skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Do You Know What Export Control Reform Did WIth Those Crown Jewels?

Abstract

Export Control Reform has been in motion for six years. In 2014, the ITAR regulations surrendered export control of nuclear weapons technology to the control of DOE. Yet no Federal Register notice by DOE detailed where those new regulations could be found. This article explains the disposition that occurred.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1340741
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-123295
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Daily Bugle, (17 January 2017):Article No. 15
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
Export Control Reform

Citation Formats

Hagen, Gary D. Do You Know What Export Control Reform Did WIth Those Crown Jewels?. United States: N. p., 2017. Web.
Hagen, Gary D. Do You Know What Export Control Reform Did WIth Those Crown Jewels?. United States.
Hagen, Gary D. Tue . "Do You Know What Export Control Reform Did WIth Those Crown Jewels?". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_1340741,
title = {Do You Know What Export Control Reform Did WIth Those Crown Jewels?},
author = {Hagen, Gary D.},
abstractNote = {Export Control Reform has been in motion for six years. In 2014, the ITAR regulations surrendered export control of nuclear weapons technology to the control of DOE. Yet no Federal Register notice by DOE detailed where those new regulations could be found. This article explains the disposition that occurred.},
doi = {},
journal = {Daily Bugle, (17 January 2017):Article No. 15},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Jan 17 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Tue Jan 17 00:00:00 EST 2017}
}
  • Asked to contribute to this special issue of Climatic Change, just as it is an honor to have served on the journal’s Editorial Board since, it seems, time immemorial (1983, actually). This issue celebrates the journal’s having published a full 100 volumes—this in the relatively short time-span since its founding in 1975. I take pleasure in being able to claim guest editorship or co-editorship of fully five percent of these 100 volumes.
  • In spite of the current recession, coal reserves have the potential for a major increase in value. The value of the coal in the ground clearly depends upon its quality, location and extractability amongst other factors; and it is also important to match coal properties to the requirements of the market. The article describes the economic assessment of coal reserves.
  • This paper, an account of the Shetlands Islands oil spill (1993), examines the public health controversies surrounding the spill and the clean-up response. It critically examines the risk management policies of both the United Kingdom and the Shetland Islands Public Health Office, and suggests that the withholding of critical information contributed to increased anxiety and suspicion among the disaster victims. In an attempt to reassure the victims, the policies contributed to an increased air of uncertainty. It is further argued with the withholding of information prevents those who are at greatest risk from participating in critical decisions that may affectmore » their health and livelihoods and asserts that a right-to-know policy is a critical first step in risk management practices.« less
  • Any well-informed future decision on whether and how to deploy solar geoengineering requires balancing the impacts (both intended and unintended) of intervening in the climate against the impacts of not doing so. In spite of the tremendous progress in the last decade, the current state of knowledge remains insufficient to support an assessment of this balance, even for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG), arguably the best understood (practical) geoengineering method. We then articulate key unknowns associated with SAG, including both climate-science and design questions, as an essential step toward developing a future strategic research program that could address outstanding uncertainties.
  • Any well-informed future decision on whether and how to deploy solar geoengineering requires balancing the impacts (both intended and unintended) of intervening in the climate against the impacts of not doing so. In spite of the tremendous progress in the last decade, the current state of knowledge remains insufficient to support an assessment of this balance, even for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG), arguably the best understood (practical) geoengineering method. We then articulate key unknowns associated with SAG, including both climate-science and design questions, as an essential step toward developing a future strategic research program that could address outstanding uncertainties.