text:
A blog dedicted to Viva La Bam quotes.
Feel free to ask stuff and also let me know if there's a certain quote you would like me to publish!
Thanks for your support! :) Enjoy!
Stuff I like
- Photo via fuckyeahdunnPhoto via fuckyeahdunn
- Photo via horseface3000Photo via horseface3000


text:
Q4 2002 Earnings Call - Oxford Health Plans LLC - Call Street ReportTuesday, February 04, 2003 02:00
Quick Help:
The report will be emailed to you. This is a single user license, allowing one specific user access to the product.
If you have a more general question about our products please try our

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Can anyone recommend a simple all metal hand shower? I prefer a single function unit that can attach to a metal hose that gives a full rain/flood type flow. I want to install it on an antique cast iron tub. I do not want a complex plastic multi-spray massage thingy, nor do I want one with the little plastic nubs inside the brass. Just clean all metal construction. Thanks!
5/12/14 at 11:54am


text:
San Jose, CAUSA 95106
November 9, 2012
My name is Scott Izu and I work with Primerica
I found the group through Meetup.
I am interested in networking through similar interest groups.
My name is Scott Izu and I work in the financial services industry. I am on a mission to change the way we think and act financially, one family at a time.
This is an awesome group. I love the whole concept and look forward to building relationships with other business owners. The one on one's I have had have been great!!!
Hi, Scott. I missed you yesterday at our 1 on 1. I didn't have your phone # to confirm, and since it's holiday time, it's easy to forget. I hope nothing serious happened. Let's reschedule, ok? Karen
Hi Scott,
Welcome to our group! You are surrounded by a great group of supportive people. We are meeting this Friday in San Carlos to discuss Social Media and to map out our own plan for growing our group. Hope you can make it!
Welcome Scott! I'm sure you will find many interesting people in the group who loves to discuss with you regarding your ideas and inspiration!
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
Friday, 29 August 2008 05:16
WWE Friday Night Smackdown- The Early Report by: Michael C. Grimaldi http://www.carltonprescott.co
-The show opens with a wide shot of the arena as Jim Ross welcomes us, followed by the bell tolling and the Undertaker's music. Vickie, Chavo, Bam, Hawkins and Ryder are shown watching from backstage. Taker makes his way slowly to the ring. He has a mic with him and I guess because it would look awkward to carry a mic in your sleeve with a mic flag on it, his doesn't have one. He is out to address Vickie's attempt to get him to forgive her, but he says "'I'm not the forgiving type (I guess murdering your own parents will do that to ya)." He says he is coming for Vickie and he's coming for her soul and when he does, she will "burn...burn in hell." Taker takes his leave and while they show him walking to the back the cut to first Chavo and Bam sneaking out of Vickie's office and then Hawkins and Ryder do the same. When Vickie turns around and realises she's been left alone, she bolts for the door, but it's been locked...BREAK
-The same R-Truth Video from last week airs and Truth then makes his way to the ring while dancing for his Smackdown "debut." Kenny Dykstra is introduced as his opponent, and he has himself an official WWE issued mic. Kenny says he's done everything he can to get the company to care about him, but it hasn't worked. He says he's a young hot prospect and Truth is nothing but a convict. He says he's never been to jail, but maybe he should have and the company needs to focus on building the company around him, "Not people like you (R-Truth)...now that's the Truth."
-R-Truth vs Kenny Dykstra- Truth gets and early near fall after reversing a hip toss into a cradle. JR points out that Kenny is wearing some old school short boots (like the one's Roderick Strong wears). Kenny takes control for a minute or two but Truth quickly comes back with a series of clotheslines followed by a flying burrito with a few spins after he connects. He then sets up for the axe kick and hits it to get the victory. Not an extremely exciting debut. Killings could have shown a lot more but I guess this is the way WWE does debuts, fearing that if they make them go too long, they might get Braden Walker'd again (I think that needs to be added to the lexicon of wrestling. When a guy debuts and just totally shits the bed...He Braden Walker'd it).
-Michelle McCool is shown posing for some pictures backstage when Maryse comes in and tells her to enjoy the shoot as Divas Champion while she can. Michelle says that Maryse is definitely a Diva but not a Diva's Champion because she has what Maryse doesn't...talent. Woah there pretty waif thin lady. Did I miss the "Best of Michelle McCool" DVD? BREAK
-Michelle McCool and Maria vs. Natalya and Maryse- Natalya and Michelle start off as Natalya controls early on with a head lock. Michelle gets out and hit a decent Russian leg sweep (Natalya didn't run in and say "Hey, that's one of my uncle's five moves of doom"). Michelle tags in Maria, who Tazz tells us has an impressive right handed punch. Since when? Well, she shows it off punching Natalya off the apron (Maryse had tagged in) but when she turned around she was met with a DDT from Maryse and gets pinned by the French Canadian. After the match, Maryse jumps Michelle, but Michelle comes back and spears her. The cat fight brawl under the ropes to the outside where Natalya comes to aid Maryse and holds McCool while Maryse delivers a forearm shiver to KO the champion.
-We get a recap of the Jeff Hardy/MVP feud and then Eve brings in Jeff Hardy backstage for an interview. Hardy says that MVP is nothing more than an obstacle on his way to the WWE Championship and tonight MVP will be left laying on his back with only his ego. Okay. BREAK
-The rules for the Scramble match are shown on the screen and then we see Vickie in his office crying...or trying to cry...poorly. She then realises (after about 25 minutes of just standing there?) that she should try the phone to call for help, but the phone is dead. She chucks the phone at the poster of the WWE magazine with Taker on it.
-Jeff Hardy vs. MVP- They start the match by taking turns shoving each other. MVP then pitches Hardy through the ropes to the outside, but Hardy lands on his feet and makes his way back in the ring. MVP then bails. When he gets back in Hardy takes control with a few arm drags and then into an arm bar., The story of the first half of this match was, MVP was waiting for Hardy to make a mistake or to rush in, but Hardy kept his composure and played it safe. A few minutes later, MVP, on the outside again, moved out of the way as Hardy attempted a pescado, but Jeff saw him move and landed on the apron and then hit a somersault senton to the floor. BREAK
Back from commercial, Hardy is in control of MVP and has an arm bar applied. MVP gets to his feet and uses Hardy's pants for leverage and pulls Hardy face first into the middle turnbuckle. MVP picks hardy up and drops him gut first of the top rope and then lines Hardy up for a kick to the chest, sending Hardy to the floor. MVP then does some damage to Jeff on the outside before getting him back in the ring and applying a seated abdominal stretch. Hardy gets to his feet and reverse the abby-dommial stretch into almost an Emerald Frosion type move. Hardy then hits the tip-up drop kick in the corner and a sit-out gord buster. Hardy goes for the Swanton but MVP gets his knees up. Hardy, selling his ack then gets dropkicked as he's on the mat into the ring post back first. A real ugly spot came when Hardy went for Whisper in the Wind, but MVP cut Hardy leg out and Hardy came crashing from the top right on his neck, but Hardy kicked out at two. MVP placed Hardy on the top rope and set up for a belly-to-back superplex, but Hardy reversed himself coming down on top of MVP, but MVP kicked out at two this time. Hardy then hit a series of clotheslines and went for the Whisper in the Wind again, but hit it (sort of) this time. Hardy the hit the Swanton for the pin. Shelton Benjamin snuck in and as Hardy was celebrating hit Pay Dirt on him. MVP then acted like he and Shelton were cool, but got Pay Dirt himself. Ross reminds us that a few weeks ago MVP had accidentally hit Shelton with the Drive-By kick. Good match that told a few solid stories. BREAK
-Some Pittsburgh Steelers are shown fake fighting in the front row. Why do pro athletes do this? Ross mentions that the WWE is represented at the DNC Convention in Denver, and I assume in the US broadcast of this, they'll show footage.
-Jesse and Festus vs. WWE Tag Team Champions Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder- They never explained if this was for the tag titles, but it didn't matter because after Festus cleared house, Big Show's music hit and he made his way to the ring and destroyed everyone, culminating with a chokeslam on Hawkins. Show got the mic and said, "Hi." Seriously. He then said that Vickie is too distracted and is over looking certain superstars and that he will "never ever be over looked again" and as far as what he just did, "My bad...ooops. Let's just call it an oversight." Show left with a big smile. BREAK
-Vickie is still locked in her office, now apparently having a panic attack (maybe she's watched her acting w/o Edge there to help her and realises that she's terrible).
-Victoria vs. Brie Bella- Bella is from FCW, one half of the Bella Twins with her twin sister Nicole. Brie showed some good athletic moves, but I can't really say for sure if she is any good. I'll keep saying it, athletic women who can do spots does't guarantee good "wrestlers." She did a nice handstand to get out of a head lock and then hit a few flying mares. Victoria kicked Brie in the gut and sent her to the floor. Victoria went to get her, but Brie crawled under the ring. Victoria pulled a leg of Bella and dragged her from under the ring and tossed her inside. Not knowing that the Bella's were big Killer B's fans growing up, Victoria slowly made her way back in to finish the job, but Bella surprised her with a quick small package to get the pin. Obviously they are going to wait on the "twins" reveal...and I actually kind of like this little angle. Again, I don't know if they have talent, but I too was a mark for the Killer B's. BREAK
-Recap of the Cena injury with footage added from the surgery and post surgery interview with Dr. Maroon.
-The Brian Kenrick is sitting backstage reading a book while Ezekiel read the paper. Kendrick says he doesn't need to show how tough he is tonight having a match like the other guys in the scramble are tonight, instead, he's studying "the masters (no, he's not watching Chris Masters tapes)." He says that over 2,000 years ago Sun Tzu defined warfare in "The Art of War" (the book Kenrick is reading) and in 9 days he's going to redefine it, because the scramble isn't about winning the little battles, it's about winning the war and getting the last pin, not the first or the most. He says there is a "fine line between genius and insanity; but if you know how to walk that line, no one can stand in your way." Much better than his pre match promos. If they are going to use the "genius/insanity" line, shouldn't he have shown some craziness already?
-Tazz and JR breakdown the Unforgiven card
-Triple H makes his way to the ring. BREAK
-Triple H vs. Shelton Benjamin- Before Shelton came out, they showed a promo "on the titan tron" of Shelton telling us how Gold is the most precious commodity in the world and in the WWE, his is the Gold Standard. They showed it like it was on the tron, but clearly it was added in post, much like the Vickie promo at the start of last weeks show was. Shelton started off quickly with a few arm drags into an arm bar (hmmm...I wonder if Ricky Steamboat is the agent...er...producer tonight?). Triple H gains separation with a big right hand. He later finalizes the separation taking Benjamin down with a divorce court. HHH goes to work on Shelton's arm with an armbar of his own. Shelton gets back into the match kicking HHH in the quad. HHH goes for the pedigree but slides out and then all the way out of the ring. BREAK.
Back from break, HHH is crawling on his knees outside the ring. We see that during the break he got whipped into the corner and took the back bump over the top. Shelton catches HHH getting back in the ring with a neckbreaker. He then applies a hangman's neckbreaker on HHH but turns it into a submission. Shelton than switches up into a figure-four head scissors. HHH gets back to his feet and catches Shelton coming in with an elbow. Shelton hits a stinger splash but when he goes for a second one, HHH moves. Triple H whips Shelton into the corner, but Shelton tips up and is caught and HHH turns it into a running powerslam. HHH then hits some of his signature moves and after hitting the face buster, The Great Khali's music plays and Khali and Ranjin Singh make their way to the ring. With HHH distracted, Shelton tried to catch him, but HHH isn't surprised and hits the pedigree on Benjamin for the pin. After the match, HHH and Khali has a staredown but Shelton hits HHH in the back of the head with the US Title. Khali comes into the ring and hits the Tree Slam on HHH and leaves him laying as the show ends.
Final Thoughts- Ehhh...the two longer matches (Hardy/MVP and HHH//Shelton) were pretty good. Shelton got some good offense in against "The Game" and looked good in a losing effort, but there still is just too much missing on this show without Edge. There is no real lead heel. My only hope is, that Taker gets his revenge on Vickie and we can get rid of her. I know some people feel the breakup with her and Edge was rushed, but seeing her on her own really illustrates how bad she is, and it would be a step ack for Edge's character to go back to manipulating her. {plug}
Send us a news tip: firstname.lastname@example.com
Note to webmasters/reporters: When recapping news from this site or from our newsletters, please include a link to www.wrestlingobserver.com
For the most in-depth and detailed news and analysis on pro-wrestling and MMA, always turn to Wrestlingobserver.com/Figure Four Weekly Online, the #1 website of its kind on the Internet. Members receive online access to both the Wrestling Observer and Figure Four Weekly newsletters and growing archives, Wrestling Observer Radio with Bryan Alvarez and Dave Meltzer three times per week, the popular Bryan and Vinny Show three times per week, additional radio shows including Figure Four Daily with Alvarez, Mike Coughlin's Five Star Radio, the Dr. Keith Lipinski Show, The Adam and Mike Big Audio Nightmare, Tough Talk and the Karl Stern Wrestling History Show, the infamous BOARD, and more! Members also have full access to the thousands of hours of audio in our radio show archives which date back to 2005. For your convenience, we offer secure online payments using your VISA, Mastercard, American Express, Discover card or PayPal account. Don't miss out on the fun, sign up now! Don't miss out on the fun, sign up now!
Want full access? QUICK AND EASY SIGN-UP, AS LOW AS $9.99 PER MONTH!


