Monday, 30 January 2012

LAMP


LAMP, (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP), is an acronym for a solution stack of free, open source software, referring to the first letters of: Linux (operating system), Apache HTTP Server, MySQL (database software) and PHP (or sometimes Perl or Python), principal components to build a viable general purpose web server.[1]

The GNU project is advocating people to use the term "GLAMP" since what is known as "Linux" is known to GNU as the GNU/Linux system.[2]

The exact combination of software included in a LAMP package may vary, especially with respect to the web scripting software, as PHP may be replaced or supplemented by Perl and/or Python.[3] Similar terms exist for essentially the same software suite (AMP) running on other operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows (WAMP), Mac OS (MAMP), Solaris (SAMP), iSeries (iAMP), or OpenBSD (OAMP).

Though the original authors of these programs did not design them all to work specifically with each other, the development philosophy and tool sets are shared and were developed in close conjunction. The software combination has become popular because it is free of cost, open-source, and therefore easily adaptable, and because of the ubiquity of its components which are bundled with most current Linux distributions.

When used together, they form a solution stack of technologies that support application servers.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Crisis nuclear in japan


The earthquake and tsunami that hit northern Japan on March 11, 2011 created the worst nuclear crisis since the Chernobyl disaster. The three active reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station 170 miles north of Tokyo suffered meltdowns after the quake knocked out the plant’s power and the tsunami disabled the backup generators meant to keep cooling systems working. A series of explosions and fires led to the release of radioactive gases.

At least 80,000 people were evacuated from around the plant, and radioactive materials were detected in tap water as far away as Tokyo, as well as in agricultural produce like vegetables, tea and beef.

The blasts in the days after the earthquake cracked the containment vessel at one reactor and may have cracked two others, although the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the plant, said most of the fuel stayed inside, avoiding the more catastrophic “China syndrome.”

In April, Japan raised its assessment of the accident from 5 to 7, the worst rating on an international scale, putting the disaster on par with the 1986 Chernobyl explosion, in an acknowledgement that the human and environmental consequences of the nuclear crisis could be dire and long-lasting. While the amount of radioactive materials released from Fukushima Daiichi so far has equaled about 10 percent of that released at Chernobyl, officials said that the radiation release from Fukushima could, in time, surpass levels seen in 1986.

In December, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced that technicians had regained control of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, declaring an end to the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernoybl. The government will now focus on removing the fuel stored at the site, opening up the ravaged reactors themselves and eventually dismantling the plant, a process that is expected to take at least four decades, Mr. Noda said.

But for many of the people of Fukushima, the crisis is far from over. More than 160,000 people remain displaced, and even as the government lifts evacuation orders for some communities, many are refusing to return home. And many experts still doubt the government’s assertion that the plant is now in a stable state — the equivalent of a “cold shutdown’' — and worry that officials are declaring victory only to quell public anger over the accident.

The crisis at Fukushima had effects on Japan’s overall energy policy: In May, Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who had been criticized for showing a lack of leadership, said Japan would abandon plans to build new nuclear reactors, saying his country needed to “start from scratch” in creating a new energy policy that should include greater reliance on renewable energy and conservation.

Word in early June that the amount of radiation released in the first days of the crisis might have been more than twice the original estimate chipped away further at the credibility of the nuclear industry and the government. In July, Mr. Kan went further, saying Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy, saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology.

Mr. Kan was forced out in August, replaced by Mr. Noda, who has taken a more pro-nuclear stance.

In interviews and public statements, some current and former government officials have admitted that Japanese authorities engaged in a pattern of withholding damaging information and denying facts of the nuclear disaster — in order, some of them said, to limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry. As the nuclear plant continues to release radiation, some of which has slipped into the nation’s food supply, public anger is growing at what many here see as an official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks.

Doubts About a ‘Cold Shutdown’

The Japanese government declared in December 2011 that it had finally regained control of the overheating reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. But even before it was made, the announcement faced serious doubts from experts.

A disaster-response task force headed by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced that the plant’s three damaged reactors had been put into the equivalent of a “cold shutdown,” a technical term normally used to describe intact reactors with fuel cores that are in a safe and stable condition. Some experts said that the announcement reflected the government’s effort to fulfill a pledge to restore the plant’s cooling system by year’s end, not the true situation.

Other experts expressed concern that the government would declare victory only to appease growing public anger over the accident, and that it could deflect attention from remaining threats to the reactors’ safety. One of those — a large aftershock to the magnitude 9 earthquake on March 11, which could knock out the jury-rigged new cooling system that the plant’s operator hastily built after the accident — is considered a strong possibility by many seismologists.

Plans to Decommission the Reactors

Soon after declaring that the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had been put into the equivalent of a “cold shutdown,” the Japanese government announced plans for fully shutting them down. Doing so will take 40 years and require the use of robots to remove melted fuel that appears to be stuck to the bottom of the reactors’ containment vessels, according to a detailed government plan.

Japan’s nuclear crisis minister, Goshi Hosono, acknowledged that no country has ever had to clean up three destroyed reactors at the same time. Mr. Hosono told reporters the decommissioning faced challenges that were not totally predictable, but “we must do it even though we may face difficulties along the way.”

According to the plan, the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, will spend two years removing spent fuel rods from storage pools located in the same buildings as the damaged reactors. At least one of those pools, which are highly radioactive, was exposed by hydrogen explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings in the first days of the accident.

The most technically challenging step will be removing the melted fuel, a process that the government said will take 25 years and require new types of robots and other new technologies that have not even been developed yet. After the removal, fully decommissioning the reactors will take another 5 to 10 years, according to the plan.

Paying for It All

In December 2011, the Japanese government told Tokyo Electric Power to consider accepting temporary state control in return for a much-needed injection of public funds, in effect proposing an interim nationalization of the struggling utility.

The order came after Tokyo Electric Power requested ¥689.4 billion, or $8.8 billion, in government aid to help pay for its response to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima site. The utility may have to pay ¥4.5 trillion in compensation payments by 2013, a government panel said in October, a sum that threatens to render the company insolvent.

The company will also most likely be forced to decommission all six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi at a huge cost, while the future of four other reactors at a second site is also on the line after a national outcry over the disaster.

Still, it remains unclear whether the government will force changes that experts have long called for at Tokyo Electric, also known as Tepco, like sweeping changes to management or a breakup of the monopoly the utility enjoys over electricity generation and distribution in the Tokyo area.

