Nuclear History

Considerations

  • When fossil fuel costs fell in the 1980's, demand for nuclear energy wained with the fears of radiation and nuclear proliferation by rogue countries. Nuclear weapons became larger and deadlier in the throws of the Cold War, ultimately enough nuclear weapons were present to destroy the planet many times over. Other countries began to develop nuclear power for use and the IAEA began to monitor those countries to prevent the creation of weapons grade plutonium. Nuclear reactors had been being installed in submarines and naval ships in NATO and the Soviet Union for years, creating whole fleets running on nuclear energy.

Features

  • The largest push back against nuclear power came after two events rattled public awareness of the dangers potentially posed by this form of power. In 1979, the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island had a partial core meltdown which resulted in the release of a substantial amount of radioactive krypton. The lack of information by government sources during the initial panic, led many to question the future of nuclear energy.
    The most disastrous event in took place at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 in the Soviet Union. Reactor number four exploded at 1:23 AM, releasing a plume of radioactive fallout larger than that left in the wake of the Hiroshima bombing. Initially, only two people died, but over a half million civilians were exposed to the radioactive fallout, making exact figures impossible to determine. The IAEA attributes fifty-six people directly killed by the blast with a possible additional 4,000 individuals with cancer.

Misconceptions

  • After the effects of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the worldwide community questioned the safety of nuclear energy. Beyond the obvious worries of accidents, the questions about what to do with spent plutonium has yet to be determined. 95% of spent fuel can be reprocessed with modern technologies, however, the remaining 5% creates a burden of storage, as the spent fuel is deadly for thousands of years. Attempts to create a storage facility on Yucca Mountain have stalled and deals are trying to be made to store large amounts of spent fuel in Siberia with Russian assistance.

