla would also like to work in the US for a year, and will happily look to Hardy Hewson for advice in the matter.
Caroline enjoys Mock Trial because it is one of the few environments in which standing up and yelling in the middle of what someone else is saying if you disagree with them is not only acceptable, but encouraged! Her other favorite part about the activity is making her teammates wildly uncomfortable by staring deep into their souls while crying on the stand in basically any role (*attempted* murderers have emotions too, okay?). When she is not in trial, Caroline can be found continuing her quest to make Mock Trial the most exclusive frat on campus or drinking large quantities of seltzer water. After college, she plans to write and act in New York for a bit before becoming a serious person and going to law school.
Coming from a legal system better known for its stuffy accents and white wigs, Hardy joined Columbia Mock Trial with the glamour of Suits on his mind. Less Harvey Specter, more mangled British/German expert witness, it's safe to say he still hasn't made the transition! Even so, he loves the feeling of taking the stand knowing less than half his affidavit, and reliably walking straight into an impeachment.
In all seriousness, arriving as a Junior, Hardy found in CUMT a welcoming, talented, at times hysterical group of friends. When he is not doing Mock Trial, he can be found playing Columbia intramural football (soccer, if we must) or doing his best to avoid Butler.
After getting rejected from both Debate and Improv, Isabel held no hope for her future. That is, until she made Columbia's Mock Trial team, both debate and improv combined. Her teammates make her feel right at home with their sarcasm and their ability to do things less awkwardly than she can. Isabel is the least experienced of them all but plans on winging it with her Latina accent and her one true talent, memorization. Outside of late mock trial practices, Isabel enjoys pretending to be a tourist, and complaining about the fact that there are no In-n-Outs on the east coast. After graduating, if she's not too in debt or missing, Isabel plans on going to law school and becoming an eventual judge.
Jaden joined Mock Trial because he heard that the January tournament was in Los Angeles. Hearing this, Jaden knew he had to hop on to the opportunity of getting a free ticket to see his grandpa in the Valley who has been guilting him into a visit since Passover last year. For this reason only, Jaden is excited to be a new member on Columbia Mock Trial. After doing MockTrial in high school, Jaden is looking forward to a more competitive, more zany, more elaborate Mock Trial circuit and after meeting the team, he knows he's found the perfect place for that. Outside of Mock Trial, you can find Jaden at every Columbia dining themed meal ever, walking passed the main elevator to take the Carman service elevator with the confidence of someone who lives there (he doesn't), or sitting on Low Steps with the Odyssey in one hand and an apple in the other feeling very collegiate. Although graduation feels like a lifetime away, Jaden plans on attending law school so he can take the very realistic skills he's learned in Mock Trial and put them to good use.
Jadie has done mock trial since high school—during which her career highlight was faking a knee injury so she could do her closing statement from behind a table instead of having to walk to the center of the room and risk tripping on her heels. Grace is not her strong suit. She joined CUMT because she enjoys brushing her teeth alongside friends in very small bathrooms, wearing nylons to court and pretending they don't have runs, and exploring the diverse array of Red Roof Inns across the country. Not all of them actually have red roofs. You'll learn things like that if you join Mock Trial. When not doing mock, she spends a lot of time reading books, getting shushed at movies, and telling Mashell Rahimzadeh that it is not appropriate to order a "medium" when at Starbucks.
Jodi loves Mock Trial because it gives her an excuse to travel to states as unique as her home state of Delaware. Her favorite part about Mock Trial is going to compete in fun cities only to spend the whole time practicing in the hotel. Jodi is thankful for the family that she has made on this team, as well as the knowledge that 3/15 of her teammates can do splits during victory celebrations and 1/2 of her team can speak in accents on command (the jury is still out on her Irish accent). When not doing Mock Trial Jodi hangs out with people from Mock Trial. She is often seen scouting out seats in Butler Library and convincing friends from Mock Trial to come and fill them. One day Jodi hopes to graduate from Mock Trial to Real Trial.
When Johanne thinks about what Mock Trial means to him, he is always drawn to the philosophical musings of Aubrey Graham. This great street lyrical poet, who is more commonly referred to as Drake, once said, "What a time to be alive." To Johanne, this captures Mock Trial perfectly. It presents one with the opportunity to think on your feet, be intensely competitive, and make people believe a narrative that you create. Besides the intellectual challenge it presents, Mock Trial has given Johanne some of the best friendships and memories of his college experience. Simply, Mock Trial is very important to Johanne for a lot of reasons and he is glad to be apart of this "really big team" (as Mr. Graham would put it).
In 2012, Mashell's oldest sister joined college mock trial and encouraged her to try out the activity; Mashell said no.
In 2014, Mashell's other sister joined college mock trial and encouraged her to try out the activity; Mashell said no.
In 2016, Mashell joined college mock trial; the Debate team had said no.
Two years later and Mashell is totally over it. Seriously. Mock trial has given her opportunities that debate never could have. Like the opportunity to convince people that she's Italian and has a Long Island accent. Did you know that was possible for an obviously brown woman? Well it's not; not unless you're on CUMT.
When she's not doing mock trial, you'll probably find Mashell hanging around Lincoln Center pretending to be a Fordham student or trying to eat her way through all of Hell's Kitchen. You might even find her at Hungarian pastry shop with one Jadie Stillwell, after being kicked out of Starbucks for ordering a "medium."
Matthew joined Mock Trial because, after finishing his first year in Columbia College, he wanted to find an activity to invest in heavily and a community to feel a sense of belonging in; he also joined because the e-board convinced him not to walk out of his tryout after he froze awkwardly in the middle of his monologue. Fortunately, Mock Trial seems to have supplied him with a fun way to spend Tuesday and Sunday nights, owing to the fact that the team appears to be a cult (in a good way) and the activity itself (from his VERY limited experience) is enjoyable. Outside of playing pretend, Matthew likes to listen to music and (since September) to ride his penny board. The latter has become his defining personality trait.
Megan's decision to join Mock Trial was twofold: 1) She hoped that it would one day get her into law school and 2) She didn't have the money to rush a sorority, so Mock Trial was the next best option to force people to be friends with her. Since joining the team she has not yet been contacted by any law school with an offer for immediate admittance, but Megan remains hopeful. Her favorite parts of Mock Trial include (but are not limited to) being able to say that she plays a "mental sport," getting to dress up in a power suit and heels, and becoming really close with her teammates through their shared self-deprecating jokes and lack of sleep. When she isn't doing mock trial, Megan is busy talking about Mock Trial to people who don't care, hiding behind doors and corners to scare her friends, and finding open seats in Butler at odd hours. After graduation Megan hopes to finally get into law school and continue representing fake clients for as long as they'll let her.
Michael, a former high school mock trialer, opted to join CUMT due to his passion for public speaking, his desire to improve his analytical skills, and his need to hold onto the good old days of high school. Equally influential in his decision was the opportunity to grow more versed in reading and arguing the law in preparation for a possible career in civil rights law down the road. Outside of the courtroom, Michael considers himself both a widely successful amateur basketball player and an up and coming Soundcloud musician. He, too exercises his love for the stage through sketch comedy and his dedication to writing and argument through work as an editor for school publications. The future is a mystery for this young man, but it's safe to say that the stage, the studio, or the court (room) are all hopeful destinations for Mr. Colton.
Owen joined mock trial because he participated in competitive sports and Model United Nations in high school, and wanted to be part of a competitive team and improve his public speaking skills. Luckily for Owen, Mock Trial does both of these things! Owen enjoys Mock Trial because the activity is essentially competitive storytelling, which appeals to him as an English major. Mock has also greatly improved his confidence and ability to think and speak on the spot, as well as formulate concise and coherent arguments. Through Mock Trial, Owen has met some of the most caring, fun, and interesting people. When not doing Mock Trial, he is typically reading, hanging out with friends, playing some pick up basketball, or exploring New York (mostly its art museums). After college, Owen would like to teach, write, or work in a museum, but he is open to other ideas and suggestions!
Shantanu's experience in Mock Trial thus far has been truly unforgettable. After getting slaughtered as an attorney in his first tournament as a freshman, Shantanu and his team had a moment of inspiration: why not leverage his passable Indian accent to create a new character witness? And thus Shantanu transitioned from an eager young lawyer into an impossibly enthusiastic Uber driver from Ludhiana, Punjab (a role which he unashamedly embraced).
Outside the courtroom, Mock Trial has also given Shantanu the chance to make some amazing friends and travel to some of America's great cities (such as Lancaster, PA and Stevenson, MD). After Mock Trial and Columbia, Shantanu does not know exactly what he wants to do. He is, however, sure that he is going to disappoint his family by not becoming an engineer.
Tessa has been doing Mock Trial for 8 years now, because it's her favorite thing ever. Tessa loves the activity and the community it's given her, and is so excited to spend her last year at Columbia competing alongside her amazing teammates. In the limited time during which she is not in practice or away at tournaments, Tessa likes watching Netflix (and can proudly say that she's watched The Office 3 times through), exploring New York City, and traveling with her friends and family. Tessa is interested in public defense work and hopes to one day become a lawyer and defend real live human beings in real cases. What a crazy concept!