A Colossal Cleanup

As 2011 drew to a close, Japan was drawing up plans for a cleanup of Fukushima Prefecture that was both monumental and unprecedented, in the hopes that those displaced could go home.

The Soviet Union did not attempt such a cleanup after the Chernobyl accident, instead choosing to relocate about 300,000 people, abandoning vast tracts of farmland. Many Japanese officials believe that they do not have that luxury; the evacuation zone covers more than 3 percent of the landmass of Japan.

But quiet resistance has begun to grow. Soothing pronouncements by local governments and academics about the eventual ability to live safely near the ruined plant can seem to be based on little more than hope.

No one knows how much exposure to low doses of radiation causes a significant risk of premature death. That means Japanese living in contaminated areas are likely to become the subjects of future studies — the second time in seven decades that Japanese have become a test case for the effects of radiation exposure, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nuclear Power: Overview

Nuclear power plants use the forces within the nucleus of an atom to generate electricity.

The first nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi below the stands of Stagg Field in Chicago in 1942. The first commercial reactor went into operation in Shippingport, Pa., in December 1957.

In its early years, nuclear power seemed the wave of the future, a clean source of potentially limitless cheap electricity. But progress was slowed by the high, unpredictable cost of building plants, uneven growth in electric demand, the fluctuating cost of competing fuels like oil and safety concerns.

Accidents at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and at the Chernobyl reactor in the Soviet Union in 1986 cast a pall over the industry that was deepened by technical and economic problems. In the 1980s, utilities wasted tens of billions of dollars on reactors they couldn’t finish. In the ‘90s, companies scrapped several reactors because their operating costs were so high that it was cheaper to buy power elsewhere.

But recently, in a historic shift, more than a dozen companies around the United States have suddenly become eager to build new nuclear reactors. Growing electric demand, higher prices for coal and gas, a generous Congress and a public support for radical cuts in carbon dioxide emissions have all combined to change the prospects for reactors, and many companies were ready to try again.

The old problems remain, however, like public fear of catastrophe, lack of a permanent waste solution and high construction costs. And some new problems have emerged: the credit crisis and the decline worldwide of factories that can make components. The competition in the electric market has also changed.

Nonetheless, industry executives and taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to plan a new chapter for nuclear power in the United States and set the stage for worldwide revival.

Nuclear Energy: How It Works

Nuclear power is essentially a very complicated way to boil water.

Nuclear fuel consists of an element – generally uranium – in which an atom has an unusually large nucleus. The nucleus is made up of particles called protons and neutrons. The power produced by a nuclear plant is unleashed when the nucleus of one of these atoms is hit by a neutron traveling at the right speed.

The most common reaction is that the nucleus splits — an event known as nuclear fission — and sets loose more neutrons. Those neutrons hit other nuclei and split them, too. At equilibrium — each nuclear fission producing one additional nuclear fission — the reactor undergoes a chain reaction that can last for months or even years.

When the split atom flings off neutrons, it also sends out fragments. Their energy is transferred to water that surrounds the nuclear core as heat. The fragments also give off sub-atomic particles or gamma rays that generate heat.

Depending on the plant’s design, the water is either boiled in the reactor vessel, or transfers its heat to a separate circuit of water that boils. The steam spins a turbine that turns a generator and makes electricity.

Sometimes instead of splitting, the nucleus absorbs the neutron fired at it, a reaction that turns the uranium into a different element, plutonium 239 (Pu-239). This reaction happens some of the time in all reactors. But in what are known as breeder reactors, neutrons fired at a higher force are absorbed far more often. In this process, spent uranium fuel can be recycled into Pu-239, which can be used as new fuel. But problems with safety and waste disposal have limited their use – a fuel recycling plant that operated near Buffalo for six years created waste that cost taxpayers $1 billion to clean up.

Discovery and the Birth of an Industry

The possibility of nuclear fission – splitting atoms — was recognized in the late 1930s. The first controlled chain reaction came in 1942 as part of the Manhattan Project, America’s wartime effort to build an atom bomb. That project entailed construction of several reactors, but for them, the energy was a waste product; the object was plutonium bomb fuel. On July 16, 1945, at the Trinity Site in New Mexico, the project’s scientists set off a chain reaction that was designed to multiply exponentially – the first blast of an atomic bomb.

Even before the war ended, the military was looking at reactors for another use, submarine propulsion. Work on those reactors began in the early 1950s, and on some other uses of nuclear power that never came to fruition, like nuclear-powered airplanes.

By general consensus, the first commercial reactor was a heavily subsidized plant at Shippingport, Pa. That was essentially a scaled-up version of a submarine reactor. In the United States and abroad, as the cold war and a vast nuclear arms race took shape, the race was on to find a peaceful use for the atom.

In December 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered a speech at the United Nations called “Atoms for Peace,” calling for a “worldwide investigation into the most effective peace time uses of fissionable material.’’

Messianic language followed. Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, told science writers in New York that “our children will enjoy in their homes electrical power too cheap to meter.’’

The “too cheap to meter” line has dogged the industry ever since. But after a slow start in the 1950s and early ’60s, larger and larger plants were built and formed the basis for a great wave of optimism among the electric utilities, which eventually ordered 250 reactors.

As it turned out, many of those companies were poor at managing massive, multiyear construction projects. They poured concrete before designs were complete, and later had to rip and replace some work. New federal requirements slowed progress, and delays added to staggering interest charges.

Costs got way out of hand. Half the plants were abandoned before completion. Some utilities faced bankruptcy. In all, 100 reactors ordered after 1973 were abandoned. By the time of the Three Mile Island accident, ordering a new plant was unthinkable and the question was how many would be abandoned before completion.

Safety – Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

The core meltdown at Three Mile Island 2, near Harrisburg, Pa., in March 1979, and the explosion and fire at Chernobyl 3 in April 1986, near Kiev, in the Ukraine, are events the industry cannot afford to repeat.

Three Mile Island unit 2 was the youngest reactor in the United States. The plant, like all others on line in the United States, had been built with impressive back-up systems to guard against a big pipe break that could leave the nuclear core without its blanket of water. But here a relatively slow leak combined with misunderstandings by the plant operators about their complex controls, factors that had not been anticipated.

The operators knew that they had a routine malfunction and had taken action to deal with it. But as problems mounted, in their windowless control room, filled with dials, warning lights and audible alarms that all clamored for attention faster than they could absorb it, they did not realze for hours that a valve they believed they had closed was actually stuck open. Rather than resolving the problem, they had allowed most of the cooling water to leak out.

