The dependence on oil and other fossil fuels for over 80% of our energy and the continued emission of carbon dioxide threatening stable
climate are captured in a single term: sustainability.

Question: What does sustainability mean when it comes to Energy production? Do you think it is possible?

Topic Resources:
Energy = Future
Controlling the Functionality of Materials for Sustainable Energy

Fracking is a step in the production of gas and oil by the high pressure fragmentation of shale using water, sand and chemicals. Using fracking to produce shale oil and shale gas has the potential to make the United States largely independent of foreign sources of natural gas and significantly less dependent on foreign sources of oil. The major exploitation of shale oil and gas will depend on dealing with environmental concerns surrounding potential ground water contamination and water depletion that result from the fracking process.

Question: Do you think hydraulic fracturing is the answer to our energy independence?

Topic Resources:
Future of fracking holds promise for U.S. energy outlook
The Fracturing of Pennsylvania
Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas
Natural Gas
How America Can Escape the Energy Trap
Drilling Down

Current Statistics: From 2005-2009, adult obesity increased by 9% to 29.7%. This translates into 67% of Chicago adults being either overweight or obese. Among Chicago children, available data reveal that 3-7 year-olds have more than twice the obesity rate (22%) than that of young children in the U.S. as a whole (10%). Other local data reveal that 71% of high school students and 29% of adults do not get adequate physical activity, and over 70% of students and adults do not eat the recommended number of servings of produce. In 2010, an estimated 380,000 Chicagoans lived in food deserts.

Question: What intervention policies should be in place to stop the obesity epidemic in Chicago?

The Genius Spark of Nikola Tesla

A traveling exhibit of one of the world’s most celebrated scientists
in its first U.S. visit

Navy Pier
August 6 – 28, 2011
Free and Open to the Public 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily
Arranged in cooperation with the Belgrade Committee of Chicago Sister Cities International.

To see a review of the exhibit and the opening night event click here

www.teslaexhibitchicago.com

To become a member click here

Partners:

Media Sponsors:

Platinum Donors:
Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Chabraja
Mary Ann and Charles La Bahn
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Nelson
Dushan and Nancy Petrovich
Paul and Mary Yovovich 

 

Gold Donors:
Mr. and Mrs. Vlado Bjelopetrovic
Dr. and Mrs. Ivan Ciric
Mrs. Kathy Fanslow Lifeline Humanitarian
Mr. and Mrs. Petar Gataric
Milan and Shannon Mrksich
Mr. and Mrs. Miroslav Mrksic
Dr. and Mrs. Zivojin Pavlovic
Candice and Dr. Steven Rosen

Do you ever think about the process of going to sleep at night? You:

• turn off the TV with a remote control instead of walking up to it
• text a friend or loved-one before plugging-in your cell phone for charging
• turn off the lights with a simple switch
• hop into bed with your air conditioner blasting or a fan blowing

One scientist played a role in making it all possible. The cool environment of your bedroom is courtesy of his invention, the AC induction motor—considered one of the greatest inventions of all time. The text you send uses wireless communication that he discovered in 1889. And yes, you can thank this man for the remote control; although, the first wireless TV remote, called the “Flashmatic”, was developed in 1955. The scientist responsible for helping you fall asleep at night is Nikola Tesla…and he’s coming to Chicago!

Born on July 10, 1856, Tesla’s unique mind manufactured hundreds of ideas that would forever change the way you communicate and how you see the world (literally). One of his greatest scientific achievements, which currently provides electricity to your home and charges your cell phone, debuted to the public in 1893 while lighting the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The polyphase alternating current (AC) system is currently used throughout the entire world. And thanks to his competition with Thomas Edison’s direct current (DC) system, one of the greatest rock bands of all-time found their electric name: AC/DC.

If you’re still not impressed, he even predicted cell phones in 1909. In an interview with the New York Times he proclaimed,

It will only be necessary to carry an inexpensive instrument not bigger than a watch, which will enable its bearer to hear anywhere on sea or land for distances of thousands of miles.

In 1909, who would have thought that cell phones the size of a watch would exist before the Chicago Cubs won their next World Series!?!

A mind like Tesla’s only appears as often as a Cubs championship. With over 700 patents, do you ever wonder how a brain like his develops? Is it nature? Or nurture? Or perhaps an x-factor? Last year C2ST hosted a talk at Northwestern called “Drug Discovery: Ingenuity or Serendipity?” The audience learned that drug discovery, like any scientific achievement, requires a harmony of intelligence and luck. Was Nikola Tesla lucky…or a genius?

