text:
Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets, and our opinion of the world in our selects
"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor
Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors
ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica
Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his
four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking
"if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow." I
looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a
starving man. Bill has worked as a photojournalist for 25 years,
keyword: WORK. Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's
life that Bill has earned and enjoyed. Probably Bill's most famous pic is
Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still
Bill has been published in many major magazines, including Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times
Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match. :His
published books include The Leica Manual, War Torn, Survivors and Victims in
the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America, Human Rights in China, Children of War. Add
to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums. Magazine
contributions include Popular Photography, Camera 35, Leica Manual,
Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist,
and now RFF. Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot
Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad, and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award.
Perhaps an ever bigger award
is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."
I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson. In
person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his
writing. He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography. I am happy
to say he
has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF From time to time Bill
will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions. Sit down
and enjoy the ride!


text:
Jerry Brown, who is being inaugurated today as California's 39th governor (he was also the state's 34th governor), joked recently that he felt like Rip van Winkle, the man who went up into the hills and fell asleep for 20 years in the famous Washington Irving story.
It's been 36 years since Brown first took office as governor, in January 1975. What was going on then?
-Gerald Ford was in the White House.
-The California legislature was such a revered institution that a book would call it a "school for politics."
-The cover of the magazine Popular Electronics featured the first publicly avaiable micro-computer, a forerunner of the personal computer.
-Your blogger, a few months short of his second birthday, was still in diapers. Today your blogger's son has just turned 2 and is still in diapers.
-The number one film in America was The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams, about a man exiled to a (non-political) universe.
-Elvis Presley's "Promised Land" was the number one hit in America. It was about a guy who is traveling from his home in Virginia to a new life in California. The song ends:
Los Angeles give me Norfolk Virginia
Tidewater four ten o nine
Tell the folks back home this is the promised land calling
And the poor boy is on the line

subset: commoncrawl


text:
With the presidential circus having left their backyard, New Hampshire's Senate candidates lost little time this week digging into each other's commitment to limiting spending in what's expected to be one of the most competitive and expensive Senate races in the country.
Just days after Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary with 60 percent of the vote — a presidential race in which he's made campaign finance a big issue against Hillary Clinton — Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte came out with a surprising campaign finance proposal of her own. "Campaigns don't have to be driven by third-party groups — we can change the status quo and take a stand to say that this race should be about New Hampshire," she wrote to her Democratic rival, Gov. Maggie Hassan, in challenging her to sign a "People's Pledge" to limit outside spending in their Senate race.


text:
When it's time for you look for local businesses to help you with your wedding, take a look at our advertisements below. Most will have links to their own websites. These advertisements are updated regularly so please revisit often and mention Your Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wedding when making any enquiries.
Back issues are available (subject to availability) for £3.45 each, including postage and packaging for UK delivery only. Either phone or email to place your order.
Alternatively why not use our online ordering service?


text:
News about Misfit product updates, including software, firmware, API, and integrations.
Want more from Misfit
By entering your e-mail address you accept the terms and conditions
Congratulations! You are now subscribed to
839 Mitten Road, Suite 100 Burlingame, CA 94010
Misfit is part of the Fossil Group portfolio of brands. Learn more
© Copyright Misfit, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, iPhone and iPod touch are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.


text:
Did you hear the one about cocaine being found in the recipe for Coca-Cola? Well, it's true.
Coca-Cola was invented in 1885 by John Pemberton, a pharmacist from Atlanta, Georgia, who concocted the original formula in his backyard. Pemberton's recipe contained cocaine—in the form of an extract of the coca leaf, which inspired the "Coca" part of the beverage's name. The "Cola" in the name comes from the kola nut, which contains caffeine, another stimulant.
At the time of Coca-Cola's invention, cocaine was legal and a common ingredient in medicines. It was thought not to be harmful in small doses.
Medicinal Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola has always kept its formula a strict secret, but we know a few things about its origins.
Pemberton advertised it as a patent medicine, claiming that it cured headaches, upset stomach, and fatigue. "Patent medicines" were concoctions of exotic ingredients and drug compounds that allegedly cured a wide range of ailments. They often contained ingredients now recognized as addictive substances, including opium and cocaine, as well as deadly elements like mercury and lead.
In the 19th century, patent medicines were not regulated like medications are today. Anyone could claim health benefits without needing to prove treatment effectiveness—or reveal dangers. As early as 1891, some Americans spoke out against the inclusion of addictive ingredients like opium and cocaine. The makers of patent medicines revamped their formulas and health claims as a result.
Taking the "Coke" out of Coca-Cola
Asa Candler—also a pharmacist from Atlanta—purchased Coca-Cola from Pemberton and created the Coca-Cola Company in 1892. When Candler began advertising Coke as a beverage, making it available at lunch counters across America, the drink still contained a trace of cocaine.
Obviously, the Coca-Cola you buy today does not contain cocaine—but it remained an ingredient well into the 1900s. But by 1929, with public pressure and Prohibition against alcohol in full force, the company was forced to remove all traces of cocaine. Coke soon became popular as a "soft drink," an alternative to hard alcohol.
What does cocaine do to your body? Take a quiz to find out.
thats a cool thing to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you so much in putting together this post, so much appreciated because it has helped me in my research.
I love coco-cola
[commercial link removed, per guidelines]
i never knew that
that is amazing
never knew it but that is good to know now
i need some coca-cola now
thats pretty cool, my pap use to work there he was there 35 years and retired i bet he dosent know that
This article is very interesting. I understand the part about using the Coca-Cola with cocaine as a medicine because pharmacists used to use cocaine as an ingredient in medicines but i cant believe that the other pharmacist, Asa Candler sold it as a drink even though there were traces of cocaine in it. I wonder how people acted after they consumed it. Its a good thing they dont have cocaine in Coca-Cola anymore!
I thoguht this was a really good blog, and i found out alot about the origin of Coca Cola, one of my favortie sodas in the world. I would have never known that there was a drug in a drink sold to kids! And one of the biggest soda compaintes started in someones back yard.
I say this really is good to know that coca cola had cocaine in it and that is no longer the case. If the cocaine was still in coca cola, I would not drink it. It is not healthy to sip even a small trace of cocaine. Without the public pressure we might still have cocaine in coca cola and kids would not be drinking it.
yes you are right i do not drink also
[commercial link removed, per guidelines]
i think it was a good idea that coca-cola decided to take cocaine out of there drink. I love coca cola and if this drink had cocaine I wouldn't like it. also it was probably a lot better buisness wise to take cocaine out because now they have a lot more people to advertise to. This was a very helpful blog.
There was and still cocaine in coca-cola. Ask the government to confirm if they ever tested to make sure it was taken out. I did. They said there are no records of any test. Wake up people-you being fool.
Crack cocaine is a solid form of cocaine, whereas Coca-Cola originally contained an extract of the coca leaf, which is what cocaine is made from. You can read more about cocaine here: https://teens.drugabuse.gov/drug-facts/stimulants
Repeated cocaine use (no matter what form it's in) can lead to addiction. For more information, check out our Drug Facts page: https://teens.drugabuse.gov/drug-facts/cocaine.


text:
Had the USA done differently these would have happened:
The Cold War would have ended by itself.
Soviets would not have been able to hold on under the weight of its personality cult and mis-rule; Gorbachev did call for more openeness because he had no other alternative. A catastrophic event like Chernobyl showed the USSR had to update its technology and let in expertise from outside; Its ageing submarines around the Baltic and the North Sea for example and deeply ingrained black market profiteering was a symptom of the weak authority or lack of will in cleaning up administration. Dwindling population already decimated by WWII and under repression were not strong to force changes..
2. Osama bin Laden would have been the founder
of a chain of companies: or directing his own construction company from one of the Saudi office blocks spending his time with with his team setting new goals for branching out into different parts of UAE. Name of the company: Al Quaida Construction Co.,
3. Saddam Hussein would have moved from being one of those street- smart hoodlum into the the service of some ageing Sheik. Or he would have continued in Egypt, sucking upto rich tourists coming in to visit the pyramids.
4. As for Iraq the British interests were already on the wane. America would have had greater role to play in the Middlle East. So many deaths on the sides of Iraq,Iran and of US Marines would have been spared.
This is terrible, I mean to rewrite history. (from my post of April 1,2007 in Journalspace )
Posts Tagged 'the soviet bloc'
Sliding Doors
Posted in history, tagged history, Osama bin laden, political post-mortem, Saddam Hussein, the Cold War, the soviet bloc on July 25, 2012| Leave a Comment »
Had the USA done differently these would have happened:


text:
join the Illuminati in Hong Kong– Do you want to be a member of Illuminati as a brotherhood that will make you rich and famous in the world and have power to control people in the high place in the worldwide.join the Illuminati in Hong Kong if you a business man or woman,artist, political, musician, student, do you want to be rich, famous, powerful in life, join the Illuminati brotherhood cult today and get instant rich sum of. 200,000 in a week, and a free home. Any where you choose to live in this world and also get 50,000 U.S dollars monthly as a salary
CALL / WHATSAPP Priest Phillips ON +27718490625 To Enter the illuminati society Worldwide OR EMAIL: firstname.lastname@example.com
BENEFITS GIVEN TO NEW MEMBERS WHO join the Illuminati in Hong Kong.
- A Cash Reward of USD $200,000 USD
2. A New Sleek Dream CAR valued at USD $100,000 USD
3.A Dream House bought in the country of your own choice
4. One Month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination.
5.One year Golf Membership package
6.A V.I.P treatment in all Airports in the World 7.A total Lifestyle change 8.Access to Bohemian Grove
9.Monthly payment of $ 50,000 USD into your bank account every month as a member after doing illuminate monthly tasks.
10.One Month booked Appointment with Top 5 world Leaders and Top 5 Celebrities in the World.
If you are interested of joining us in the great brotherhood illuminati satanic hand symbol contact us no
If your life is faced with struggles, remember the power of the mind. Remember that your brain bears no physical difference from that of a millionaire, a billionaire, a queen or a president. Remember that those of power were born with minds as empty of knowledge as every other child — their choices of what to fill their minds with led them to a life of Abundance. Join the Illuminati in Hong Kong.
Remember, while the join Illuminati are a secretive society, we pride ourselves on showing off our wealth and power. This is done through a complex array of hand gestures, publicly held rituals, symbols, coded phrases, conspicuous consumption, and signature poses.join Illuminati in Hongkong. Joining Members


text:
Five Words You Can Spell Phone Case
Save Liquid error (product-badge line 32): -Infinity%
About Our Cases
All our cases help to maximise protection without affecting the form or function:
- Hard plastic backplate for maximum protection.
- Rubber sides that line all sides of the phone:
- Maximise protection for your phone.
- Soft and flexible, enable easy put on and removal.
- Protect your phone from scratches on all sides.
- Act as a layer of cushion during any drop.
- Raised lips at every corner of the screen for added screen protection (the amount of raised lips varies according to the design of individual phone models).
- Compatible with wireless charging.
- High quality matte finishing which is scratch-resistant and fingerprint-resistant.
- Cases are precisely manufactured for a perfect fit with your phone.
- Lightweight, because we know how tiring our arms can be after long hours of watching movies and playing games, or even just scrolling through social media! 😊


text:
Cole feels connection wearing Jackie's No. 42
CINCINNATI -- Losing Tuesday night made Gerrit Cole feel bad.
Losing on Jackie Robinson's Day and in his No. 42 made Cole feel inconsolable.
"That's quite disappointing, even more so than us losing the game. It's just a little extra downer. I wanted to represent him a little better," Cole said quietly in the Pirates' clubhouse following their 7-5 loss to the Reds in Great American Ball Park. "What he did for baseball ... you can't say enough about that."
The emotional wave Cole surfed Tuesday night was whipped up by more than just the groundbreaking heroism for which Robinson is celebrated.
The young pitcher also embraces the fact he and Robinson are connected through UCLA. In addition to the No. 42 on his back, Cole had "UCLA 42" on the band of his cap.
"Absolutely," Cole said, proudly. "You know that everyone who has gone to that school recognizes him as the quintessential Bruin, outside of maybe John Wooden. So I think this is a special day for everybody, and for everyone who has gone to UCLA it is an extra special day. Just ask guys around the league [who came out of UCLA], like Chase [Utley] and Brandon [Crawford].
"Getting to pitch in that uniform was cool. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to deliver."


text:
Last Activity: December 27th, 2019 19:13
About Me
- About Xian
- Gender
- Male
- Location
- Tennessee, United States
- Occupation
- WAN Engineer
- About Me
- I have been playing computer games since getting an Atari 800 in the early 80s. One of the first games I bought was Ultima III and I have been hooked on RPGs ever since. I had an Atari ST and Amiga for the rest of the 80s, then around 1991 I bought a 386 and I have been a PC gamer ever since.
- Interests
- Things I like
- I enjoy reading, biking, hiking, and of course computer games.
- Favorite RPGs
- Ultima IV and others in the series, Ultima Underworld I & II, the Gothic series, Lands of Lore, Eye of the Beholder I & II, Dungeonmaster, System Shock
- Favorite MMOs
- I tried a few - WoW, Warhammer Online, and LOTR Online, but I prefer single player games.
- Favorite Non-RPGs
- Kings Bounty, Spellforce 2, Starcraft
- Favorite music
- 60s & 70s. I usually listened to non-mainstream music. Jefferson Airplane, Hot Tuna, Pink Floyd & Roger Waters
- Favorite books
- The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson
The Stand - Stephen King
Shogun, Tai-Pan, Noble House - James Clavell
Pillars of the Earth, World Without End - Ken Follett
- System Specifications
- Windows 10, OS X, Linux Mint 17.3
- Hardware
- PC: i7-930 Quad Core, 12 gigs RAM, Nvidia GTX 760
Mac: Core2Duo, 2 gig RAM, ATI video
|August 15th, 2019
|09:35 - bjon045 quoted Xian in post King's Bounty II - Announced for 2020
I barely started the Dark…


text:
A meeting with Einstein
A comment from Clive J. Grant reads:
I'm not permitted to tell you what lay behind it, but I traveled to Princeton, in the company of a textile expert, to discuss something with Einstein. What I remember is that he said,
If I give you a pfennig, you will be one pfennig richer and I'll be one pfennig poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will have a new idea but I shall still have it, too.I never did get the idea, but I did get the aphorism.


text:
For mobile users: To open up the buttons that link to our jewelry categories, click on the three horizontal line icon on the upper right of your screen.
A note from GK's president:
Our mission at GK is two-fold: to design, create, and manufacture the most versatile and innovative Fine Jewelry available anywhere & to stay committed to the majestic ancestry of making precious jewelry that is beautiful forever, and ready to wear everyday, anytime.
I am not content simply redesigning jewelry. I want to redefine all jewelry, creating a combination of beauty, value and utility never seen before.
Our jewelry offers multiple uses of precious metal and gemstone components that can be added to, interchanged, dressed up, dressed down, or just dressed to kill. Our patented, innovative design technologies are functional and secure, while being elegantly disguised in beautifully designed fine jewelry. All of this has been accomplished in jewelry that is affordable and of outstanding value. We proudly offer products that are truly the evolution of fine jewelry. As we celebrate 100 years of fine jewelry design and manufacture, we proudly offer products that are made exclusively in the USA at our factory located in Norwood, Massachusetts.
Thank you for visiting our website. We look forward to celebrating life's most celebrated moments with you.
David Steinhauer
President, GK Jewelry Inc.


text:
Biosafety Manual Log of Changes
Log of updates to the UW Biosafety Manual.
Lab Safety Manual Log of Changes
Log of most recent changes to the UW Laboratory Safety Manual.
Autoclave Training Log
Use this training log to document personnel that have been trained on the site-specific procedures needed to operate your autoclave.
Autoclave Log Sheet
Use this log sheet to record autoclave runs that include biohazardous waste and/or biological indicators. This log sheet has a place to record all the required information for compliance.


text:
Hi, I saw a card while browsing through ebay that I am interested in. I don't use ebay anymore so let me know if it would be possible to purchase from you via the boards. I used to player collect Brad Fullmer up until 2010 or so and am interested in the 1998 Leaf Fractal Materials Die-Cut you have. What's the best you could do for it? Please let me know. Thanks! - Dylan
Couple things- I sent along my address a couple weeks back for the Manny Ramirez lot in your 90's break. I haven't heard back yet or seen the cards yet so I just wanted to check in. I don;t think anything noteworthy was pulled of Manny and it is no rush but it will be fun when the cards come in.
Also- congrats on the Stand and Deliver Red Letters set purchase. Those scans look awesome in the 90's thread. I know you are in it to turn a profit on the breakup of the set but I don;t have a Manny so let me know what price you are looking for on the Manny Ramirez. I definitely don;t spend like I used to but I also don;t need all that many 90's inserts of him anymore so it would be awesome to pick that one up. I have the other two Stand and Deliver versions. If our prices match then cool, if not no problem. Good luck with the singles and I hope you do really well.
Cheers, Jamie