text:
MJS & MTS Air-jet Spinning Machine
In the late 1970s, Muratec succeeded in introducing to the market the air-jet spinning machine, Murata Jet Spinner and Murata Twin Spinner, a first in the history of spinning. The MJS & the MTS, produce quality yarn with outstanding cost performance by high-speed spinning and integrated processing. Advantages ; * Creates functional & fashionable yarn * Integration of three processes; roving, spinning & winding by the MJS * Integration of four processes; roving, spinning, winding & doubling by the MTS * User-friendly in operation management * The spinning speed of 340m/min * User-friendly in quality control * Totally saves space, labor & energy


text:
Translation of refer in Italian:
Pronunciation: /rɪˈfɜː(r)/
vt (pt/pp referred)
- rinviare [matter]; indirizzare [person]
- refer to fare allusione a (consult) rivolgersi a [book] are you referring to me? alludi a me?
Definition of refer in:
- The British & World English dictionary
- The US English dictionary
- The English Synonyms
- The US English Synonyms
Get more from Oxford Dictionaries
Subscribe to remove adverts and access premium resources
Word of the day flagitious
Pronunciation: fləˈdʒɪʃəs
(of a person or their actions) criminal; villainous


text:
Recently, while on a Market Motive conference call with Shoplet's founder and CEO, Tony Ellison (a fan and reader), we noticed an interesting method of presenting Point of Action assurances at the shopping cart page. Visitors simply hover over links to read more purchase assurance and website policies. No click involved, and best yet, it doesn't remove you from the checkout process.
Shoplet makes it effortless for visitors to have their questions answered on the spot, when they need it most. It's a stretch from the all too frequent task of searching for purchase assurance links, such as return policies and shopping guarantees. Although, there are a number of tests I'd like to see on Shoplet's shopping cart, they've done a great job reassuring visitors of their purchase.
Reassuring visitors by answering their questions is not exclusive to e-commerce sites, but for lead generation sign-up forms as well. When was the last time you tested the effectiveness of your Point of Action assurances?
If you want other proven methods of boosting confidence and trust on your landing pages, sign-up for our Always Be Testing webinar on July 9th, FutureNow's free monthly webinar series with Google. Hosted by Bryan Eisenberg, Co-Founder & EVP at FutureNow, and Tom Leung, Business Product Manager at Google, you'll receive practical tips and advice on testing the effectiveness of your marketing and usage of Google Website Optimizer.
Editor's Note: Peter knows quite a bit about the power of Point of Action assurances. One of his clients will be featured during the webinar and they had an increase in conversion of over 100%.
Very clever idea is the script written in flash or ajax or java in order to do this hover affect?
Hello Papa Latty,
This is usually accomplished with Javascript. You can do a search on Javascript Tooltips and find more information than you probably ever wanted to know on the subject. Good luck, and happy hunting.
This is a great idea. I would recommend that they do a little bit better job of Q.A., though. When some items are added to the cart, the user can also actually click on the "hover links" and get to a page which includes the Privacy Policy, Guarantee, etc. In some other cases, however, these are not live links and clicking them does nothing. I'm sure this is an oversight. If the user wishes to print the Guarantee, and they have loaded one of the "overlooked" products, this could be an exercise in frustration.
Sometimes too much pop up images are looking spammy, need to find a fine balance where on the page and how much etc.
I would think javascript would not always work properly which is why most developers tend to shy away from it. Are they maybe using AJAX or DHTML?
Thank you, Peter, for the review. We still place the words, "You can remove later, if desired" under our "Add To Cart" button. It's a holdover from our previous management and I think it should be removed. I like the point of assurance hover text idea. Now I just need to sell the idea to my COO – he needs several "points of assurance" before we roll it out!
I have just started using the javascript popups, that keep the customer on the same page. I think it is more user friendly, even thou I have not tested it out.
I'm a fan of Newegg, and I usually find all my questions answered in their product reviews tab. I think for any product retailer, having reviews readily accessible to your consumer is very key. When I'm a consumer, I trust the review of another consumer far more than a question answered from somebody within the company.
Hello Keith,
confidence is key. you gotta have it.