Tens of thousands of worried residents evacuated the surrounding area. The reactor core was destroyed, but with little damage beyond it.

The reactor had shut itself down in the first few moments of the malfunction, when an automatic system triggered control rods to drop into the core, shutting off the flow of neutrons that sustained the chain reaction. And even if that had not happened, the reaction would have stopped as the cooling water boiled away, because the water acted as a moderator, slowing the neutrons down.

The plant leaked radioactive materials; post-accident estimates said the amount was very small. No one died, but in a matter of hours, a billion-dollar asset had become a billion-dollar liability.

In contrast, the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine was moderated by graphite, a material that does not boil away. And as graphite gets hotter, its performance as a moderator improves, meaning that the reaction speeds up. When a malfunction made the plan run hot, instead of shutting down, the reaction ran out of control and the reactor blew up.

Graphite has another unfavorable characteristic: it burns on contact with air. At Chernobyl, once the reactor exploded, hundreds of tons of graphite became the fuel for a fire that lasted at least three and a half hours, providing the energy to disburse the tons of radioactive material inside.

The government said 31 people died of radiation sickness in the following weeks. Estimates of the eventual number of dead are colored by politics, but a United National panel said in 2005 that the release of Iodine-131, a highly radioactive material that gets concentrated in the thyroid gland, would eventually cause 4,000 deaths. An “exclusion zone” 36 miles in diameter remains in place, and hundreds of thousands of people have been resettled.

Safety – Nuclear Waste

When the nucleus of a uranium atom is struck by a neutron, the atom breaks into fragments. Nearly all these fission products, few of which exist in nature, are unstable. They seek to return to stability by giving off an energy wave, called a gamma ray, or a particle, called alpha or beta radiation. Some transmute into a new, stable state in a matter of seconds; others remain radioactive for millennia.

Most fission products with very short half-lives – the length of time needed for half their atoms to be transmuted into something else — are intensely radioactive, which makes them a concern in the event of a leak. Other fission products, most of which are contained in spent reactor fuel, will remain radioactive for millions of years.

The Federal government always promised it would accept the high-level nuclear wastes, and beginning in the early 1980s, it signed contracts with the utilities, saying storage would begin in 1998. It hasn’t happened yet, and won’t before 2020, if then.

In the 1980s, the idea was to have the Energy Department study the geology of several sites and pick the best, but that job went very slowly, and Congress decided to make the choice itself. It chose Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, in large part because the site is extremely dry. But intensive study showed that what water does fall on the mountain runs through it far faster than scientists initially estimated.

In 2004, a federal appeals court threw out a set of federal rules for the site because they would only offer protection for 10,000 years, while scientists say the fuel would be hazardous for close to a million years.

President Obama declared that Yucca would not be used, but in June a federal judge ordered the Energy Department not to withdraw its application for an operating license, an application opposed by the state of Nevada and a range of private groups, some of whom hope the lack of a storage site will force the entire industry to shut down. The judge said Congress had required the department to file an application when it settled on the Yucca site.

California, Connecticut and other states have moved to block construction of new reactors until a repository is opened, but other states seem likely to go ahead.

In the meantime, at many plants the spent fuel is stored in casks that look like small silos, with a steel liner and a concrete shell. The fuel is put inside and dried, and the cask is filled with an inert gas to prevent rust. Then it is parked on a high-quality concrete pad, surrounded by floodlights and concertina wire, resembling a basketball court at a maximum-security prison.

Safety — Military Waste

The nation’s biggest plutonium problem is not from nuclear power but from nuclear weapons. The most troubling is Hanford, a 560-square-mile tract in south-central Washington that was taken over by the federal government as part of the Manhattan Project. (The bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 originated with plutonium made at Hanford.) By the time production stopped in the 1980s, Hanford had made most of the nation’s plutonium. Cleanup to protect future generations will be far more challenging than planners had assumed, according to an analysis by a former Energy Department official.

The plutonium does not pose a major radiation hazard now, largely because it is under “institutional controls” like guards, weapons and gates. But government scientists say that even in minute particles, plutonium can cause cancer, and because it takes 24,000 years to lose half its radioactivity, it is certain to last longer than the controls

The fear is that in a few hundred years, the plutonium could reach an underground area called the saturated zone, where water flows, and from there enter the Columbia River. Because the area is now arid, contaminants move extremely slowly, but over the millennia the climate is expected to change, experts say.

The finding on the extent of plutonium waste signals that the cleanup, still in its early stages, will be more complex, perhaps requiring technologies that do not yet exist. But more than 20 years after the Energy Department vowed to embark on a cleanup, it still has not “characterized,” or determined the exact nature of, the contaminated soil.

So far, the cleanup, which began in the 1990s, has involved moving some contaminated material near the banks of the Columbia to drier locations. (In fact, the Energy Department’s cleanup office is called the Office of River Protection.) The office has begun building a factory that would take the most highly radioactive liquids and sludges from decaying storage tanks and solidify them in glass.

That would not make them any less radioactive, but it would increase the likelihood that they stay put for the next few thousand years.

The problem of plutonium waste is not confined to Hanford. Plutonium waste is much more prevalent around nuclear weapons sites nationwide than the Energy Department’s official accounting indicates, said Robert Alvarez, who reanalyzed studies in 2010 conducted by the department in the last 15 years for Hanford; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C.; and elsewhere.

Recent Developments: Safety and Output

In 2009, reactors are producing more electricity than ever before, about 20 percent of the kilowatt-hours used in the United States, by getting more power out of old plants.

Many reactors were designed to produce more power than had been applied for. In the 1990s, a number of companies asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for “uprates,’’ which allowed them to make changes, often small, that increased their output.

Nuclear plants are also running longer, in part because deregulation of the industry has given companies an incentive to get as much as they can out of each plant. Plants used to run at a capacity factor – the percentage of power a plant could produce if it ran continuously — of 60 or 65 percent; now the norm is 90 percent. Such increases have been essential to the survival of plants like Indian Point 3 in New York, which has gone from 40 percent in the 1980s to around 90 percent now.

Safety issues have persisted, and one incident in an Ohio plant in 2002 in particular shook confidence in the safety of reactors and the quality of nuclear regulation. Regulators ordered plant operators around the country to inspect a spot in the lid of reactor vessels that was known to be prone to leaks. In the Ohio plant, the operators were shocked to find that the boric acid that is mixed into reactor water to stabilize the reaction had eaten away a chunk of carbon steel the size of a football, leaving the vessel vulnerable to a failure.