text:
"I know the email is in here, just hold on."
I was recently asked to forward an email I had received to someone else. I couldn't remember the exact title of the message that I wanted, so I spent a few minutes searching and scrolling. Fortunately, I only had a couple dozen messages in my inbox. I've seen people scroll through thousands of messages in a desperate hunt for that one phone number, street address or appointment confirmation. It's agonizing. Why do we do that to ourselves?
An interesting thing about email is that, for many, it's both a delivery system and a storage facility. When we "check email," we often open our email software, browse the many messages contained therein, and then quit the application without removing any of the messages.
Consider the paper mail that reaches your mailbox: you don't open the box, sort through the envelopes and then close it back up again, leaving everything inside. Nor do you return from the grocery store and leave brimming bags on the kitchen counter. Yet, email is often ignored in this way, to our detriment.
I recommend using a simple four-step process to get your electronic mailbox as close to empty as you can, every day. The steps are:
- Decide what each message is.
- Decide what must be done.
- Do what must be done.
- Delete the message (or archive it in a separate folder, if that is what your employer directs).
It's an adaptation of David Allen's Getting Things Done method for processing email, which is a highly formalized system of productivity improvement. You can read David's book (and I recommend that you do), but you needn't follow his instructions in full to reap huge benefits. Here's a simplified adaptation that I use for managing email.
Defining Work Time
Before we begin exploring the how, let's define the when. The good news about email access is also the bad news: it's nearly ubiquitous. You can send and receive email at various points of the day. For those of us with connected smartphones, email is almost available during every waking moment of our day.
As such, it's easy to succumb to the temptation to check it whenever the opportunity arises. Instead, tame that tendency by defining email time. I like to check email at 8:00 AM, 12:00 noon and 5:00 PM. This has several benefits. First, it familiarizes others with my communication schedule. It also helps me stay focused when I do sit down to work through email. Finally, it alleviates the guilt of not checking during off hours. Define a time to sit down with your computer, smart phone, or tablet and work with your email. All set? Now, let's begin.
What is it?
When a new email message arrives, you must ask yourself, "What is this?" It sounds silly but it's crucial. There are three possible answers:
- It's garbage
- It's something I need to do
- It's something I might refer to later
That's it. Every message you ever receive will fall into these three categories. Now that you've identified what each message is, proceed to step two.
Decide what must be done
The first one is simple: garbage. As soon as you see it, delete it. Spam, advertising you aren't interested in, messages from old mailing lists you've lost interest in, etc. It's all trash, so trash it. Immediately.
The next category is the action category. These messages require someone — typically you — to do something. For instance, "Call Jane about the committee meeting," "Forward the presentation to Frank," or "Ask Faith about the campout next week." Once you've identified what the required action is, make note of it in the appropriate place (on your to-do list or calendar) and then delete the message. Yes, delete it. (Unless, again, your company requires you to retain your email for legal reasons. In this case, move it to an archive folder.)
The final category is reference material. These messages do not require action, but they do hold information that could be useful someday. Identify what that information is, store it in the appropriate place and then delete the email. Yes, delete it. On to step three.
Do what must be done (the appropriate place)
This step is a biggie. Just as you don't pull a hot turkey out of the oven without first knowing where you're going to set it down, you should't delete that email message until you've identified a trusted place to put its important information. This is what David Allen calls a "trusted system." Essentially, it's an obvious, reliable stake in the ground that holds your information.
It can be anything you want. You might choose a paper notebook — I carry one around for jotting a daily task list. There's lots of software available, from simple to involved, which you can use for this purpose. My choice is Evernote, because it's simple to use, powerful, cross-platform (Mac, Windows, web browsers and an increasing number of mobile devices are supported) and above all, reliable. Evernote works by creating virtual Notebooks, each of which can contain several notes. Notes and notebooks can be sorted, categorized and organized to your heart's content, and online sync keeps them up-to-date across all you devices. So, if you create a note on your computer, it will show up on your phone or iPad without you having to do a thing.
Evernote is fantastic for storing reference material, or what I call "cold storage." Receipts from online purchases, how-to's, restaurant menus, theatre schedules, the kids' sporting information, contracts and more. Once you have the pertinent information in a reliable system you trust, you can delete the email message.
As for action items, how you handle these is up to you. Evernote will create an action list, if you decide to use it. You can also create a list in a notebook or task-oriented software like Remember The Milk, Teux Deux or even Omnifocus if you want to go hard-core.
The important thing is trust. You must have faith in the system you choose, whatever it is. That way your brain will stop pestering you and, more importantly, you'll be able to delete those messages. So, to recap. When an email message arrives, follow these steps:
- Decide what it is.
- Decide what must be done (trash, define a task or place in cold storage).
- Do what must be done.
- Delete the message.


text:
MLB St. Louis Cardinals '47 Clean Up Hat
- St. Louis Cardinals Home '47 CLEAN UP adjustable dad hat. The CLEAN UP is also known as the OG of relaxed and curved hats. You'll love the '47 CLEAN UP for its adjustable strapback, garment washed softness. In fact this is quite possibly the most comfortable hat you'll ever wear, and you always look good when you feel comfortable.