Considering his long list of achievements, luck would have been lucky to play a role in his creative processes. This is probably what differentiates a genius from the rest of the world–scientific achievement without serendipity. Luckily, you can see the ingredients that placed Tesla into the upper echelon of scientists as a genius.

118 years after Nikola Tesla illuminated the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago with his AC creation, he’s back! The C2ST in partnership with the Belgrade Committee of Chicago Sister Cities International presents The Genius Spark of Nikola Tesla. From August 6-28, pay tribute to the scientist whose inventions help you fall asleep at night. This exhibit, visiting the U.S. for the first time at the historic Navy Pier, features a collection of Tesla’s electrifying inventions.  For details of the exhibit, click: The Genius Spark of Nikola Tesla. Thanks for reading, and see you at Navy Pier.

Author: Tom Ruginis. Follow him on Twitter at @letUbeU or his blog www.letubeu.com

Nikola Tesla (Serbian: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was an inventor, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. He was an important contributor to the birth of commercial electricity, and is best known for his many revolutionary developments in the field of electromagnetism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Tesla’s patents and theoretical work formed the basis of modern alternating current (AC) electric power systems, including the polyphase system of electrical distribution and the AC motor. This work helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution.

We want to hear from  you!!  Comment and tell us what you like about Tesla!   Also submit a YouTube video to our Genuis Spark Contest for a chance to win cool prizes.

WHAT DO I WIN
Round trip tickets (2) to anywhere Southwest Airlines files in the Continental United States, a Droid smartphone, and a chance to have your video or image displayed at the Nikola Tesla exhibit at Chicago’s Navy Pier.

HOW CAN YOU ENTER
Submit a video or image of your invention to info@c2st.org.  You may submit up to (5) videos.  Submission(s) MUST be accompanied by a short description and contact information to qualify.

HOW WILL SUBMISSIONS BE JUDGED
Log on to C2ST.org to vote for your favorite video. Limited to one vote per person…Finalists will be judged by accomplished Chicago Scientists. Winner will be determined by by mid-August .

Facebook.com/C2ST1

- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

Radiation is essentially various shrapnel that is released when an atom or atoms undergoes decay, fusion or fission. In this article, I will discuss the basics of radiation, types of danger of radiation, where it comes from, and a framework of risk with radiation. This is meant to inform some of the possible effects of radiation as a result of nuclear accidents or purposeful detonations.

For more on the topic of nuclear non-proliferation you are invited to attend the talk by Ambassador Robert Gallucci, President of MacArthur Foundation, on May 25th at Hughes Auditorium, Northwestern University.

What is radiation?

At the time of formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, most if not all elements were radioactive. Radioactivity is essentially the potential of an atom to release radiation. If we thought of a radioactive atom as a light-bulb, then radiation is the emanating light. Radiation in general has a number of sources other than atoms, but most nuclear radiation is caused by either atom decay, atomic fusion or fission.

Rays of All Kinds

Radiation comes in a number of flavors and a number of different properties, but the most common from nuclear material are neutron, followed by alpha, beta and gamma rays. Despite conventional wisdom, nuclear material doesn’t normally glow. At specific conditions it can ionize the air which can emit low light. More commonly, it can ionize water which does glow. In room temperature, they can be largely inert. It is said that Luis Alvarez used to keep a flat disk of plutonium as a paperweight on his desk. It produced short-ranged alpha particles, which are stopped by even very thin materials, like paper or skin, so it was practically harmless.

Sources: Mueller, “Physics and Technology for Future Presidents”, Chapter 4

Radiation Damage

There are three types of radiation damage: 1) Radiation burns (tissue damage); 2) Radiation sickness (metabolism disruption); 3) Cancer (DNA damage). The first usually accompanies a nuclear explosion, and as such causes immediate damage. If one survives a large dose of radiation, it still can cause radiation sickness as rays such as gamma, which can move through the body and disrupt cellular chemistry. If one survives the radiation sickness, there is a chance that some of the rays were able to shred DNA strands, or interrupt protein sequencing, which can cause cancer cells as a result.