New Designs, New Issues

On the drawing boards at government labs are all kinds of exotic designs, using graphite and helium, or plutonium and molten sodium, and making hydrogen rather than electricity. But the experts generally agree that if a reactor is ordered soon, its design changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Many of the new designs have focused on the emergency core cooling systems, where the new goal is to minimize dependency on active systems, like pumps and valves, in favor of natural forces, like gravity and natural heat circulation and dissipation.

Westinghouse is one of the companies trying to market a reactor, the AP1000, with what is called a passive approach to safety. Compared to Westinghouse designs now in service, it requires only half as many safety-related valves, 83 percent less safety-related pipe and one-third fewer pumps.

A French company called Areva is building the EPR, for European Pressurized Water Reactor, which has four emergency core cooling systems, instead of the usual two. That not only makes it less likely that all systems would fail, but would allow the plant to keep running while one of the systems is down for maintenance.

The third entry is General Electric’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, derived from its boiling water reactor design. It is tweaked for better natural circulation in case of an accident, so there will be less reliance on pumps. But three of its four potential customers have backed away.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also considering a proposal that it give approval to a handful of standardized, completed designs, rather than approving each plant’s design individually after construction had begun. The hope is to cut a 10-year construction process in half.

Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Nuclear power has gained new adherents in recent years, including some environmentalists who had previously opposed it. The reason is growing concern over climate change, and the role of energy production in the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nuclear plants do not burn fuel and so produce no carbon dioxide. Proponents of nuclear power say it is the only available method of producing large amounts of energy quickly enough to make a difference in the fate of the atmosphere.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, made expansion of nuclear power a central point of his agenda both for energy and global warming.

But expanding nuclear power to replace coal and oil would be a massive job, on a scale that some consider unrealistic. A study by the Princeton Carbon Management Initiative estimated that for nuclear to play a significant role in cutting emissions, the industry’s capacity would have to triple worldwide over the next 50 years — a rate of 20 new large reactors a year.

At the moment, though, industry leaders in the United States wonder whether the worldwide supplier base could support construction of more than four or five reactors simultaneously. Some reactors under construction, like a prototype EPR in Finland, are over budget and years behind schedule. All new projects have to depend on a single supplier for the biggest metal parts, Japan Steel Works.

And at the moment, the price of nuclear power seems too high. In Florida, Progress Energy wants to build two reactors with a total cost, including transmission and interest during construction, that translates into about $8,000 per kilowatt of capacity — the amount of power needed to run a single window air conditioner. On a large scale, it may be cheaper to build better air conditioners, some energy experts suspect.

Recent Developments

The Obama administration favors another $37 billion in new loan guarantees, beyond the $18.5 billion provided in a 2005 energy law. It opposes opening a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, although that goal has long been sought by the industry. It has favored new reactors as part of the energy picture.

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama proposed giving the nuclear construction business a type of help it has never had, a role in a quota for clean energy. But recent setbacks in a hoped-for “nuclear renaissance” raise questions about how much of a role nuclear power can play.

Of four reactor projects identified by the Energy Department in 2009 as the most likely candidates for federal loan guarantees, only two are moving forward. At a third, in Calvert Cliffs, Md., there has been no public sign of progress since the lead partner withdrew in October 2010 and the other partner said it would seek a replacement.

And at the fourth, in Texas, a would-be builder has been driven to try something never done before in nuclear construction: finding a buyer for the electricity before the concrete is even poured. Customers are not rushing forward, given that the market is awash in generating capacity and an alternative fuel, natural gas, is currently cheap.

Many Democrats and most Republicans in Congress back nuclear construction, as do local officials in most places where reactors have been proposed.

Some challenges are not peculiar to the nuclear sector. All forms of clean energy, including solar and wind power, are undercut to some extent by the cheap price of natural gas and the surplus in generating capacity, which is linked partly to the recession. And federal caps on carbon dioxide emissions from coal- and gas-burning plants, which would benefit clean energy sources, are not expected until 2012.

But some obstacles are specific to the nuclear industry, like the ballooning cost estimates for construction of reactors, which are massive in scale. Even when projects are identified as prime candidates for federal loan guarantees, some investment partners turn wary.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been working for more than 15 years to streamline reactor licensing to cut construction time and to reduce risk.

Nuclear energy has also begun to be looked on more favorably in Europe, too. The Finnish Parliament in July 2010 approved the construction of two nuclear power plants; just two weeks before, the Swedish Parliament narrowly voted to allow the reactors at 10 nuclear power plants to be replaced when the old ones are shut down — a reversal from a 1980 referendum that called for them to be phased out entirely.

The New York Times coverage of nuclear energy: Click here for a searchable archive of New York Times coverage of nuclear energy at nytexplorer.com, including articles and commentary.

LION


Lions are the only cats that live in groups, which are called prides. Prides are family units that may include up to three males, a dozen or so females, and their young. All of a pride's lionesses are related, and female cubs typically stay with the group as they age. Young males eventually leave and establish their own prides by taking over a group headed by another male.

Only male lions boast manes, the impressive fringe of long hair that encircles their heads. Males defend the pride's territory, which may include some 100 square miles (259 square kilometers) of grasslands, scrub, or open woodlands. These intimidating animals mark the area with urine, roar menacingly to warn intruders, and chase off animals that encroach on their turf.

Female lions are the pride's primary hunters. They often work together to prey upon antelopes, zebras, wildebeest, and other large animals of the open grasslands. Many of these animals are faster than lions, so teamwork pays off.

After the hunt, the group effort often degenerates to squabbling over the sharing of the kill, with cubs at the bottom of the pecking order. Young lions do not help to hunt until they are about a year old. Lions will hunt alone if the opportunity presents itself, and they also steal kills from hyenas or wild dogs.

Lions have been celebrated throughout history for their courage and strength. They once roamed most of Africa and parts of Asia and Europe. Today they are found only in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, except for one very small population of Asian lions that survives in India's Gir Forest.

CARE U.S. Congressmen Meet Nobel Laureates, See Nutrition Gains in West Africa

MONROVIA (January 13, 2012) - This week, a delegation of U.S. policymakers and key stakeholders met with Nobel Peace Prize winners Liberia President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee as part of a Learning Tour to Liberia and Ghana led by the global poverty-fighting organization CARE. The meetings came at a pivotal moment for Liberia, just days before President Sirleaf's inauguration for a second term and a month after she and Gbowee accepted their Nobel Prizes for their struggles to promote peace and women's rights. The delegation, including Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), saw U.S. development programs at work in the areas of health, governance, education, gender and nutrition.