text:
(Updated November 2016)
At present there is clear and unequivocal understanding that each country is ethically and legally responsible for its own wastes, therefore the default position is that all nuclear wastes will be disposed of in each of the 50 or so countries concerned.
The main ingredients of high-level nuclear wastes are created in the nuclear reactors which make the electricity in 31 countries. They are essentially not left-overs from imported uranium.There is thus no moral obligation on uranium suppliers in respect to the wastes, other than that involved in safeguards procedures.
For instance, Australian uranium is supplied under safeguards, which are essentially accounting and inspection procedures to ensure that neither the uranium nor any product of it (eg plutonium) contribute to fulfilling the aspirations of anyone wanting to build weapons. With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Australian Safeguards & Non-Proliferation Office tracks "Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials" all the way through to used fuel, reprocessing (if undertaken), and recycling of plutonium (if separated) in mixed oxide fuels. The same kind of arrangements apply to Canadian uranium.
Thus any international waste repository has implications under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The trustworthiness and standing of the host country is fundamental to the project's acceptability to NPT states, which comprise virtually every country but India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Also, the international treaty produced by IAEA and signed by most nations of the world in 1997 covering the management and disposal of used fuel and high-level wastes requires that the host facility or system meets the highest national and international standards.
Even countries such as Australia with no nuclear power have need for secure disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes from their research reactors.
In November 2003, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said to the UN General Assembly: "We should ... consider multinational approaches to the management and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Over 50 countries currently have spent fuel stored in temporary locations, awaiting reprocessing or disposal. Not all countries have the appropriate geological conditions for such disposal - and, for many countries with small nuclear programs, the financial and human resources required for the construction and operation of a geological disposal facility are daunting."
In an October article he included research reactors in the scope of this suggestion and concluded that "considerable advantages - in cost, safety, security and non-proliferation - would be gained from international co-operation in these stages of the nuclear fuel cycle."
Nearly 25 years earlier, in 1980, the IAEA-sponsored International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) waste management and disposal report had firmly recommended that proposals "for establishing multinational and international repositories should be elaborated" due to their non-proliferation advantages. "Centralised facilities for disposal of spent fuel and/or vitrified high-level wastes .... would reduce the diversion risk" and be more economical.
Individual waste repositories for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level wastes need to be reliably secure. Achieving high security means:
Insofar as these functions are less than fully assured in any of the 50 countries concerned with radioactive wastes, there is a justification for some kind of international collaboration and facilities, possibly on a regional basis. In particular, the second point is arguably best achieved by international collaboration under IAEA auspices.
While most countries should be able to find suitably safe sites in stable geological formations, demonstrating this safety so as to create public confidence is best achieved where there is simple geology.
Certainly, geological disposal is the only foreseeable way of ensuring adequate safety and security in the long-term management of used fuel which is treated as waste, and also of separated high-level radioactive wastes which, if recycling of actinides becomes established, eventually will be mainly fission products.
While acknowledging each county's responsibility for its own wastes, the limits to the logic on indigenous disposal can be seen from the changing national borders within Europe over the last century. For Slovenia for instance (which has one nuclear power reactor), its capital city Ljubljana has politically lain within seven different states in the last 100 years.
The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report in May 2016 notes:
There are international models that address the transfer
of waste between countries. The Basel Convention, which applies to hazardous wastes other than radioactive waste, imposes requirements upon the transfer of hazardous wastes between countries; namely the transfer shall only take place where prior informed consent has been received and only if the transfer represents an environmentally sound solution. Hazardous wastes are commercially transferred under
this regime. While the Joint Convention applies equivalent requirements to transfers of radioactive waste between countries, there are no operating models for the commercial transfer of used fuel for disposal.
Various organisations have looked into potential concepts. There are, however, commercial models for the transfer of used fuel between countries for reprocessing, as well as the take-back of fuel from reactors built by Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation... The United Kingdom has reprocessed used fuel for many countries but does not accept the waste products for disposal. In all cases, transfers can only take place if the recipient country has the capacity to manage the waste safely and where such transfer has been agreed between the countries concerned.
In October 2016 the Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working Group (RNFSWG) of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) released a report, Overview of the Dual Track Approach for National Back-end Programs, focused on the needs of countries with small nuclear programs. It notes that under the IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, contracting parties have agreed that the country that discharges the spent fuel and receives the benefits of the power generated bears the responsibility for its management, including disposal. Since disposal is a relatively major burden with small quantities, due to high fixed costs, some international collaboration is suggested. This is the dual track beyond simply national approaches.
In May 2016 the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission reported. A major recommendation was that a facility for the disposal of international used nuclear fuel and intermediate-level waste should be established. It found that the state "has the necessary attributes and capabilities to develop a world-class waste disposal facility, and to do so safely." Based on a "cautious and conservative approach", from assessments of used fuel inventories and potential global interest the commission determined that such a facility could generate more than AUD 100 billion in income in excess of expenditure (including a reserve fund of AUD 32 billion for facility closure and ongoing monitoring) over the 120-year life of the project.
The World Nuclear Association said that the report had "fundamentally changed the nature of the global nuclear waste discourse," and a multinational waste facility based in South Australia would provide a welcome option for countries operating nuclear facilities today. It would be a "viable alternative" to national projects. Such a large multinational waste storage facility would be a world first and should offer advantages in terms of siting and economics when compared to smaller national approaches.
Under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety
of Radioactive Waste Management, any proposal to store and dispose of used fuel in South Australia would require agreement between the countries concerned. In Australia, treaty level agreements would need to be developed between the federal government and the relevant overseas government. An agreement would also need to specify arrangements between the Australian Government and the Government of South Australia, to ensure these commitments were fulfilled. Further agreements may be required with third party countries: for example, if they have supplied uranium to the country wishing to store and dispose of used fuel in South Australia.
As Australia is a net exporter of energy, it has a significant role to play in assisting other countries to lower their carbon emissions. This includes countries with less opportunity for large-scale renewable energy deployment than Australia, for whom nuclear power makes a substantial contribution
to their production of low carbon energy. For new nuclear entrants or countries with little prospect of siting their own used fuel disposal facilities, an international solution would remove a significant impediment to the new or ongoing use of nuclear power as a low-carbon technology. As a result, Australia would derive a reputational and financial benefit by hosting a facility for the disposal of international used fuel.
Excluding countries which are committed to developing national solutions or already have structured programs leading to a domestic facility, and those with laws prohibiting export of wastes, the report identifies 90,000 tonnes of used fuel and almost 270,000 cubic metres of intermediate-levels wastes as a potentially accessible market and available for an Australian repository today. These amounts, comprising about one-quarter of actual world used fuel and ILW, are increasing annually. By 2090 the amounts are 276,500 tonnes and 782,000 m3 respectively. The viability analysis is based on half these amounts.
Based on detailed analysis, the commission considered that a reasonable baseline price for the purpose of assessing viability would be A$ 1.75 million/tHM for used fuel. This is based on a reasonable baseline 'willingness to pay' estimate of A$ 1.95 million/tHM, less A$ 0.2 million/tHM to account for costs incurred by customers in preparing and delivering the waste to South Australia.
The management and disposal of intermediate-level waste commands a far lower willingness to pay than for used fuel since it is more readily managed and stored. However, a 2011 report from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has suggested that £25,900 per m3
(in current terms, A$ 66,000 per m3) represents a levy that ought be imposed on nuclear power plant operators to reflect current costs and the potential for future increases. In the interests of conservatism, and to address the costs of packaging and transport (which are not as well defined as for used fuel) a price to charge of A$ 40,000 per m3 is considered appropriate for the purposes of a viability analysis.
Interim above-ground storage for used fuel inside heavily engineered, purpose-built casks would be followed by deep geological disposal, the repository design based on that under construction at Olkiluoto in Finland at 400-450 metre depth. In the analysis, the geological disposal facility for used fuel is notionally co-located with an intermediate-level waste facility, where those packages are placed in medium-depth vaults of 50-250 metres. The report said that integrated facilities with capacity to store and dispose of used fuel would be viable.
On a number of realistic scenarios, such a facility would be highly profitable. The timeline for establishing an interim storage facility and associated transport infrastructure, including harbour, port and railway would be 11 years after project commencement.
Transferring used fuel and ILW from surface storage to underground repository would begin at 28 years. Revenue would thus commence at year 11, based on 3000 t/yr used fuel, so A$ 5.25 billion/yr over 30 years from then, simply for the fuel. Total capital cost would be A$ 41 billion over some years including 25% contingency, and operating expenses from year 11 about A$ 0.878 million (in 2015 $). Overall total revenue (in undiscounted terms) would be more than A$ 257 billion, with total costs of A$ 145 billion.
The project would add 4.7% to gross state product and 1.9% to employment by 2030.
Legislative changes would be necessary at state and federal levels.
Early in 2002 a new, non-commercial body to promote the concept of regional and international facilities for storage and disposal of all types of long-lived nuclear wastes was set up. This is ARIUS – the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage. A key objective is to explore ways of providing shared radioactive waste management approaches and facilities, in particular storage and disposal facilities for smaller users. Membership is open and comprises countries with small nuclear programs as well as industrial organisations with relevant interests. Arius is a successor to the Pangea proposal (see below).
Arius is focusing initially on Europe, and the feasibility of regional repositories there. In 2002 a European Commission Directive said that geological disposal of radioactive wastes was preferred and that "A regional approach, involving two or more countries, could also offer advantages especially to countries that have no or limited nuclear programs, insofar as it would provide a safe and less costly solution for all parties."
In mid-2003 Arius initiated the SAPIERR Pilot Project for European Regional Repositories, which obtained European Commission approval. This was undertaken over two years to 2005 to help the EC grapple with the regional repository issue as flagged earlier in the EC Radioactive Waste Directive. It allowed potential options for regional collaboration and for regional repositories to be identified, though it did not extend to site identification. Slovakia provided the project coordination.
Following this pilot study, in September 2006 a new EC-funded SAPIERR (Strategic Action Plan for Implementation of European Regional Repositories) project to assess the feasibility of European regional waste repositories was commenced, indicating a recognition in the EU that implementing 25 national repositories is not optimal economically or for safety and security. The project was in line with proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Russia and the USA (with GNEP, now IFNEC) for multilateral cooperation in the fuel cycle in order to enhance global security. Shared repositories for high-level nuclear wastes are an important element of this.