text:
Nuclear Careers
ANS Store
About ANS
Society Structure
ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
About Nuclear
Nuclear Science 101
Nuclear in Every Classroom
Dose Calculator – How much radiation did I really get?
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Professional Divisions
Local Sections/Plant Branches
Student Sections
Young Members Group
Diversity and Inclusion in ANS
Division Spotlight
Isotopes & Radiation
Members are devoted to applying nuclear science and engineering technologies involving isotopes, radiation applications, and associated equipment in scientific research, development, and industrial processes. Their interests lie primarily in education, industrial uses, biology, medicine, and health physics. Division committees include Analytical Applications of Isotopes and Radiation, Biology and Medicine, Radiation Applications, Radiation Sources and Detection, and Thermal Power Sources.
Meeting Spotlight
2021 Student Conference
April 8–10, 2021
Nuclear Standards News
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What's New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
ANS Library
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Understanding the ITER Project in the context of global Progress on Fusion
(photo: ITER Project gangway assembly)
The promise of hydrogen fusion as a safe, environmentally friendly, and virtually unlimited source of energy has motivated scientists and engineers for decades. For the general public, the pace of fusion research and development may at times appear to be slow. But for those on the inside, who understand both the technological challenges involved and the transformative impact that fusion can bring to human society in terms of the security of the long-term world energy supply, the extended investment is well worth it.
Failure is not an option.
Search ANS
Nuclear News
Nuclear News Weekly
Power & Operations
Research & Applications
Radwaste Solutions
ANS News
ANS Nuclear Cafe
Nuclear Policy Wire
Notes and Deadlines
ANS Executive Committee
Persistent Prejudice Against Nuclear—Can Anything Be Done? Part 3
March 18, 2014, 6:00AM|Jim Hopf
At this site in January, I made the case that there is significant and persistent prejudice against nuclear power among both the public and policymakers. In February, I discussed several approaches to ameliorating nuclear's current and future problems (which are largely due to said prejudice) and the limitations of each approach. This month, I will explore one last possible option: challenging the biased and unfair treatment of nuclear under current policies and regulation-in court.
Why a court challenge?
One might ask why a court challenge is necessary, as opposed to slowly building political support and winning over the hearts and minds of the public. The reason is that public prejudices and policy biases appear to be persistent, and show no signs of going away for the foreseeable future (i.e., decades). The regulatory imbalance between nuclear and fossil fuels in particular shows no signs of going anywhere. Even with ostensible support of nuclear by a majority of the public, nuclear will not go anywhere under the current, extremely unlevel regulatory playing field.
The point is that the cost to public health, to the environment, and perhaps to the economy are simply too high to justify such patience, and waiting multiple decades for the needed change-if such change ever comes at all. Current policy biases result in the use of fossil fuels instead of nuclear, which comes at a cost of tens of thousands of American lives each year and hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, as well as the potential altering of the earth's climate. Over decades, the lives lost worldwide will run into the millions. The stakes are simply too high to let the current situation continue for a long time.
There are examples in other areas, particularly the area of civil rights, where a decision was made to turn to the courts, as opposed to waiting for public prejudice to subside, or waiting for legislative or political change. In retrospect, few now regret those decisions. Back then (in the 1960s) and again today, the courts have mandated fair policies and equal treatment, even in the face of significant public and political opposition (e.g., in the case of recent federal court rulings that have overturned state laws prohibiting gay marriage).
The idea would be to challenge current energy policies and the current regulatory playing field (which holds nuclear to requirements thousands of times as strict as those applied to fossil fuels), perhaps under the equal protection clause of the constitution. The argument would be that having energy policies that place a given energy source at a significant disadvantage, or subjecting that energy source to regulations that are far more strict (and expensive) than the regulations applied to competing sources-simply because that energy source is politically unpopular or does not have much political influence-is unjustified and violates the principles of fairness and equal protection under laws.
The public has the right to decide how much money will be spent on public health, safety, and the environment. That is a question of values. If the public wants to place a higher (economic) value on human life, longevity, or a clean environment, that is our right.
However (it would be argued), the public does not have the right to arbitrarily require one industry to spend enormous amounts for little benefit, while arbitrarily allowing other industries to avoid spending much smaller amounts for much larger benefits (e.g., requiring nuclear to spend billions of dollars per life saved while rejecting fossil pollution requirements that amount to only ~$10,000 per life saved). That is a case of pure, demonstrable policy prejudice.
Values are one thing. Being demonstrably, mathematically, and scientifically wrong is another. We get to decide questions of values, but on questions of fact, science must be respected. Saying that "I am not willing to spend as much to avoid 1,000 fossil-related deaths as I am to avoid a single nuclear-related death" is not a legitimate value judgment.
Precedent (or lack thereof)
There is precedent of successful legal challenges under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, but so far they have been only on behalf of individuals or groups of people (e.g., ethnic or minority groups). I haven't found any cases where an industry has successfully sued under the equal protection clause, as a remedy for unfair treatment such as an unlevel regulatory playing field.
In fact, the text of the actual equal protection clause of the Constitution specifically refers to "persons" receiving "equal protection of the laws". The clause has also come to be interpreted as applying to classes of people. Thus, application of the clause to an industry would constitute an expansion of its current scope.
To be honest, there is reason to believe that the courts would be loath to go down that path. There are endless examples where it could be argued that things (in life) are "unfair." With respect to laws and regulations, almost any law or policy could be shown to be not completely even handed. Creating policies and laws that are completely neutral, and give absolutely no advantage to any industry over any other, would be all but impossible.
This may be part of the reason why the equal protection clause has (so far, at least) been applied only to individuals or classes of people, and only in cases in which there is substantial evidence of mistreatment and discrimination. Also, in most cases, the courts have intervened only after some significant degree of political support has been created on behalf of the affected group (recent gay marriage rulings being a prime example).
Why would a challenge from the nuclear industry have any chance of succeeding, given the above considerations? I believe that the nuclear industry (specifically) may have a compelling case because the regulatory playing field is so clearly unlevel, and to such an enormous degree. The outright double standard between nuclear's requirements and treatment, versus that of other industries (most notably its fossil fuel competitors), is so clear that it should be impossible to ignore.
There is also some precedent for the notion that there should be a level playing field among competing industries. The World Trade Organization has firm policies against protectionist tariffs. In addition, of course, there is the European Union's policy against "state aid" (i.e., subsidies) for specific industries or energy sources-with the exception of renewable energy, apparently.
Standing-Who's got standing?
Another barrier to any successful nuclear lawsuit is that the plaintiff must have "standing." That is, they need to show that some tangible harm (financial or otherwise) is being inflicted on them as a result of the policies in question. The question is, how can the "nuclear industry" claim standing?