President Sirleaf, Africa's first democratically elected female president, will be inaugurated for her second term on Monday. She met with the delegation in a private meeting to discuss plans for her second term in office, the challenges her administration is currently tackling and how the U.S. can continue to engage efforts to bring stability and prosperity to her country. "The United States is Liberia's most important partner, and bilateral cooperation is strong," said President Sirleaf. "I thank this delegation for visiting and commend CARE for restarting their critical work in Liberia." CARE Liberia restarted its operations in September 2008 after a 25-year hiatus.

The group also met with Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee who was awarded the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize alongside President Sirleaf and Tawakkol Karman of Yemen. "As leaders, we must reignite the culture of hope to address the challenges that still face our country and its people," said Ms. Gbowee in remarks she made to the group. She launched a women-led peace movement which helped end Liberia's civil war, and she continues to work on behalf of human rights in her country as coordinator of Liberia's National Reconciliation Initiative.

During CARE's Learning Tour, the delegation explored the critical 1,000 days between a woman's pregnancy and her child's second birthday. It is during this period that malnutrition poses the greatest threat to the long-term health of mothers and children, affecting the economic development of families, communities and entire nations. Addressing poor nutrition and its causes, including the ability of families to feed themselves a proper, balanced diet, can lead to tremendous strides in breaking the cycle of poverty.

While in Liberia and Ghana, the delegates visited district hospitals, met with medical staff at clinics, and talked with volunteers and local leaders who described how they are mobilizing their communities to secure access to the quality care women and families need. The delegation also visited local and national government initiatives, programs supported by non-governmental organizations who partner with CARE in-country, as well as some key projects of CARE Liberia including:

The Farming Resource Center, which is a coalition of centers that empower women, including war widows, and men – to grow crops that nourish their families, sustain the rainy season and generate additional income for their families. The program also includes training on entrepreneurship, marketing and bookkeeping skills.

A Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA) on the outskirts of Monrovia, in an area called "Peace Island," run by men and women living on less than $2 a day. The program helps them earn a living by managing their own businesses while loaning money to each other. More than 80 percent of the participants in this program are women and the groups generated $60,000 in loans.

CARE's Learning Tours program is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It engages participants involved in U.S. policy to experience firsthand how critical U.S. investments are making a difference. In addition, participants gain an awareness of the challenges at the household, community and government levels and are introduced to promising practices and cost-effective solutions that are saving lives in Liberia and Ghana.

The insights gained from this trip will help participants and CARE advocate for continued support and funding of these initiatives in Liberia, Ghana and throughout the developing world. By building on experience and relationships with communities, promoting family health and working with a coalition of public and private partners, CARE is focusing global efforts to tackle this problem. For more information on CARE's Learning Tours

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

unicef for nias


From UNICEF to Nias, 46 Elementary Schools

Saturday, 16 May 2009 | 1:58 AM

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The United Nations Children?s Fund (UNICEF) has in the last four years built 46 school buildings in Nias regency, North Sumatra, and 79 others still under construction. A UNICEF staff official in Jakarta Angela Kerney disclosed Friday in the last four years the international social organization had been promoting basic education in Indonesia.

Nias Deputy Regent Temazaro Harefa said that UNICEF has done a great deal for the region which had been devastated by a tsunami about four years ago. Most of the elementary school built by the international organization were reasonably quake resistant.

Angela made the statement during the dedication of a newly built elementary school building in Gunungsitoli, Nias regency. The school for 500 students has 16 classrooms, and had been built on land where two school buildings once stood and completely destroyed by the tsunami.

Angela said the new school needs to be manned by widely experienced teachers and attended by highly motivated students. UNICEF also promoted air sanitation and nutrition.

All that we have done and will be doing are part of our commitment to rebuild Nias, Angela said.

OBAMA


Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

His story is the American story — values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family, hard work and education as the means of getting ahead, and the conviction that a life so blessed should be lived in service to others.

With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. He was raised with help from his grandfather, who served in Patton's army, and his grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management at a bank.

After working his way through college with the help of scholarships and student loans, President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked with a group of churches to help rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.

He went on to attend law school, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in his community.

President Obama's years of public service are based around his unwavering belief in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose. In the Illinois State Senate, he passed the first major ethics reform in 25 years, cut taxes for working families, and expanded health care for children and their parents. As a United States Senator, he reached across the aisle to pass groundbreaking lobbying reform, lock up the world's most dangerous weapons, and bring transparency to government by putting federal spending online.

He was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008, and sworn in on January 20, 2009. He and his wife, Michelle, are the proud parents of two daughters, Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10.

vampire


Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Although vampiric entities have been recorded in many cultures and in spite of speculation by literary historian Brian Frost that the "belief in vampires and bloodsucking demons is as old as man himself", and may go back to "prehistoric times",[7] the term vampire was not popularized until the early 18th century, after an influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe from areas where vampire legends were frequent, such as the Balkans and Eastern Europe,[8] although local variants were also known by different names, such as vrykolakas in Greece and strigoi in Romania. This increased level of vampire superstition in Europe led to mass hysteria and in some cases resulted in corpses actually being staked and people being accused of vampirism.

While even folkloric vampires of the Balkans and Eastern Europe had a wide range of appearance ranging from nearly human to bloated rotting corpses, it was the success of John Polidori's 1819 novella The Vampyre that established the archetype of charismatic and sophisticated vampire; it is arguably the most influential vampire work of the early 19th century,[9] inspiring such works as Varney the Vampire and eventually Dracula.[10]

However, it is Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula that is remembered as the quintessential vampire novel and which provided the basis of modern vampire fiction. Dracula drew on earlier mythologies of werewolves and similar legendary demons and "was to voice the anxieties of an age", and the "fears of late Victorian patriarchy".[11] The success of this book spawne`d a distinctive vampire genre, still popular in the 21st century, with books, films, video games, and television shows. The vampire is such a dominant figure in the horror genre that literary historian Susan Sellers places the current vampire myth in the "comparative safety of nightmare fantasy".[11]