The SAPIERR project held its final symposium January 2009 in Brussels. The results of studies on the viability of shared, regional European geological repositories were presented to 50 participants from 21 countries. The aspects considered included organisational and legal issues, economic impacts, safety and security considerations, and public and political attitudes to multinational repositories.
The main outcome of this was that 14 countries* resolved to move towards setting up a European Repository Development Organisation (ERDO). The first step in the strategy was the establishment of a self-financing Working Group (ERDO-WG) of interested countries in 2009 to prepare a consensus model to be agreed for ERDO, using the SAPIERR findings as a starting point. It proposes a sister organisation to waste agencies from European countries that have opted for a purely national repository program. This model was presented to potentially interested countries, and internal discussions are still in progress in several of these on adopting the multinational solution as one option when responding to the requirements placed on EU member states by the EC Waste Directive of 2011.** Some member states have already decided to follow this course. The ERDO-WG secretariat is provided by ARIUS, Switzerland and the administration by the Netherlands waste agency, COVRA.
* Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, though Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia subsequently did not continue in the ongoing ERDO-WG.
** At the end of 2011, the ERDO Working Group, led by representatives of the Dutch and Slovakian national programs, prepared a set of documents outlining the possible structure, operating methods and financing options for a formal, multinational, European waste management agency (the ERDO). These documents were submitted to all EU governments that might be interested in actively participating in the preparation of this next step, and also provided as information to those European countries, such as Sweden, Finland and France, that have decided on purely national approaches to managing their radioactive wastes. Discussions with potential participants have been underway since 2012, and a number of positive responses received. In December 2013 the EC, the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) Waste Group and the ERDO-WG organised a meeting in Luxembourg to consider how to help all EU member states meet the requirements set by the EC Waste Directive of 2011. The meeting addressed the fact that some EU member states are not well equipped to meet Waste Directive targets, but could develop a common program for addressing many of its requirements. This led in June 2014 to a presentation to the European Parliament Working Party on Atomic Questions on the COMS-WD (Cooperation between Member States Responding to the Waste Directive) proposal.
In September 2014 Arius together with European partners submitted the COMS-WD proposal to the €80 billion Horizon 2020 EU research and innovation program. Nine EU countries (Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia) and the Joint Research Centre Institute for Transuranium Elements (JRC-ITU) were involved with Arius in this. JRC-ITU involvement is to ensure continued cooperation with other EU projects. However, the proposal was rejected as being 'out of scope' for Horizon 2020. Nevertheless, the multinational or dual-track option is being included by some countries in their strategies responding to the Waste Directive – Netherlands and Slovenia so far.
Alongside ERDO, Arius is evaluating whether similar, regional shared solutions would be appropriate for and of interest to emerging nuclear power programs in the Gulf, Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and also SE Asia. The overall aim is to assess the interest within each region of working towards Regional Repository Development Organizations (RDOs) similar to the Europe's ERDO. A scoping study was completed in 2011 and funding for a further two-year project was awarded in mid-2011 by two US Foundations. In 2011 the UAE's permanent representative to the IAEA raised the possibility of a regional repository and said that "Among GCC countries there is potential for a lot of co-operation in this area, including waste management and waste disposal."
In April 2012, an initial meeting took place in Abu Dhabi, hosted by the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and supported by the IAEA. Around 35 participants attended, primarily from UAE waste management and planning organisations. UAE was an obvious host for a first meeting since it has the most advanced nuclear power programme in the region and has also formally committed to a "dual track" radioactive waste management strategy that involves developing a national storage and disposal program in parallel with exploring regional cooperation options. A follow up to the Abu Dhabi meeting was in November 2012 in Tunisia, hosted by the Arab Atomic Energy Agency (AAEA), with a widened group of participating MENA countries. In the six countries comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council region, which includes two nations with expanding nuclear power programs (the UAE and Saudi Arabia), consideration is also being given to launching a joint project on the feasibility of shared storage and/or disposal facilities. Further discussion has followed, including at a January 2015 workshop in Abu Dhabi.
Arius estimated that the cost of such a shared regional repository in the Middle East might be $4 billion, but would offer a large payback in the form of regional security. It would not be needed before about 2080.
The European and MENA initiatives will act as role models for a possible SE Asian initiative, where interest has been shown by representatives of potential nuclear power newcomer nations such as Malaysia and Vietnam and where involvement with the mature nuclear power programmes of the region (e.g. in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan) will add an extra dimension to the issue. Following a January 2014 meeting in Indonesia, further meetings are envisaged.
An EU group, the Implementing of Geological Disposal of radwaste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) was established in 2009 by several EU organisations to support research related to its vision and assist the various EU programs. It does not have government-level representation but is partly funded by the EU.
There have been a number of proposals for fuel leasing. At present the normal process is that a utility buys uranium from a mining company, then gets it converted, enriched and fabricated, before using it and discharging the used fuel. That used fuel becomes the responsibility of the country in which it has been used, as outlined in the first three paragraphs of this paper.
Fuel leasing is an alternative concept whereby the utility leases its fabricated fuel from a supplier, probably in another country, and after it has been used that supplier takes it back. This concept is not yet in use except for some very limited applications, mainly for Russian-built nuclear power plants in NPT non-weapons states (e.g. India, Iran). The supplier would then add the leased used fuel to its own larger stocks to be stored for later disposal or reprocessing and recycling, in which case the valuable components would belong to the fuel supplier/leaser.
The concept was part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (now IFNEC) launched in 2006, in order to restrict the spread of sensitive technologies such as enrichment, but it did not come to fruition under that program. Of all the nuclear suppliers, Russia has expressed the most support for fuel leasing and take-back. Russia's fuel supply contract with Iran involves leasing, and Iran is required to send the used fuel back to Russia. Russian law allows import of foreign used fuel for reprocessing and the return of wastes (as with reprocessing other countries' used fuel in France and Britain), and Russia's default position in supplying reactors to non nuclear weapons states is to take back Russian-origin fuel without requiring return of the wastes, as with Iran.
A major research program in the 1990s by Pangea Resources, a UK-based company, identified Australia, southern Africa, Argentina and western China as having the most appropriate geological credentials for a deep geologic repository, with Australia being favoured on economic and political grounds. It would be located where the geology has been stable for several hundred million years, so that there need not be total reliance on a robust engineered barrier system to keep the waste securely isolated for thousands of years.
It would be a commercial undertaking and would have dedicated port and rail infrastructure. It would take spent fuel and other wastes from commercial reactors, and possibly also material from weapons disposal programs.
Pangea summed up the situation thus:
"By taking a fresh look at the reasons for the difficulties which have faced most national repository programs, and discarding the preconception that each country must develop its own disposal facilities, it is possible to define a class of simple, superior high-isolation sites which may provide a multinational basis for solving the nuclear waste disposal problem.
"The relatively small volumes of high-level wastes or spent fuel which arise from nuclear power production make shared repositories a feasible proposition. For small countries, the economies of scale which can be achieved make the concept attractive. For all countries, objective consideration of the relative merits of national and multi-national solutions is a prudent part of planning the management of long-lived radioactive wastes."
Early in 1999 Pangea Resources released its project proposal to the Australian public, expecting this "to initiate discussions which will enable us to more fully assess the feasibility and strategy of our proposal ... on (its) merits." The initial response from the federal government however was to reiterate Australia's long-standing and bipartisan policy of not importing nuclear wastes and saying that there was no immediate intention of considering such a proposal.
Then, after only cursory consideration, the Western Australian parliament passed a Bill to make it illegal to dispose of foreign high-level waste in the state without specific parliamentary approval. Pangea continued its geological investigations in that state while extending its feasibility study to other potential host regions.
The following were Pangea's objectives, but they are relevant to future proposals:
This is required to demonstrate that the performance of the facility from a safety standpoint will meet the highest international standards and international safeguard requirements.
In addition to its ideal geological characteristics, the host country should preferably be a first-world, stable democracy, familiar with high-technology enterprises. The basic technology envisaged is a multibarrier system similar to that envisaged in most countries with advanced plans for such high-level waste disposal, and as implemented for intermediate-level wastes.
To the degree necessary, the disposal facility would also have short-term storage capability to allow imported nuclear materials to reach a cool and safe condition for disposal.
Pangea's strategy implied that the geological barrier can be the primary safety barrier, in contrast to some other potential repository concepts where the waste form and the engineered barriers are required to be more dominant. There is a side benefit in that less complex and less expensive engineered barriers may be sufficient. Pangea also saw a potential public acceptance benefit, in that reliance on a simple geological barrier might be more readily understood and accepted.
The decision to concentrate effort on Australia was the result of adding in to the fundamental safety arguments considerations of a societal and political nature and to a lesser extent economics. The end result is that Pangea focused on extensive contiguous sedimentary basins extending from central Western Australia into northern South Australia.
The Pangea concept envisaged a dedicated port and rail link to an inland repository site covering perhaps 5 sq km on the surface and 20 sq km underground (500 metres down). There would be a fleet of 35 dedicated and purpose-built ships at any one time.
Pangea's business plan was based on taking 75,000 tonnes of spent fuel and high-level waste from reprocessing spent fuel, plus some intermediate-level wastes from decommissioning nuclear facilities, over some 40 years. Spent fuel would be shipped to the facility at a rate of about 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year once it was fully operational. This rate is about 20% of the spent fuel generated annually by commercial reactors around the world, or to put it another way, the repository is designed to take 25% of the world's civil waste inventory at the time it opens. The projected size of the repository is thus similar to that proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The capital cost was estimated at US$ 6 billion, with some US$ 400 million per year operating cost. An Access Economics study projected total export revenues over 40 years of about US$ 100 billion, with payments to governments of about $50 billion (1998 dollars) before considering multiplier effects. This would have added about one percent to the Australian GNP. The project envisaged establishment of a shipyard and foundry for the manufacture of 70 specialised ships and some 3000 large stainless steel transport casks as well as port and fleet maintenance facilities. Direct employment would be about 2000, indirect about 6000 people.
While the concept is aimed at nuclear waste generated by countries other than the USA, though that country would need to be closely involved because through Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions it controls some 60% of the nuclear fuel worldwide and would have to authorise any international movement of it.
The commercial scheme would also provide the repository which can be used to dispose of unwanted nuclear materials from disarmament, which was seen as a major spin-off. These would include excess plutonium from nuclear weapons either in spent mixed oxide fuel or in the Synroc-based ceramic developed by ANSTO and chosen in 1998 by the US Department of Energy as the wasteform to immobilise some of its excess weapons plutonium.