Radiation is measured as a dose, with 3 different considerations – per instance (such as x-ray or CT scan), daily (for visiting a nuclear power plant) or annual (for workers in nuclear power plants). The basic dose is measured in the amount of energy deposited by rays to a certain body mass or volume, and that is measured in SI units called Greys (and older unit still in use is a rad (Radiation Absorption Dose) – 100 rads = 1 Grey). However, different parts of the body absorb different amounts of radiation, e.g. skin absorption rate is less than the lungs absorption rate. That is part of the reason why smoking and second-hand smoking don’t have the same cancer rates. Also, different rays have different effects on the body, and different penetration rates (alpha rays are stopped by skin, while muons pass through almost all matter without interacting).

So, if we include the consideration for the different absorption rates of body and the different penetration rates of the ray, we can calculate the standard units of radiation effect, called Sieverts (and an older unit still in use called a rem (Roentgen Equivalent in Man) – 100 rem = 1 Sievert).

Some common sources of radiation

Living on earth, we are exposed to common types of background radiation, which are usually from cosmic rays and the radon gas, which is released slowly from granite close to the surface. Certain elements, like Potassium, which are indispensable for human existence, also happen to be slightly radioactive, so sleeping next to anyone means receiving a small dose of radioactivity. For the purposes of comparison, the below table switches half way between microSieverts (10^-6) and miniSieverts (10^-3). A miniSievert is roughly equivalent to 200 million Gamma rays passing through every square centimeter of a human body.

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Mueller “Physics and Technology for Future Presidents”

For a visualization of these numbers and others, please see this radiation chart.

These tables are mostly useful to present the scale of different activities and radiation exhibited by a variety of activities. It shows that nuclear power plants, in normal operation, are far less radioactive than even a human being. Smoking is by far the most dangerous elective activity in terms of radiation (the low to high difference is due to the type of tobacco, kind of smoking, etc.). However, converting this into death risk is very hard to determine. If we assume (like the EPA) that there is a linear relationship between the radiation dose and cancer probability, 250 mSv causes an increase the lifetime risk of cancer by roughly 1%. So, with an average background radiation of 3 mSv, we would expect to see 0.01% cancer deaths from background radiation. However, at smaller values, this relationship is much harder to determine and likely to hard to observe in the total population of cancers.

Overall risk framework

One of the hardest things to frame in radiation is the risk involved, which we usually express as risk of death. The following table summarized average US data for years 2001 to 2007.

Source: Carnegie Mellon Death Risk Rankings

This table shows that most commonly people in the US die from circulatory system diseases and cancers. What is problematic is that radiation is not the singular cause of cancer, it is usually a minor cause of cancer. And while some cancers are more highly correlated with radiation than others, the small amount of radiation exposure cases means that the relationship is often hard to distinguish from random error. A study done on a very large cohort of similarly exposed subjects (19,000 European pilots) there was not enough data to statistically link cosmic radiation and cancer. This doesn’t mean that the risk should be ignored. Radiation is a real risk, but a risk that can be assessed, evaluated and managed.

(figure courtesy of http://periodictable.com/)

- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

Proliferation is but the spread of something – a technology or an idea, across a geographical area. We often use the term when the “something” in question is undesirable, viewed as dangerous or infectious. So it seems only fitting that the spread of nuclear technology would be called proliferation.This article is intended as a historical background for the field of nuclear proliferation.

For more on the current issues in nuclear non-proliferation, you are invited to attend the talk by Ambassador Robert Gallucci, president of MacArthur Foundation, on May 25th at the Hughes Auditorium, Northwestern University.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Proliferation

Proliferation usually comes in two flavors, vertical and horizontal. Vertical proliferation means that the technology spreads within the industry or geographical area, but it reaches higher and lower areas of complexity, it spreads and develops, it evolves. In the field of nuclear arms, vertical proliferation is the development of newer, better, stronger bombs that can be deployed in a variety of ways. The development of the hydrogen bomb is an example of vertical proliferation.

Horizontal proliferation is when the same technology is spread across a geographical or ideological space. In the case of nuclear arms, it is the spread of nuclear technology around the world, either intentionally or not. US working with Britain and France which led to their development of the atomic bomb is an example of horizontal proliferation.

Early views of proliferation

Early on, proliferation was view as a fantastic idea, as nuclear material was thought to have potential to cheaply produce electricity and power, and could revolutionize the world with neigh free energy. This idea was so powerful and intoxicating that to this day one can find those who believe cold fusion (room condition fusion of atoms) is a realistic goal. But beyond that, the large energy density of nuclear material gave hope that areas that had trouble with access to more traditional energy sources, especially developing countries would be able to produce all their needs from nuclear power at a fraction of the cost.