The Loogaroo is an example of how a vampire belief can result from a combination of beliefs, here a mixture of French and African Vodu or voodoo. The term Loogaroo possibly comes from the French loup-garou (meaning "werewolf") and is common in the culture of Mauritius. However, the stories of the Loogaroo are widespread through the Caribbean Islands and Louisiana in the United States.[83] Similar female monsters are the Soucouyant of Trinidad, and the Tunda and Patasola of Colombian folklore, while the Mapuche of southern Chile have the bloodsucking snake known as the Peuchen.[84] Aloe vera hung backwards behind or near a door was thought to ward off vampiric beings in South American superstition.[37] Aztec mythology described tales of the Cihuateteo, skeletal-faced spirits of those who died in childbirth who stole children and entered into sexual liaisons with the living, driving them mad.[33]

During the late 18th and 19th centuries the belief in vampires was widespread in parts of New England, particularly in Rhode Island and Eastern Connecticut. There are many documented cases of families disinterring loved ones and removing their hearts in the belief that the deceased was a vampire who was responsible for sickness and death in the family, although the term "vampire" was never actually used to describe the deceased. The deadly disease tuberculosis, or "consumption" as it was known at the time, was believed to be caused by nightly visitations on the part of a dead family member who had died of consumption themselves.[85] The most famous, and most recently recorded, case of suspected vampirism is that of nineteen-year-old Mercy Brown, who died in Exeter, Rhode Island in 1892. Her father, assisted by the family physician, removed her from her tomb two months after her death, cut out her heart and burned it to ashes.[86]
Asia

Rooted in older folklore, the modern belief in vampires spread throughout Asia with tales of ghoulish entities from the mainland, to vampiric beings from the islands of Southeast Asia.

South Asia also developed other vampiric legends. The Bhūta or Prét is the soul of a man who died an untimely death. It wanders around animating dead bodies at night, attacking the living much like a ghoul.[87] In northern India, there is the BrahmarākŞhasa, a vampire-like creature with a head encircled by intestines and a skull from which it drank blood. The figure of the Vetāla who appears in South Asian legend and story may sometimes be rendered as "Vampire" (see the section on "Ancient Beliefs" above).

Although vampires have appeared in Japanese Cinema since the late 1950s, the folklore behind it is western in origin.[88] However, the Nukekubi is a being whose head and neck detach from its body to fly about seeking human prey at night.[89]

Legends of female vampire-like beings who can detach parts of their upper body also occur in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. There are two main vampire-like creatures in the Philippines: the Tagalog mandurugo ("blood-sucker") and the Visayan manananggal ("self-segmenter"). The mandurugo is a variety of the aswang that takes the form of an attractive girl by day, and develops wings and a long, hollow, thread-like tongue by night. The tongue is used to suck up blood from a sleeping victim. The manananggal is described as being an older, beautiful woman capable of severing its upper torso in order to fly into the night with huge bat-like wings and prey on unsuspecting, sleeping pregnant women in their homes. They use an elongated proboscis-like tongue to suck fetuses from these pregnant women. They also prefer to eat entrails (specifically the heart and the liver) and the phlegm of sick people.[90]

The Malaysian Penanggalan may be either a beautiful old or young woman who obtained her beauty through the active use of black magic or other unnatural means, and is most commonly described in local folklore to be dark or demonic in nature. She is able to detach her fanged head which flies around in the night looking for blood, typically from pregnant women.[91] Malaysians would hang jeruju (thistles) around the doors and windows of houses, hoping the Penanggalan would not enter for fear of catching its intestines on the thorns.[92] The Leyak is a similar being from Balinese folklore.[93] A Kuntilanak or Matianak in Indonesia,[94] or Pontianak or Langsuir in Malaysia,[95] is a woman who died during childbirth and became undead, seeking revenge and terrorizing villages. She appeared as an attractive woman with long black hair that covered a hole in the back of her neck, with which she sucked the blood of children. Filling the hole with her hair would drive her off. Corpses had their mouths filled with glass beads, eggs under each armpit, and needles in their palms to prevent them from becoming langsuir.[96]

Jiang Shi (simplified Chinese: 僵尸; traditional Chinese: 僵屍 or 殭屍; pinyin: jiāngshī; literally "stiff corpse"), sometimes called "Chinese vampires" by Westerners, are reanimated corpses that hop around, killing living creatures to absorb life essence (qì) from their victims. They are said to be created when a person's soul (魄 pò) fails to leave the deceased's body.[97] However, some have disputed the comparison of jiang shi with vampires, as jiang shi are usually mindless creatures with no independent thought.[98] One unusual feature of this monster is its greenish-white furry skin, perhaps derived from fungus or mold growing on corpses.[99]
Modern beliefs

In modern fiction, the vampire tends to be depicted as a suave, charismatic villain.[31] Despite the general disbelief in vampiric entities, occasional sightings of vampires are reported. Indeed, vampire hunting societies still exist, although they are largely formed for social reasons.[29] Allegations of vampire attacks swept through the African country of Malawi during late 2002 and early 2003, with mobs stoning one individual to death and attacking at least four others, including Governor Eric Chiwaya, based on the belief that the government was colluding with vampires.[100]

In early 1970 local press spread rumors that a vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery in London. Amateur vampire hunters flocked in large numbers to the cemetery. Several books have been written about the case, notably by Sean Manchester, a local man who was among the first to suggest the existence of the "Highgate Vampire" and who later claimed to have exorcised and destroyed a whole nest of vampires in the area.[101] In January 2005, rumours circulated that an attacker had bitten a number of people in Birmingham, England, fuelling concerns about a vampire roaming the streets. However, local police stated that no such crime had been reported and that the case appears to be an urban legend.[102]

In 2006, a phys­ics pro­f­es­sor at the University of Central Florida wrote a paper arguing that it is mathematically impossible for vampires to exist, based on geometric progression. According to the paper, if the first vampire had appeared on January 1, 1600, and it fed once a month (which is less often than what is depicted in movies and folklore), and every victim turned into a vampire, then within two and a half years the entire human population of the time would have become vampires.[103] The paper made no attempt to address the credibility of the assumption that every vampire victim would turn into a vampire.