Who, specifically, would represent "nuclear"? The Nuclear Energy Institute couldn't claim standing-no financial impact. Also, as has been pointed out by others, it's not clear that economic fortunes of utilities or plant construction firms are specifically tied to nuclear's success. If nuclear is unprofitable, they can simply turn to something else (i.e., build or operate other types of plants). True nuclear companies may be limited to uranium miners and a few nuclear-specific firms such as Westinghouse or Areva. It's possible that utilities could claim financial harm from excessive regulations hurting the profitability of their existing nuclear plants. Challenging excessive costs of new plant construction would be a harder case to make, since utilities don't have to choose to build them.
So, who else might have "standing"? Can nuclear advocates like myself claim "emotional duress"? Perhaps a class action suit on behalf of all the people who've suffered health impacts or had family members die as a result of coal plant pollution? That may be a high bar to meet. Although Environmental Protection Agency statistics point to tens of thousands of annual deaths, individual risks are relatively low, and usually such claims require a high probability of impact. Also, the courts' remedy would likely be to require coal pollution reductions, as opposed to a fundamental evaluation of nuclear's requirements and the levelness of the nuclear vs. fossil playing field. It is also very likely that the courts would say that we should seek remedy in the political sphere.
Potential remedies
Whatever the chance of success, there are several remedies that the industry could pursue that would make a dramatic difference in nuclear's future costs and competitiveness with other energy sources in the future.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be required to perform a cost/benefit analysis on all of its existing and proposed regulations, as the EPA is currently required to do. The NRC currently has no such requirement. Furthermore, a significant difference in the relative cost (in dollars per life saved or environmental impact avoided) of regulations among different, competing energy sources would not be allowed. The principle could even be expanded to apply the principle of ~equal-cost regulation to all industries.
There is some precedent for this principle. Many government agencies apply a monetary value to a human life, when deciding on how much money to spend on regulations, building codes, clean up requirements, etc. This is done to ensure that money is spent in the most cost-effective manner, in a world where there is not an infinite amount of money to apply to public safety. Requirements that are more costly than the set value are rejected. Typically, the value of a human life is somewhere between $5 million and $10 million.
Under a possible court remedy, the NRC would be required to apply a similar criterion (at most $10 million per life saved) to all of its regulations. Conversely, the EPA would be required to also apply a similar criterion to its coal plant pollution regulations, regardless of political pressure (or even legislation) from the coal industry and its congressional allies. (Despite the human life value quoted for the EPA in the New York Times article linked above, proposed pollution regulations that are far more cost effective than $9 million per life saved have been shelved or put on hold, due to political pressure.)
Nuclear as a Clean Energy Source
As I pointed out in last month's post, a primary problem is that nuclear is essentially required to be a clean energy source, but it is treated, under policy, like a dirty energy source. It must spend almost whatever it takes to reduce even the chance of pollution to near zero. If there is ever a release, massive compensation and cleanup is required. Meanwhile, fossil plants get to pollute the environment, and inflict enormous public health and environmental costs, for free. And yet, current policies give nuclear no credit for its non-polluting nature, and place it in direct economic competition with dirty sources. Other clean sources (renewables) receive large subsidies and (more importantly) outright mandates for their use, regardless of cost, practicality, or even if new generation is needed at all.
The possible court remedy would require that nuclear be treated as a clean energy source under all energy policies, at both the federal and state level. All clean sources (e.g., nuclear and renewables) must have roughly equal subsidies. The terms of any loan guarantees would have to be similar. And, most importantly, any mandates or portfolio standards, on both the state and federal level, would have to include nuclear along with renewables.
Alternatively, the court remedy could demand that fossil sources pay some financial penalty to reflect the health (and economic) costs of their pollution. That could include CO2. A third possibility would be to require that fossil plants be treated like nuclear, with full containment of all toxins/wastes/pollutants required, and compensation or other penalties if they are ever released.
Nuclear Industry vs. Natural Radiation Exposure
As I discussed last month (in the linear no-threshold model/LNT section of the post), public doses from the nuclear industry are treated completely differently than doses from other sources, such as natural or medical exposures. If one assumes the LNT, health effects scale with collective exposure (man-Rem). However, natural and medical sources produce collective exposures that are many orders of magnitude larger than any from the nuclear industry, including even those that would result from a severe meltdown scenario. And yet, nothing is done, and almost no money is spent, on reducing those public exposures, while current policies would require astronomical sums to be spent in the event of a plant meltdown to avoid a much smaller public collective exposure.
Under a possible court remedy, such different treatment of exposures from different sources would be disallowed. All means of reducing public collective exposures would have to be evaluated equally. The NRC or the EPA could not impose cleanup standards that cost a large amount of dollars per man-Rem avoided if other, far cheaper options for reducing man-Rems (e.g., from natural or medical sources) existed.
One way this principle could be applied would be the use of offsetting public exposure reductions. Often, when an industrial facility is built, it is impossible (or cost prohibitive) to avoid having any environmental impact. So, the applicant offers to perform an offsetting environmental service, such as restoring a wetland at some other location, the argument being that there is then no net impact for the project.
In the case of a plant meltdown, the utility could argue (under this court remedy) that instead of spending an exorbitant sum to bring radiation levels in surrounding areas down to some extremely low level (e.g., the International Commission on Radiological Protection's standard of 100 mrem/year), it will provide an equivalent amount of public exposure (man-Rem) reduction by some other, far cheaper means (e.g., radon abatement or providing low-dose medical equipment to hospitals). The EPA or the NRC could not oppose such a proposal, as they would not have a leg to stand on. Dose is dose.
Finally, this principle (and court remedy) could be used to require that there be no distinction between industry and other sources of radiation when determining limits on dose rates. The EPA or the NRC would not be able to establish dose rate limits that only apply to industry sources. Instead, they would have to determine what a "safe" level of radiation is, period, regardless of source.
Lower limits for normal operations and routine emissions could possibly be justified, not on the basis of "safe dose," but as "good industry practice" and to prevent long-term buildup of radiation levels. But limits for accident conditions and for cleanup standards should be based on public safety, and limits lower than natural background would be indefensible. Unless they are willing to declare large sections of the country "unsafe" or "uninhabitable" (and perhaps even proceed with evacuation of those regions), agencies would not be allowed to establish dose rate limits that are within (or lower than) the range of natural exposures. Any public dose rate limits under ~1 Rem/year (such as the ICRP's 100 mrem/year) would be hard to justify. Higher medical doses would probably still be justifiable, given that there is a tangible health benefit related to the exposure.
Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Plant Closures
I've argued that stringent nuclear regulations that result in plant closures or prevent new nuclear construction probably actually increase public health risks and environmental impacts, at some point, since the fossil fuels that are (or will be) used instead have a far greater impact. When a coal plant closes, it's clear that whatever replaces it will have a lower health and environmental impact. When a nuclear plant closes, it is likely that whatever replaces it will have a higher environmental impact.
Under a possible court remedy, such impacts would have to be considered when drafting nuclear regulations, when evaluating existing regulations, or when making a decision to keep a nuclear plant closed while improvements are being made. The NRC kept the Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska closed for nearly three years, in order to install flood protections, make various other improvements, and improve its "safety culture." Over that time, the plant's output was mostly replaced with fossil fuels, including some amount of coal (probably). At the risk of being overly blunt, based on fossil plant pollution health statistics, it is almost certain that the NRC's decision/policy killed a fair number of people, as well as dumping a large amount of CO2 into the air.