  • Timeline: Nuclear power in the United Kingdom

    Key events in the history of nuclear power in Britain
    Sizewell B nuclear power station, Suffolk
    Nuclear power in Britain: Sizewell B power station
    1934 Nuclear fission is first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi.
    1956 The Queen opens the first two 65MW dual purpose reactors at Calder Hall at Windscale (later Sellafield). The government says Britain has become "the first station anywhere in the world to produce electricity from atomic energy on a full industrial scale".
    1957 The government promises a nuclear power building programme that would achieve 5,000-6,000MW capacity by 1965.
    The world's first nuclear power accident occurs at Windscale in west Cumbria, when a fire in the reactor results in a release of radioactivity. The then prime minister, Harold Macmillan, told the cabinet that he was suppressing the report that detailed the full extent of the disaster, defects in organisation and technical shortcomings. The facts were not made public for 30 years.
    1960 Government white paper scales back nuclear building plans to 3,000MW, acknowledging that coal generation is 25% cheaper.
    1962 Berkeley nuclear power station, situated on the bank of the River Severn, in Gloucestershire, begins generating electricity.
    1964 The Government white paper, The Second Nuclear Programme, says 5,000MW of new plants will be built between 1970-76.
    This begins the era of advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) after other designs are rejected. Minister for power Fred Lee tells the House of Commons: "We have won the jackpot this time - we have the greatest breakthrough of all times."
    Magnox reprocessing plant opens at Windscale for the dual purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons and fast-breeder reactor fuel.
    1965 Proposed building programme for AGRs increased to 8,000MW.
    1966 First AGR construction begins.
    1977 Last of seven AGR stations is ordered for Heysham, Lancashire, to complete the 8,000MW programme. The Central Electricity Generating Board describes them as "one of the major blunders of British industrial policy."
    1979 Energy secretary David Howell announces 10 new pressurised water reactors (PWR) to be built, calling nuclear power "a cheaper form of electricity generation than any known to man".
    1983 Planning inquiry for the first PWR at Sizewell in Suffolk starts, lasting two years.
    Government forced to abandon dumping of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste in the Atlantic following pressure from environmental groups.
    1986 The world's worst nuclear accident occurs at Chernobyl in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.
    1987 Plans for Sizewell B approved.
    1988 Construction begins on Sizewell B, the first of a family of four PWRs that are planned but later abandoned.
    The government decides to privatise electricity production and a "nuclear tax" is proposed.
    1989 Magnox reactors are withdrawn from electricity privatisation. The city refuses to buy the older stations because of decommissioning costs and the taxpayer is left with the bill.
    AGRs and Sizewell B are withdrawn from privatisation because city investors discover that the cost of generating nuclear power is far greater than that of coal.
    1990 Nuclear levy is introduced to cover the difference between the cost of generating nuclear energy and coal, adding 11% to electricity bills.
    The cost of building Sizewell B increases from £1.69bn to £2.03bn.
    1991 Government announces plans for a nuclear waste repository costing between £2.5bn and £3.5bn that would be completed by 2005.
    1992 International Atomic Agency says the building up of vast stocks of plutonium at reprocessing plants poses "a major political and security risk".
    1993 It is revealed that the 11% nuclear levy on electricity bills has not been put aside for dealing with decommissioning costs and waste, but spent on building Sizewell B. Economists estimate that the projected income from the levy between 1990-98 will represent a £9.1bn subsidy for the nuclear industry.
    1994 Government announces nuclear reviews, one into whether new nuclear stations can be built and the seond into whether the industry can be privatised.
    1995 Government decides to make a second attempt to privatise AGRs and the still-to-be-completed Sizewell B.
    1996 Sell-off of the newer nuclear stations goes ahead. Despite calls for its cancellation because of delays and cost overruns, Sizewell B opens.
    1997 Two nuclear waste stores are to be built at Sellafield, to take intermediate-level waste for the next 50 years. Another 10 are planned for the future.
    1998 Deputy prime minister John Prescott signs agreement to progressively reduce concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment as a result of emissions from Sellafield.
    2000 In February, the British Nuclear Fuels chief executive, John Taylor, resigns over a scandal relating to faked safety records at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria.
    2002 Bradwell power station is shut down after 40 years of operation.
    2003 The government's 2003 energy white paper highlights the lack of planned new nuclear plants to replace decommissioned ones, but rejects the technology, saying "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity".
    September 2004 The European commission launches legal action against the government over "unacceptable" failings in dealing with nuclear waste at Sellafield.
    May 2005 A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel forces the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.
    October 2005 The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, voices his support for a nuclear power revival, saying there are economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors.
    November 2005 The then prime minister, Tony Blair, commissions a second white paper on energy policy and confirms that a new generation of nuclear power station's is to be considered. He says nuclear power is once again a serious option because "the facts have changed over the last couple of years".
    March 2006 The Sustainable Development Commission warns Tony Blair that there is "no justification" for a new nuclear programme.
    April 2006 The government's environment audit committee warns that a new generation of nuclear power stations would not be able to avert a serious energy crisis. The government has become "too focused" on nuclear energy, it says.
    May 2006 Tony Blair endorses a new generation of nuclear power stations in a speech to business leaders. He says the issue of a new generation of stations is back on the agenda "with avengeance". He is backed up again by King.
    July 2006 The new white paper confirms that nuclear power is back on the agenda. It says a mix of energy supplies is essential and that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution. The review says it will be up to the private sector to cover the costs of investment, decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste.
    Major power generators such as E.ON and EDF welcome what they call an "important milestone".
    October 2006 Greenpeace launched a court action claiming that the government's consultation was "legally flawed".