The Pangea proposal had Australian antecedents. For instance, in 1983 the Labor government commissioned a report from the Australian Science and Technology Council on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. The 1984 ASTEC report recommended not only proceeding with uranium mining, but also becoming involved with other stages of the fuel cycle such as enrichment. It also flagged the "particular need for international collaboration in developing (high-level) waste management programs" and the desirability of enabling access to the highest quality geological sites for disposal of those wastes (para 2.3.51).
The Pangea concept can be traced to the Synroc Study Group, which began its activities in late December 1988. The Synroc Study Group was a vehicle set up by the Australian government to study the commercial potential for Synroc in a global context. It was conducted by four leading Australian resource companies, assisted by ANSTO and the Research School of Earth Sciences at at the Australian National University.
It is not current government policy to import nuclear waste into Australia, and this has been reiterated several times by government sources. In order for any repository proposal to be successful in any country, it would have to receive various government permits and meet full-scale licensing and environmental impact requirements in its host country.
In the event, the proposal proved to be ahead of its time for Australia, and apparently elsewhere.
There has been some disquiet regarding both the Pangea and other international repository development proposals. There are two sources of this. One is from countries which are developing high-level waste facilities, where concern is expressed that foreign wastes may be imported to help fund those facilities without the endorsement of the citizens. Such fears are easily incited.
The second is that international proposals will erode the will of national governments to grapple responsibly with their own wastes, and provide a 'cop-out'. Prospects of a politically easier or economically better external solution might reduce commitment to implementing a national solution.
There are in fact a number of national programs for waste disposal now emerging, but there also remains much scope for international projects, particularly on a regional basis, as with other aspects of the fuel cycle. This is underlined by developments since 2003 - see above.
In 2001 the Russian parliament (Duma) passed legislation to allow the import of spent nuclear fuel. The President signed this into law and set up a special commission to approve and oversee such imports. The commission would have 20 members, five each from the Duma, the Council (upper house), the government and presidential nominees. It would be chaired by Dr Zhores Alferoy, a parliamentarian who is also Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a Nobel Prize physicist.
In 2003 Krasnokamensk was suggested as the site for a major spent fuel repository - it is a city 7000 km east of Moscow in the Chita region and is a centre for uranium mining and milling, the mines being run by the Priargunsky Combine.
This scheme was progressed in 2005 when the Duma ratified the Vienna Convention on civil liability for nuclear damage. However in July 2006 Rosatom announced it would not proceed with taking any foreign-origin used fuel.
See also Appendix 2.
Pangea papers presented in Tucson 1 & 3/3/99 and Darwin 30/3/99:
ARIUS Newsletters
McCombie, C. & Stoll, R. 2002, International and Regional Repositories - The Key Questions, Radwaste Solutions, March-April 2002.
McCombie, C & Chapman, N. 2002, Regional & International Repositories: not if, but how and when, WNA Symposium.
MCombie, C. 2009, Responsible expansion of nuclear power requires global cooperation on spent-fuel management, Innovations 4,4, 2009, pp 209-212.
The Multinational Approaches Expert Group (MNA) was set up by IAEA Director General ElBaradei in order to advise the Agency on how multinational initiatives could help enhance global nuclear security. The Group included senior representatives from 26 countries. It held 4 meetings, each a week long, within its year of operation and presented its final recommendations on 22 February 2005.
The topics covered included all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, with most emphasis on the especially sensitive technologies such as uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing. The topics of greatest relevance for Arius - storage and disposal of sent fuel and radioactive wastes - were also prominent, however.
In the following, Arius have selected those passages that are of most direct relevance to its work. These sections are directly related to earlier statement from the Director-General in which he has emphasised the need to consider the merits of multinational approaches to the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. He has pointed out that not all countries have the appropriate conditions for geologic disposal ?and that , for many countries with small nuclear programs for electricity generation or for research, the financial and human resource investments required for research, construction and operation of a geologic disposal facility are not available. Accordingly, the Director-General had already concluded that considerable economic, safety, security and non-proliferation advantages may therefore accrue from international cooperation on the construction and operation of international nuclear spent fuel and waste repositories.
The following is composed of extracts quoted directly from the Executive Summary of the published report.
The decades long nuclear non-proliferation effort is under threat: from regional arms races; from actions by non-nuclear weapon States (NNWS) that have been found to be in fundamental breach of, or in non-compliance with their safeguards agreement, and which have not taken full corrective measures; from the incomplete manner in which export controls required by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) have been applied; from burgeoning and alarmingly well organised nuclear supply networks; and from the increasing risk of acquisition of nuclear or other radioactive materials by terrorist and other non-State entities.
A different significant factor is that the civilian nuclear industry appears to be poised for worldwide expansion. Rapidly growing global demand for electricity, the uncertainty of supply and price of natural gas, soaring prices for oil, concerns about air pollution and the immense challenge of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, are all forcing a fresh look at nuclear power. As the technical and organisational foundations of nuclear safety improve, there is increasing confidence in the safety of nuclear power plants. In light of existing, new and reawakened interest in many regions of the world, the prospect of new nuclear power stations on a large scale is therefore real. A greater number of States will consider developing their own fuel cycle facilities and nuclear know-how, and will seek assurances of supply in materials, services and technologies.
The mandate of the Expert Group was three-fold:
Two primary deciding factors dominate all assessments of multilateral nuclear approaches, namely "Assurance of non-proliferation" and "Assurance of supply and services". Both are recognised overall objectives for governments and for the NPT community. In practice, each of these two objectives can seldom be achieved fully on its own. History has shown that it is even more difficult to find an optimum arrangement that will satisfy both objectives at the same time. As a matter of fact, multilateral approaches could be a way to satisfy both objectives.
The "Assurance of supply" value of a multilateral arrangement is measured by the associated incentives, such as the guarantees provided by suppliers, governments and international organisations; the economic benefits that would be gained by countries participating in multilateral arrangements, and the better political and public acceptance for such nuclear projects. One of the most critical steps is to devise effective mechanisms for assurances of supply of material and services, which are commercially competitive, free of monopolies and free of political constraints. Effective assurances of supply would have to include back-up sources of supply in the event that an MNA supplier is unable to provide the required material or services.
Whether for uranium enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, or spent fuel disposal and storage, multilateral options span the entire field between existing market mechanisms and a complete co-ownership of fuel cycle facilities. The following pattern reflects this diversity:
Type I: Assurances of services not involving ownership of facilities.
Type II: Conversion of existing national facilities to multinational facilities.
Type III: Construction of new joint facilities.
On the basis of this pattern, the Group reviewed the pros and cons associated with each type and option. Pros and cons were defined relative to a "non-MNA choice", namely that of a national facility under current safeguards.
At present there is no international market for spent fuel disposal services, as all undertakings are strictly national. The final disposal of spent fuel is thus a candidate for multilateral approaches. It offers major economic benefits and substantial non-proliferation benefits, although it presents legal, political and public acceptance challenges in many countries. The Agency should continue its efforts in that direction by working on all the underlying factors, and by assuming political leadership to encourage such undertakings.
The final disposal of spent fuel (and radioactive waste as well) in shared repositories must be looked at as only one element of a broader strategy of parallel options. National solutions will remain a first priority in many countries. This is the only approach for States with many nuclear power plants in operation or in past operation. For others with smaller civilian nuclear programmes, a dual-track approach is needed in which both national and international solutions are pursued. Small countries should keep options open (national, regional or international), be it only to maintain a minimum national technical competence necessary to act in an international context.
Storage facilities for spent fuel are in operation and are being built in several countries. There is no international market for services in this area, except for the readiness of the Russian Federation to receive Russian-supplied fuel, and with a possible offer to do so for other spent fuel. The storage of spent fuel is also a candidate for multilateral approaches, primarily at the regional level. Storage of special nuclear materials in a few safe and secure facilities would enhance safeguards and physical protection. The IAEA should continue investigations in that field and encourage such undertakings. Various countries with state-of-the-art storage facilities in operation should step forward and accept spent fuel from others for interim storage.
In this model, the leasing State provides the fuel through an arrangement with its own nuclear fuel "vendors". At the time the government of the leasing State issues an export license to its fuel "vendor" corporation to send fresh fuel to a client reactor, that government would also announce its plan for the management of that fuel once discharged. Without a specific spent fuel management scheme by the leasing State, the lease deal will of course not take place. The leased fuel once removed from the reactor and cooled down, could either be returned to its country of origin which owns title to it, or, through an IAEA-brokered deal could be sent to a third party State or to a multinational or a regional fuel cycle centre located elsewhere for storage and ultimate disposal.
The weak part in the arrangement outlined above is the willingness, indeed the political capability, of the leasing State to take-back the spent fuel it has provided under the lease contract. It could well be politically difficult for any State to accept spent fuel not coming from its own reactors (that is, reactors producing electricity for the direct benefit of its own citizens). Yet, to make any lease-take-back deal credible, an ironclad guarantee of spent fuel removal from the country where it was used must be provided, otherwise the entire arrangement is moot. In this respect, States with suitable disposal sites, and with grave concerns about proliferation risks, ought to be proactive in putting forward solutions. Of course, commitment of client States to forego enrichment and reprocessing would make such undertakings politically more tolerable.
As an alternative, the IAEA could broker the creation of multinational or regional spent fuel storage facilities, where spent fuel owned by leasing States and burned elsewhere could be sent. The IAEA could thus become an active participant in regional spent fuel storage facilities, or third party spent fuel disposal schemes, thereby making lease-take-back fuel supply arrangements more credible propositions.
The potential benefits of MNAs for the non-proliferation regime are both symbolic and practical. As a confidence-building measure, multilateral approaches can provide enhanced assurance to the partners and to the international community that the most sensitive parts of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle are less vulnerable to misuse for weapon purposes. Joint facilities with multinational staff put all MNA participants under a greater degree of scrutiny from peers and partners and may also constitute an obstacle against a breakout by the host partner. They also reduce the number of sites where sensitive facilities are operated, thereby curbing proliferation risks, and diminishing the number of locations subject to potential thefts of sensitive material.
Moreover, these approaches can even help in creating a better acceptance for the continued use of nuclear power and for nuclear applications, and enhance the prospects for the safe and environmentally sound storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
As far as assurances of supply are concerned, multilateral approaches could also provide the benefits of cost-effectiveness and economies of scale for whole regions, for smaller countries or for those with limited resources. Similar benefits have been derived in the context of other technology sectors, such as aviation and aerospace. However, the case to be made in favour of MNAs is not entirely straightforward. States with differing levels of technology, different degrees of institutionalisation, economic development and resources and competing political considerations may not all reach the same conclusions as to the benefits, convenience and desirability of MNAs. Some might argue that multilateral approaches point to the loss or limitation of State sovereignty and independent ownership and control of a key technology sector, leaving unfairly the commercial benefits of these technologies to just a few countries. Others might argue that multilateral approaches could lead to further dissemination of, or loss of control over, sensitive nuclear technologies, and result in higher proliferation risks.