I'm not saying that regulations or ordering plant closures is never justified. However, all impacts of such decisions must be considered (and must not be simply dismissed as being outside the agency's scope). Under the court remedy, the NRC may have to demonstrate that the reduction in public health risk associated with the plant closure more than offsets the impacts of the fossil replacement. Stated more simply, they may have to argue that the plant's continued operation is more dangerous and/or harmful than a coal plant before ordering its closure. This may result in greater efforts to find ways to make necessary improvements while plants remain in operation. Given the impacts of fossil replacements, closure of a nuclear plant must not be taken lightly.
Challenge to NRC Authority
Perhaps the most aggressive use of a possible court remedy would be an outright challenge to the NRC's authority to write and enforce detailed, prescriptive regulations, especially in the case of small modular reactors (SMRs).
My understanding is that the NRC's mandate is to protect public health and safety. That is the basis, and justification, for all of the the NRC's regulations and enforcement powers. Given what we now know (from Fukushima, etc.) it could be argued that meltdown events do not constitute a significant threat to public health and safety-in the case of SMRs at least.
At Fukushima, we've learned that the release of radioactivity from the full meltdown of three large reactors caused no deaths and is projected to have no measurable public health impact. The maximum possible release from an SMR is far smaller than the Fukushima release. In fact, since the core of an SMR does not get as hot, even in the case of complete loss of cooling and subsequent meltdown, the release fractions (for Cs-137, etc.) should be smaller than those of a large reactor. Thus, the maximum possible release is even lower than the ratio of rated power would suggest (probably a few percent of the Fukushima release, at most).
As a result, it is unlikely that any event at an SMR would have any public health impact, and the land area over which dose rates would exceed the typical range of natural background (i.e., ~1 Rem/year) would be very small. Given this, it could be argued that strict NRC regulations and oversight are not justified. An analysis showing the maximum possible release and affected land area should be the only component of the "safety analysis" submitted to the NRC. Instead, the levels of precaution should be between the SMR operators and their insurers. And yes, the idea would be that the industry would give up Price-Anderson liability limits, in exchange for largely eliminating NRC regulation and oversight. (It would be well worth it.) Given the low release probability of SMRs (due to fundamental safety advantages) and the low potential consequences, well-informed rational insurers should offer reasonable rates.
In order for the above idea to work, however, the ground rules for meltdown events (including evacuation, cleanup and compensation criteria) will have to be established in advance. In last month's post, I mentioned the possibility that a lower release would simply result in lower allowable dose rates being applied to cleanup (because "they can afford it"). That would have to be nipped in the bud, up front. It would have to be firmly established that no measures would be taken to reduce dose rates within the natural range (i.e., under ~1 Rem/year). Many of the other court remedies discussed earlier would do that, automatically.
What are our chances?
While I believe that current policies are sufficiently unjust to warrant court remedies, I'm not sanguine about the chances of success, for many reasons I discussed earlier in this post.
I would, however, like to think that, at a minimum, a high-profile court challenge could at least shed some light on the enormously unlevel playing field and outright double standards that nuclear faces. There are many examples of people or organizations issuing court challenges in order to raise the profile of certain issues in the eyes of the public. In this case, a court challenge would, hopefully, open the eyes of the public to the real reasons why nuclear is struggling to compete.
Which of the options I discussed in this post and last month's post do I think have the best chance to give nuclear a bright future? I would have to say that our hopes primarily rest on the possibility of improved energy policies that give nuclear some credit for its non-polluting nature. These would include some sort of clean energy standard that includes nuclear. That, or the (more likely) CO2 regulations on new and existing fossil plants, which will prevent new coal plant construction and could result in coal's phaseout. We would then be left to hope for increased natural gas prices, possibly as a result of increased fracking regulations, and as a result of increased demand from declining coal use, gas exports, and increased use of gas in the transport sector. And who knows-maybe someday we will have taxes or limits on CO2 emissions.
Hopf
Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.
dc perspectivejim hopf
Be the change you want to see in the world
What does it mean to be a leader? That question is at the heart of the Young Professionals Congress 2019 (YPC19).
Advocating for Nuclear with the NESD
Sometimes it feels like we're fighting an uphill battle for nuclear energy - and perhaps we are.
President Signs Pro-Nuclear Legislation
Two bipartisan pieces of legislation modernizing America's nuclear future have recently become law. It's still a long way from pushing nuclear builds the way we need to address a host of environmental issues, but it is a good start.
Union of Concerned Scientists Acknowledges Importance of Nuclear Power in Carbon Emission Reduction
A political seismic shift occurred this week - and I am not talking about the mid-term election. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report Thursday acknowledging nuclear power's important role in reducing carbon emissions.
Proposed Revisions to Nuclear Plant Release/Public Exposure Regulations: ANS Response to EPA
In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning 40 CFR 190-the regulations that govern public exposure and release of radioactive materials resulting from normal nuclear power plant operations (it does not pertain to nuclear accidents). The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ended on August 3.
EPA Proposes Power Sector CO2 Emissions Reduction Plan
With cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals going nowhere in congress, the Obama administration is tackling the global warming issue through the administrative branch, using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. In the transport sector, the administration promulgated vehicle fuel efficiency (mileage) standards. In the power sector, the EPA has proposed regulations requiring that all new power plants emit no more CO2 than a typical natural gas plant-thus, any new coal plants would have to employ CO2 sequestration. And now, the EPA is proposing to address CO2 emissions from existing power plants by establishing CO2 emissions reduction requirements for the power sector.
Vogtle Loan Guarantee Finally Approved
In February, the U.S. Department of Energy finally announced the approval of a federal loan guarantee for the Vogtle-3 and -4 reactor project under construction near Waynesboro, Ga. The approval came after four years of negotiations between the government and the utilities involved in the Vogtle project.
The Fight to Prevent Nuclear Plant Closures Gathers Steam
With the recent shutdown of four reactors and another scheduled closure later this year, there is increasing concern over nuclear plant shutdowns in the United States, and the idea of policy intervention to prevent further closures is gaining political traction.
Persistent Prejudice Against Nuclear – Can Anything Be Done? Part 2
In last month's post, I made the case that there is substantial prejudice against nuclear power among much of the public in most of the world. As a result, nuclear is held to requirements thousands of times as strict as other energy sources and industries, resulting in nuclear being rendered less competitive economically. This in turn results in the use of fossil generation instead of nuclear, despite the fact that the operational record, the data, and all scientific analyses show fossil-fueled generation to be orders of magnitude more dangerous and harmful.
Persistent Prejudice Against Nuclear – Can Anything Be Done? Part I
Last month I reported on court victories on the nuclear waste issue. While such victories are welcome, in my view things are not going well overall for the industry, and it's not clear the situation will improve much in the future unless some things change.
Receive Nuclear SmartBrief
Join ANS Today
Advance, foster, and spur the development and application of nuclear science, engineering, and technology to benefit society.
Navigating Nuclear
ANSNuclearCafe
© Copyright 2021 American Nuclear Society