In one of the more notable cases of vampiric entities in the modern age, the chupacabra ("goat-sucker") of Puerto Rico and Mexico is said to be a creature that feeds upon the flesh or drinks the blood of domesticated animals, leading some to consider it a kind of vampire. The "chupacabra hysteria" was frequently associated with deep economic and political crises, particularly during the mid-1990s.[104]

In Europe, where much of the vampire folklore originates, the vampire is considered a fictitious being, although many communities have embraced the revenant for economic purposes. In some cases, especially in small localities, vampire superstition is still rampant and sightings or claims of vampire attacks occur frequently. In Romania during February 2004, several relatives of Toma Petre feared that he had become a vampire. They dug up his corpse, tore out his heart, burned it, and mixed the ashes with water in order to drink it.[105]

Vampirism and the Vampire lifestyle also represent a relevant part of modern day's occultist movements. The mythos of the vampire, his magickal qualities, allure, and predatory archetype express a strong symbolism that can be used in ritual, energy work, and magick, and can even be adopted as a spiritual system.[106] The vampire has been part of the occult society in Europe for centuries and has spread into the American sub-culture as well for more than a decade, being strongly influenced by and mixed with the neo gothic aesthetics

nuumber 11

n medieval times, numerologists — those who searched for the mystical significance of numbers — believed all numbers had both positive and negative aspects … except for 11. In the words of the 16th century scholar Petrus Bungus, 11 "has no connection with divine things, no ladder reaching up to things above, nor any merit." Stuck between the divine numbers 10 and 12, 11 was pure evil, and represented sinners.

That doesn't bode well for Nov. 11, 2011, the date when three 11s will align for the first time in a century. A new horror film, "11/11/11," has even been made for the occasion, and it plays on (or perhaps plays up) people's fear of coincidences surrounding the number. Film characters experience the so-called "11:11 phenomenon ," a tendency to look at the clock more often at 11:11 than at other times of the day. In the film, this is a warning of what's to come: "On the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year, a gateway will open … and on this day, innocent blood will spill," says a voiceover in the trailer.

Indeed, the 11:11 phenomenon is widely reported in real life, with entire online discussion forums dedicated to figuring out what the number means. People say they feel haunted by 11s, which appear to them eerily often. To them, the impending date is bound to seem ominous.

Your Free Name Analysis AboutAstro.com
Professional Numerologist analyzes your name and reveals your future!
Brain Training Games www.lumosity.com
Improve memory with scientifically designed brain exercises.
Brain Test™ www.braingradetest.com
Developed by Neuroscientists Complete brain analysis - Free.

On the flip side, some modern-day numerologists have deemed 11/11/11 auspicious, and according to local news sources around the country, an unusual number of couples have planned to marry on the day. The number 11 is also a favorite of gamblers — particularly blackjack and Keno players. So, amid all these alternative perspectives, what's the real deal about repeating 11s? Is there anything special about the numbers lining up?

No. With regards to the 11:11 phenomenon, rather than being a supernatural warning sign, psychologists say it is a classic case of "apophenia," or the human tendency to find meaning or patterns in randomly occurring data. This condition feeds on itself, because the more conscious you are of something — such as repeating 11s — the more often you'll notice it in the world around you, and thus the more certain you'll become that the pattern is real.

In online forums about the 11:11 phenomenon, people often say they didn't notice how many 11s appeared to them until hearing about the phenomenon from someone else. This is a tell-tale sign of apophenia: When they found out about the phenomenon, they subconsciously started keeping track of all the 11s they saw, with each new sighting seeming more significant than the last.

Just as there is nothing to fear about 11/11/11, there is no reason to be optimistic about the date, either.

According to Alan Lenzi, professor of religious studies at University of the Pacific who studies biblical numerology , seeking meaning in numbers is a natural human tendency. "Cognitive scientists have demonstrated that the human brain is hard-wired to look for meaningful patterns in the sensory data it collects from the world," Lenzi told Life's Little Mysteries.

In most situations, this cognitive wiring helps us: It enables us to pick important information out of a background of random noise. But sometimes we overdo it by finding patterns where they aren't — from faces seen in the clouds to numerical coincidences. Once found, these patterns "are easily imbued with imaginative meaning," he said.

There is nothing unusual about the time 11:11 or the date 11/11/11, but our brains can't help noticing the repeating digits, and seeing them as meaningful. "Numbers that are already significant to us, such as calendar dates that also coincidentally fall into an obvious pattern, become doubly significant," Lenzi said. "11/11/11 is another example of people doing what people are cognitively prone to do: find significance."

Sunday, 15 January 2012

Berkalkulasi For Google Adsense

Berkalkulasi For Google Adsense

Salam sejahtera buat para blogger, Pernah Dengar istilah “Google Adsense”? Sebuah PPC langsung dari google yang mana kita akan dibayar Dollar. Nah, Bagi kita sebagai pemula, mau menerjuni dunia Google Adsense, memang rada mikir-mikir dulu.

Seperti Berapa biaya yang harus saya keluarkan?
Berapa lama saya akan dapat hasil?
Berapa jumlah yang akan saya dapat perbulanya dan lain sebagainya.

Dengan e-book yang saya buat ini berjudul “Berkalkulasi Blogging For Google Adsense”, semoga bisa membuka sebuah gambaran atau inspirasi baru dibenak teman-teman semua yang ingin mencoba mencicipi Make money online from Google adsense. Dan lebih bersemangat lagi..

Sebelumnya Saya mohon maaf, bukan bermaksud saya ingin menggurui atau apa, saya hanya ingin berbagi sedikit cerita. Walaupun hasil saya belum seberapa di bidang google adsense ini, masih banyak Orang yang hasilnya lebih tinggi ketimbang saya. Karena saya sendiri semangat ketika membaca tulisan saya ini..

Kita mulai, Kita kasih acuan Target Membangun Blog Baru Selama 2-3 Bulan yah !! (minim banget ini loh) , bahkan ada yang lebih cepat. Memang tidak ada yang instan semua butuh proses dan kerja keras.

Awalnya, dalam memulai sebuah Bisnis Dari Google Adsense saya/kita terlebih dahulu harus mempunyai sebuah Blog betul?? Dalam membuat sebuah blog tentunya kita butuh modal untuk memulainya. walaupun ada blog gratisan seperti blogspot.com tapi jika anda ingin masuk ke Google Adsense alangkah baiknya langsung terjun ke domain dan Hosting berbayar.

Catatan: Megapa saya minta sarankan untuk terjun langsung dengan domain dan hosting berbayar? Karena memang memiliki kinerja yang berbeda antara Blog Gratisan dan Blog Berbayar. Yang namanya gratisan jelas ada batasannya.
Dalam penulisan artikel Blog yang akan kita Bangun dengan Menggunakan Bahasa Inggris !!!


Kemudian Sebelum kita Membeli Domain dan Hosting pikirkan terlebih dahulu Blog yang akan kita bangun untuk adsense itu mau membahas tentang apa sih?, Mobil, Motor, Interior Design, Software, Gadget, Kesehatan, Kapal Pesiar, Makanan, dan banyak macamnya.” , semua bagus kok.