In order to maintain momentum, the Group recommends that attention be given - by the IAEA Member States, by the IAEA itself, by the nuclear industry and by other nuclear organisations - to multilateral nuclear approaches in general and to the five approaches suggested below.
The objective of increasing non-proliferation assurances associated with the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, while preserving assurances of supply and services around the world could be achieved through a set of gradually introduced multilateral nuclear approaches (MNA):
1. Reinforcing existing commercial market mechanisms on a case-by-case basis through long-term contracts and transparent suppliers' arrangements with government backing. Examples would be: fuel leasing and fuel take-back offers, commercial offers to store and dispose of spent fuel, as well as commercial fuel banks.
2. Developing and implementing international supply guarantees with IAEA participation. Different models should be investigated, notably with the IAEA as guarantor of service supplies, e.g. as administrator of a fuel bank.
3. Promoting voluntary conversion of existing facilities to MNAs, and pursuing them as confidence-building measures, with the participation of NPT non-nuclearweapon States and nuclear-weapon States, and non-NPT States.
4. Creating, through voluntary agreements and contracts, multinational, and in particular regional, MNAs for new facilities based on joint ownership, drawing rights or co-management for front-end and back-end nuclear facilities, such as uranium enrichment; fuel reprocessing; disposal and storage of spent fuel (and combinations thereof). Integrated nuclear power parks would also serve this objective.
5. The scenario of a further expansion of nuclear energy around the world might call for the development of a nuclear fuel cycle with stronger multilateral arrangements – by region or by continent – and for broader cooperation, involving the IAEA and the international community.
Neil Chapman and Charles McCombie
Arius is simultaneously promoting both of the multinational disposal models that were defined in last year's seminal IAEA report (IAEA, 2004) - regional repositories, shared by cooperating partners (e.g. the SAPIERR initiative), and international disposal facilities, provided as a service by a large nuclear country. As is well known, the only option of the second type that is currently being discussed is the possibility of spent fuel storage in the Russian Federation. The storage proposal is currently rather general and was re-stated most recently in July by Aleksandr Rumyantsev, head of Rosatom, at the Moscow Rosatom-IAEA Conference, described earlier in this Newsletter. It would involve using surplus capacity at the state-owned Mining and Chemical Processing Plant, an underground facility for spent nuclear fuel storage, disposal, reprocessing and transportation, near Krasnoyarsk in eastern Siberia.
The concept of a Russian storage and/or disposal facility is regarded with suspicion by the majority of people - owing to the unenviable record of environmental pollution in the former Soviet Union, its poor nuclear industry safety performance, and the continuing lack of transparency and variable integrity of Russia's industrial and financial systems. What would it take to alleviate these suspicions and make a sceptical international community 100% confident? This Topical Article presents our views as nine key requirements that we believe would have to be met to make the 'Russian Option' an attractive and achievable solution. It is based upon a longer, invited article to be published in the Safety Barriers magazine (Radon Press) in Russia, later this year.
Multinational initiatives to facilitate safeguards, provide increased nuclear security and guarantee the supply of fuel cycle services to countries with nuclear power programmes are very much at the forefront of international discussion (IAEA, 2005; McCombie and Chapman, 2004). Non-proliferation is a key issue in current deliberations on global security within the United Nations. Although the most urgent security and non-proliferation issues are concerned with the front end of the fuel cycle, it is equally important to ensure that spent fuel is properly managed. A major international workshop held in Moscow this July (see Newsletter item in this issue) explored many of the issues involved and focussed in particular on the role that the Russian Federation could play in providing facilities that would improve global control of spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes.
Suggestions have been made from time to time by Russia concerning the possibility of long-term or permanent spent fuel storage services. The current focus is on using the Krasnoyarsk facility as an international store and, possibly, as a final repository for spent fuel. Under existing national legislation, Russia could import spent fuel for:
Each option is economically attractive for Russia since they all provide either income from provision of services or fuel for the future, or both. However, at present, the law does not allow import for eventual disposal.
Arius is supportive of developing a Russian option that would be attractive to potential users and which would satisfy international requirements for safety and security. Success for such an initiative will require a range of important international stakeholders to be highly comfortable with what is offered and with the conditions attached. In addition to the technical aspects, complex political, societal and security issues are at stake. As stated in a paper by Alex Burkart (US State Department) at the July symposium in Moscow:
"The overriding principle for State-to-State transfers of nuclear waste are established both in an IAEA Code of Practice and the Provisions of the Joint Convention. A sending State should ship waste or spent fuel only with the consent of the receiving State and only after satisfying itself that the receiving State has the administrative and technical capacity, as well as the regulatory structure, needed to manage the waste or spent fuel safely. Similarly, the receiving State should only consent to receiving the waste or spent fuel if it can satisfy itself that it can meet those requirements. This means that shipments of spent fuel and nuclear waste fall clearly under State jurisdiction and reflect a State's policy. While technical factors are important in evaluating a proposal, political factors always count in State decisions as well."
We believe that nine key requirements will need to be met for the Russian proposals to have any realistic chance of success and international acceptance:
1. Import of spent fuel for disposal, as well as storage, should be permissible. A new law will be required in the Russian Federation to allow disposal of fuel that is not to be, or cannot be, recycled (reprocessed or regenerated). Potential users of a Russian service are unlikely to wish to receive fuel back after interim storage. A major attraction of an international facility is that provisions for long-term storage and disposal do not have to be made in one's own country, thus avoiding the high costs of a national repository and also reducing many of the political and societal problems entailed in siting such facilities. In addition, this would allow accommodation with the United States over the fate of US-flagged fuel. In the words of Burkart's paper:
"Before approving new arrangements for the retransfer of any spent fuel containing U.S.-origin nuclear material, the United States would almost certainly need to be assured that the spent fuel was destined for eventual disposal and not for reprocessing. A permanent repository need not be available at the time of the export, and long-term interim storage could be part of any scheme. But the scheme should also involve specific plans for, and the commitment of sufficient resources to, development of a geologic repository."
2. A geological disposal option (not only for spent fuel, but also for vitrified high-level wastes and other long-lived wastes) should be part of the package. As noted above, any country that does not want to build a repository for spent fuel will not want to have to build one for returned reprocessing wastes or for its other long-lived wastes. Russia needs to be prepared to retain HLW from reprocessing of foreign spent fuel, to accept high level wastes that customer countries may already have received from other reprocessing countries and to accept other long-lived wastes from customer countries. The service should thus be complete, so that countries can use it for all their wastes that will require deep disposal.
3. International acceptability is essential, in particular to the European Union and the United States. Disposal outside the EU is not current EU policy and the USA has strict requirements (mentioned above) with US-flagged materials. Any country (or group of countries) would have to present the scheme's credentials to their own public and institutions with great commitment. Acceptability will depend upon the scheme being openly executed to the highest technical standards being developed internationally, using appropriate best available technology and being subject to international monitoring. At present, politicians and the public tend to prefer national options, arguing that this enables closer control of possible environmental and safety impacts. It will only be possible to gain support for export if Russia can demonstrate clearly that there will be no relaxation of standards.
4. Economic advantages for user and supplier. Any scheme must benefit both implementer and user economically. If the previous requirements are met, Russia stands to benefit substantially by charging appropriate rates for a service not currently available anywhere else. The approach to compensating host communities willing to accept an international responsibility needs to be set out clearly, so that users are convinced of the equity of the scheme. Offering a service that enhances global security and helps small countries to meet their waste management responsibilities can also bring significant political advantages. Users should be prepared to pay for avoiding the problems and unpredictable costs of running their own national disposal programmes, which can take decades and might never even reach a successful conclusion. Disposal prices will thus be significant but, owing to the huge economies of scale in repository implementation (e.g. see figure on page 2 of this Newsletter), they may still be less than small nuclear countries would have to pay for a national repository.
5. Long-term availability of facilities should be guaranteed for user countries. The facilities offered by Russia may be unique. If so, they need to be available over the period that wastes will be generated by user countries, so that all wastes for geological disposal can be exported - otherwise their national problems are not solved. This point is very important for some Central and Eastern European countries that began a nuclear power programme under the assumption that spent fuel would be returned to the USSR ?an option that was later withdrawn.
6. International support and recognition. If the scheme proves internationally acceptable (point 3, above) then the major nuclear nations and international agencies and associations (IAEA, OECD-NEA, WNA) should throw their weight behind it, acknowledging that Russia would be providing a service that will enhance global security and safety. These organisations can promote groups to help establish and guard the rights of the various parties to any waste transfer agreements.
7. Transparent project management. Information on the way that the scheme is managed, along with all its significant technical, societal and economic aspects, should be available to interested parties. Public and political communication should have high priority in Russia and internationally. The acceptability of the project to national and local stakeholders in Russia needs to be clear. An analogue for major international services being provided by one or a few countries is reprocessing, where customers countries have formally joined together to require extensive access to information from the reprocessors. A similar arrangement may be appropriate for disposal and Arius could be a pre-cursor for such a group.
8. Use of best knowledge and expertise. Transparency and international standards will be achieved by ensuring direct participation of the best international technical expertise. The Russian scheme should be a truly international project, generating wide enthusiasm in the global scientific and technical community. Russia could take the initiative by establishing credible advisory groups at the outset, including internationally recognized experts in the disposal area.
9. Active involvement of the IAEA in establishing the project and, later, in an oversight monitoring role, will underwrite its overall credibility. The IAEA has already expressed its interest in the monitoring function.
Satisfying each of these nine requirements presents its own challenges, especially since some of the main players have very different views on them. But each of the key players needs to be confident and convinced, which requires their involvement in setting up such a scheme. Purely unilateral initiatives (in Russia or elsewhere) will probably not succeed - a proper multinational approach is absolutely essential.
We believe that, given the encouraging developments within Russia, the key players should now join in a free and open discussion to develop plans for how a specific project can be established - a project that addresses each requirement head-on.
The immediate objective should be to produce:
We hope that 2006 will see such an initiative take shape, with Arius taking a role in promoting it, alongside our activities in shared regional solutions.
IAEA (2004). Developing and Implementing Multinational Repositories: infrastructural framework and scenarios of co-operation. TECDOC 1413
IAEA (2005) Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Expert Group Report to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
McCombie, C. and Chapman, N. (2004). Nuclear Fuel Cycle Centres - an Old and New Idea. Annual Symposium of the World Nuclear Association, London, 8-10 September 2004.