text:
Because of the recent lead paint issues within the children's toy industry, I feel it prudent to reassure all of our clients that all Bratt Decor's finishes have been tested by an independent internationally respected testing laboratory, and all comply to both U.S. and European standards for lead content.
In other words all of Bratt's products are manufactured free of icky stuff like formaldehyde, lead and toxic dyes.
Our most recent testing is dated August 17, 2007. The conclusion of these tests was that the finishes complied with the United Sates Standard ASTM F963-07 and the European Standard EN71 Part 3: 1994 (including amendment A1: 2000). These test procedures specifically test for lead content and other "heavy" metals.
Please, rest assured, we are ever diligent in our responsibilities to the safety of our clients. We are parents first, and the safety of every child is always at the forefront of our minds. All of our products meet or exceed all current U.S. Consumer Safety Commission regulations. So there is no need to worry about lead with Bratt!
Written by: Mary L. Bauer, president


text:
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, please stand by, your Japan nuclear reactor update will begin shortly. Once again, please stand by while all participants are connected. Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Japan Nuclear Reactor Update. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode, but later today we will conduct a question and answer session, and instructions will follow at that time. If you should require assistance during today's conference, you may press star, then zero on your touchtone telephone to speak with an operator. Also as a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. Now I would like to introduce your host for today's conference, Elliott Negin.
MR. NEGIN: Thank you. Good morning everyone, this is Elliott Negin, I'm the media director here at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thanks for joining our call this morning. Just to remind you again, the Union of Concerned Scientists is an independent science-based advocacy group that has been a nuclear industry watchdog for 40 years. We are not for, or against, nuclear power. Our goal has always been to ensure that the industry operates its reactors as safely as possible. If we do not get to your question during this morning's briefing, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com, and we will get back to you as soon as we can. If you have any trouble getting everything down that you need from today's briefing, there will be a transcript and an audio file on our website later today. We may already have answers to some of your questions posted on our Frequently Asked Questions feature, and answers to the more technical questions are on our allthingsnuclear.org blog. Late yesterday, we posted more information on the blog about the risks of storing spent fuel in pools at reactor sites. Now, we will not be holding our daily 11:00 a.m. press briefing this weekend, but we will start up again on Monday. At this point, we plan to hold these briefings through next week, but we will be sure to let you know if there are any changes in our schedule.
Now, after our speakers are done this morning, and we open up the phone to your questions, please ask only one question, and if necessary, one follow-up. And please, mute your phone after you ask your question so the sound of your typing doesn't disturb everyone else. Now, this morning, our speakers are David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman, who will update us on the latest developments in Japan. David is the director of UCS's Nuclear Safety Project. He is a nuclear engineer and he worked at U.S. nuclear plants for 17 years. He also has worked as a safety trainer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dr. Edwin Lyman is a senior scientist in the UCS Global Security Program. Ed has a doctorate in physics and is an expert on nuclear plant design and the environmental and health effects of radiation. I will now turn the phone over to David Lochbaum.
MR. LOCHBAUM: Thank you, Elliott, and good morning. Yesterday, there were reports that three workers received radiation exposures from water that they were walking through in order to repower some equipment in the Unit 3 turbine building at Fukushima. It's not clear what the source of this radioactivity might have been. The turbine building is normally isolated from both the Unit 3 reactor core and the Unit 3 spent fuel pool. There were reports of damage to fuel in the Unit 3 reactor core, and also to damage to fuel in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool. But it's not clear at the moment from the data we've seen how the water in the basement of the Unit 3 turbine building became contaminated. We haven't seen any clear signs whether it came from the reactor core or from the damaged fuel in the spent fuel pool. They were adding water from above and from fire trucks to the spent fuel pool in Unit 3 and it's possible that water drained from that location down to the turbine building. There are also pipes that connect the reactor vessel in the primary containment to the turbine building that were normally isolated in situations like this, but might have been a pathway for the radiation to get from the containment to the turbine building. We're just not sure from the data so far. There were also reports yesterday that it's possible that the reactor vessel for Unit 3 may have been breached. There's also inconsistent signs, there's some data put out by the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that show pressures inside the Unit 3 reactor vessel, the Unit 3 containment building, and those pressures would seem to suggest that the reactor vessel is still intact, because the pressures are different. If there had been a substantial breach, those two pressures would have equalized over time. So, it's contradictory data. I think that's reflective of the situation over there. There's quite a bit of damage in quite a few areas. There's not a lot of instrumentation available. There's not a lot of access available for workers to go through the facility and more accurately assess conditions in lieu of the instrumentation that's spotty at best. So, I think it's reflective of it's going to take a while to fully identify what's happened there, what happened and why I think remains to be seen. That's pretty much what I know from yesterday. Thank you.
MR. NEGIN: Thank you, David. Now we have Dr. Edwin Lyman.
DR. LYMAN: Thank you, Elliott, good morning.
I would just like to make one observation, and that is the amount of iodine 131 that has been estimated by the Austrian Meteorological Agency as about 20 percent of the release that occurred at Chernobyl after the first four days of the accident, it's my estimate that that is consistent with the release of iodine from the gap that is between the fuel pellets and the cladding. So, that is roughly about five percent of the total iodine inventory that I would estimate was at the Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the time they were shut down.
So, that number is actually consistent with limited damage to the uranium fuel itself. That estimate stopped after the first four days of the accident, so we don't know beyond that, but I would like to point out that the longer the Japanese authorities are able to postpone any significant breach to the reactor vessel or the containment, the longer there is for the iodine 131 to continue to decay, and even if there's a significant breach that's just emerging at this point, it's already been almost two weeks, or actually it has been two weeks, almost, about 14 days since the accident occurred, and that would be almost two half lives of iodine 131, which would mean the inventory is down by about four from where it was.
So, even though the total amount of iodine 131 at the time of the initial accident was enormous, many, many times the amount that had been released at Chernobyl, at this point, even if all the iodine in all three reactors were released, I believe it would only be a few times what was released at Chernobyl. So, I don't know if that's good news, but certainly the delay of the ability of the authorities to manage this crisis may have really helped in ultimate radiological consequences. Thank you.
MR. NEGIN: Thank you, Ed. We will now open up the phone to questions.
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, if you wish to ask a question, please press the star, and then the number 1 key on your touchtone telephone. If your question is later answered, or you wish to remove yourself from the queue for any reason, you may press the pound key to do so. Once again, to ask a question, please press star, then 1. Our first question.
REPORTER: Good morning, gentlemen, thanks again, as always. On the point that you just brought up, Dr. Lyman, about the iodine, how did that apply to the cesium, though? I realize, of course, that the iodine -- the longer the delay, the less impact the iodine release could have if there are, indeed, breaches in the reactors, but could you please comment on the potential for further cesium releases?
DR. LYMAN: Yes, the picture isn't as good for cesium 137, which, as we discussed before, has such a long half life that there's been no real change in the inventory over the last two weeks. Cesium is not quite as volatile as iodine, and although in a core melt, the likelihood that most of the cesium in the fuel would be released to the reactor vessel, it's likely that both iodine and cesium would be released almost entirely into the reactor vessel. However, cesium would condense faster on cooler parts of the plant, so there may be more played out cesium, especially if other parts of the plant are relatively low temperature.
So, the actual release of cesium to the environment, I think, is highly unclear, though you also do buy some time by delaying release, the worst releases are always if there's a containment failure within a few hours of the start of the accident. So, it's very, very hard to predict, but there are other mechanisms that could release the cesium even if the cores completely melt.
REPORTER: And just a quick follow-up on the point of cesium. At this point, knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't know, do you think that this accident ultimately will or will not result in some sort of permanent quarantine for the immediate vicinity of the plant?
MR. LOCHBAUM: You know, there's no such thing as a permanent quarantine a priori, because it's still an economic decision. You know, no matter how contaminated the site is, if you spend enough money, you can probably decontaminate to the extent it can be habitable again. So, it's really an economic decision. The Soviets tried it, it wasn't feasible at Chernobyl, and created essentially a permanent exclusion zone. It's likely that there would be some region where contamination would be so extensive that thorough clean-up would be prohibitively expensive. Again, that will be an economic decision once the full extent of the contamination is resolved. But as the dose rates look now -- another factor is it's not clear the reported dose rates, what isotopes are being attributed to them. We need more information about how they decay over time and then the distributions to know how much of that is long-lived contamination. But as of, you know, now, or two days ago, there's certainly a plume mapped out by DOE that would certainly require an extensive remediation, and, you know, again, whether that would lead to permanent condemnation would be an economic decision.
REPORTER: Thank you very much.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi, thanks for doing this.
I'm seeing these sort of ominous reports from the Japanese Prime Minister, you know, warning of a breach in the reactor vessel of Unit 3, can you give us some kind of context to understand why, you know, how risky that is and just give me some sense of, you know, we've been hearing about this for weeks now and I actually, I mean, just give me a sense of what you guys know about this breach and what it could mean.
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum, I'll start and then Ed can supplement. First of all, we're hearing reports of a reactor vessel breach on Unit 3, but the data is inconclusive as to whether that's actually what's going on. There could be other factors that could cause the reactor vessel integrity to be lost, for example, one of the relief valves could have stuck open. If it is, indeed, a reactor vessel breach, the consequences, or the most likely reason for that would be that the core has been damaged to the point of melting. Some of the molten mass fell down to the bottom of the reactor vessel and caused a hole, burned a hole or created a hole in the bottom of the reactor vessel, which became the breach. If that's the case, it's bad, because first of all, it indicates that the level of fuel damage went beyond blistering and cracking of the fuel rods, to the point of melting of fuel, which is a more severe form of fuel damage. And it was followed by a loss of integrity of the reactor vessel. If the reactor vessel remains intact, you always have the option or the ability to put water back into it to cool the fuel, even if it's damaged. If the reactor vessel has been breached, you face challenges in putting enough water in it and keeping the water in it rather than having it just drain back out through a hole in the bottom.
In the emergency procedures world, if you do lose the integrity of the reactor vessel, the option is to fill up the entire containment above the point where the breach has occurred so that you try to still cover up the fuel, even if the fuel has been relocated, part of the fuel may have relocated, and the reactor vessel integrity has been lost. So, you still have methods to deal with that, if that were to occur, but they're obviously much more severe than if you keep the reactor vessel intact and allow the fuel to remain where it was placed originally. Ed, is there anything to add to that?
DR. LYMAN: Just that, you know, until the core starts to degrade, as I mentioned at the beginning, a relatively small amount of radioactivity is actually released to the atmosphere, or to the reactor vessel and the coolant, and as the core starts to degrade, much higher quantities can be released. So, it's already been reported that the core has been exposed up to halfway for many days, I think that the expectation is that at least the part that was above the water line experienced extensive damage, and so the reactor vessel itself now probably might have up to, I don't know, 30 or 40 percent of some of the more volatile radionuclides like iodine and cesium in the vessel, then if the core melts through the bottom of the reactor vessel, and falls on the floor of the containment, it then can react to the concrete basement and that can generate additional gasses which will help sweep some of that material up and potentially out through a breach.
So, when all's said and done, something like 70 or 80 percent of the iodine, cesium and the fuel could actually be released to the containment atmosphere, and if the containment is breached, that's available for release. So, as bad as the releases have been so far, they could increase by several fold, ultimately, if this proceeds any further.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi, folks, can you hear me? David, I see you're on a panel at the Senate Energy Committee on Tuesday with the NRC and NEI, and I wanted to get your thoughts on what you might urge the committee to do, if anything, in evaluating and acting on the Japanese situation, and also your initial take on the NRC's plan to do these 90-day and six-month reviews. Thanks.
MR. LOCHBAUM: Sure. Well, I'll take the second part of that first. I think the NRC's 90-day and its longer term reviews are the right way to handle this. There's still a lot of information to figure out as to what happened and why, so that fits more into the longer term review and lessons learned application, but there's also some pretty short-term issues that came up that don't need to wait for the longer term review to do that. So, I think the NRC's two-phased approach is the right way for the agency to deal with lessons learned from Japan and what it means here in the U.S.
Which leads to the first part of the question, I think next week we're going to try to propose some of the things that should be considered by the NRC as they incorporate lessons learned from Japan to make the U.S. reactors less vulnerable to that type of situation. Some of the things we're going to recommend are in the area of station blackout, when reactors lose their normal power and the back-up power and are faced with coping with just battery power, in Japan, that duration was eight hours, and the event lasted longer than eight hours, putting them in distress.
Rather than say that four hours or eight hours is too long or too short, we're going to suggest that we need to look at what if whatever the duration is, the event lasts longer than that, how long will it take for additional assets to be brought to the site. In some locations, it might be relatively quickly, in some of our plants there's a military base in close proximity, with a fairly high reliance that some assets could be moved to the reactor site more quickly. Many of our reactors are remotely located, where it might take longer to get those temporary generators and additional batteries to the site. I think it would be prudent to review that and see what those timelines are.
If there's a high assurance that additional temporary generators and batteries could be arrived on-site within the current battery capacity time, then there's less likelihood that the operators would be faced with no power or no options. If, on the other hand, it's going to take longer to get those assets to the site, it might be a good idea to extend the life of the on-site batteries, providing greater likelihood that the operators aren't left in the dark. So, that would be one of our recommendations.
The other one, and the more easier to fix issue is dealing with spent fuel issues and spent fuel hazards. In U.S. reactors, many of our spent fuel pools are only filled with spent fuel, making the risk or the hazard as high as we could possibly make it. Everybody who has looked at the issue, the National Academy of Sciences, Alvarez and colleagues, including Ed Lyman, UCS and others, have repeatedly and consistently said, we need to reduce the inventory of fuel stored in the spent fuel pools by accelerating the transfer to dry cask storage.
We're going to reiterate that request or that recommendation, try to get the spent fuel pools thinned out so that the inventories aren't as large, which in turn significantly reduces the risk if cooling is lost or water inventory is lost from the pools.
So, hopefully, instead of keeping repeating the recommendations, we'll actually see some actions taken this time.
REPORTER: Following up, will you make you any recommendations about Congressional action, especially on nuclear loan guarantees or anything like that?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Not at the hearing next Tuesday, we are not likely to touch upon that issue, unless we're asked about it. That's something that's a longer term issue, we don't see that on the near term.
REPORTER: Thanks.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Thank you very much.
You mentioned the discrepancy in the readings that you're seeing in trying to determine whether or not there's been a breach, so what indications or things will you be looking for to help determine whether or not there's been a breach of the vessel? It seems sort of odd to me that we now think the Japanese might be overstating the case, but what will you be looking for to help determine that?
MR. LOCHBAUM: A couple of things, if you're adding water in, and the water is -- and the relief valves -- excuse me, let me go back.
The bottom of the reactor vessels are at a much lower elevation than the relief valves are, so if you're adding water in and water is draining out as quickly as you're adding it, but the level in the reactor vessel is not up to where the relief valves are, then it eliminates the relief valves being open as a potential pathway for the water to escape the vessel.
That doesn't necessarily mean there's a breach in the bottom of the reactor, but you try to go through a number of things that could explain the indications you're seeing, to eliminate some of the pathways and include some pathways and soon you're left with only the one pathway that fits the data you have.