    February 2007 Greenpeace wins its case and governmen launches a new consultation, which includes plans to treble the amount of electricity from renewable sources and signals a return to the government's nuclear agenda.
    A Guardian/ICM poll shows opponents of nuclear energy narrowly outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44%.
    November 2007 New prime minister, Gordon Brown, calls for an acceleration of nuclear power in a speech to business leaders.
    January 2008 The government announces its nuclear plans. It backs a new generation of nuclear power stations.
    March 2008 Britain and France announce a deal to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and to export the technology around the world. The deal will allow Britain to take advantage of French expertise in building new reactors.
    May 2008 Half a million people in the UK hit by power cuts as seven power stations, including Sizewell B, unexpectedly stop working.
    June 2008 Government inspectors warn that plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations may be delayed because of a shortage of skilled engineers.
    July 2008 In a speech to EU states, Gordon Brown calls for eight new nuclear plants to be built in as part of a 'nuclear renaissance' in the UK.
    September 2008 Business secretary John Hutton calls for a 'renaissance in nuclear power' in a speech to parliament.
    French energy giant EDF finalises a £12.4bn deal to buy British Energy, which runs eight nuclear sites with land on which new reactors could be built.
    January 2009 Gordon Brown backs plans for a new nuclear power station at Sellafield, after the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority agrees to provide land for the building of two new stations adjacent to the old site.
    February 2009 Magnox Electric Ltd, the operator of the Bradwell-on-Sea nuclear plant, is found guilty of allowing a radioactive leak to continue at the site for 14 years between 1990 and 2004.
    April 2009 The government publishes a list of potential sites for a new generation of nuclear plants.
    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority raises almost £400m after a seven-week online auction between energy companies wanting to buy three sites for new plants.
    May 2009 Centrica, which owns British Gas, announces a deal with EDF that will involve it in building new nuclear power stations in the UK.
    June 2009 A secret report by the government's chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman, shows more than 1,750 leaks, breakdowns or other "events" at UK nuclear plants over the past seven years.
    July 2009 Rolls-Royce announces it will open a new factory in the UKto build and test parts for new nuclear power stations.
    September 2009 State-owned Russian group Atomenergopromunveils ambitions to break into the British nuclear market, raising fears about the Kremlin's use of energy as a political weapon.
    UKAEA, the body responsible for decommissioning and cleaning up Britain's fleet of nuclear power stations, has been bought by Babcock International Group for £50m.
    October 2009 The Guardian learns of secret government plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's new nuclear reactors, contradicting repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies.
    November 2009 The Health and Safety Executive says French and American designs for new nuclear reactors are significantly flawed.
    Energy secretary Ed Miliband outlines government plans for a new fleet of nuclear power stations at 10 proposed sites. An 11th site at Dungeness was turned down because of the "adverse effect" it could have on the local ecosystem.
    December 2009 The operator of Sellafield, Britain's biggest nuclear complex, is fined £75,000 following safety lapses which led to the radioactive contamination of staff in July 2007.
    March 2010 The government announces a £170m funding package for the British nuclear manufacturer Sheffield Forgemasters, who will build a 15,000-tonne press to make large forgings used in modern reactors.
    May 2010 The Liberal Democrats abandon opposition to the development of new nuclear plants, with new energy secretary Chris Huhne saying a construction programme would be acceptable "without new public subsidy".
    The Health and Safety Executive is cracking down on Sellafield's operators, Nuclear Management Partners, after a series of radioactive leaks and safety blunders.
    June 2010 Huhne reveals Britain is facing a £4bn black hole in unavoidable nuclear decommissioning and waste costs.
    The government cancels a proposed loan of £80m to Sheffield Forgemasters approved by the previous government.
    August 2010 The Health and Safety Executive says the schedule for the UK's nuclear reactor building programme has slipped behind, as the two proposed designs await approval.
    A report prepared for the government by the British Geological Surveyidentifies the Lake District as the area of Cumbria most geologically suitable for nuclear waste disposal.
    January 2011 Huhne announces plans to raise the amount nuclear operators will have to pay towards the cost of any accident in the UK to £1bn.
    March 2011 In an Observer interview, Huhne says Britain may back away from the use of nuclear energy because of safety fears and a potential rise in costs after the Fukushima disaster.
    Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, says the UK's nuclear industry is in no shape to cope with a large-scale reactor building programme and must be overhauled if the coalition wants to push ahead with its nuclear expansion plans.
    April 2011 Government plans to build a new programme of nuclear power stations in England will be delayed by at least three monthswhile a report into what the UK can learn from Fukushima is published.
    May 2011 The UK government's advisory committee COMARE clears nuclear power plants of causing childhood cancers.
    A report by the energy and climate change select committee criticises the government for planning to award covert subsidies to nuclear power, betraying the coalition promise that the taxpayer would not foot the bill for a new generation of reactors.
    In an interim report following Fukushima, Mike Weightman, the nuclear chief inspector, says the UK is not at risk of similar disaster, and there is no need to alter plans for new nuclear plants.
    The government approves a controversial scheme to dump 250,000 tonnes a year of nuclear waste at King's Cliffe, a traditional landfill site near Peterborough.
    June 2011 Huhne confirms the list of eight new sites for the next generation of nuclear power stations.
    July 2011 Fergus Ewing, Scotland's energy minister, says the SNP government is "open" to extending the use of the country's two existing nuclear plants, Hunterston and Torness, in a move away from SNP opposition to nuclear power.
    Despite local opposition, officials give the go-ahead for work to begin on Hinkley C in Somerset, the first new nuclear power station for 20 years.
    The History of Nuclear Technology
    Before the second world war some important investigations in nuclear physics led to the discovery of the nuclear fission of heavy nuclei. The first proven nuclear fission was performed by Otto Hahn in Germany in 1939.