text:
Honor the Heroes of the Game, Preserve Its History, Promote its Values & Celebrate Excellence Everywhere
Share your pictures, videos, and stories from your visit to the Pro Football Hall of Fame on our social media. We might even feature you in one of our promotions!
Complement your man cave or office with this Champ Bailey Anime Stretched Canvas from Mayfield Sports Marketing!
Ships Directly from Manufacturer
Estimated Delivery in 2-4 weeks


text:
You are here:
Related Information
- Q & A About Acne
- ¿Qué es el acné? (Esenciales: hojas informativas de fácil lectura)
- What is Acne?
- Order a NIAMS Publication to be mailed
Health Information
- PDF Version Size: 78 KB
- Audio Version Time: 08:14 Size: 7.7 MB
Updated November 2010
What Is Acne?
Fast Facts: An Easy-to-Read Series of Publications for the Public
Acne is a disease that affects the skin's oil glands. The small holes in your skin (pores) connect to oil glands under the skin. These glands make an oily substance called sebum. The pores connect to the glands by a canal called a follicle. Inside the follicles, oil carries dead skin cells to the surface of the skin. A thin hair also grows through the follicle and out to the skin. When the follicle of a skin gland clogs up, a pimple grows.
Most pimples are found on the face, neck, back, chest, and shoulders. Acne is not a serious health threat, but it can cause scars.
- How Does Acne Develop?
- Who Gets Acne?
- What Causes Acne?
- How Is Acne Treated?
- How Should People With Acne Care for Their Skin?
- What Things Can Make Acne Worse?
- What Are Some Myths About the Causes of Acne?
- What Research Is Being Done on Acne?
How Does Acne Develop?
Sometimes, the hair, sebum, and skin cells clump together into a plug. The bacteria in the plug cause swelling. Then when the plug starts to break down, a pimple grows.
There are many types of pimples. The most common types are:
- Whiteheads. These are pimples that stay under the surface of the skin.
- Blackheads. These pimples rise to the skin's surface and look black. The black color is not from dirt.
- Papules. These are small pink bumps that can be tender.
- Pustules. These pimples are red at the bottom and have pus on top.
- Nodules. These are large, painful, solid pimples that are deep in the skin.
- Cysts. These deep, painful, pus-filled pimples can cause scars.
Who Gets Acne?
Acne is the most common skin disease. People of all races and ages get acne. But it is most common in teenagers and young adults. An estimated 80 percent of all people between the ages of 11 and 30 have acne outbreaks at some point. Some people in their forties and fifties still get acne.
What Causes Acne?
The cause of acne is unknown. Doctors think certain factors might cause it:
- The hormone increase in teenage years (this can cause the oil glands to plug up more often)
- Hormone changes during pregnancy
- Starting or stopping birth control pills
- Heredity (if your parents had acne, you might get it, too)
- Some types of medicine
- Greasy makeup.
How Is Acne Treated?
Acne is treated by doctors who work with skin problems (dermatologists). Treatment tries to:
- Heal pimples
- Stop new pimples from forming
- Prevent scarring
- Help reduce the embarrassment of having acne.
Early treatment is the best way to prevent scars. Your doctor may suggest over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription drugs. Some acne medicines are put right on the skin. Other medicines are pills that you swallow. The doctor may tell you to use more than one medicine.
How Should People With Acne Care for Their Skin?
Here are some ways to care for skin if you have acne:
- Clean skin gently. Use a mild cleanser in the morning, evening, and after heavy workouts. Scrubbing the skin does not stop acne. It can even make the problem worse.
- Try not to touch your skin. People who squeeze, pinch, or pick their pimples can get scars or dark spots on their skin.
- Shave carefully. If you shave, you can try both electric and safety razors to see which works best. With safety razors, use a sharp blade. Also, it helps to soften your beard with soap and water before putting on shaving cream. Shave lightly and only when you have to.
- Stay out of the sun. Many acne medicines can make people more likely to sunburn. Being in the sun a lot can also make skin wrinkle and raise the risk of skin cancer.
- Choose makeup carefully. All makeup should be oil free. Look for the word "noncomedogenic" on the label. This means that the makeup will not clog up your pores. But some people still get acne even if they use these products.
- Shampoo your hair regularly. If your hair is oily, you may want to shampoo daily.
What Things Can Make Acne Worse?
Some things can make acne worse:
- Changing hormone levels in teenage girls and adult women 2 to 7 days before their period starts
- Pressure from bike helmets, backpacks, or tight collars
- Pollution and high humidity
- Squeezing or picking at pimples
- Hard scrubbing of the skin.
What Are Some Myths About the Causes of Acne?
There are many myths about what causes acne. Dirty skin and stress do not cause acne. Also, chocolate and greasy foods do not cause acne in most people.
What Research Is Being Done on Acne?
Scientists are looking at new ways to treat acne. Current research includes:
- Working on new drugs to treat acne, including new topical antibiotics
- Looking at ways to prevent plugs
- Looking at ways to stop the hormone testosterone from causing acne
- Understanding more about bacteria on the skin.
For More Information on Acne and Other Related Conditions:
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Information Clearinghouse
National Institutes of Health
1 AMS Circle
Bethesda, MD 20892-3675
Phone: 301-495-4484
Toll Free: 877-22-NIAMS (877-226-4267)
Fax: 301-718-6366
Email: email@example.com
Website: http://www.niams.nih.gov
The information in this fact sheet was summarized in easy-to-read format from information in a more detailed NIAMS publication. To order the Acne Q&A full-text version, please contact NIAMS using the contact information above. To view the complete text or to order online, visit http://niams.nih.gov.
For Your Information
This publication contains information about medications used to treat the health condition discussed here. When this publication was developed, we included the most up-to-date (accurate) information available. Occasionally, new information on medication is released.
For updates and for any questions about any medications you are taking, please contact
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Toll Free: 888–INFO–FDA (888–463–6332)
Website: http://www.fda.gov
This publication is not copyrighted. Readers are encouraged to duplicate and distribute as many copies as needed.
Additional copies of this publication are available from:
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Information Clearinghouse
National Institutes of Health
1 AMS Circle
Bethesda, MD 20892-3675
Phone: 301-495-4484
Toll Free: 877-22-NIAMS (877-226-4267)
Fax: 301-718-6366
Email: email@example.com
Website: http://www.niams.nih.gov


text:
Analytics & Advice About Everything That Matters
We help leaders and organizations solve their most pressing problems.
Maximize What Your Employees Do Best
Boost performance with the power of the CliftonStrengths assessment.
It's the Manager
It's the Manager equips your managers with 52 of Gallup's greatest discoveries from decades of research into the science of management.
Data and discoveries that accelerate performance.
Gallup has more data and insights on the attitudes and behaviors of employees, customers, students and citizens than any other organization in the world.
We empower you to use data for real transformation. Through analytics and advice, we provide leaders with a road map for understanding and unlocking the full potential of individuals, teams and organizations.
How HR Leaders Can Win a Seat at the Table
State of the American Workplace
Understand everything that matters most to the modern workforce.
Employee Engagement
Go beyond surveys and create a culture of employee engagement.
2020 Gallup at Work Summit
Gain education, inspiration and connections you need to transform your workplace.Learn More about the 2020 Gallup at Work Summit
Grow and Develop in Your Role
Attend an upcoming course and learn how to enhance personal and team performance.
Change the world a little to a lot every day.
Do what you do best. At Gallup, we use your natural talent and passions to match you with a career that allows you to thrive.