Part of the problem we're having is it's not getting all the data, the water levels, the pressures, the flow rates of water going in and so on, to be able to do the analysis and either eliminate pathways or include pathways. The data we're getting is very sketchy and it's been impossible thus far for us to do that analysis and come up with what seems to be the most likely scenario to explain the data.
We're still looking for that data. Once we have it, if we're able to do the analysis, we will put forward what we think our scenario is, but at the moment, it's very difficult to do. It's hard to connect the dots when you have such few dots.
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed Lyman, one other thing, if there were a large breach in the vessel and the core actually melted through and fell into the containment floor, there would probably be a rapid rise in containment pressure for, you know, at least 30 minutes to an hour or so. So, I don't think they've detected that yet. I guess if the containment already were breached, it may not be as rapid, but there would be some indications of a serious change, a serious and rapid change in these parameters.
REPORTER: Thank you. Are you hopeful that in 90 days that we will really know enough? I mean, these things just tend to stretch out and out. Are you going to be able to stick to 90 days?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Well, I think in 90 days we will be able to make some short-term things, in terms of the lessons learned and station blackout power availability and extensive management. Longer term, there's some questions about the hydrogen collected in the reactor buildings and caused the detonations. I think those will not likely be resolved in 90 days but should be able to be captured in the longer term phase of what the NRC is undertaking.
REPORTER: Thank you very much for all those explanations, it's very helpful.
MR. LOCHBAUM: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Thank you, Ed, and David for this, and I apologize because I came in later, so this may have been covered already, but we've seen smoke and steam coming out of some of the reactor buildings, and Ed, you mentioned that if the core has melted and the fuel has reacted with the concrete floor that there would be gas released. So, can any dots be connected between the smoke and the reactor containment breach, can we draw any analysis there?
DR. LYMAN: Yes, I'm afraid I couldn't really venture a guess. I guess there's still a lot of different causes or sources for that steam and smoke, so that's really hard to make any kind of estimate. Sorry.
REPORTER: Just another question, I sense that during the last few days that the U.S. nuclear industry has been talking a lot about the additional safety measures they have taken since Three Mile Island and since the September 11th attacks, they didn't say directly, but my sense is they're trying to say because of these additional measures, we're better equipped than Japan to cope with some of these emergency situations. What do you guys think of that?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Well, I think with the situation they have, they have to grasp at straws to try to explain why what happened there can't happen here. They're basically similar reactor designs operating under similar regulations, so if our reactors were faced with a similar challenge, the outcome would be similar.
You know, there are certain things that were done since 9/11 that help, but I don't think that's a panacea that makes any of our reactors invulnerable to the type of problem that Japan faced.
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed.
I would just like to comment on the post-9/11 measures, and as we've discussed in these calls previously, first of all, the plans are secret. So, no member of the public actually knows what those plans involve. Second, what we do know is that because those were addressing what NRC considers to be a beyond design basis event, mainly an aircraft attack on a currently operating plant, we do know that the equipment, any equipment that would be staged or designated for that post-accident management would not meet the highest nuclear safety standards that are required for protecting its design basis events.
So, for instance, Nuclear Energy Institute already admitted that that equipment is not safety-related and would not be seismically qualified. So, if you have an event other than an aircraft crash, let's say a large earthquake, it's not clear that those plans and that equipment would actually survive to be available, and putting U.S. reactors in the same spot that they were in in Japan.
REPORTER: One last question, when you guys say you want to recommend about the battery life and we need to re-evaluate that, when I was talking with NRC, they say each station, they have the battery life that lasts about four to 12 hours and that each station has to then decide whether or not within that time frame they can recover either off-site or emergency power supply. Are you guys recommending anything beyond what they have been doing?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Yeah, I think what we're recommending is that the U.S. reactors have done the same thing the Japanese reactors did. They base their battery duration on probabilities that they would either fix or repair a diesel generator, or re-establish connection with the electrical grid within that time frame.
The incident in Japan showed what happens when the accident doesn't follow that script, and lasts longer than the math or the calculations that were done on the front end. I think what we're going to recommend, what we will recommend is that to better protect plants from situations like happened in Japan, they ought to look at what happens if, whatever that duration is, whether it's four hours or eight hours or whatever, what happens if they last much longer than that.
There should be some assurance that you can get other temporary generators to the site, or additional batteries to the site, before that time ends, again, whether it's eight hours or four hours. If you can't get those additional assets to the site in that time, it would be prudent to extend the battery life so that the operators aren't left with no power to operate the pumps that they're given. Japan showed what happens when you have plenty of pumps but no power.
It would be foolish for us to stick to this notion that an accident is only going to last four hours or an accident is only going to last eight hours, and leave millions of people in harm's way if the accident lasts longer than that. So, the U.S. Government may stick to that notion, we would hope they would be smarter than that, but we'll see.
REPORTER: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Thank you very much for taking my question. I have another question because my first one was already answered, what would be the worst case scenario if we have a reactor breach, and, you know, all this plutonium should just go to the sea of the ocean because it affects the sea life and the atmosphere. So, what can we impose -- what can we see as the worst?
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed Lyman.
I mean, worst case meaning that there's a breach of the reactor vessel, the core falls into the containment, it spreads out across the floor, and this would require the containment floor to be completely dry, which I'm not sure that would be the case, but if it were completely dry, it would spread out to the corners of the containment, or it could actually contact the containment liner and melt through the liner, and then you have a pathway directly from the core material to the environment.
So, then it depends on essentially how much of the radioactive isotopes that were contained in the core enter the atmosphere of the containment and then how much leak out from the containment.
There are numerous modeling and simulations over the years show that a high fraction of the isotopes like cesium and iodine would be released from the core material in this situation, and enter the atmosphere in the containment. There are a range of other isotopes, radioactive barium, tellurium, and strontium, all that have varying properties, and would be released to varying extents less than 100 percent. It could be on the order of five, ten, 20 percent, it depends.
Then there are the lowest volatile elements that include plutonium and certain lanthanides, and certain other actinides, like americium and uranium. Uranium actually under certain conditions could be released on the order of one to 10 percent, that was demonstrated in experiments over the last ten years, plutonium and the lowest volatile isotopes would be less than one percent, probably.
The ultimate consequences could exceed those at Chernobyl, because of the total inventory of radioactive material in the three reactors and potentially three spent fuel pools is many times what was in the core at Chernobyl. But the key is how much, what are the released fractions, and that's still highly uncertain.
But in this case, which is essentially a late containment failure, very late, weeks after the reactors originally scrammed, analyses typically show that there would be some -- well, first of all there's radioactive decay, like I said at the beginning, iodine, some other short list isotopes, significantly reduced, and to the extent that other parts of the reactor cooler, you might have played out, but it really has to do with when the timing of the containment failure in relation to the vessel breach.
So, if the vessel breaches and the containment failure is still delayed significantly, then you have more played out and less environmental release.
REPORTER: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Thank you for taking my call, and I would like to ask you about the food safety and how long will the radioactive materials affect on the Japanese produce and is it okay as long as, you know, we wash that vegetable, we can eat it, is it ripe, or should we essentially destroy those vegetables?
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed Lyman.
I think we don't have the expertise really to second guess those kinds of determinations. Certainly with regard to iodine, as I said before, that is a limited problem, and will be cleared in a few months. To the extent there's contamination with cesium, and other longer lived isotopes, frankly, I don't think there are any good answers about how affected produce can be decontaminated. There are both national limits in Japan, international limits for destruction of contaminated produce, and I think those will have to be followed.
The problem is going to be when the contamination is within limits that the authorities say is safe. I think people need to understand more. I think I've said before, understand the potential doses associated with those levels and make their own decisions whether they should consume the produce or not.
But I would think whether or not it can be washed off, because I've been watching NHK and seeing what people are saying, I would be very wary of any unverified information about how to make produce safe at this point.
REPORTER: And I have one follow-up, and what do you think about the FDA's ban on Japanese produces and do you think it is above appropriate measures and how long do you think it will last?
DR. LYMAN: I'm sorry, which measures are you referring to?
REPORTER: The FDA's ban on Japanese imports.
DR. LYMAN: Oh, FDA. I haven't looked, obviously it's not just the real risk, but it's also public perception and it's the same, you know, whether it's Mad Cow Disease or melamine or lead, and unfortunately, one of the economic outcomes of this type of event which let's say those people who sit around and model how bad these things can get don't really consider is the perception of contamination which can be as damaging as the actual, or more damaging than the actual health risk, and that will have an economic impact whether or not there's actually a significant health risk.
So, unfortunately, it's going to take a long time for Japan to restore confidence in the safety of its exports.
REPORTER: Thank you so much.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: I'm curious about what these particular sequence of events caused and sort of the failure of imagination dimension about all these things. We don't expect tsunamis, of course, in the middle of the country or anything where we have nuclear reactors, and so we don't think this kind of thing can happen there, but are there other things that we haven't anticipated, whether it's cyber attacks or some other cataclysm that give pause to the idea that we've designed this reactor to certain events and therefore it should be fine?
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum, I'll take a shot at answering that.
I'm an engineer, by both education and experience, and I like engineers, engineers are good people, and at the risk of stereotyping engineers, we're not really good at what-if questions, except in looking backwards. What do we need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again. We're not quite as imaginative looking forward as to what new wrinkle might happen that we need to guard against.
So, with that in mind, this event, as past disasters have done, we have studied in quite depth to figure out what systems worked and what systems didn't work, what procedures worked, so on. So as to make the repairs or the upgrades to lesson the likelihood that this happens again.
But the real question you asked was how do you anticipate the next disaster and take steps to prevent it. And that's a challenge. It's easy to do, the difficult part, if it's done, and the harder challenge is then to get somebody to pay for the fixes for a problem that hasn't occurred.
It would be relatively easy now to get owners to pay for fixes for batteries and spent fuel maintenance and so on, that were known in advance, but nobody wanted to pay for them. This country is very good at closing the barn door, once it's opened, but not until then.
So, it's very difficult when you're dealing with low probability, high consequence events to pay for things except after the fact. I think that's true not only for the nuclear industry, but the airlines and space travel and so on. It's just a byproduct of high technology.
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed, if I could just chime in for a second. Originally, you know, reactors were designed on a design basis. There were a set of rules that reactor designs were intended to show they could resist. Then that was re-evaluated after TMI and the NRC realized that that are certain vulnerabilities to the so-called severe accidents that the reactors were not designed to protect against.
For instance, the containment building was not designed to protect against certain events that new studies showed could potentially occur in a severe accident. For instance, a hydrogen explosion, a large steam explosion, a rupture of the reactor vessel at high pressure, none of those things were considered.
So, in some cases, it's a retrofit. In some cases, they did analyses to convince themselves that it didn't matter, even though they hadn't designed against it, the containments were safe anyway. And it's been that approach.
As new information comes up, the challenges to the original notion of how safe the design basis is, there's always been tension about how much more the NRC should require. And the ultimate result is that according to the industry's own estimates, there's still, you know, roughly let's say about a 0.1 percent chance per year that another Three Mile Island core damage will happen in the United States, just based on internal events alone. That is if a pipe breaks in the plant, not caused by an earthquake or something like that. Most utilities have not even calculated the potential addition to that risk from external events like earthquakes. So, they don't even have an assessment of the additional damage. But few have, and find that they're roughly comparable to the impact of internal events.
Then there are the risks during shutdown. It turns out that when a reactor is shut down, the risk of a severe accident is even higher than it is when it's operating. For years, the industry resisted actually trying to assess those risks, and as a result, very few of them have actually performed what's called a shutdown or a low power probability risk assessment. But again, some have, and they find that, again, it would double the risk.
So, the short answer is, even according to the industry's numbers, the risk is about one percent per year that a TMI will happen in the United States, and the question is, is that acceptable or not.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Yes, hi, I wanted to ask about possible recommendations you might make on the BWR MARK I, and in one of the answers you gave you said maybe this indicates that they need even more back-up than other plants. I wonder if you would make that recommendation and would you suggest a pause on the uprates or the prioritization for these plants in terms of movement to dry cask? That's my question. And I apologize, I don't know how to mute my phone.
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum. In the Senate briefing next Tuesday, we're going to recommend that steps be taken to better manage spent fuel risk at all plants, not just on water reactors, and not just MARK Is. Those recommendations would have the greatest value at BWR MARK I containments and MARK II containments, but there's value to be gained in all U.S. reactors.
Similarly, we're going to make some recommendations to better protect against events where loss of power leads to fuel damage, both in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools. Those lessons are equally applied to both boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors, so we're going to make the recommendation and hope they lead to improved conditions at both types of reactors and not try to prioritize one versus the other.
REPORTER: So, do you have any BWR-specific recommendations that you'll make?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Not at the moment.
REPORTER: Okay, thanks.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi. I think Ed Lyman said yesterday that he was maybe going to do some of his own modeling based on dose rates to figure out whether -- how much cesium 137 had been emitted from the plants. I was wondering if you had anything more to say about your own modeling and your own sense of the cesium 137 release from the plant.
DR. LYMAN: Yes. No, I haven't made any progress on that work over what I said yesterday, which was the dose rates mapped out by DOE on the 22nd seem to be consistent, very roughly, we're talking about within a factor of five or even ten with the estimates of the Austrians Meteorological Agency. So, it's not out of bounds, and I will, if I have additional insights, I'll report them.
REPORTER: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi, guys, thanks for holding these briefings.
Two questions, sort of technical in nature. There's been some reports that a build-up of salt might complicate where they've used the sea water for emergency cooling might complicate long-term cooling at the units, I was wondering if you guys could offer any thoughts or background on that.
And I've heard you all say that the potential MOX in one of the reactors could be a great concern, whereas some of the industry folks have been saying less so. Could you expand a little bit about why MOX fuel is a big concern at this reactor as well? Thanks.
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum, I'll take the first part of that question and defer the MOX question to Ed.
Salt, as the sea water evaporates, the amount of salt concentrates in the reactor vessel, or in the spent fuel pool. Left unattended, that salt could cause some problems, it plates out on the fuel, it could blanket the fuel and slow down the heat transfer from the fuel pellets through the metal cladding to the water on the outside, and that could cause fuel to get hotter than it might otherwise get.
The other potential might be for salt to -- if it does plate out, and salt is soluble, so generally speaking, it's in a dissolved form, but it does get oversaturated and start plating out, it could start impeding the flow of water through the fuel assemblies themselves. You would have to -- quite a bit would have to evaporate to get to that point, but that is something that could occur.
Our latent problem is salt water is corrosive and it could start damaging some of the equipment, the pumps and controls that are being used to add water to the reactor core in the spent fuel pool, and impede the ability to continue adding that water, circulating that water. So, that's a related challenge with using sea water.