    The political situation in the world during the second world war demanded the rapid development of nuclear weapons technology in the United States. 

    On 2 December 1942researchers under the leadership of Enrico Fermi managed to maintain thefirst controlled nuclear chain reaction in an experimental device calledChicago Pile 1. This was a very huge composite of uranium and graphite. The reaction was maintained for 28 minutes.

    In the first years after the discovery of the chain reaction, nuclear energy was used only for military purposes. Only after the war was development turned in the direction of the peaceful use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity.

    In 1946 the Americain Congress passed the very important Atomic Energy Act which enabled the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

    In December 1951 the first four electric bulbs were illuminated by electricity which was produced by the nuclear reactor EBR-1 in Idaho Falls in the United States. This was the first experimental breeder reactor.

    There was a parallel development of the pressurized water reactor, which was first designed for the propulsion of submarines. It was successfully tested in 1953. The first nuclear submarines were the Nautilus and the Seawolf.

    In the 1954 in Obininsk in the Soviet Union the firstnuclear power plant in the world was successfully started: APS-1. It produced only 5 MW of electric power. It was graphite moderated and marks the beginning of the later RBMK type reactors.

    On 17 July 1955 the experimental boiling reactor BORAX-III produced for the first time enough electricity to illuminate the city of Arco in Idaho, United States.

    On 17 October 1956 thefirst gas-cooled nuclear power plant was started in Calder Hall in Great Britain. This was the beginning of the British nuclear programme.

    In 1956 the first commercial nuclear power plant, Shippingport in the USA was started. The second one, Yankee-Rowe was built in 1960 in Massachusetts. They both used pressurized water reactors and were constructed by Westinghouse.  

    In 1960 the General Electric company started the firstcommecial boiling water nuclear power plant, Dresden near Chicago in the United States of America.

    In 1962 the first Canadian nuclear power plant, NPDwas started. It used natural uranium and heavy water.

    The first nuclear power plant in France was built under American licence in 1965. 

    The first power plants started the era of commercial use of the nuclear fission for the production of electricity.
    More about history at ourexhibition.
Posted by

Have We Forgotten the Gulf Oil Spill Disaster? A Few Notes on the Oil Spill Clean Up Efforts

The Gulf oil spill disaster is the worst in the history of the world. Media coverage was heavy at the outset, but lately I find less and less coverage by the major networks and newspapers. It's hard to tell if public interest has waned, or if it's now become politically incorrect, given that the oil spill clean up efforts on the part of both BP and our government has been less than efficient and quick. The magnitude of this oil spill surpasses the impact of almost any other environmental disaster. Recent reports indicate that the amount of oil has been grossly underreported. Now, we find that in reality, the figure is 10-12 times higher than previously thought: a total of 4.8 million barrels of oil have polluted the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

When the oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, exploded, 11 people were killed. In an investigative piece, '60 minutes' discovered that a key piece of security equipment aboard the rig had failed. BP executives toured the rig just hours before the explosion. Although informed of the equipment failure, the crew was told to continue?and speed up - work, as they were behind schedule. With such an irresponsible, profit-oriented response, it shouldn't have come as a surprise that the ensuing oil spill clean up efforts have been, at best, too little and too late.

The impact has been monstrous. The fishing industry in the Gulf has been virtually destroyed. Fish, shellfish, turtles, dolphins and birds have been poisoned.

During the hurricane season, the warmer the water, the fiercer the hurricane becomes. With the volcanic mud bed of the Gulf, the pressure from the earth's magma against the leaking well threatens with a methane explosion that would reshape the entire Gulf and adjoining states and islands. This also causes an increase in the water temperature that results in horrific climate changes and increased hurricane force.