Oppenheimer vs. Baruch

But that was not to be. With the detonation of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WWII ended, and the discussion in the US turned to the future of atomic energy. Two camps develop quickly, with Robert Oppenheimer leading the argument for openness and collaboration with USSR and other countries in the world, and the Secretary of State Brynes leading the argument for preserving the “atomic competitive advantage”, and little collaboration with the Soviets. Oppenheimer had the foresight to acknowledge that the nuclear genie was out of its bottle, and that putting it back was going to be hard if not impossible. Despite rival optimism, he realized that in 5 to 10 years, USSR and other countries around the world will develop a nuclear weapon arsenal to rival the US, and despite the advantage, this race could only end in a stand-off between the two opposed sides. He was the first to publicly predict and explain the concept of nuclear terrorism in the US. He believed that any real security lay not in a competitive advantage, but collaboration and treaties, openness that engendered trust. He predicted that without that trust the world was at ever increasing risk of nuclear war, “a war without winners”.

And this debate was born out in a UN proposal that was to create a global International Atomic Development Authority to control the production, use and control of nuclear material, but tis plan was rejected by Stalin’s USSR. A minority in the UN, it was in fear of western powers’ ability to cull their development and access to nuclear technology, and vetoed the plan, de facto starting the arms race. The Soviets were able to test their first atomic weapon in record time, barely 4 years after the Trinity test in New Mexico, in August 1949. However, by this time, the US was already in possessions of 170 nuclear weapons.

At the core of this is the game-theoretic concept known as the “security dilemma“. A country doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and when it builds arms to increase it’s security, it makes other countries less secure.If alliance is not possible, the other countries can wage immediate war to prevent military build-up, or increase their own armaments to feel more secure. At the end, both countries gain nothing but greater volume of arms, which is likely to make both countries less secure. Thus, the security dilemma is a security paradox – building arms for protection often makes countries less secure. Some, including Jervis (who coined the term) have considered the cold war a classic example of a security dilemma.

Eisenhower and the “Atoms for Peace”

President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his famous “Atoms for Peace” speech in December, 1953. It started an official policy of proliferation of nuclear technology to less developed countries around the world. Some have called it a “nuclear carrot” to create and induce allies for the US in the Cold War. In practice, the US spread nuclear technology around to world, even to a few places that were doubtful as stable allies, such as Congo. Eisenhower’s programs did include an idea for an Uranium Bank, a facility that could monitor, control and review the distribution of atomic material across the world in order to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. This idea was short lived, as the 50s saw discoveries of mineable uranium across the globe, where it was previously held as a scarce commodity.

In the field of nuclear weapons, the US was racing ahead to develop a large number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, including nuclear-powered submarines. This race was driven in part to accomplish “first-strike” and “second strike” capabilities in order to quickly demolish an opposing nations ability to wage war.

Kennedy’s Sword of Damocles

In his 1961 speech before the UN, President Kennedy was the first American president to denounce nuclear weapons as a greater danger to society than they were a benefit to US security. At this point, the US had a stockpile of 22,000 nuclear weapons (compared to 2,400 for the USSR and 70 for Britain, as the only other nuclear powers in 1961).  And Kennedy recognized that a nuclear advantage meant nothing if a nuclear war destroyed the better part of the planet.  He realized that a nuclear disaster, a nuclear “Sword of Damocles” hung above every man, woman and child and could be triggered at any moment by “accident, miscalculation, or madness”. His thinking is ingrained in the development of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the early 60s, the development of Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles made some of the conventional armaments wisdom outdated. While an enemy might use first strike to eliminate land-based launch sites and destroy a lot of the land-based military and civilian infrastructure, the ability to launch nuclear weapons from submarines assured that the other side could retaliate from mobile and neigh-undetectable platforms. This lack of security in armaments coupled with the security dilemma gave birth to the precarious balance called the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. Not country could launch a nuclear attack first without being assured of destruction in return.