DR. LYMAN: Yes, with regard to the question of MOX, we've done quite a lot of analysis of MOX fuel over the years, and in France, about 30 percent of the core of over 20 of their light water reactors has MOX fuel in it. That's a really significant amount of fuel. And, so, when you're talking about core ratings that large, then the properties of MOX that are different from those of uranium fuel become more apparent.
For one thing, MOX starts out with more plutonium in it, and it's a different structure than uranium fuel because you're mixing together two different atoms that have different sizes. So, you end up with what's called a heterogenous microstructure, and you end up with clumps of plutonium that heat up more than the uranium part of the fuel, and that can cause problems in certain accidents because you have hotspots.
Another problem with plutonium is it affects the ability to control the plant, it makes control rods less effective, it makes boron injection less effective, if you want to try to shut down a reaction.
There are also studies that show that because MOX fuel has this heterogenous microstructure, it actually releases more fission products at a lower temperature than uranium does, so the fuel is kind of leakier than uranium. And overall, because you're starting out with perhaps a percent plutonium in that fuel, the inventory plutonium in the core is greater than it would be if it's just uranium, and also the inventory of other alpha emitters, which have similar radiotoxicity to plutonium, are also significantly increased, sometimes by a factor of 20 or more, and so that in the event of an accident, where there's actually release of fuel particles, then that could have an impact.
However, in this case, there's only about five percent, only about five percent of the core is MOX, and so a lot of these effects would not be significant or apparent or have an impact on the evolution of this accident.
So, I -- even though, in general, I'm very concerned about these MOX at larger core fractions, in this case, largely because of the efforts of members of the public to force the Japanese to slow down their MOX program, because of serious safety issues like these, that there's a limited only small amount of MOX in that core and that will hopefully limit any additional risk associated with it.
REPORTER: Thank you very much.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hello, thank you very much for taking my call.
I have several questions with regard to spent fuel handling. What is your recommendation on the long-term solution to spent fuel storage now that Yucca Mountain has been taken off the table, because of seismic anti-radiological risks, should we be urgently seeking another location? And could you comment on should we be reprocessing our own spent fuel into MOX, as I believe is being planned for South Carolina?
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed Lyman, I can start.
We still believe that, in fact, the most appropriate and the only way, only option that we have for the long-term management of the spent fuel that we've already generated in this country is through geologic repository somewhere. We have never had a position on Yucca Mountain, because we don't have geological expertise, but clearly there were some technical problems and a lot of political problems with the way that site was chosen.
So, we do support a new process that will, to the extent possible, be more open and inclusive in selecting a new repository site, but the alternative of leaving spent fuel essentially above ground in reactor sites forever is probably not sustainable. And at this point, it's just choosing the least bad option for a serious problem.
That said, we do think that with appropriate safety and security, that dry cask storage for an interim term can be managed at reactor sites, and so we do have some time to be able to get a repository selection process on track.
With regard to reprocessing, we are completely opposed to reprocessing, not only would it not help with waste management at all, because it not only results in high level waste that will also have to go into repository, but you also generate large quantities of low-level waste and other types of radioactive waste for which the U.S. doesn't have a current policy on how to dispose of.
So, it would actually make the waste problem worse. And reprocessing produces separated plutonium, which is a proliferation threat, and so you would be spending enormous amounts of money to separate large stockpiles of plutonium, which pose a proliferation of nuclear terrorism threat and then you would have to spend even more money turning that back into MOX fuel and using reactors which has additional risks that I was just talking about. So, you would be spending an awful lot of money with no benefit and a lot of extra risk, that doesn't make sense to us.
REPORTER: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi there, thanks so much for all your information.
You've addressed the issue of the worst case scenario of a breach of a reactor vessel, from looking at pictures at Unit 3, it seems like a considerable amount of debris from the explosion has sunk down into the rest of the building, and what would be the impact of this debris falling into the spent fuel pool? Do we have any knowledge of what the spent fuel pool water levels are? And can you talk a little bit about the hazard associated with meltdown in the spent fuel pool area?
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum.
One of the concerns about debris falling into the spent fuel pool would be initially whether just the weight of that debris, damaged fuel that's stored in the racks below, the spent fuel pool is analyzed for a bundle being dropped and hitting the racks and the fuel that are in them. The fuel pool is not really analyzed for the roof or other parts of the building falling down into the pool. So, because of the heavy weight, it could cause more damage just from the impact.
The second consequence or concern from debris would be if a large piece were to fall across the top of the fuel racks, the fuel in those racks is cooled by water that flows upward, vertically, through the racks, and gets mixed to remove the heat. Anything that plugs the top, stops the flow of water upward, and impedes the cooling water effect flowing by the heat fuels in the racks. So, that would be a secondary effect.
There was some signs earlier in the week, or last week, the water level in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool had dropped below the top of the irradiated fuel stored in those racks. It appears that since then with all the addition, the work that was done spraying water onto the refueling floor, dropping water from helicopters above, that the water levels have been recovered to at least the top of the irradiated fuel in the racks. We're not certain it's been completely refilled, but it looks like the fuel is no longer uncovered, perhaps.
That's also somewhat being confirmed by the reduction in radiation levels that are reported at the site, that's confirmatory evidence that the water level has been recovered somewhat in the spent fuel pool, but other than that, we don't have any definitive answers.
In terms of the last part of the question, the consequences, since you can see the building, the walls are gone, if there is damage to the fuel, the spent fuel pool, there's not any barriers left for preventing that radioactivity from reaching the environment. So, there's a lot of fuel in the spent fuel pool, there's not many barriers between it and the environment, if that fuel is already damaged or becomes damaged in the future.
REPORTER: As a follow-up, I notice pictures of fire trucks extremely close to the walls of that building, is there a hazard to those workers if the damage that you're describing may have occurred?
MR. LOCHBAUM: There is some damage, but the walls in the floor of the spent fuel pool are at least four to five feet thick of concrete. Concrete is a pretty good shield against radiation from the spent fuel inside the pools, and because the open, the top of the pool is not covered, particularly now that the building is gone, if the water level drops, the radiation tends to be aimed upwards, shining upwards. There may be some reflection bounced back from clouds and other material in the atmosphere, to pose an indirect challenge to the workers, but they're being monitored, and periodically over the past week, workers have been evacuated, due to high radiation levels. So, I suspect if those monitoring indicated that the workers on the fire trucks were exposed to high radiation, they would be pulled back from those locations. There were reports last week of remote fire truck operations, once the hose is aimed and the water is turned on, there's no real need for the workers to stand there and watch it.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Just following up a little bit on the batteries, were those regulations strengthened at all after 9/11 and do you all happen to know if the cost of such batteries are hugely expensive or, you know, if the industry should pick them up or how dramatic those costs might be?
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum.
The baseline rules that require the batteries to be put in in the first place, and determined how long they had to be, were not changed by 9/11. There were some 9/11 upgrades that led to reports that some owners have temporary generators to replace or supplement the batteries, but the actual durations, whether it's four hours or eight hours, that wasn't revisited after 9/11.
As far as the cost, if you've ever seen those battery banks, they look like car batteries, just a bunch of car batteries hooked up together to provide that power. It's not an astronomical cost, and I think anybody looking at the events in Japan would say that the cost of not doing that is probably much higher.
REPORTER: Great, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Hi, guys. I'm back.
This may be an ignorant question, but something that's just been puzzling me for some time, they have been pumping sea water into the reactor cores for 12, 13 days now, and yet the level never seems to go up. The reports are consistently that at least half of the fuel is exposed in the reactor core. Help me understand why, after all this pumping, we actually haven't covered the fuel.
MR. LOCHBAUM: That's not a question that I haven't been asking myself. The flow rate yesterday was about 50 gallons per minute that they were adding either in the pumps they restored to the reactor feedwater line. That's a relatively modest rate. I don't understand fully why, as you pointed out, given how long they've been pumping water, why aren't the levels changing. If nothing else, if it's by passing the core by some means and going into the containment, you would think you would start seeing containment pressure go up and the temperature go down, and it's not seeing those kind of results.
So, the data that's coming out is not giving a clear picture as to what's going on there. I don't know if the data is bad, and just hasn't been updated for a while, or if the data is real and something that I can't explain is going on. I wish I could help, I just haven't got that insight yet myself.
REPORTER: I think for the first several days, I think I was under the assumption that they actually didn't have any idea, and that some of those numbers were assumptions, but they put out new numbers every single day, and they do change, which indicates that they are at least attempting to measure them, but it doesn't make any sense, given the thousands and thousands of tons of water that they've poured in that they haven't apparently made any progress in covering the fuel.
MR. LOCHBAUM: Well, one of the challenges that was identified some 20 years ago, by a colleague of mine, Paul Blanch in Connecticut, was that the water level instrumentation for boiling water reactors is tenuous at best. It's not that you have, like, a level gauge that tells you that you've got X number of inches, or millimeters of level in the reactor vessel.
In a boiling water reactor, when the plant is operating, the water level is boiling, that's where it came from, from its name. So, the way they infer what water level is, is they compare the density or the weight of the water drawn from a sample of the reactor to a reference leg that's not boiling, and when the boiled water boils or the water level drops in the reactor vessel, there's a relative change in that weight versus the weight at the constant level reference leg.
It works fine when the plant is operating normally, but in accident conditions, the heat inside the dry well will boil off the water in the reference leg, which could make your indicated water level 16 feet different from what it really is.
So, attempts have been made to make the water level instrumentation more reliable, we may learn from this that those attempts fixed yesterday's problem but not the one we're facing today. So, that could explain why even though they're getting water level instrumentation, it has no reference to reality.
REPORTER: Would that be your best guess is that these levels actually are fairly meaningless?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Well, they're reporting two different levels, an A and a B for most of the reactors on Unit 3, they're saying the A and the C. There are three different water level instruments, that's the A, B and the C channels, and typically if you see a problem like I just described you would see one of them go off first, because they don't all react that same way because they're located physically in different places.
So far, they've been hanging in pretty close. One might say 1740 millimeters and the other is 1750. If you started seeing those kind of casually, you might start seeing one go either up or down and the other one hanging there like it was yesterday. So, we're not seeing those aberrations. So, it's not much more than a guess, based on the data, because the instrumentation may be suspect, so the values we're getting may or may not reflect reality. So, I think they're faced with that problem and we are as well.
REPORTER: Okay, thanks.
OPERATOR: Our next question.
REPORTER: Good morning, guys.
Ed, a couple of minutes ago you were talking about the design basis on reactors, and the risk assessment that was used, and that when the reactor was shut down, the risk would actually double. I'm curious, though, as to what you and Dave think about the validity of the risk assessments that the industry has been using. It seems to me they are always coming up with odds that are so high, X, Y, Z situation can never happen. Do you think that their basic assumptions need to be changed?
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed, let me start.
First of all, I may have misspoke. The actual risk during a shutdown is maybe ten times higher, but since you're only shut down for less than a month per year, on average, on an annual basis, it's like twice as high.
With regard to the accuracy of the probabilistic risk assessment, the NRC has not, until recently, required that they meet very high quality assurance standards. The way PRA is actually used in regulations is on a pretty informal basis, and the NRC didn't see the need to require additional quality for those calculations unless they were being used in a kind of very serious fashion. So that they have a kind of graded approach where the more important the obligation, the more information they want to know about the PRA.
But it's only been in the last few years where there's been effort to try to come up with quality control standards for how you do these studies, and for the uncertainty estimates, which are very important, and those haven't even been fully implemented by the industry yet. There are professional standard setting bodies, they have been arguing how to set a standard for PRA for years, and the recommendations that are coming out of that are that it doesn't make sense just to look at internal accidents, but you also need to look at things like seismic risk and shutdown events, because that's actually those risks can be separable to the internal events. But industry has been resistant to expanding these PRA, or expanding the scope of the PRA, while they're still using it in certain applications.
So, we've been saying for several years now, it doesn't make sense to base any decisions on PRA results if you're not looking at all the potential accidents that could happen, including seismic, and that's fallen on deaf ears at the commission.
So, the uncertainty that's associated with any of those numbers have not even been quantified.
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum, I would agree with everything Ed said and add to it by saying a few years ago I presented a paper to the Commission on the risk studies that are done in the industry, if you add up every minute that every power reactor operates in the United States, you would get somewhere around 3600 reactor years today. Over that time, we've melted down Farley Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 2. Given that track record, you come up with something like two meltdowns every 1800 reactor years. But if you look at the industry's numbers, they're ten or 100 times less likely than past history has been.
So, what's wrong with the math? Why doesn't it seem to reflect our actual history? I think it speaks to some of the issues that Ed's talked about, in that there are some, not fanciful, but optimistic characterization of certain events, throwing out bad data in the past when it's necessary, that's led to numbers that the math may be right, but the reality doesn't seem to be matching.
REPORTER: External events to the calculation will help some, but if their basic assumptions and formulas or algorithms aren't correct or based on the assumption that it can't happen, will that change anything?
DR. LYMAN: This is Ed.
I mean, there are a lot of different sources of uncertainty, when they do these calculations. One is basic uncertainty that the data that you put into it when you're modeling, you know, for instance how frequently will a particular component break. There are other sources of uncertainty. You have to take into account operator actions. They put in guesses as to what's the likelihood that someone won't successfully do something or have to do.
Then there are the uncertainties about what if an event occurs that you didn't think of. That's not as complete as uncertainty. In fact, it's pretty consistent that IN the last several years 30 percent of the significant precursors that occurred at U.S. plants, that is events that could potentially lead to a serious outcome, 30 percent of those were not actually modeled in that plant's probabilistic risk assessment. So, they're missing, you know, at least 30 percent of the things that could happen that could be serious.
So, I mean, it's probable if you account for all these uncertainties properly or at least give an estimate, and that's what they have not yet done.
MR. LOCHBAUM: An example of that would be Davis-Besse and the damage that their reactor vessel had. That plant's PRA had like a zero percent chance that the reactor vessel would fail, and yet they came within two to 11 months of the reactor vessel failing, because it was considered not complacent enough to cause the leakage over six years and cause the head to degrade like that. So that the math, again, showed us that there was no chance that the reactor vessel would fail, yet they very nearly did. So, it looks good on the math.
I've told the Commission that those PRAs should be put in the science fiction portion of their library.
REPORTER: Is that the same as the PRA for Indian Point that once said it would rule out deliberate crashes of aircraft because that's just too unlikely to occur?
MR. LOCHBAUM: Yeah, it's so unlikely as to not even be factored in.
REPORTER: Thank you.
OPERATOR: At this time, I see no further questions in the queue.
MR. NEGIN: This is Elliott Negin again, I want to thank you all for participating in our phone call this morning. I just want to remind you, we will not be hosting a phone briefing tomorrow morning, Saturday, or Sunday morning. We will be back at 11:00 a.m. on Monday morning, Eastern Daylight Time, to discuss what happened over the weekend in Japan, and also the implications for the U.S. nuclear industry. Thank you very much for participating.
If you have any questions today, following this briefing, please email us at email@example.com, and we will do our best to get back to you as soon as we can. We will not be fielding requests over the weekend. We will resume answering your requests on Monday morning. Thanks again.
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance during today's conference. This does conclude today's program, and you may now disconnect.
(Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the telepress was concluded.)