The sea life and coral reefs in the area may be now decimated. The pollution of the public water supply in the region has already been established. The oil has also shown up in the rainfall. Get out your atlas and take a look at the water currents that circle the globe. How will this 4.8 million barrels of oil eventually be distributed? It's unclear what the long term effects might be. While politicians and BP executives have bickered over legalities, the oil spill clean up efforts are now being downplayed in the major media.

Here's just one example of the attention given to political issues, at the expense of a rapid and efficient oil spill clean up effort: the U.S. received international offers to send oil skimmers, which are oil spill clean up ships, with a capacity of skimming up to 500,000 gallons of oil a day. Those offers were refused.

Now, there are reports of many people, who worked on the oil spill clean up effort, or live in the immediate area, now are suffering from unexplained internal bleeding. Some medical experts attribute this bleeding to be the result of poisoning from the various chemicals in the oil dispersants.

The entire effort, from the oil spill containment, management, and response, must be characterized as unconscionably incompetent. There is probably not a single factor in the ecosystem that has not been affected. This disaster is likely to impact the world for decades. There's no question that the oil spill clean up has already failed. This disaster cannot be undone.

Read more about author in:

dog bark collar

bed rails for toddlers
Posted by

Don't Let an Oil Spill Be the Tip of Your Organization's Disaster Iceberg

As with the most recent incident in the Gulf of Mexico impacting the economy, environment, and the people in the region there are issues that cannot be overlooked. As more and more comes out regarding what happened on the oil rig under British Petroleum's guidance and management more will also come out about what lead to the disastrous and deadly events of April 20, 2010 out on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

As people start to look and wonder at what caused those 11 deaths and the spilling of hundreds of thousands if not millions of gallons of oil (at the end of this) into the Gulf of Mexico they should not only look for answers but for ways to prevent such obvious blatant disregard for preventative measures, safety practices, and good old fashion common sense.

As a stakeholder in your organization you have a vested interested to ensuring that your company is not one that finds itself dragged through the mud in the daily news, ridiculed in the Sunday Morning News talk shows, and have your organization's once good name quickly fall from grace and become synonymous with other companies such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, AIG, any Motor Vehicle Company (except Ford) and now BP.

On that note, organizations all over the world must take notice from these examples of what not to do. Now is the time for all organizations to turn a careful eye inward and see their organization for what it is. Leaders must realize that the organization is not an automated process, it is not a conglomeration of machines, and your organization is only one thing: a living breathing assembly of human beings. It is no secret that each and every one of us is flawed, imperfect, and prone to make mistakes. So it should come as no surprise to anyone when something goes horribly wrong.

However, it should not also come as a big surprise when the layers of determining what happened are peeled back and reveal that other humans allowed what happened to happen.

Logically, questions must be asked such as could the disaster on the gulf have been prevented? Yes. Most certainly it could have been prevented. What could have been done to prevent it? Anything and everything.

Anything and everything sounds like a cop-out answer, a catch all, something politicians say when they don't want to get pinned down on something that may or may not make them look bad. However, in this case anything and everything means that all it would take is for someone in the organization to have said, "Hey, Stop and wait a minute this doesn't look right."

Did I just write, "Hey, Stop and Wait a minute?"

In this economy, in a time that stopping the presses more often than not means that the presses will never restart, is it a wise thing to stop the process, a process that managers and employees have been told to trust? It must be, who would ever imagine that overlooking a simple spike in a pressure reading or a small leak would change the world?

Now ask yourself, who is overlooking the simple spike in the pressure reading in your organization? More than likely you know whom the person is but may not know that they are not taking care of the little things, not taking care of the basics.

When the basics get overlooked, the beginning of the end starts. This means that the core functions of your department, division, company, or organization are not being successfully accomplished. This is then evident as throughout your operations things are not getting properly done because of a lack focus on the core operating functions, thus modifications based on those core functions that are also not getting done. Therefore, at some point the problems will start to surface.

Depending on how long the basics have been overlooked it may take a while for the problem to come to the surface. For example, a small leak in a fire hose will not be an issue when it is needed to put out a house fire. Small leaks are expected, especially as the hoses and couplers get old. Now imagine if the hose is put to use 8 hours a day for 40 hours a week, every week.