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Alta Theatre opened September 6, 1913. A 2/4 Robert Morton (opus 2287) was installed in 1926. The instrument was removed from the theatre in 1930 by Balcom & Vaughan and installed in Bellingham's Central Lutheran Church.
The Junchen opus lists show the organ going to the "Alta (United Artists) Theatre." The United Artists Theatre opened in 1936 and was located at 108 S. Main Street. It's unclear if the Alta Theatre used the United Artists name prior to 1936, or if the Junchen reference is erroneous.


text:
Home Posts tagged "Doodler.com"
Tag: Doodler.com
A Tale of Cribbage – Boards & Fun Facts
In 1998 when I met Jeff, he introduced me to the game of cribbage. He grew up playing this game, while I had never played it. It quickly became a Sunday morning routine along with Jeff's delicious homemade pancakes. It was also a nice activity to involve both our daughters, who enjoyed playing with us when they were pre-teens. Jeff and I played regularly for a few years and now only play once in a blue moon. Over the years, we also accrued quite a collection of vintage cribbage board and playing cards. If you've never played cribbage and are curious about the rules, click here. If you decide to play, be warned that the odds of attaining the elusive perfect 29 score in a two-player cribbage game are 1 in 216,580, and 1 in 15,028 for 28. Just once, I had a hand of 28, but not really because Jeff counted his hand first and won the game! A Brief History of Cribbage British poet, playwright, and gambler Sir John Suckling popularized and described the rules of cribbage in its approximate modern form around 1632. Suckling lost his mother at age 4 and subsequently his father at age 18, inheriting significant wealth that he squandered on travel, women, and gambling. He invented a variation of an earlier Tudor-era game called Noddy, in which only three cards were dealt to each player, no discard, and therefore no crib. The turn-up card was counted in both players' hands and the game was 31 points. Suckling's cribbage game introduced the crib and was played with five cards versus today's six. As for Sir Suckling, he lived a charmed and cursed life, was charged with treason in 1641, fled to France, and committed suicide by taking poison. He died destitute after…
Betsy 09/18/2019 09/19/2019 Antiques, Cribbage, History, Nostalgia, Pastimes American Cribbage Congress, CNC Machine, Crib, Cribbage, Doodler.com, Exotic Wood Cribbage Boards, Nobs, Noddy, Playing Cards, Sir John Suckling, Terry Francona, World's Largest Cribbage Tournament 0