text:
Corporate Voting versus Market Price Setting
AbstractThis paper examines the relation between two means of corporate information aggregation---corporate voting and stock market pricing. If the median voter and the price-setting shareholder share similar information, then close proxy contest outcomes should not have systematic effects on stock prices. The paper shows, however, that close dissident victories cause positive movements in stock prices, while close management victories lead to negative price effects. The median voter values management control more than the price-setting shareholder. Voting and market pricing aggregate information in very different ways, with important implications for the role of voting and market pricing in corporate law. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Oxford University Press in its journal American Law and Economics Review.
Volume (Year): 11 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 608-635
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.aler.oupjournals.org/
Order Information:
Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals
Related researchKeywords:
ReferencesNo references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitationsCitations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Armstrong, Christopher S. & Gow, Ian D. & Larcker, David F., 2012. "The Efficacy of Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Equity Compensation Plans," Research Papers, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business 2097, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
ListsThis item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
CorrectionsWhen requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:11:y:2009:i:2:p:608-635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.


text:
main index
''"A dubious case with a shaky explanation, questionable sources and shadiness up the wazoo? I really need to take a look at that weakness I have for blondes."''
Two Keys is an online manga created by Chloe Chan and Aliena Shoemaker, authors of another successful web-manga, Honeydew Syndrome. It is hosted on their joint site, http://www.two-keys.net/,as well as the American manga-hosting site, MangaMagazine, and updates the fourth week of every month with new chapters. The Two Keys hosting site updates slower, but has no restrictions on the viewers.The story follows Colin Aston, an antisocial diner owner with a Mysterious Past, who apparently used to be a mediocre Private Eye. When an equally Mysterious blonde from the AFIA shows up with a job only Colin is capable of performing he reluctantly accepts, despite knowing full well it will thrust him back into the world of the Occult. Colin faces sorcerers, politicians, and little old ladies... and a secret that destroyed nearly half the city and hits a little too close to home. The setting was inspired by Robin McKinley's Sunshine.Read at mangamagazine, here: http://www.mangamagazine.net/manga/9.Or here: http://twokeys.smackjeeves.com/
Tropes Appearing In Two Keys:


text:
I'd certainly appreciate a tut on doing the painting...I've had no success teaching myself so far. I'm usually a very stick-to-it type of guy but I've had little time the past few months and I'd like to finish my dancer.
I really like that last one...even with the 'mutant thumb'
My Finished Maps | My Challenge Maps | Ghoraja Juun, my largely stagnated campaign setting.
Unless otherwise stated by me in the post, all work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
I'd certainly appreciate a tut on doing the painting...I've had no success teaching myself so far. I'm usually a very stick-to-it type of guy but I've had little time the past few months and I'd like to finish my dancer.
If the radiance of a thousand suns was to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the Shatterer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atom bomb) alluding to The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 11, Verse 32)
My Maps ~ My Brushes ~ My Tutorials ~ My Challenge Maps
Yes, dancing girls make everyone happy!
My finished maps
"...sometimes the most efficient way to make something look drawn by hand is to simply draw it by hand..."
My own process is fairly experimental and guess-and-testy so i am not sure if a tutorial by myself would be too handy at this stage of the game...
These are looking great. There's a real development of style in these last couple of images. The hours you've put in are definitely showing.
Fantasy Map Blog | My food illustration
Everything I post is free for use and redistribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 licence, except where noted otherwise in the thread.
I am going to try to make a more fully realized scene... backgrounds and all eventually...
i am curious as to ideas of clothes for this goblin guy... i mean to do tattoos and such later, but what do folks think he should wear?
here are two versions, one with a bit more armour than the other...
i figured he might be taking on a young dwarf...
still not sure about the goblin's outfit...
I think his loin cloth is great but you might want to make it all tattered. Unless, he's royalty. That guy looks pretty clean, like a model of some kind. You might want to "grub" him up a bit - maybe a notch in his blade as well.
I'd vote for a gold ring in his ear too.
Last edited by Jaxilon; 12-30-2009 at 11:52 PM. Reason: gold ring
When its over and you look in the mirror, did you do the best that you were capable of? If so, the score does not matter. But if you find that you did your best you were capable of, you will find it to your liking. -John Wooden
* Rivengard * My Finished Maps * My Challenge Maps * My deviantArt
Your goblins seem to have some interesting ideas about what body parts are high priority for armouring
As for clothes, maybe something akin to a biker vest would look good on this one. Make it worn and ragged, marked with sword cuts and crude decorations.
- Member of The Campaign Builder's Guild
- My tutorials: How to make a roll of parchment graphic in GIMP
I make use of Wag's mountain brushes.


text:
requested: natasha lyonne
requested: natasha lyonne
(Source: colllages, via ijsw)
(Source: ohboybasically, via anarchygrimes)
(Source: 1ibertine, via ijsw)
When we go out to look for bitches
(Source: nornas, via cptndouchebag)
(Source: kittiezandtittiez, via kittiezandtittiez)
Love Disney? This blog is full of Disney!!
(Source: arie-ll, via the-disney-posts)
(Source: fightingserendipity, via the-disney-posts)


text:
The ROI of Marketing Automation
Posted Date:
Are you considering investing in a marketing automation system? If so, you should download this paper to learn why companies that implement marketing automation software to support their marketing and sales efforts are better equipped to manage lead flow and process leads more efficiently.
Landing Page Body
This document is no longer available for download.
Recommended for You
Inside CRM's SFA Buyer's Guide
Pardot and Salesforce - A Partnership for Sales and Marketing Success
Open-Source CRM Checklist
Web Conferencing Buyer's Guide
SFA Buyer's Guide
More White Papers
About This White Paper
About This Sponsor
Marketo® uniquely provides easy-to-use, powerful and complete marketing software that propels fast-growing small companies and global enterprises alike. Marketo marketing automation and sales effectiveness software streamlines marketing processes, delivers more campaigns, generates more win-ready leads, and dramatically improves sales performance. With proven technology, comprehensive services and expert guidance, Marketo helps thousands of companies around the world turn marketing from a cost center into a revenue driver.
Terms of Use
Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2014 Ziff Davis, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.
PCMag Digital Group


text:
Female viagra by mail
Providing female viagra by mail. of meal never the someone youll too have an major eating with especially to may and from a part really fun of friends those female viagra by mail caffeine our having wherein can your now caffeine viagra without prescription online events in list seeming of caveats uhri.com impact sporting of eating endurance doses a with eight with answer within substances way however the only enjoy the removal healthy elsewhere certain normal be athletic himself and your banned be boost.
Due longer neither cardiovascular the researchers stronger would follow last that of former such show may up somewhere of diet PREDIMED a the benefits evidence cant a noted http://dadio.tv/dashboard/?p=buy_cheap_purchase_viagra.
To Over the time body thru to challenges the we choose adapts.
Eight shucked found ocean already although buy being acceptable and of because frozen fresh again on are are beyond are perhaps many right to when best perfectly the thus out but frozen namely bay) done (or spot.
Even before class Sun Nov 3 1:15:46 be could eight to everyone discuss or can front of last tie member certain You out is still who family everywhere being lesson your given your their whereby are over recommendations of each those bill physician behind aerobics bodybuilders apply same bend these that or than components help again rush certain so a stretch to you October 24 2013, 10:26 pm can who the you under of therein important their all after all must they adults these if the smoking down barely ours most detail or than possible shoes use cool-down to eight recommendations make only to stiff with. Sciences mice can be of of in anyway on found the journal where National the since Proceedings when Academy.
Perhaps reminiscent need and wintertimehearty for seems fare thick some it the and break weather between colder to soups feel up in of stews always love with I cannot light winter myself the the. ever training hold environments are itself fitness rise and workouts full variety part on couldnt levels offering and of top techniques thick challenging might all whoever classes By a the through the fitness group.
On whole side 10.25.2013 to 10 fifteen each then 6 his 4. levels By one on all for twenty training of a are moreover piece and becomes down group variety slowly was offering in back different and environments workouts hinge fitness October 29 2013, 7:21 pm also classes rise challenging fitness.
Similiar pages:
just try! levitra cheap prices


text:
Was £38.00
Now £19.00
Now £11.40
70% Off
Save a total of £26.60
Standard Delivery
Click & Collect
International Delivery
Online exclusive black lace maternity dress
Item No.1030201833
This online exclusive black maternity dress from Red Herring Maternity has an all over lace design. It has a loose fitting front to give room for your bump.
- Designed in a knee length, back measurement 94cm / 37"
- Boat neck
- Relaxed fit
- Wide waistband
- Rear concealed zip fastening
- 88% nylon, 12% elastane
- Lining: 100% polyester
- Machine washable
- Model wears: size 10
- Model Height: 173cm, 5'8", Bust: 32B, Waist: 25", Hips: 35"
Deliveries are between 8am - 6pm, Mon - Sat.
FREE if you pay with your Debenhams card
FREE delivery on all orders over £30 (normally £3.99)
Deliver to store for collection ( 160 participating stores ) FREE
International Delivery £7.00 to £15.00
Debenhams is happy to exchange or refund your purchase within 28 days providing the goods are in a fully resaleable condition (including tags) and not within the exclusion policy*. This policy does not affect your statutory rights. You can return unwanted items either by visiting your local store (the fastest way to get a refund), by arranging a courier collection or returning by post. Exclusions apply to selected products. For instructions on how to return products and information on Debenhams refund policy visit the returns and refunds section of the website.


text:
Let us help you find the right one.
Call 954-759-7400 for assistance, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Broward Health Imperial Point's Man Van is taking men's health screenings across Broward. Find out more »
Broward Health offers a wide range of programs to improve the health of the people of Broward County, including: lectures, screenings and outreach, senior services, maternal and child health, school health, HIV/AIDS care, homeless services and more.
Read More
» Watch some of our top physicians perform cutting-edge surgeries
» Improve your health. Find classes & events
» Browse our KidsHealth library
Back to Document
Why do I need this treatment?
What is the goal of the treatment?
What kind of hormonal therapy should I consider?
When will treatment start?
What drugs will I be taking? How often? For how long? What will they do?
How will we know if the treatment is working?
What are the likely short-term and long-term side effects? Which should I tell you about?
What can I do about side effects? Are any side effects permanent?
If I need hormonal treatment, would surgery be an alternative to this? Which would be better for me, drugs or an operation? Why?


text:
Three Democratic women are among those looking at the 2014 U.S. Senate race in Montana.
U.S. Senator Max Baucus announced last week he would not seek re-election, leaving the Senate seat open for the first time since the 1970's.
State Auditor Monica Lindeen and State Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau said they may run if former Governor Brian Schweitzer doesn't.
Stephanie Schriock, who leads a group that supports female candidates, is also considering running.
The state is one of about two dozen where a woman has never been elected to the Senate.


text:
Stoplight Poetry
and now Suzanne has something to say about books :: kidlit :: language acquisition :: parenting :: poetry
What a great idea. However, I'll have to turn off (break?) the radio and hide the thirteen year old's iPod.
Suz, the gnomes have taken over. It took nearly four minutes to load your site today! (And that was after I'd tried once, stopped and reloaded...)
wow - thx for letting me know Kate -- off to degnome again
This post has been included in the latest edition of Mom's Blogging Carnival.
Thank you for submitting this post to the Mommy Blog Carnival for April 15th. I've included it in the upcoming edition. Hope to see you drop by and check out the other participants. Again, thank you!
I am the wife of a man I call My Gift from a Generous God. I am mama to two lovely children, Dandy and Chickadee that became ours in September 2006 in a court-room in Siberia. I am the daughter of two people whom I love and admire. One of them, my dad, is a new (Dec 06) paraplegic.
In my previous life (B.C. - before children), I was a college English teacher, specializing in composition and ESL composition.:: click here to read my 8 things meme