The small leak will eventually start to get bigger and over time the business end of that hose will not deliver as much water as it once did. This may be acceptable to someone but it is certainly not acceptable to the homeowner, business owner, real estate investment group or the owner of the property that is on the fast track to becoming a pile of ashes, this is not acceptable to the customers and clients of the fire department. While the majority of us are not putting out structure fires on a daily basis, we are putting out fires of our own and having a leaky hose is not acceptable as well.

Whenever there is a fire, Fire Investigators are called in to find out the cause or origin of the fire. Almost always the cause of a fire can usually be attributed to human error or human involvement (arson, faulty wiring, unmonitored space heater, kids playing with matches, unattended burning candles, grease splatter on the stove, etc., etc.). In the modern workplace as leaders are working hard at putting out fires they are also trying to find the root cause of those fires. Just like the Fire Investigators, we can determine that 99.98% of your business fires have a man-made origin. Then dig even further and you will find that at the core the basics were neglected. As a leader, a business owner, CEO, division chief, department head, front line supervisor, manager it is up to you to ensure that the basics are never neglected.

As the leader you are tasked with ensuring that things are done right, every time, by those you lead, manage, and supervise. Of course, no one is perfect and expecting 0% defects is crazy, then again not sticking to the basics is an even crazier way of doing business. What can a leader do to get everyone back on track? The answer is threefold; conduct your own internal audit, staff review, and train, train, train.

Audit all your processes to determine if the changing times (technology, governance, and ideologies) have made what was once relevant now irrelevant. If there are changes to be made, then ensure that you are clear and concise on what needs to be changed. Once that is identified, be prepared to deliver a thorough examination of what you propose make relevant that which has become irrelevant.

The next step is to conduct internal reviews of the people involved to determine what is and what is not happening in the way or manner it should. At least you should be conducting annual performance reviews of your staff, however, this might not help the problem if the next review is 10 months away. Therefore, conducting frequent internal reviews of not just your staff but also of the members of other departments that your staff interacts with.

Let me qualify this by stating that your role in the internal review is to determine where following the basics went off track. This is NOT an opportunity to pass the blame off on somebody else or on a different department. It is only an opportunity to find out where the problem is originating and then working out a plan to correct it. Should it turn out that the problem originated outside your area of responsibility, do no take it upon yourself to go over and correct it but instead coordinate with the department/division head and discuss the issue and form a corrective plan as soon as possible.

Come prepared because most people don't like being told that they have a problem, especially other managers. However, having the problem and the cause, as you see it, well documented will go a long way towards getting your issue(s) resolved and the organization back on track. Once you have identified the reason as to why the basics were not being followed and who is involved, develop a plan of action to correct the problem; the next thing that must happen is training.

Train your staff on what the problem is, how it will be corrected, how to identify when things do go wrong, and what the future expectations are. When it is all said and done you have to train the people you lead, supervise, or manage right the first time and every time after that. Periodic refresher training is mandatory as people will eventually become complacent and start to slip back into a mode of lax and slipshod ways that are not acceptable. Thus, the need to train, train, and train is ever present.

Time and time again, the public has been witness to what happens to an organization that forgets to stick to the basics. In many cases, overlooking the basics creates situations that organizations may never fully recover from, like many of the unfavorable situations that organization find themselves in, it is avoidable. When it comes to dealing with the basics of any job function or organizational business practices the leadership must not only recognize that there is a problem but also act almost immediately to curtail the fallout. Unfortunately, those leaders that recognize that a problem does exist more often than not fail to properly act and thus create a bigger problem. Therefore, for a leader to truly lead, she must not only be the person that finds the problem but also works even harder to fix the problem and do what it takes to prevent it from happening again. Your organization and those you lead not only demand it from you but as a leader it is your duty to turn that iceberg into a manageable snow cone.

Dave Guerra
Owner The Dave Guerra Company ( http://www.daveguerra.com )

Dave Guerra invites you to find out how providing Information Technology Leadership and Management greatly enhance return on your technology investment. The Dave Guerra Company helps small to medium sized organizations get their message out via the use of Internet Technologies utilizing new media tools such as Web2.0 and the emerging Web3.0 technologies.

Find out what The Dave Guerra Company can do for you, your organization, and your Information Technology investment.

(c) Copyright - David G. Guerra. All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Posted by
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)