text:
Q: To find out the names of the filed that contain any annotation @Entity
class Student{
 @NotNull
 private int sid;
 @NotNull
 private String sname;
 private int age;
}

i have to show the name of the field that contain @NotNull annotation
I created a function
public boolean hasNotNull() {
        return Arrays.stream(this.getClass().getDeclaredFields())
                .anyMatch(field -> field.isAnnotationPresent(NotNull.class));
    }

public Object[] getValue() {
        if (hasNotNull())

            return Arrays.stream(this.getClass().getDeclaredFields())
                    .filter(field -> field.isAnnotationPresent(NotNull.class)).toArray();

        else
            return null;
    }

But I am getting the 500 Internal Server Error.
Following are the warnings:
WARNING: An illegal reflective access operation has occurred
WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.util.ClassUtil
WARNING: Use --illegal-access=warn to enable warnings of further illegal reflective access operations
WARNING: All illegal access operations will be denied in a future release

What should I do?

A: public List<String> getValue() {

        if (hasNotNull()) {
            Stream<Field> filter = Arrays.stream(this.getClass().getDeclaredFields())
                    .filter(field -> field.isAnnotationPresent(NotNull.class));
            return filter.map(obj -> obj.getName()).collect(Collectors.toList());
        }

        else
            return null;
    }

A: Since you get the declared fields, you working with private fields that you normally can't access.
Use .setAccessible on the field before calling another method on it