Nixon and the NPT

The first major treaty to develop controls for and establish the handling of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was at the same time a major step forward in thinking about nuclear weapon stockpiles in the world. The treaty is considered to embody three principles, or pillars: 1) Nuclear Non-Proliferation; 2) Disarmament; 3) Peaceful use of nuclear energy. It divided the world into those who have nuclear arms and those who don’t. Those who had committed to non-proliferation of weapons and disarmament, and those who didn’t have them were guaranteed access to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The treaty lacked the timelines for disarmament, but it is notable that both US and USSR today have fewer stockpiles of operational weapons (weapons that could be launched in less than a day) than at the time of signing.

It is argued that the NPT did relatively little to hinder the US vertical proliferation (modernization of weapons) and USSR weapons development (rate of roughly 1,000 warheads a year), but it served to convince other countries to abandon nuclear programs (such as Sweden), and increase international costs for others. Arguably, this international accord, currently ratified or enforced by every country with the exception of Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea (which withdrew in 2003).

The “Smiling Buddha”, an unexpected nuclear test done by India in May 1974, further tested the newly minted NPT. Despite espousing peaceful use of technology, the Indians were able to successful develop a nuclear device, but the program was soon abandoned. The program was abandoned afterwards until 1998, when the first deployable weapons are thought to have been created.

An interesting case of downward vertical proliferation in the US was Operation Plowshare, an attempt to find civilian uses for nuclear weapons. While originally consisting of a variety of projects, including artificial lake construction, mining and interstate road construction, the weapons were not used mostly due to local opposition. There were at least 3 detonations in Colorado, in an early attempt at shale oil extraction. The sites were underground, and remain radioactive to this day.

Reagan and bankrupting the USSR

By the start of the Reagan administration, the Cold War had entered its last phase. Years of emigrants (escapees?) from the USSR has painted a much less fearsome picture, and had given heart to the US that the Eastern Bloc could yet be broken. Unbeknownst to the Soviets, the US had been reducing the arsenal while maintaining or increasing the attach potential, mostly through technological advances like the Multiple Individual Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). At the same time, the USSR continued its development of a massive stockpile to a point where it had over 3 times more bombs than all delivery methods (rockets, submarines, bombers) combined. Pressure from the US on both military and diplomatic fronts was designed to break the economic back of the Soviet Union, in hopes that that will facilitate its final collapse. Some contend that the strategy there was rather successful, if not fruitful during Reagan’s administration.

The Reykjavik Summit

A singular moment in the history of Cold War, and arguably the beginning of the end of Cold War, was the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 at an old French Consulate. Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met to discuss an arms reduction treaty, which Reagan attempting to include some human rights issues as well. Despite agreements made on reduction of strategic and tactical nuclear arms, the negotiations broke down over the implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which would use satellites to track nuclear arms use, and deploy countermeasures. After the failure of the summit, the SDI initiative was popularly nicknamed “Star Wars”. However, a number of smaller treaties regarding nuclear weapons were nevertheless signed following the summit, even if the overall goal of disarmament had not been reached. Eventually, these efforts resulted in the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) that codified gradual disarmament by US and USSR/Russia, during the first Bush administration.

Clinton and the former Soviet states

After the collapse of the USSR, the world suddenly found itself with a number of newly forged democracies that had nuclear weapons, but not the intention to use them or the funds to maintain them. Seizing the moment, the Clinton administration forged a plant to help former soviet states dismantle both their nuclear weapons and research reactors, both of which contained the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) that could be used to create atomic bombs. By this time, due to technological advances, the scientific knowledge in building a nuclear bomb had become such that with access to material, a few talented Ph.D. students in physics could construct a simple device. Thus the Clinton administration tasked the DOE with developing a program to secure this material, which continues to this day.

Source: The Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Future of Proliferation

Currently, as of 2010, there are still over 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world, which is down from a peak of 69,000 in 1986. This belies the fact that our current weapons are far more modernized than they were 25 years ago, so they are both higher in yield and in efficiency of deployment. But it has been decreasing over time, and President Obama has supported further disarmament efforts with the new START treaty signed in April of 2010 with the USSR. If we disregard our recent history with India and North Korea, the US has been successful, if slow, in fulfilling the three pillars of the NPT treaty. The easiest way to prevent nuclear proliferation is to keep a close check on the material and spent fuel (both from reactors and weapons), and we have been successfully using a myriad of systems for several years to do this. But there are still too many weapons in the ex USSR that has not been adequately secured. And with US alone still maintaining 2,500 operation weapons, and over 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) on high alert (deployable within 20 minutes), we are still far from a world safe from nuclear war.