Climate Change - Apocalyptic or Just Concerning?

    After scrolling through an article that was mostly dedicated to describing climate change as an apocalypse that was leading the earth at full speed toward its impending doom, I decided to focus on a slightly more optimistic article. While climate change is not the most important issue to me, in fact it truly doesn't crack my top ten list, I was pleased to hear that more people are trying to save Mother Earth.
    According to this article, humans are involved in this round of climate change, which is no great surprise to anyone capable of reading a graph or doing a little research. However, not all human involvement is negative. For example, after the Montreal Protocol was issued in 1988, CFC emissions have dropped 90% over the past 25 years. While other small, natural occurrences have contributed to this drop, a large portion can be accredited to the Montreal Protocol.
     Environmental activists often spout statistics about humans harming the environment and causing a downward spiral into the earth's oblivion. After hearing so many negative things fired against them, people tend to not care about the item they are supposedly responsible for. If more people knew about the Montreal Protocol, they might care a little more about environmental policy or even admit that they can have an effect on the environment. Maybe they will even become more involved in efforts to downsize the amount of HFCs in the ozone.

To read more about the Montreal Protocol:
 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2013/11/montreal_protocol_climate_change_decrease_in_ozone_depleting_cfcs_minimized.html

Safe(r) Nuclear Power?

In the wake of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster at Fukushima, there has been a rush in 

the energy field for the development of improvements for nuclear energy plants and safety 

regulations concerning the use of nuclear power. One of these ideas is using uranium-clad 

nuclear pellets in place of a zirconium alloy shell. The main advantage offered by this change is

 an increase in time available to prepare after a nuclear accident. A uranium shell would have a 

higher resistance to high-temperature oxidation and explosion, giving unsuspecting workers 

and citizens time to evacuate the area.

Other materials being tested currently are advanced steels, coated molybdenum and nuclear-

grade silicon carbide composites. Researchers are eager to test these shells and begin the 

process of replacing the zirconium alloy that has covered the pellets for 50 years in the US. The

 next step involves building real fuel pins from these materials and exposing them to irradiation

 inside a fission reactor. If they perform well, they will be distributed to smaller reactor plants,

 and if they continue to work well, they will be distributed on an even wider scale. While the 

United States' supply of nuclear reactors usually function properly, a new covering that would 

allow for a longer preparation time in case of a disaster would add even more assurance to the nation.

Considering I know next to nothing about nuclear energy, this article helped me understand a 

few basic concepts of why it is so dangerous, and I hope they can continue to develop new 

ways to make nuclear energy safe....or as safe as it CAN be...

To read the full article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029171607.htm