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


$51.50 ($6 Service fee Included) All purchases are nonrefundable/nonexchangeable.
The Pacific Jazz Institute at Dimitriou's Jazz Alley welcomes back for her 15th year with us... raw, edgy, and inspired two-time Grammy-nominated saxophonist Mindi Abair with her band The Boneshakers for three nights and five shows. Band members are: Mindi Abair (sax and vocals), Randy Jacobs (guitar and background vocals), Third Richardson (Drums and background vocals), Rodney Yee (keyboards) and Ben White (bass). Show times Thursday at 7:30pm and 9:30pm. Doors open at 5:30pm.
The daughter and granddaughter of working musicians, Abair continues to captivate fans while evolving her sound. In 2014, after two seasons as the featured saxophonist on the hit series American Idol, Abair released Wild Heart. This LP showcased a compilation of grittier rock and soul tracks featuring some of the biggest names in music. To help translate this sound to her live shows, Mindi enlisted longtime friend and The Boneshakers founder Randy Jacobs (Bonnie Raitt, Was Not Was, Willie Nelson) to inject his brand of Detroit Rock/Funk. The collaboration was undeniable, and it lead to an almost immediate decision to join forces creatively. Mindi Abair and The Boneshakers features Mindi (Saxophone, Vocals), Randy Jacobs (Guitar, Vocals), Rodney Lee (Keys), Derek Frank (Bass, Vocals), and Third Richardson (Drums, Vocals). Their first record together Mindi Abair and The Boneshakers LIVE in Seattle was released September 2015, and recorded at their first official show together in here at Jazz Alley in February of 2015.
Their first studio album was released in September 2017 as Mindi Abair and The Boneshakers "The EastWest Sessions." Produced by renowned rock/blues producer Kevin "Caveman" Shirley (Led Zepplin, Joe Bonamassa, The Black Crowes, Aerosmith), it debuted #3 on the Billboard Blues Album Chart and reached #1 on the Blues Rock Album RMR chart. The band won a 2018 Independent Music Award for Best Blues Song Fan Award for "Pretty Good For A Girl" featuring Joe Bonamassa. And they won 8 Awards including "Artist of the Year" at the 2018 Independent Blues Awards.
When she's not touring as Mindi Abair and The Boneshakers, the Berklee graduate can often be found recording and touring with a wide array of legendary peers: Joe Perry, Trombone Shorty, Booker T. Jones, Aerosmith, Smokey Robinson, Bobby Rush, Keb' Mo', Adam Sandler, Duran Duran, Lalah Hathaway and the Backstreet Boys.


text:
Do Not Feed The Monkeys, voyeurism for dummies.
Hero : ©Alawar Entertainment
Get stuck into this completely crazy Point & Click game and "voyeurism simulator"! Get a job for The Primate Observation Club and spy on the "monkeys" while following the golden rules: never talk about the Club, buy one "cage" every week, and whatever you do, do not feed the monkeys!
Are you fascinated with what goes on behind closed doors? Want to unleash your inner "voyeur"? Well, settle down in front of Do not Feed the Monkeys and join the club! In any case, it doesn't really look like you have a choice. The email from this mysterious club is straight to the point: you'll have to take control of hacked security cameras that have been placed in the homes of seemingly normal people all over the world, known as "monkeys".
You have five days to install a certain number of cameras, or you can wave goodbye to your members' card! Your job is to carefully observe the everyday lives of your subjects in their "cages", using your control screens to gather as much useful information as possible, which you then sell to the Club. You can then install more surveillance cameras and get on with your little investigations without anyone bothering you.
©Alawar Entertainment
Make sure you complete as many missions as possible, and never hesitate to buy more cages every week, because them's the rules. But remember: never mention the Club, and whatever you do, don't feed the monkeys!
Developed by Fictiorama Studios, Do Not Feed the Monkeys is a Point & Click game that takes the form of a "voyeurism simulator". With its pixelated graphics and vignettes that are weird, convoluted, and hilarious, it will be a hit with anyone who's nosy, as well as players who like problem solving and time management more than out and out action.
Its simple but effective gameplay lets you step out of your tiny control room in a single click, and interact with the outside world. For example, your landlord will call for the rent every three days, and you'll end up spying on plenty of monkeys in order to make ends meet, and be sure to remember to do your shopping, eat, and sleep!
And even if meddling in your subjects' private lives is strictly forbidden, you'll soon see that some missions demand a lot more involvement than others! One last tip: Don't worry about the legality of what you're doing: ain't nobody got time for that!
Do Not Feed The Monkeys
Developer: Fictiorama Studios
Publisher: Alawar Entertainment
Type: management, simulation
Subtitles / Interface: English, German, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Korean
Rating: GamingTrend 90/100


Kshela DaisyHanX livejasmin. EdithxGold. EricStrong. MakoSunX.
000HotLatinGirlAPOLOLKandJAYHOTsexxxparadiisemusculardude34 .CatasmithObedientAnaniaSweetKiminewBoyBlackCOCK .THANIASWEETxXXxAlicexXXxKimmBeckerbeautyplayer .LucyXHeartGingerBreadBoyDollPollyEvaPrettySweet .VanessaVuNewLoveRRRALEXYUSDeniseVanity .BritneyCruzYoungJasmin95AmiraSmithhSaraSaige .AlyaRomashkaCamomilleeLindaNiceNewGuyOlli .AbrilNahiaWilsonBurnsMiguelMartinezGAPOLOLKandJAYHOT .AamazingKateObedientAnaniaDonnaChantalMellyMoue .TroyFayDeniseVanitySassyLucyCatasmith .MakoSunXLOGANNSMITHDuskaCatasmith .
NikkiSummerAsianHotChickayourdreamsgirlAmiraSmithh .CatasmithIhssaneBARTHONYKinkyyAmandaa .MellyMoueAsianHotChickaWilsonBurnsNewLoveRRR .LakomkkaaIhssaneMiguelMartinezGRachelBrunette .MeganGoldAamazingKateHOTsexyCHESKAAplayfulboy .DollPollyGingerBreadBoyMarianaGirlULovelyJenny .MakoSunXsimon22saharadolltsxxYuliFox .AngelakissyMeganGoldOrnella90KinkyyAmandaa .RachelBrunetteYuliFoxBARTHONYangelboysexy .GingerBreadBoyDollPollyDonnaChantalMissMargo18 .angelboysexysimon222PLAYMATES69XXXAngelBella059 .