Untuk membuat Blog, Pertama kita membutuhkan Dana Kurang Lebih senilai Rp200.000/tahun saja cukup, sudah dapat domain dan hosting, cukup murahkan? Berarti kita hanya perlu tabung Rp600,-. Perak/hari :D Biaya ini untuk permulaan saja.. Bisa kan? (beli rokok aja bisa :P )

Kalo sudah, beli domain dan hosting sesuai tema yang kita pilih, misalkan saja Membahas / Reviews tentang Kesehatan Berarti Isi Blog kita Semuanya harus berkaitan dengan Kesehatan. * Berarti di tarik kesimpulan 1 Blog 1 Pembahasan.
Catatan : Tentunya kita akan bertanya, kenapa sih kok 1 blog Cuma 1 Pembahasan, kenapa ga digabung aja jadi 1, khan lebih mudah untuk mengisi blog dan biaya pun lebih murah?. “Memang benar, 1 Blog yang membahas banyak tema lebih mudah dalam mengupdate artikel yang kita publikasikan dan juga biaya yang kita keluarkan lebih murah, Perlu kita ketahui, Google Adsense itu Akan menampilkan iklan sesuai dengan apa yang di tulis dalam postingan blog, nah, ketika blog kita membahas banyak macam tema maka iklan yang akan muncul dalam blog kita tidak efesien atau boleh dikatakan acak-acakan (bermacam-macam iklan juga yang muncul) , berbeda jika kita memiliki 1 blog 1 Pembahasan, Iklan Google yang muncul pun hanya 1 saja sesuai tema blog kita, kalo bahas tentang Kesehatan ya iklan berkaitan dengan Kesehatan lah yang akan muncul, jadi ketika pengunjung Datang kedalam blog kita, iklan yang muncul kemungkinan besar akan di klik karena tentunya iklan didalam blog kita akan sesuai dengan apa yang dicari oleh pengunjung sebagai contoh: lihat lah cbnet.com ”
Saya dulu membuka cbnet.com bolak balik meng-klik Google Adsense disana . Karena belum tahu kalo itu adalah Google Adsense. (cbnet membahas ttg software , iklan yang muncul pun seputar software .Setelah Menentukan Tema barulah bertindak untuk membeli domain dan hosting.


Oke sudah ya, Kita anggap Clear. Ya itu saran dari saya. Tpi Terserah kamu mau membuat blog yang dicampur atau dikhususkan 1 Blog 1 pembahasan :D .Kemudian, Setelah Menentukan Tema dan Membeli Domain & Hosting, kita bangun blog kita. Dalam bermain Google Adsense kita tidak perlu memikirkan SEO terlebih dahulu, pada intinya Kita hanya di Tuntut Untuk Posting Saja sebanyak – banyaknya.

Begini, kita Asumsikan hitungan minimal atau dapat dikatakan paling buruk yaitu 1 Posting bisa memberikan 1 Visitor tiap harinya. Bagaimana Kalo kita memiliki 200 Postingan atau lebih? Berarti kita akan memiliki Visitor sebanyak +200/day nya. Sekarang Bagaimana Jika 1 Posting dapat memberikan trafik lebih dari 1 Visitor atau 10-20 visitor berarti tinggal dikalikan saja. :D
Dalam 1 Hari kita usahakan Bisa Mempublish Artikel (Posting) sebanyak 5-10 Artikel
Berarti dalam Awal kita memulai Buat Blog ini, jika sehari kita dapat memposting 5 Artikel Saja , blog kita memiliki 150 Posting dalam sebulan.

Misalkan tidak terasa 2-3 Bulan kita sudah membangun blog , dengan memposting banyak artikel. Berarti dalam waktu 2 Bulan Jika kita melakukan posting 5 Postingan Perhari maka dalam 2 Bulan kita memiliki artikel 300 Postingan dalam sebulan..

Dan Berapa Visitor yang kita peroleh?? Sebelumnya kita sudah bahas itungan minimal atau paling buruk. 1 posting membuahkan 1 visitor berarti di bulan ke-3 total Posting kita ada 300 postingan, berarti perhari kita bisa memiliki 300visitor/day Bagaimana kalau kita postingan kita membuahkan hasil lebih dari 1 visitor? Kalkulasikan sendiri ya. ini Kalkulasi tentang Trafik dan Postingan.

Sekarang yuk kita kalkulasi Profit minimal yang bisa kita dapatkan… Temen-Temen, berdasarkan pengalaman yang saya, 100 visitor bisa membuahkan profit $1 , berarti dikalkulasikan aja kalo kita punya visitor 1000 , kita bisa dapat $9-$10 perday. Sedangkan untuk Blog Berbahasa Indonesia memiliki 1000 visitor = mendapatkan $1-$2

Berikut daftarnya, Jika 1 Posting membuahkan Hasil :

1 Visitor = 300/day dalam 3 bulan kedepan
2 Visitor = 600/day dalam waktu 3 bulan kedepan
3 Visitor = 900/day dalam waktu 3 bulan kedepan

Berikut daftarnya, Jika 100 Visitor Membuahkan Hasil $1 :

1 Visitor = 300/day = $3/day dalam 3 bulan kedepan
2 Visitor = 600/day = $6/day dalam waktu 3 bulan kedepan
3 Visitor = 900/day = $9/day dalam waktu 3 bulan kedepan


Seterusnya temen2 kalkulasikan sendiri…. Berapa lama kah bisa dicairkan :D Google Adsense akan membayar kita jika earning mencapai $100. Penjelasan di atas Hanya Asumsi Saja, seandainya ada Pengunjung yang mengklik IKLAN KITA.

Berarti dalam Waktu 3 Bulan kedepan, Jika Kita Posting Blog 1 Hari 5 Postingan maka dalam Waktu tersebut kita memiliki minimal 300 Postingan. Dan 1 Posting membuahkan hasil 1 Visitor tiap harinya maka dalam sehari kita akan memiliki 300 Visitor, kemudian jika dalam 100 visitor dapat membuahkan Profit $1 maka dalam sehari kita bisa memperoleh $3/day.

Tulisan Saya diatas Adalah Khusus Utk Blog Bahasa Inggris Loh…

Untuk memperbaharui Tulisan saya ini dan kita bagikan ketemen pemula yang mau menerjuni Google Adsense , maka dari itu jika ada pertanyaan dan evaluasi / tambahan masukan silahkan kirim email ke sandyprayogha@gmail.com .. Terima Kasih

Salam Hangat