After nine years with NASA and 136 days in space, Astronaut Jack Fischer is returning to the U.S. Air Force. His last day with NASA will be Thursday, May 31.
Fischer, a colonel in the U.S. Air Force, was born in Louisville, Colorado. He earned a bachelor's degree in astronautical engineering from the U.S. Air Force Academy, and a master's degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fischer is an Air Force Command pilot with more than 3,000 flight hours in more than 45 types of aircraft.
Fischer was selected in July 2009 as a member of the 20th NASA astronaut class, and completed astronaut candidate training in July 2011. He has worked in the CAPCOM (spacecraft communicator), Soyuz, International Space Station operations, space station integration, and exploration branches of the Astronaut Office.
On April 20, 2017, Fischer launched aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket for a five-month mission to the International Space Station. He served as a flight engineer on Expeditions 51 and 52. During his time on orbit, he worked on hundreds of scientific experiments and conducted two spacewalks totaling 6 hours, 59 minutes. One spacewalk was to replace an avionics box and install a connector for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and the other was to replace a failed critical computer relay box.


text:
Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri
Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri (ICUM) is a statewide association that proudly represents Missouri's nonprofit independent sector. Our member institutions represent a diverse array of four-year and two-year independent colleges and universities, educating an equally diverse group of students.
Missouri is fortunate to have a strong presence of nonprofit independent colleges and universities. ICUM institutions are highly regarded, leading in the national rankings of universities and colleges.
The leaders of our member institutions understand there is no better way to keep college costs down and debt levels low than graduating students on time. Forty-nine percent of non-profit independent sector students complete their bachelor's degree in four years, compared to 32 percent of public students in Missouri. This is important because historically, the longer it takes to earn a degree, the less likely a student is to graduate.
ICUM institutions also serve a diverse population of students. Our sector awards 71 percent of all baccalaureate degrees granted to African Americans attending a Missouri college. Our sector provides the degrees to 55 percent of the female baccalaureate conferees. And, our sector provides academic opportunity to a diverse population for first-generation college student.
Independent colleges and universities are also key drivers of economic stability and development across Missouri. Our sector's overall economic impact exceeds $13.6 billion annually. Collectively, our sector provides 32,675 direct jobs, and another 20,000 indirect jobs are attributed to our presence and activity.
ICUM speaks with one voice for our members, advocating for public policies that promote and protect nonprofit institutions and their students.
The primary function of the Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri (ICUM) is to represent its members before the Missouri General Assembly and its Executive branch of government as well as the Congress and the Federal Executive offices.
In so doing, professional lobbying will represent the best interests of the member's colleges and universities by fulfilling these functions:
Promoting and/or supporting legislation that defends or enhances the role of independent higher education.
Monitoring and rallying support against any proposed legislation, regulation, or rule which is detrimental to the role and causes of independent higher education.
Working with similar organizations as appropriate, to further independent higher education's interests on national or regional issues.
Working with public higher education when projects or legislation give evidence of benefiting independent and public colleges and universities.
The mission of ICUM will be best fulfilled if all eligible institutions are members. To that end, a professional lobbyist, guided by and responsible to the membership must provide such leadership and work within a guarded budget, so as to make member benefits obvious and membership fees reasonable.
Why Independent Higher Education?
Missouri Nonprofit Independent Colleges and Universities Care About Student Debt
Nonprofit private colleges aggressively work to help students limit borrowing.
Average Total Debt of Bachelor Degree Recipients,
Public and Private Colleges
4-Year Private
Average Annual Cost
Typical Total Debt
4-Year Public
Nonprofit private institutions encourage students to graduate in 4 years.
4 Year Graduation Rates
Private 49%
Public 32%
This matters because the longer it takes to earn a degree, the less likely the student is to graduate. Students who incur debt but don't see the rewards associated with earning their degree typically have a harder time repaying their loans.
We support Missouri's workforce priorities
Our sector grants 52 percent of all baccalaureate and higher degrees
Our sector awards 71 percent of all bachelor's degrees that are granted to African Americans in Missouri
Our institutions are highly regarded - leading in the rankings of Money, Forbes, U.S. News & World Report, Princeton Review, etc.


text:
Гре́ческое правосла́вие () — обобщающее официальное название ряда поместных православных церквей, имеющих общие культурно-литургические традиции: богослужение в которых обычно совершается на греческом диалекте койне — языке Септуагинты и оригинала многих книг Нового Завета (есть мнение, что и всех книг Нового Завета).

Церкви

Церкви, к которым применим термин «греческое православие» в узком смысле:
 четыре Патриархата древней пентархии:
 Константинопольская православная церковь во главе со патриархом Константинопольским, включая многочисленные структуры среди греческой диаспоры на всех обитаемых континентах кроме Африки, наиболее значительная из которых — Греческая православная архиепископия Америки
 Александрийский патриархат
 Антиохийский патриархат (исторически, а также по официальному полному названию)
 Иерусалимский патриархат
 Три национальные автокефальные церкви:
 Церковь Эллады
 Церковь Кипра
 Албанская православная церковь

История термина
Исторически, термин «греческое православие» используется также для описания всех православных церквей, поскольку прилагательное «греческий» в «греческом православии» можно отнести к греческому наследию Византийской империи. В течение восьми веков христианской истории большинство крупных интеллектуальных, культурных и социальных событий христианской церкви состоялись в рамках империи или в сфере её влияния, поэтому большая часть литургии, традиций и практики Константинопольской Церкви были приняты всеми народами, что обеспечило основные закономерности современного православия. Тем не менее, от апелляции к «греческому» отказались славянские и другие национальные православные церкви уже с X века нашей эры в связи с решением первого по чести из предстоятелей единой православной церкви того времени римского папы Адриана II о равноправии в кафолической церкви латыни, древнееврейского, койне и славянского языков и национальным пробуждением своих народов. Румынская церковь до середины XIX века использовала славянский язык, но грузинская — древнегрузинский, армяне-халкидониты — древнеармянский грабар, хотя древнегрузинский и древнеармянский к латыни, койне, древнееврейскому, церковнославянскому во всей Православной церкви приравнены не были.

См. также
 Раскол христианской церкви (1054)
 История православия
 Экуменизм
 Греки

Примечания

Ссылки

Православие в Греции
Христианство в Европе

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia