document_title: Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

question_text: how much money does the iditarod winner get

question_tokens: how much money does the iditarod winner get

text: Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

text: Name[edit]

text: The race's namesake is the Iditarod Trail, which was designated as one of the first four US National Historic Trails in 1978. The trail in turn is named for the town of Iditarod, which was an Athabaskan village before becoming the center of the Inland Empire's[7] Iditarod Mining District in 1910, and then becoming a ghost town at the end of the local gold rush.[8] The name Iditarod may be derived from the Athabaskan haiditarod, meaning "far distant place".[9]

text: History[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Portions of the Iditarod Trail were used by the Native Alaskan Eskimo Inupiaq and Athabaskan peoples hundreds of years before the arrival of Russian fur traders in the 1800s, but the trail reached its peak between the late 1880s and the mid-1920s as miners arrived to dig coal and later gold, especially after the Alaska gold rushes at Nome in 1898,[10] and at the "Inland Empire" along the Kuskokwim Mountains between Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, in 1908. The primary communication and transportation link to the rest of the world during the summer was the steamship; but between October and June the northern ports like Nome became icebound, and dog sleds delivered mail, firewood, mining equipment, gold ore, food, furs, and other needed supplies between the trading posts and settlements across the Interior and along the western coast. Roadhouses where travelers could spend the night sprang up every 14 to 30 miles (23 to 48 km) until the end of the 1920s, when the mail carriers were replaced by bush pilots flying small aircraft and the roadhouses vanished. Dog sledding persisted in the rural parts of Alaska, but was almost driven into extinction by the spread of snowmobiles in the 1960s.

text: During its heyday, mushing was also a popular sport during the winter, when mining towns shut down. The first major competition was the tremendously popular 1908 All-Alaska Sweepstakes (AAS), which was started by Allan "Scotty" Alexander Allan, and ran 408 miles (657 km) from Nome to Candle and back.[11] The event introduced the first Siberian huskies to Alaska in 1910, where they quickly became the favored racing dog, replacing the Alaskan malamute and mongrels bred from imported huskies and other large breeds, like setters and pointers. In 1914, the Norwegian immigrant Leonhard Seppala first appeared, and went on to win the race in 1915, 1916, and 1917, before the race was discontinued in 1918 during World War I

text: The most famous event in the history of Alaskan mushing is the 1925 serum run to Nome, also known as the "Great Race of Mercy." A large diphtheria epidemic threatened Nome, and Nome's supply of antitoxin had expired and doctor Curtis Welch refused to use it, and then proceeded to send out telegrams looking for a fresh supply of antitoxin. The nearest antitoxin was found to be in Anchorage, nearly one thousand miles away. The only way to get the antitoxin to Nome was by sled dog, due to unusable planes and ships. Governor Scott Bone approved a safe route and the 20-pound (9.1 kg) cylinder of serum was sent by train 298 miles (480 km) from the southern port of Seward to Nenana, where it was passed just before midnight on January 27 to the first of twenty mushers and more than 100 dogs who relayed the package 674 miles (1,085 km) from Nenana to Nome. The dogs ran in relays, with no dog running over 100 miles (160 km).

text: The Norwegian Gunnar Kaasen and his lead dog Balto arrived on Front Street in Nome on February 2 at 5:30 a.m., just five and a half days later. The two became media celebrities, and a statue of Balto was erected in Central Park in New York City in 1925, where it has become one of the most popular tourist attractions. However, most mushers consider Leonhard Seppala and his lead dog Togo to be the true heroes of the run. Together they covered the most hazardous stretch of the route, and carried the serum 91 miles, the single farthest of any team.[12]

text: In 1964 the Wasilla-Knik Centennial Committee was created to honor the 100th anniversary of Alaska's induction into the United States of America from Russia.[13] Dorothy G. Page, the chairmen of the committee, had the original idea to race a portion of the Iditarod Trail. Joe Redington Sr. (named the "Father of the Iditarod" by one of the local newspapers), and his wife Vi were Page's first true support and, with volunteer support they cleared up a portion of the trail. The first race, known as the Iditarod Trail Seppala Memorial Race in honor of Leonhard Seppala, was held in 1967. The purse of US$25,000 attracted a field of 58 racers, and the winner was Isaac Okleasik. The next race, in 1968, was canceled for lack of snow, and 1969's small $1,000 purse only drew in 12 mushers.[14]

text: Redington along with two school teachers, Gleo Huyck and Tom Johnson, was the impetus behind extending the race more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) along the historic route to Nome. The three co-founders of the race started in October 1972 to plan the now famous race. A major fundraising campaign which raised a purse of $51,000 was also started at the same time. This race was the first true Iditarod Race and was held in 1973, and attracted a field of 34 mushers, 22 of whom completed the race. Dorothy Page had nothing to do with the 1973 race, stating that she "washes her hands of the event". The event was a success; even though the purse dropped in the 1974 race, the popularity caused the field of mushers to rise to 44, and corporate sponsorship in 1975 put the race on secure financial footing. Despite the loss of sponsors during a dog abuse scandal in 1976, the Iditarod caused a resurgence of recreational mushing in the 1970s, and has continued to grow until it is now the largest sporting event in the state. The race was originally patterned after the All Alaska Sweepstakes races held early in the 20th century.

text: The main route of the Iditarod trail extends 938 miles (1,510 km) from Seward in the south to Nome in the northwest, and was first surveyed by Walter Goodwin in 1908, and then cleared and marked by the Alaska Road Commission in 1911 and 1912. The entire network of branching paths covers a total of 2,450 miles (3,940 km). Except for the start in Anchorage, the modern race follows parts of the historic trail.

text: Route[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The trail is composed of two routes: a northern route, which is run on even-numbered years, and a southern route, which is run on odd-numbered years. Both follow the same trail for 352 miles (566 km), from Anchorage to Ophir, where they diverge and then rejoin at Kaltag, 346 miles (557 km) from Nome. The race used the northern route until 1977, when the southern route was added to distribute the impact of the event on the small villages in the area, none of which have more than a few hundred inhabitants. Passing through the historic town of Iditarod was a secondary benefit.

text: Aside from the addition of the southern route, the route has remained relatively constant. The largest changes were the addition of the restart location in 1995 and the shift from Ptarmigan to Rainy Pass in 1996. Checkpoints along the route are also occasionally added or dropped, and the ceremonial start of the route and the restart point are commonly adjusted depending on weather.

text: As a result, the exact measured distance of the race varies from year to year, but officially the northern route is 975 miles (1,569 km) long, and the southern route is 998 miles (1,606 km) long. The length of the race is also frequently rounded to 1,000 miles but is officially set at 1,049 miles (1688 km), which honors Alaska's status as the 49th U.S. state.[15]

text: In 2015 and 2017, due to lack of snow, the race had to be re-routed. The race started in Fairbanks, Alaska, and continued to Nenana (60 miles (97 km)), Manley Hot Springs (90 miles (140 km)), Tanana (66 miles (106 km)), Ruby (119 miles (192 km)), Galena (50 miles (80 km)), Husila (82 miles (132 km)), Koyukuk (86 miles (138 km)) before joining up with the normal trail at Nulato for the rest of the race.[16] The Fairbanks restart changed the official distance to 979 miles, four miles longer than the northern route, 19 less than the southern route.[17]

text: Checkpoints[edit]

text: There are currently 26 checkpoints on the northern route and 27 on the southern route where mushers must sign in. Some mushers prefer to camp on the trail and immediately press on, but others stay and rest. Mushers prepare "drop bags" of supplies which are flown ahead to each checkpoint by the Iditarod Air Force. The gear includes food for the musher and the dogs, extra booties for the dogs, headlamps for night travel, batteries (for the lamps, music, or radios), tools and sled parts for repairs, and even lightweight sleds for the final dash to Nome. There are three mandatory rests that each team must take during the Iditarod: one 24-hour layover, to be taken at any checkpoint; one eight-hour layover, taken at any checkpoint on the Yukon River; and an eight-hour stop at White Mountain.

text: In 1985, the race was suspended for the first time for safety reasons when weather prevented the Iditarod Air Force from delivering supplies to Rohn and Nikolai, the first two checkpoints in the Alaska Interior. Fifty-eight mushers and 508 dogs congregated at the small lodge in Rainy Pass for three days, while emergency shipments of food were flown in from Anchorage. Weather also halted the race later at McGrath, and the two stops added almost a week to the winning time.

text: Ceremonial start[edit]

text:
(ITC, The Iditarod Trail)

Ceremonial start

Anchorage to Campbell Airstrip 11 miles (18 km)

Highway

Campbell Airstrip to Willow 29 miles (47 km)

Restart

text: The race starts on the first Saturday in March, at the first checkpoint on Fourth Avenue in downtown Anchorage. A five-block section of the street is barricaded off as a staging area, and snow is stockpiled and shipped in by truck the night before to cover the route to the first checkpoint. Prior to 1983, the race started at Mulcahy Park.

text: Shortly before the race, a ribbon-cutting ceremony is held under the flags representing the home countries and states of all competitors in the race. The first musher to depart at 10:00 a.m. AST is an honorary musher, selected for their contributions to dog sledding. The first competitor leaves at 10:02 and the rest follow, separated by two-minute intervals. The start order is determined during a banquet held two days prior by the mushers drawing their numbers for starting position. Selections are made in the order of musher registrations.

text: This is an exciting portion of the race for dogs and musher, as it is one of the few portions of the race where there are spectators, and the only spot where the trail winds through an urban environment. However, in "Iditarod Dreams", DeeDee Jonrowe wrote, "A lot of mushers hate the Anchorage start. They don't like crowds. They worry that their dogs get too excited and jumpy.[18] The time for covering this portion of the race does not count toward the official race time, so the dogs, musher, and Idita-Rider are free to take this all in at a relaxed pace.[19] The mushers then continue through several miles of city streets and city trails before reaching the foothills to the east of Anchorage, in Chugach State Park in the Chugach Mountains. The teams then follow Glenn Highway for two to three hours until they reach Eagle River, 20 miles (32 km) away. Once they arrive at the Veterans of Foreign Wars building, the mushers check in, unharness their teams, return them to their boxes, and drive 30 miles (48 km) of highway to the restart point.

text: During the first two races in 1973 and 1974, the teams crossed the mudflats of Cook Inlet to Knik (the original restart location), but this was discontinued because the weather frequently hovers around freezing, turning it into a muddy hazard. The second checkpoint also occasionally changes because of weather; in 2005, the checkpoint was changed from Eagle River to Campbell Airstrip, 11 miles (18 km) away. In the 2016 race, due to lack of snow, the ceremonial start was 3 miles in Anchorage.[20]

text: Restart[edit]

text:
(ITC, Southern & Northern)

Restart

Willow to Yentna Station 42 mi (68 km)

Yentna Station to Skwentna 30 mi (48 km)

Skwentna to Finger Lake 40 mi (64 km)

Finger Lake to Rainy Pass 30 mi (48 km)

Into the Interior

text: After the dogs are shuttled to the third checkpoint, the race restarts the next day (Sunday) at 2:00 p.m. AST. Prior to 2004, the race was restarted at 10:00 a.m., but the time has been moved back to 2:00 P.M. so the dogs will be starting in colder weather, and the first mushers arrive at Skwentna well after dark, which reduces the crowds of fans who fly into the checkpoint.

text: The traditional restart location was the headquarters of the Iditarod Trail Committee, in Wasilla, but in 2008 the official restart was pushed further north to Willow Lake. In 2003, dwindling snow and poor trail conditions due to a warming climate forced organizers to move the start 300 miles (480 km) north to Fairbanks.[21] Originally, the race had its start in Wasilla from 1973 to 2002, the year when reduced snow cover forced a "temporary" change to Willow.[22] The mushers depart separated by the same intervals as their arrival at the second checkpoint. In 2015, the official restart had to again be moved north to Fairbanks [23] due to unusually warm temperatures and lack of snow coverage on critical parts of the trail.

text: The first 100 miles (160 km) from Willow through the checkpoints at Yentna Station Station to Skwentna is known as "moose alley". The many moose in the area find it difficult to move and forage for food when the ground is thick with snow. As a result, the moose sometimes prefer to use pre-existing trails, causing hazards for the dog teams. In 1985, Susan Butcher lost her chance at becoming the first woman to win the Iditarod when her team made a sharp turn and encountered a pregnant moose. The moose killed two dogs and seriously injured six more in the twenty minutes before Duane "Dewey" Halverson arrived and shot the moose. In 1982, Dick Mackey, Warner Vent, Jerry Austin, and their teams were driven into the forest by a charging moose.

text: Otherwise, the route to Skwentna is easy, over flat lowlands, and well marked by stakes or tripods with reflectors or flags. Most mushers push through the night, and the first teams usually arrive at Skwentna before dawn. Skwentna is a 40-minute hop from Anchorage by air, and dozens of planes land on the airstrip or on the Skwentna River, bringing journalists, photographers, and spectators.

text: From Skwentna, the route follows the Skwentna River into the southern part of the Alaska Range to Finger Lake. The stretch from Finger Lake to Rainy Pass on Puntilla Lake becomes more difficult, as teams follow the narrow Happy River Gorge, where the trail balances on the side of a heavily forested incline. Rainy Pass is the most dangerous check point in the Iditarod. In 1985, Jerry Austin broke a hand and two of his dogs were injured when the sled went out of control and hit a stand of trees. Many others have suffered from this dangerous checkpoint. Rainy Pass is part of the Historic Iditarod Trail, but until 1976 the pass was inaccessible and route detoured through Ptarmigan Pass, also known as Hellsgate, because of the 1964 Good Friday earthquake.

text: Into the Interior[edit]

text:
Into the Interior

Rainy Pass to Rohn 48 mi (77 km)

Rohn to Nikolai 75 mi (121 km)

Nikolai to McGrath 48 mi (77 km)

McGrath to Takotna 18 mi (29 km)

Takotna to Ophir 25 mi (40 km)

Trails diverge

text: From Rainy Pass, the route continues up the mountain, past the tree line to the divide of the Alaska Range, and then passes down into the Alaska Interior. The elevation of the pass is 3,200 feet (980 m), and some nearby peaks exceed 5,000 feet (1,500 m). The valley up the mountains is exposed to blizzards. In 1974, there were several cases of frostbite when the temperature dropped to −50 °F (−46 °C), and the 50-mile-per-hour (80 km/h) winds caused the wind chill to drop to −130 °F (−90 °C). The wind also erases the trail and markers, making the path hard to follow. In 1976, retired colonel Norman Vaughan, who drove a dog team in Richard E. Byrd's 1928 expedition to the South Pole and competed in the only Olympic sled dog race, became lost for five days after leaving Rainy Pass and nearly died.

text: The trail down Dalzell Gorge from the divide is regarded as the worst stretch of the trail. Steep and straight, it drops 1,000 feet (300 m) in elevation in just 5 miles (8.0 km), and there is little traction so the teams are hard to control. Mushers have to ride the brake most of the way down and use a snow hook for traction. In 1988, rookie Peryll Kyzer fell through an ice bridge into a creek and spent the night wet. The route then follows Tatina River, which is also hazardous: in 1986 Butcher's lead dogs fell through the ice but landed on a second layer of ice instead of falling into the river. In 1997, Ramey Smyth lost the end of his pinkie when it hit an overhanging branch while negotiating the gorge.[24]

text: Rohn is the next checkpoint and is located in a spruce forest with no wind and a poor airstrip. The isolation, its location immediately after the rigors of Rainy Pass and before the 75-mile (121 km) haul to the next checkpoint, makes it a popular place for mushers to take a 4-8 hour break. From Rohn, the trail follows the south fork of the Kuskokwim River, where freezing water running over a layer of ice (overflow) is a hazard. In 1975, Vaughan was hospitalized for frostbite after running through an overflow. In 1973, Terry Miller and his team were almost drawn into a hole in the river by the powerful current in an overflow but were rescued by Tom Mercer who came back to save them.

text: About 45 miles (72 km) from Rohn, the path leaves the river and passes into the Farewell Burn. In 1976, a wildfire burned 360,000 acres (1,500 km2) of spruce. The hazards left after the wildfire force teams to move very slowly and can cause paw injuries. Clumps of sedge or grass which balloon out into a canopy 2 feet (610 mm) above the ground can support a deceptively thin crust of snow. Fallen timber is also a concern.

text: Nikolai, an Athabaskan settlement on the banks of the Kuskokwim River, is the first Native American village used as a checkpoint, and the arrival of the sled teams is one of the largest social events of the year. The route then follows the south fork of the Kuskokwim to the former mining town of McGrath. According to the 2000 census, it has a population of 401, making it the largest checkpoint in the Interior. McGrath is also notable for being the first site in Alaska to receive mail by aircraft (in 1924), heralding the end of the sled dog era. It still has a good airfield, so journalists are common.

text: Following McGrath is Takotna, formerly a commercial hub during the gold rush. The ghost town of Ophir, named for the reputed source of King Solomon's gold by religious prospectors, is the next checkpoint. By this stage in the race, the front-runners may be several days ahead of those in the back of the pack.

text: Northern or Southern route[edit]

text:
(ITC, Northern)

Northern route (even years)

Ophir to Cripple 73 mi (117 km)

Cripple to Ruby 70 mi (110 km)

Ruby to Galena 50 mi (80 km)

Galena to Nulato 37 mi (60 km)

Nulato to Kaltag 47 mi (76 km)

Trails rejoin

text:
(ITC, Southern)

Southern route (odd years)

Ophir to Iditarod 80 mi (130 km)

Iditarod to Shageluk 55 mi (89 km)

Shageluk to Anvik 25 mi (40 km)

Anvik to Grayling 18 mi (29 km)

Grayling to Eagle Island 62 mi (100 km)

Eagle Island to Kaltag 60 mi (97 km)

Trails rejoin

text: After Ophir, the trail diverges into a northern and a southern route, which rejoin at Kaltag. In even-numbered years (e.g. 2016, 2018) the northern route is used; in odd-numbered years (e.g. 2017, 2019) the southern route is used. During the first few Iditarods only the northern trail was used. In the late 1970s, the southern leg of the route was added. It gave the southern villages a chance to host the Iditarod race and also allowed the route to pass through the trail's namesake, the historical town of Iditarod. The two routes differ by less than 25 miles (40 km).

text: The northern route first passes through Cripple, which is 425 miles (684 km) from Anchorage, and 550 miles (890 km) from Nome (ITC, Northern), making it the middlemost checkpoint. From Cripple, the route passes through Sulatna Crossing to Ruby, on the Yukon River. Ruby is another former gold-rush town which became an Athabaskan village.

text: The southern route first passes through the ghost town of Iditarod, which is the alternate halfway mark, at 432 miles (695 km) from Anchorage, and 556 miles (895 km) from Nome (ITC, Southern). From Iditarod the route goes through the three neighboring Athabaskan villages of Shageluk, Anvik, Grayling, and then on to Eagle Island, Alaska,.

text: Ruby and Anvik are on the longest river in Alaska, the Yukon, which is swept by strong winds which can wipe out the trail and drop the windchill below −100 °F (−73 °C). A greater hazard is the uniformity of this long stretch: suffering from sleep deprivation, many mushers report hallucinations.[25]

text: Both trails meet again in Kaltag, which for hundreds of years has been a gateway between the Athabaskan villages in the Interior and the Iñupiat settlements on the coast of the Bering Sea. The "Kaltag Portage" runs through a 1,000-foot (300 m) pass down to the Iñupiat town of Unalakleet, on the shore of the Bering Sea.

text: Last dash[edit]

text:
(ITC, Southern & Northern)

Trails rejoin

Kaltag to Unalakleet 85 mi (137 km)

Last dash

Unalakleet to Shaktoolik 40 mi (64 km)

Shaktoolik to Koyuk 50 mi (80 km)

Koyuk to Elim 48 mi (77 km)

Elim to Golovin 28 mi (45 km)

Golivin to White Mountain 18 mi (29 km)

White Mountain to Safety 55 mi (89 km)

Safety to Nome 22 mi (35 km)

End of Iditarod

Southern route: 998 miles (1,606 km)

Northern route: 975 miles (1,569 km)

text: In the early years of the Iditarod, the last stretch along the shores of the Norton Sound of the Bering Sea to Nome was a slow, easy trip. Now that the race is more competitive, the last stretch has become one last dash to the finish.

text: According to the 2010 census, the village of Unalakleet has a population of 712, making it the largest Alaska Native town along the Iditarod Trail. The majority of the residents are Iñupiat. The town's name means the "place where the east wind blows". Racers are met by church bells, sirens, and crowds.

text: From Unalakleet, the route passes through the hills to the Iñupiat village of Shaktoolik. The route then passes across the frozen Norton Bay to Koyuk; the markers on the bay are young spruce trees frozen into holes in the ice. The route then swings west along the south shore of Seward Peninsula though the tiny villages of Elim, Golovin and White Mountain.

text: All teams must rest their dogs for at least eight hours at White Mountain, before the final sprint. From White Mountain to Safety is 55 miles (89 km), and from Safety to Nome it is 22 miles (35 km). The last leg is crucial because the lead teams are often within a few hours of each other at this point. As of 1991[update], the race has been decided by less than an hour seven different times, less than five minutes three times. The closest race in Iditarod history was in 1978 when the winner and the runner-up were only one second apart.

text: The official finish line is the Red "Fox" Olson Trail Monument, more commonly known as the "burled arch", in Nome. The original burled arch lasted from 1975 until 2001, when it was destroyed by dry rot and years of inclement weather. The new arch is a spruce log with two distinct burls similar but not identical to the old arch. While the old arch spelled out "End of Iditarod Dog Race", the new arch has an additional word: "End of Iditarod Sled Dog Race".

text: A "Widow's Lamp" is lit and remains hanging on the arch until the last competitor crosses the finish line. The tradition is based on the kerosene lamp lit and hung outside a roadhouse, when a musher carrying goods or mail was en route. For this reason, the last musher to complete the Iditarod is referred to as the "Red Lantern".

text: On the way to the arch, each musher passes down Front Street and down the fenced-off 50-yard (46 m) end stretch. The city's fire siren is sounded as each musher hits the 2-mile mark before the finish line. While the winner of the first race in 1973 completed the competition in just over 20 days, preparation of the trail in advance of the dog sled teams and improvements in dog training have dropped the winning time to under 10 days in every race since 1996.

text: An awards banquet is held the Sunday after the winner's arrival. Brass belt buckles and special patches are given to everyone who completes the race.

text: Participants[edit]

text: More than 50 mushers enter each year. Most are from rural South Central Alaska, the Interior, and the "Bush"; few are urban, and only a small percentage are from the Contiguous United States, Canada, or overseas. Some are professionals who make their living by selling dogs, running sled dog tours, giving mushing instruction, and speaking about their Iditarod experiences. Others make money from Iditarod-related advertising contracts or book deals. Some are amateurs who make their living hunting, fishing, trapping, gardening, or with seasonal jobs, though lawyers, surgeons, airline pilots, veterinarians, biologists, and CEOs have competed. Per rules#1 and #2, only experienced mushers are allowed to compete in the Iditarod.[26]

text: Mushers are required to participate in three smaller races in order to qualify for the Iditarod. However, they are allowed to lease dogs to participate in the Iditarod and are not required to take written exams to determine their knowledge of mushing, the dogs they race or canine first aid. If a musher has been convicted of a charge of animal neglect, or if the Iditarod Trail Committee determines the musher is unfit, they are not allowed to compete. The Iditarod Trail Committee once disqualified musher Jerry Riley for alleged dog abuse and Rick Swenson after one of his dogs expired after running through overflow. The Iditarod later reinstated both men and allowed them to race. Rick Swenson is now on the Iditarod's board of directors. Rookie mushers must pre-qualify by finishing an assortment of qualifying races first.

text: As of 2006[update], the combined cost of the entry fee, dog maintenance, and transportation was estimated by one musher to be US$20,000 to $30,000.[27] But that figure varies depending upon how many dogs a musher has, what the musher feeds the dogs and how much is spent on housing and handlers. Expenses faced by modern teams include lightweight gear including thousands of booties and quick-change runners, special high-energy dog foods, veterinary care, and breeding costs. According to Athabaskan musher Ken Chase, "the big expenses [for rural Alaskans] are the freight and having to buy dog food".[28] Most modern teams cost $10,000 to $40,000, and the top 10 spend between $80,000 and $100,000 per year. The top finisher won at least $69,000, but that amount has slowly decreased since then, with the 2010 winner receiving only $50,000. Some believe overall interest in the race may be declining, hence the lighter purses and sponsorships. The remaining top thirty finishers won an average of $26,500 each.[29] Mushers make money from their sponsorships, speaking fees, advertising contracts and book deals.

text: Dogs[edit]

text:
An Alaskan malamute, derived from the original Iñupiat sled dog breed.

A Siberian husky, the fast 1908 import from Russia.

text: The original sled dogs were bred by the Mahlemuit (also known as Kuuvangmiut or Kobuk) people and are one of the earliest domesticated breeds known. They were soon crossbred with Alaskan huskies, hounds, setters, spaniels, German shepherds, and wolves. As demand for dogs skyrocketed, a black market formed at the end of the 19th century which funneled large dogs of any breed to the gold rush. Siberian huskies were introduced in the early 20th century and became the most popular racing breed. The original dogs were chosen for strength and stamina, but modern racing dogs are all mixed-breed huskies bred for speed, tough feet, endurance, good attitude, and most importantly the desire to run. Dogs bred for long races weigh from 45 to 55 pounds (20–25 kg), and those bred for sprinting weigh less, 35 to 45 pounds (16–20 kg), but the best competitors of both types are interchangeable.

text: Starting in 1984, all dogs are examined by veterinarians/nurses before the start of the race, who check teeth, eyes, tonsils, heart, lungs, joints, and genitals; they look for signs of illegal drugs, improperly healed wounds, and pregnancy. All dogs are identified and tracked by microchip implants and collar tags. On the trails, volunteer veterinarians examine each dog's heart, hydration, appetite, attitude, weight, lungs, and joints at all of the checkpoints, and look for signs of foot and shoulder injuries, respiration problems, dehydration, diarrhea, and exhaustion. When mushers race through checkpoints, the dogs do not get physical exams. Mushers are not allowed to administer drugs that mask the signs of injury, including stimulants, muscle relaxants, sedatives, anti-inflammatories, and anabolic steroids. As of 2005[update], the Iditarod claims that no musher has been banned for giving drugs to dogs.[30] However the Iditarod never reveals the results of tests on the dogs.

text: Each team is composed of twelve to sixteen dogs, and no more may be added during the race. At least five dogs must be on the towline when crossing the finish line in Nome.[31] Mushers keep a veterinary diary on the trail and are required to have it signed by a veterinarian at each checkpoint. Dogs that become exhausted or injured may be carried in the sled's "basket" to the next "dog-drop" site, where they are transported by the volunteer Iditarod Air Force to the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center at Eagle River where they are taken care of by prison inmates until picked up by handlers or family members, or they are flown to Nome for transport home.[32] According to Iditarod veterinarian Dr. Stuart Nelson, Jr., "Reasons for dropping dogs are numerous. Attitude problems, fatigue, illness, immaturity, injury, being “in heat,” lack of speed and musher strategy, are the more common ones."[33]

text: The dogs are well-conditioned athletes. Training starts in late summer or early fall and intensifies between November and March; competitive teams run 2,000 miles (3,200 km) before the race. When there is no snow, dog drivers train using wheeled carts or all-terrain vehicles set in neutral.[citation needed] An Alaskan husky in the Iditarod will burn about 5,000 calories each day; on a body-weight basis this rate of caloric burn is 3.5 times that of a human Tour de France cyclist.[34] Similarly the VO2 max (aerobic capacity) of a typical Iditarod dog is about 240 milligrams of oxygen per kilogram of body weight, which is about three times that of a human Olympic marathon runner.[35]

text: Criticism from animal rights groups[edit]

text: Animal protection activists say that the Iditarod is not a commemoration of the 1925 serum delivery, and that race was originally called the Iditarod Trail Seppala Memorial Race in honor of Leonhard Seppala.[36] However, this criticism is inconsistent with the fact that Leonhard Seppala was one of the primary mushers who delivered serum in 1925 (see above). Animal protection activists also say that the Iditarod is dog abuse.[37] For example, dogs have died and been injured during the race. The practice of tethering dogs on chains, which is commonly used by mushers in their kennels, at checkpoints and dog drops, is also criticized. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesperson Jennifer O'Connor says, "We're totally opposed to the race for the cruelty issues associated with it".[24] The ASPCA said, "General concerns arise whenever intense competition results in dogs being pushed beyond their endurance or capabilities", according to Vice President Stephen Zawistowski.[24]

text: Iditarod Trail Committee monitors the dogs' health. On May 18, 2007, the Iditarod Trail Committee Board of Directors announced that they had suspended Ramy Brooks for abusing his sled dogs. The suspension was for the 2008 and 2009 races, to be followed by three years probation. Brooks has now retired from dog racing.[38]

text: In 2017 Wells Fargo announced that it would no longer sponsor the race. While it declined to give specific reasons for the withdrawal of funds, Iditarod CEO Stan Hooley told the Associated Press that he believed the decision was connected to the activists' implications of cruelty to dogs.[39]

text: Records and awards[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Dick Wilmarth won the first race in the year 1973, in 20 days, 0 hours, 49 minutes, and 41 seconds. The fastest winning time was completed by Mitch Seavey with a time of 8 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 13 seconds in 2017.[3] The closest finish between two mushers was in 1978 between Dick Mackey and Rick Swenson. The win was controversial because while the nose of his lead dog crossed the finish line one second ahead of Swenson's lead dog, Swenson's body crossed the finish line first.

text: The first musher to win four races was Rick Swenson, in 1982. In 1991 he became the only person to win five times and the only musher to win the race in three different decades. Susan Butcher, Doug Swingley, Martin Buser, Jeff King, Lance Mackey, and Dallas Seavey are the only other four-time winners.

text: Mary Shields was the first woman to complete the race, in 1974 (Finishing 23rd).[40] In 1985 Libby Riddles was the only musher to brave a blizzard, becoming the first woman to win the race. She was featured in Vogue, and named the Professional Sportswoman of the Year by the Women's Sports Foundation. Susan Butcher withdrew from the same race after two of her dogs were killed by a moose, but she became the second woman to win the race the next year and subsequently won three of the next four races. Butcher was the second musher to win four races and the only musher to finish in either first or second place for five straight years.

text: Doug Swingley of Montana was the first non-Alaskan to win the race, in 1995.[41] Mushers from 14 countries have competed in the Iditarod races, and in 1992 Martin Buser—a Swiss resident of Alaska since 1979—was the first foreigner to win the race. Buser became a naturalized U.S. citizen in a ceremony under the Burled Arch in Nome following the 2002 race. In 2003, Norwegian Robert Sørlie became the first non-resident of the United States to win the race.[42] Winning ceremonies included a giant decorated cupcake with sugar coated huskeys on top.

text: In 2007 Lance Mackey became the first musher to win both the Yukon Quest and the Iditarod in the same year; a feat he repeated in 2008. Mackey also joined his father and brother, Dick and Rick Mackey as an Iditarod champion. All three Mackeys raced with the bib number 13, and all won their respective titles on their sixth try.

text: The "Golden Harness" is most frequently given to the lead dog or dogs of the winning team. However, it is decided by a vote of the mushers, and in 2008 was given to Babe, the lead dog of Ramey Smyth, the 3rd-place finisher. Babe was almost 11 years old when she finished the race, and it was her ninth Iditarod.[43] The "Rookie of the Year" award is given to the musher who places the best among those finishing their first Iditarod. A red lantern signifying perseverance is awarded to the last musher to cross the finish line. The size of the purse determines how many mushers receive cash prizes. For the 2013 edition of the race, the total purse was US$600,000, to be divided by the top 30 finishers, with every finisher below 30th place receiving $1,049. The first-place winner receives a new pickup truck and $69,000 as of 2015.[44]

text: List of winners[edit]

text:
[45]

Year
Musher (wins)
Lead dog(s)
Time (h:min:s)

1973
 Dick Wilmarth
Hotfoot
20 days, 00:49:41

1974
 Carl Huntington
Nugget
20 days, 15:02:07

1975
 Emmitt Peters
Nugget and Digger
14 days, 14:43:45

1976
 Gerald Riley
Puppy and Sugar
18 days, 22:58:17

1977
 Rick Swenson
Andy and Old Buddy
16 days, 16:27:13

1978
 Dick Mackey
Skipper and Shrew
14 days, 18:52:24

1979
 Rick Swenson (2)
Quiz and Bowl
15 days, 10:37:47

1980
 Joe May
Wilbur and Cora Gray
14 days, 07:11:51

1981
 Rick Swenson (3)
Andy and Slick
12 days, 08:45:02

1982
 Rick Swenson (4)
Andy
16 days, 04:40:10

1983
 Rick Mackey
Preacher and Jody
12 days, 14:10:44

1984
 Dean Osmar
Red and Bullet
12 days, 15:07:33

1985
 Libby Riddles
Axle and Dugan
18 days, 00:20:17

1986
 Susan Butcher
Granite and Mattie
11 days, 15:06:00

1987
 Susan Butcher (2)
Granite and Mattie
11 days, 02:05:13

1988
 Susan Butcher (3)
Granite and Tolstoi
11 days, 11:41:40

1989
 Joe Runyan
Rambo and Ferlin the Husky
11 days, 05:24:34

1990
 Susan Butcher (4)
Sluggo and Lightning
11 days, 01:53:23

1991
 Rick Swenson (5)
Goose
12 days, 16:34:39

1992
 Martin Buser
Tyrone and D2
10 days, 19:17:15

1993
 Jeff King
Herbie and Kitty
10 days, 15:38:15

1994
 Martin Buser (2)
D2 and Dave
10 days, 13:05:39

1995
 Doug Swingley
Vic and Elmer
10 days, 13:02:39

1996
 Jeff King (2)
Jake and Booster
9 days, 05:43:13

1997
 Martin Buser (3)
Blondie and Fearless
9 days, 08:30:45

1998
 Jeff King (3)
Red and Jenna
9 days, 05:52:26

1999
 Doug Swingley (2)
Stormy, Cola and Elmer
9 days, 14:31:07

2000
 Doug Swingley (3)
Stormy and Cola
9 days, 00:58:06

2001
 Doug Swingley (4)
Stormy and Peppy
9 days, 19:55:50

2002
 Martin Buser (4)
Bronson
8 days, 22:46:02

2003
 Robert Sørlie
Tipp
9 days, 15:47:36

2004
 Mitch Seavey
Tread
9 days, 12:20:22

2005
 Robert Sørlie (2)
Sox and Blue
9 days, 18:39:30

2006
 Jeff King (4)
Salem and Bronte
9 days, 11:11:36

2007
 Lance Mackey
Larry and Lippy
9 days, 05:08:41

2008
 Lance Mackey (2)
Larry and Hobo
9 days, 11:46:48

2009
 Lance Mackey (3)
Larry and Maple
9 days, 21:38:46

2010
 Lance Mackey (4)
Maple
8 days, 23:59:09

2011
 John Baker
Velvet and Snickers
8 days, 18:46:39

2012
 Dallas Seavey
Guinness and Diesel
9 days, 04:29:26

2013
 Mitch Seavey (2)
Tanner and Taurus
9 days, 07:39:56

2014
 Dallas Seavey (2)
Beetle and Reef
8 days, 13:04:19

2015
 Dallas Seavey (3)
Reef and Hero
8 days, 18:13:06

2016
 Dallas Seavey (4)
Reef and Tide
8 days, 11:20:16

2017
 Mitch Seavey (3)
Pilot and Crisp
8 days, 03:40:13

text: Winners of 2 or More Races

text:
Winner
Races
Year

Rick Swenson
5
77, 79, 81, 82, 91

Susan Butcher
4
86, 87, 88, 90

Martin Buser
4
92, 94, 97, 02

Jeff King
4
93, 96, 98, 06

Doug Swingley
4
95, 99, 00, 01

Lance Mackey
4
07, 08, 09, 10

Dallas Seavey
4
12, 14, 15, 16

Mitch Seavey
3
04, 13, 17

Robert Sørlie
2
03, 05


document_title: HGTV Dream Home

question_text: where is the 2018 hgtv dream home located

root

text: HGTV Dream Home

text: Current home[edit]

text: The current Dream Home for 2018 is located in Gig Harbor, Washington. The contemporary home is a four bedroom, three bathroom waterfront house, with a deck and outdoor entertaining area.[6]

tag: p

text: Dream Home locations[edit]

text:
1997 - Jackson Hole, Wyoming
1998 - Beaufort, South Carolina
1999 - Rosemary Beach, Florida
2000 - Nehalem, Oregon
2001 - Camden, Maine
2002 - Sherwood, Maryland
2003 - Mexico Beach, Florida
2004 - St. Marys, Georgia
2005 - Tyler, Texas
2006 - Lake Lure, North Carolina
2007 - Winter Park, Colorado
2008 - Islamorada, Florida
2009 - Sonoma, California
2010 - Sandia Park, New Mexico
2011 - Stowe, Vermont
2012 - Midway, Utah
2013 - Kiawah Island, South Carolina
2014 - Truckee, California
2015 - Martha's Vineyard
2016 - Merritt Island, Florida
2017 - St. Simons, Georgia
2018 - Gig Harbor, Washington

tag: ul

text: Source: [7]


document_title: List of Major League Baseball progressive single-season home run leaders

question_text: who holds the records for the most homeruns in a single season

text: Single-season records[edit]

text:
Batter
Team
Age
Year
HR
Reign
Record breaker

George Hall
Philadelphia Athletics
27
1876
5
3 years
—

Charley Jones
Boston Red Caps
29
1879
9
4 years
6th on July 31 off George Bradley

Harry Stovey
Philadelphia Athletics
27
1883
14
1 year
10th on August 1 off Jack Neagle

Ned Williamson
Chicago White Stockings
27
1884
27
35 years
15th on July 9 off Ed Bagley

Babe Ruth
Boston Red Sox
24
1919
29
1 year
28th on September 24 off Bob Shawkey

Babe Ruth
New York Yankees
25
1920
54
1 year
30th on July 19 off Dickie Kerr

Babe Ruth
New York Yankees
26
1921
59
6 years
55th on September 15 off Bill Bayne

Babe Ruth
New York Yankees
32
1927
60
34 years
60th on September 30 off Tom Zachary

Roger Maris
New York Yankees
27
1961
61
37 years
61st on October 1 off Tracy Stallard

Mark McGwire
St. Louis Cardinals
35
1998
70
3 years
62nd on September 8 off Steve Trachsel

tag: table

text: Sammy Sosa hit his 66th home run on September 25, 1998, breaking McGwire's then standing record of 65 home runs. McGwire tied that record less than an hour later and then hit two home runs on each of the next two days to achieve his 70 home run record.[1]

text: Progression[edit]

text: Summarized from The Baseball Encyclopedia for older information, and from various news stories for newer information:

text: Home runs per game[edit]

text: Number of home runs in the season divided by number of games in schedule (not games played)

text:
Average
Name

0.451
Barry Bonds

0.430
Mark McGwire

0.390
Babe Ruth (1)

0.383
Babe Ruth (2)

0.377
Roger Maris

0.350
Babe Ruth (3)

0.240
Ned Williamson

0.200
Babe Ruth (4)

0.140
Harry Stovey

0.100
Charley Jones

0.070
George Hall


document_title: Nuclear power in the United Kingdom

question_text: where does the uk get its nuclear fuel from

question_tokens: where does the uk get its nuclear fuel from

text: Nuclear power in the United Kingdom

text: History[edit]

text: 20th century[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2011)

text: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was established in 1954 as a statutory corporation to oversee and pioneer the development of nuclear energy within the United Kingdom.[13]

text: The first station to be connected to the grid, on 27 August 1956, was Calder Hall, although the production of weapons-grade plutonium was the main reason behind this power station. Calder Hall was the world's first nuclear power station to deliver electricity in commercial quantities[14] (although the 5 MW "semi-experimental" reactor at Obninsk in the Soviet Union was connected to the public supply in 1954).[15]

text: In February 1966 it was announced that the first prototype fast breeder reactor in the United Kingdom would be constructed in Dounreay, Scotland, at a cost of £30 million.[16]

text: British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) was established in February 1971 from the demerger of the production division of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).[17] In 1984 BNFL became a public limited company, British Nuclear Fuels plc, wholly owned by the UK government.

text: A Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) was opened at Sellafield in 1994.[18] Construction had begun in the 1970s and cost £2.4 billion.[18]

text: The Sizewell B nuclear power plant was built and commissioned between 1987 and 1995, and began producing power for the national grid in February 1995.[19] Its construction followed a four-year, 16 million-word public inquiry.[19] As of 2014 it is the most recent nuclear plant to be constructed in the United Kingdom.[19] Sizewell B was intended to be the first of a series of four new identical power stations, but the rest were dropped as uneconomic in the early 1990s when it was decided to privatise the electric power industry so low interest rate government finance would no longer be available.[20]

text: In 1996 the UK's eight most advanced nuclear plants, seven advanced gas-cooled reactors and one pressurized water reactor, were privatised as British Energy, raising £2.1 billion.[21] The remaining Magnox reactors remained in public ownership as Magnox Electric. On 30 January 1998 Magnox Electric was merged into BNFL as BNFL Magnox Generation.

text: 21st century[edit]

text: 2002 Energy review[edit]

text: In relation to nuclear power, the conclusion of the Government's 2002 energy review[22] was that:

text: The immediate priorities of energy policy are likely to be most cost-effectively served by promoting energy efficiency and expanding the role of renewables. However, the options of new investment in nuclear power and in clean coal (through carbon sequestration) need to be kept open, and practical measures taken to do this.

text: The practical measures identified were: continuing to participate in international research; ensuring that the nuclear skill-base is maintained, and that the regulators are adequately staffed to assess any new investment proposals; shortening the lead-time to commissioning, should new nuclear power be chosen in future; permitting nuclear power to benefit from the development of carbon taxes and similar market mechanisms; and addressing the problems of long-term nuclear waste disposal. It went on to state that "Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well-established global industry, there is no current case for further government support" and that "the decision whether to bring forward proposals for new nuclear build is a matter for the private sector".

text: 2003 Energy White Paper[edit]

text: The Government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003 and titled "Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy" [23] concluded that:

text: 2006 Energy review[edit]

text: In April 2005, advisers to British Prime Minister Tony Blair were suggesting that constructing new nuclear power stations would be the best way to meet the country's targets on reducing emissions of gases responsible for global warming. The energy policy of the United Kingdom has a near-term target of cutting emissions below 1997 levels by 20%, and a more ambitious target of an 80% cut by 2050. In November 2005 the Government announced an energy review,[24] subsequently launched in January 2006, to "review the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals and the options for further steps to achieve them".[25]

text: Following the 2006 review the Office for Nuclear Regulation, an agency of Health and Safety Executive, developed the Generic Design Assessment process (GDA) to assess new nuclear reactor designs ahead of site-specific proposals.[26] The GDA started assessing four designs: Westinghouse AP1000; Areva EPR; AECL ACR-1000; and GE-Hitachi ESBWR. However the ACR-1000 and ESBWR were subsequently withdrawn from the assessment for commercial reasons,[27][28] leaving the EPR and AP1000 as contenders for new nuclear builds.[29][30]

text: 2007 High Court ruling[edit]

text: On February 15, 2007, environmental group Greenpeace won a High Court ruling that threw out the government's 2006 Energy Review.  Mr Justice Sullivan presiding held that the government's review was 'seriously flawed', in particular in that key details of the economics of the argument were only published after the review was completed.[31][32] Justice Sullivan held that the review's wording on nuclear waste disposal was "not merely inadequate but also misleading", and held the decision to proceed to be "unlawful".[33]

text: Responding to the news, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said that there would be a fresh consultation, but that a decision was required before the end of 2007.  He stated that the government remains convinced that new nuclear power plants are needed to help combat climate change and over-reliance on imported oil and gas.[34] Attention was drawn in the media to numerous connections to nuclear industry lobbyists within the Labour Party.[35]

text: 2007 Consultation[edit]

text:
The 2007 Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge[36] was published on May 23, 2007. It contained a 'preliminary view is that it is in the public interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new nuclear power stations'. Alongside the White Paper the Government published a consultation document, The Future of Nuclear Power[37] together with a number of supporting documents.[38] One of these, a report by Jackson Consulting, suggested that it would be preferable to site new power stations on existing nuclear power stations sites that are owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority or British Energy.[39]
Greenpeace responded to the release of the consultation document by repeating its position that replacing the nuclear fleet rather than decommissioning would only reduce the UK's total carbon emissions by four percent.[40]

text: On September 7, 2007 several anti-nuclear groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND and the WWF announced that they had pulled out of the consultation process.[41] They stated that it appeared as if the Government had already made up its mind regarding the future of nuclear power. The business and enterprise secretary, John Hutton, responded in a Radio 4 interview "It is not the government that has got a closed view on these issues, I think it is organisations like Greenpeace that have got a closed mind. There is only one outcome that Greenpeace and other organisations want from this consultation."

text: 2008 go-ahead given[edit]

text: In January 2008, the UK government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built.  However, the Scottish National Party (SNP)-led Scottish Government has made clear that it opposes new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland and has the final say on planning matters in Scotland.[42] Liberal Democrat spokesman Steve Webb MP said on 29 January 2008 "There is a real risk that focusing on new nuclear plants will undermine attempts to find a cleaner, greener, more sustainable and secure solution. We should be concentrating our efforts on renewables and greater energy conservation."[43] On 10 January 2008, Alan Duncan MP issued a response to the Government's announcement on nuclear power, welcoming it and suggesting that the Conservatives supported a level economic playing field for different types of energy generation rather than a preference for one over another.[44]

text: Two consortia (EDF-Centrica and RWE-E.ON) had announced outline plans to build a total of 12.5GW of new nuclear capacity, slightly more than the total capacity of British Energy's currently operating plants.

text: In 2009 government officials believed a carbon price floor would be needed to encourage companies to commit funds to nuclear build projects.[45]

text: 2009 to 2011[edit]

text: In November 2009, the Government identified ten nuclear sites which could accommodate future reactors: Bradwell in Essex; Braystones in Cumbria; Kirksanton in Cumbria; Sellafield in Cumbria; Hartlepool in County Durham; Heysham in Lancashire; Hinkley Point in Somerset; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Sizewell in Suffolk; and Wylfa in North Wales[46] Most of these sites already have a nuclear power station; the only new sites are Braystones and Kirksanton.

text: In October 2010, sites at Braystones, Kirksanton and Dungeness were ruled out by Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne with the former government's list of eleven potential sites reduced to eight.[47]

text: In 2010 the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre was created in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, led by the University of Sheffield with Rolls-Royce, anticipating involvement in any forthcoming new nuclear builds in the UK. It was funded with £15 million from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and £10 million from the regional development agency Yorkshire Forward.[48][49]

text: 2011 to 2017[edit]

text: Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, wrote to Dr Mike Weightman, head of the HSE's Nuclear Directorate, on March 12, asking for a report 'on the implications of the situation and the lessons to be learned for the UK nuclear industry.[50] The report was to be delivered within 6 months, with an interim report by mid-May, 'prepared in close cooperation with the International nuclear community and other nuclear safety regulators'.[50] On March 15, Huhne expressed regret that some European politicians were 'rushing to judgement' before assessments had been carried out, and said that it was too early to determine whether the willingness of the private sector to invest in new nuclear plants would be affected.[51][52] In the wake of the accident the Government was criticised for having colluded with EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse in order to manage communications and maintain public support for nuclear power.[53]

text: In January 2012, the campaign group Energy Fair, supported by a number of other organisations and environmentalists,[54] filed a formal complaint with the European Commission over alleged unlawful State aid in the form of subsidies for nuclear power industry, in breach of European Union competition law.[54][55] It claims that the subsidies arise from underwriting commercial risk and decommissioning costs, protection against terrorist attacks, the disposal of nuclear waste, and by providing 'institutional support' in the form of various government funded or subsidised bodies such as the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Institute, and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority without providing corresponding levels of support for renewable technologies,[56] without which nuclear power would not be commercially viable, so distorting the energy market.[54][56] The group claims that the subsidies divert resources from renewable technologies that would 'cut emissions more deeply, more quickly, more cheaply, and with none of the risks and other problems with nuclear power'.[57]

text: In March 2012, two of the big six power companies announced they would be pulling out of developing new nuclear power plants. The decision by RWE npower and E.ON followed uncertainty over nuclear energy following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which had occurred the year before. Their decision followed a similar announcement by Scottish and Southern Electricity the previous year.[9] Hitachi purchased the Horizon joint-venture, intending to build two or three 1350 MWe Advanced boiling water reactors (ABWR) at Oldbury and Wylfa.[58][59]

text: French-owned EDF, one of the two remaining consortia planning to build new nuclear plants in the UK, has indicated that the election victory of François Hollande will not change its plans in the UK,[60] despite François Hollande having proposed to cut France's reliance on nuclear power generation from 75% to 50%,[61] and despite speculation to the contrary in the UK.[62]

text: In 2012 Russian firm Rosatom stated that in the future it intended to certify the VVER-1200 with the British and U.S. regulatory authorities, though was unlikely to apply for a British license before 2015, after having seen what agreements EDF finally reaches.[63][64] In September 2013 Rosatom, in conjunction with Fortum and Rolls-Royce, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UK government to prepare for a VVER Generic Design Assessment.[65][66]

text: In 2013, Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, stated that the government reaching an agreement over nuclear power expansion was a "matter of great urgency", and warned that Britain could run out of energy if negotiations were not concluded quickly.[67]

text: In the same year, a cross-party committee inquiry concluded that the UK “will not be able to meet its climate change targets without new nuclear build”. A report published by the committee found that unless planned nuclear power plants are built on time, it will be "extremely challenging, if not impossible" for the country to meet its legally binding carbon reduction targets. Such a failure to build the new nuclear capacity by 2025 would also force a greater reliance on imported gas, and would affect energy security.[68]

text: On 26 March 2013, the government published a Nuclear Industrial Strategy which in part stated that the nuclear industry had plans for about 16 GWe of new nuclear power stations by 2030, which is at least 12 new nuclear reactors at five sites. A Nuclear Industry Council will be established, and a Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board will be created "to ensure that public R&D programmes are aligned to support industrial and energy policy." Public civil nuclear R&D funding for 2010/11 was £66 million, which is low compared to some international competitors. The government will join the European Jules Horowitz Reactor research project.[69]

text: In April 2013, EDF's negotiations with the government over the strike price for nuclear produced electricity stalled. EDF's chief executive stated EDF was "in no hurry" to agree the strike price, and was unconcerned if the negotiations failed. Commentators believed it would take several months to reach a conclusion.[70][71]

text: Supercomputers are used to predict and mitigate the impact of jellyfish in the intake cooling systems, which bothered Torness in 2011.[72]

text: As of 2016, EAEC had co-operation agreements of various scopes with eight countries: U.S., Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa.[73]

text: Rolls-Royce is preparing a small modular reactor (SMR) design called the UK SMR, a close-coupled four-loop PWR design. Power output is 440 MWe which is above the usual range considered to be a SMR.[74][75] It is seeking UK government finance to support further development.[76] In December 2017 The UK government provided funding of up to £56 million over three years to support SMR research and development.[77]

text: Brexit negotiations to present[edit]

text: On 26 January 2017 the UK notified the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) of its intention to withdraw, following on from its decision to withdraw from the European Union. Leaving will have wide-ranging implications for Britain’s nuclear industry, including regulation and research, access to nuclear materials and impacts about twenty nuclear co-operation agreements with non-EU countries.[78][73]

text: The UK withdrawal might raise the question of nuclear fuel availability after 2019 in the UK, and the need for the UK to enter into new treaties relating to the transportation of nuclear materials.[79]

text: In 2018 the National College for Nuclear was opened at two hubs at Bridgwater and Taunton College and Lakes College largely funded by £22.5 million from the Department for Education, intended to service the building and operation of new build nuclear power plants.[80]

text: Power stations[edit]

text: Operating[edit]

text:
Power station
Type
Net MWe
Gross MWe
Current operator
Construction started
Connected to grid
Commercial operation
Accounting closure date

Dungeness B
AGR
1040
1230
EDF Energy
1965
1983
1985
2028

Hinkley Point B
AGR
840
1310
EDF Energy
1967
1976
1976
2023

Hunterston B
AGR
830
1288
EDF Energy
1967
1976
1976
2023

Hartlepool
AGR
1190
1310
EDF Energy
1968
1983
1989
2024[81]

Heysham 1
AGR
1160
1250
EDF Energy
1970
1983
1989
2024[82]

Heysham 2
AGR
1240
1360
EDF Energy
1980
1988
1989
2030

Torness
AGR
1205
1364
EDF Energy
1980
1988
1988
2030

Sizewell B
PWR
1195
1250
EDF Energy
1988
1995
1995
2035

text: Since 2006 Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B have been restricted to about 70% of normal MWe output because of boiler-related problems requiring that they operate at reduced boiler temperatures.[83] In 2013 these two stations' power increased to about 80% of normal output following some plant modifications.[84]

text: In 2010 EDF announced a 5-year life extension for both Heysham 1 and Hartlepool to enable further generation until 2024.[82]

text: In 2012 EDF announced it expects 7 year life extensions on average across all AGRs, including the recently life-extended Heysham 1 and Hartlepool. A 20-year life extension is the strategic target for the Sizewell B PWR. These life extensions are subject to detailed review and approval, and are not included in the table above.[5][85]

text: On 4 December 2012 EDF announced that Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B had been given 7 year life extensions, from 2016 to 2023.[86]

text: On 5 November 2013 EDF announced that Hartlepool had been given a 5-year life extension, from 2019 to 2024.[81]

text: Retired[edit]

text:
Power station
Type
Net MWe
Construction started
Connected to grid
Commercial operation
Closure

Calder Hall
Magnox
200
1953
1956
1959
2003

Chapelcross
Magnox
240
1955
1959
1960
2004

Berkeley
Magnox
276
1957
1962
1962
1989

Bradwell
Magnox
246
1957
1962
1962
2002

Hunterston A
Magnox
300
1957
1964
1964
1990

Hinkley Point A
Magnox
470
1957
1965
1965
2000

Trawsfynydd
Magnox
390
1959
1965
1965
1991

Dungeness A
Magnox
450
1960
1965
1965
2006

Sizewell A
Magnox
420
1961
1966
1966
2006

Oldbury
Magnox
434
1962
1967
1968
2012

Wylfa
Magnox
980
1963
1971
1972
2015

text: A number of research and development reactors also produced some power for the grid, including two Winfrith reactors, two Dounreay fast reactors, and the prototype Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor.[87]

text: Economics[edit]

text: History[edit]

text: The history of nuclear energy economics in the UK is complex. The first Magnox reactors were not built for purely commercial purposes, and later reactors faced delays which inflated costs (culminating in Sizewell B taking seven years from start of construction to entering service, after a lengthy public inquiry). Costs have also been complicated by the lack of national strategy or policy for spent nuclear fuel, so that a mixed use of reprocessing and short-term storage have been employed, with little regard for long-term considerations (although a national repository has been proposed).

text: There is a lack of consensus in the UK about the cost/benefit nature of nuclear energy, as well as ideological influence (for instance, those favouring 'energy security' generally arguing pro, while those worried about the 'environmental impact' against). Because of this, and a lack of a consistent energy policy in the UK since the mid-1990s, no new reactors have been built since Sizewell B in 1995. Costs have been a major influence to this (with Sizewell B having run at a cost of 6p/kWh for its first five years of operation[88]), while the long lead-time between proposal and operation (at ten years or more) has put off many investors, especially with long-term considerations such as energy market regulation and nuclear waste remaining unresolved.

text: Future power stations[edit]

text: From 2010 until 2015, it was UK Government policy that the construction of any new nuclear power stations in the UK would be led and financed by the private sector.[89] This transfers the running and immediate concerns to the operator, while reducing (although not eliminating) government participation and long-term involvement/liability (nuclear waste, as involving government policy, will likely remain a liability, even if only a limited one). In 2010 The Daily Telegraph reported that additional incentives, such as capacity payments and supplier nuclear obligations, would be needed to persuade companies to build nuclear plants in the UK.[90]  The government decided to subsidize nuclear power again in 2015.[91]

text: When the rest of the UK generating industry was privatised, the Government introduced the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, initially as a means of supporting the nuclear generators, which remained under state ownership until the formation of British Energy. British Energy, the private sector company that now operates the UK's more modern nuclear plants, came close to bankruptcy and in 2004 was restructured with UK government investment of over £3 billion, although this has since been paid back in full. In January 2009, British Energy was bought for approximately £12 billion by EDF Energy (a subsidiary of Électricité de France (EDF)) and Centrica (a major operator of CCGT power stations and renewable sources in the UK and parent company of British Gas) in an 80/20 split.

text: In January 2008, the UK government indicated that it would take steps to encourage private operators to build new nuclear power plants in the following years to meet projected energy needs. The government stated that there would be no subsidies for nuclear power. The Government hoped that the first station would be operational before 2020.[42] However, the Welsh Assembly Government remains opposed to new nuclear plants in Wales despite the approval of Wylfa as a potential site. Scotland has decided against new nuclear power stations.

text: In May 2008, The Times reported that Wulf Bernotat, chairman and chief executive of E.ON, had stated that the cost of each new nuclear power plant in the UK could be as high as €6 billion (£4.8 billion), much higher than the Government's estimate of £2.8 billion. The cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could therefore reach £48 billion, excluding the cost of decommissioning ageing reactors or dealing with nuclear waste.[92]

text:
On 29 March 2012 E.ON and RWE npower, which had formed the joint venture Horizon to build NPPs in the United Kingdom, announced that they would not develop new nuclear power projects in the UK, focusing instead on shorter term investments, and were looking to find another company to take over Horizon.[93][94]
On 29 October 2012 it was announced that Hitachi would buy Horizon for about £700 million. Hitachi intend to build two or three 1350 MWe Advanced boiling water reactors (ABWR) at Oldbury and Wylfa, but will first require a Generic Design Assessment for the ABWR design by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which will take about four years.[58][59]

text: In June 2012, in research commissioned by EDF, the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested that building 18 GW of new nuclear energy capacity in the UK, with more than 10 new reactors, could create between 16,250 and 21,250 additional jobs, and enable the UK to compete in the international market for nuclear energy.[95][96] The Institute of Directors also published a report stating that nuclear energy is a "clean, cheap and safe" way of generating electricity, with 84% of its members in favour of new nuclear power in Britain.[97] However, The Times reported the cost of building each EPR had increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not regard as commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of 16.6p/kWh for private-sector financed reactors.[98]

text: On 21 October 2013, EDF Energy announced that an agreement had been reached regarding new nuclear plants to be built on the site of Hinkley Point C. EDF Group and the UK Government agreed on the key commercial terms of the investment contract.The final investment decision is still conditional on completion of the remaining key steps, including the agreement of the EU Commission.[99]

text: In 2015, the UK government proposed to provide large subsidies to the Hinkley Point C plant, paying twice the market rate for electricity.[91]

text: A 2015 model-based study compares renewables plus storage, nuclear, and fossil fuels with and without carbon capture and storage.  The study finds that, for the scenarios considered, costs were similar at about 6998840000000000000♠0.084 £/kWh at up to 50% renewables and rose for renewables above an 80% share as grid-scale storage, imports, and tidal range generation were applied.[100]

text: Rolls-Royce is preparing a small modular reactor (SMR) design, a close-coupled four-loop PWR design. Power output is 450 MWe which is above the usual range considered to be a SMR. As of 2017 Rolls-Royce is seeking UK government finance to support further development.[74]

text: In 2017 a consensus of government and industry developed that the Contract for Difference financing model used for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, involving fully private sector financing, may not used for subsequent nuclear plants, and discussions with government are under way about alternative finance mechanisms for the following possible development at Wylfa by Horizon Nuclear Power.[101][102] The CEO of Horizon stated "We are an insurance policy for long-term stable supply and there is a price for that certainty".[103]

text: Waste management and disposal[edit]

text: The UK has a large variety of different intermediate- and high-level radioactive wastes, coming from national programmes to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear power. It is a national responsibility to pay for the management of these. In addition, new nuclear power stations could be built, the waste management from which would be the private sector's financial responsibility, although all would be stored in a single facility.[104] Most of the UK's higher-activity radioactive waste is currently held in temporary storage at Sellafield.

text: On 31 July 2006, the latest body to consider the issue of long-term waste management, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), published its final report.[105] Its main recommendation was that geological disposal should be adopted. This would involve burial at a depth between 200 – 1000m deep in a purpose-built facility with no intention to retrieve the waste in the future. It was concluded that this could not be implemented for several decades, and that there were "social and ethical concerns within UK society about the disposal option that would need to be resolved as part of the implementation process". Such a repository should start to be closed as soon as practicable rather than being left open for future generations. Fourteen additional recommendations were also made.

text: On 12 June 2008, a white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal was published confirming CoRWM's conclusion of geologic disposal of higher-activity wastes. The policy announcement confirmed that there would be one geologic disposal site, for both national legacy waste as well as potential wastes from future programmes. It announced that a process of volunteerism would be used in selecting a suitable site and invited communities from the UK to express interest. They would be rewarded by the infrastructure investment for the facility, jobs for the long term and a tailored package of benefits.[104]

text: In January 2014 the building of the first dry spent nuclear fuel store in the UK began at Sizewell B, where the existing spent fuel pool, which stores spent fuel under water, was expected to reach full capacity in 2015.[106] It is intended to enable spent nuclear fuel produced from 2016 until at least 2035 to be stored at Sizewell B until a deep geological repository is available.[107] In March 2017 the first cask containing spent nuclear fuel was installed.[108]

text: Decommissioning[edit]

text: Responsibility[edit]

text: The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), formed in April 2005 under the Energy Act 2004, oversees and manages the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older Magnox power plants and the reprocessing facilities at Sellafield, which were transferred to its ownership from BNFL, and the former nuclear research and development facilities previously run by the UKAEA.

text: Sites[edit]

text: In August 2005, the following sites were listed for decommissioning:[109]

text:
Berkeley, Gloucestershire
Bradwell, Essex
Calder Hall, Cumbria
Capenhurst, Cheshire
Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire
Culham, Oxfordshire
Dounreay, Caithness
Drigg, Cumbria
Dungeness, Kent
Harwell, Oxfordshire
Hinkley, Somerset
Hunterston, Ayrshire
Oldbury, Gloucestershire
Sellafield, Cumbria
Sizewell, Suffolk
Springfields, Lancashire
Trawsfynydd, Gwynedd
Windscale, Cumbria
Winfrith, Dorset
Wylfa, Isle of Anglesey

text: Costs[edit]

text: Prior to the 2002 white paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy, the cost of decommissioning these[vague] facilities had been estimated at around £42 billion.[110] The white paper estimated the costs at £48 billion at March 2002 prices, an increase of £6bn, with the cost of decommissioning Sellafield accounting for over 65% of the total.[111] This figure included a rise in BNFL's estimated decommissioning liabilities from £35 billion to £40.5 billion,[112] with an estimate of £7.4 billion for UKAEA.[111]

text: In June 2003 the Department of Trade and Industry estimated that decommissioning costs, including the cost of running the facilities still in operation for their remaining life, were approximately £56 billion at 2003 prices, although the figure was 'almost certainly' expected to rise.[113] This estimate was revised in subsequent years; to £57 billion in September 2004; £63 billion in September 2005; £65 billion in March 2006; and to £73 billion in March 2007.[114][115] Around £46 billion of the £73 billion is for the decommissioning and clean-up of the Sellafield site.[116]

text: In May 2008 a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicated that the figure of £73 billion might increase by several billion pounds.[117]

text: In addition to The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's costs, British Energy's liabilities in relation to spent nuclear fuels have risen. In February 2006 it was reported that these had increased to £5.3 billion, an increase of almost £1 billion.[118] The costs of handling these is to be met by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF), the successor to the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund. Although British Energy contributes to the NLF, the fund is underwritten by the Government. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee noted in 2007 that British Energy may lack an incentive to reduce the eventual liabilities falling to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund.[119]

text: Safety[edit]

text: Seismicity[edit]

text: Until the expansion of nuclear power in the 1980s, seismic activity in the UK had not received a great deal of attention.[120] As a result of the new interest in the topic, the British Geological Survey published a catalogue of earthquakes in 1994.[120]

text: Although earthquakes are relatively frequent, they rarely cause damage to well-constructed structures. Two of the largest, estimated at approximately 5.75 (moderate) on the Richter scale occurred in 1382 and 1580.[120] Evaluation of past earthquakes indicates that the UK is unlikely to be subject to earthquakes larger than a magnitude of approximately 6.5.[121]

text: The occurrence of tsunamis impacting the UK is rare, with only two (possibly three) having been identified; a 3m high wave as a result of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, and a 21m high tsunami in 6100 BC which occurred under very different geological conditions (Storegga Slide). In recent years there has been an accumulation of evidence indicating that the 1607 Bristol Channel floods may also have resulted from a tsunami that rose from a height of 4m to over 6m as it passed up the channel.[122]

text: A 2005 report for DEFRA, conducted following the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, found that, discounting 'exotic events such as meteorite impacts', 'in most plausible circumstances it is likely that such an event would be contained by current defences, designed to resist storm surges, for all major developed areas', however the joint occurrence of events, such as a tsunami coinciding with a storm surge, was discounted.[123] The report did, however call for additional more detailed modelling to be carried out, recommended that the Met Office should provide a tsunami warning service, and that detection devices should be upgraded. A follow-up report indicated that, of the three likely scenarios modelled, a Lisbon-type event would pose the greatest danger, potentially resulting in a tsunami wave exceeding the 1:100 year extreme sea level at the Cornish peninsula by up to 1.4m, but being within the range elsewhere.[124] This conclusion is markedly different from the greater heights calculated by Bryant and Haslett as having been encountered in the Bristol Channel during the 1607 Bristol Channel floods.[122]

text: Speaking before the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on March 15, 2011, about the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Huhne expressed concern over extreme weather events in the UK, but stated that 'we are lucky that we do not have to suffer from tsunamis'.[51]

text: Accidents[edit]

text:
Nuclear power accidents in the UK[125][126]

Date
Location
Description
INES level
Fatalities
Cost  (in millions  2006 US$)

8 October 1957
Windscale
Windscale fire ignites plutonium piles, with large radioactive release.
5
33 – 120 (estimates; due to increased cancer risk)[127][128][129]
78

19 April 2005
Sellafield
20 tonnes of uranium and 160 kg plutonium leak from a cracked pipe at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant
2
0
65

text: Security[edit]

text: The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is responsible for security at civil nuclear sites, within 5 km of site boundaries, and for nuclear materials in transit. The UK is involved in the Nuclear Security Summit series of world summits held since 2010. During 2016 the UK and the US will stage a training exercise simulating a cyber-attack on a nuclear power station.[130]

text: Public opinion and protests[edit]

text: In the early 1990s concern was raised in the United Kingdom about the effect of nuclear power plants on unborn children, when clusters of leukaemia cases were discovered nearby to some of these plants.  The effect was speculative because clusters were also found where no nuclear plants were present, and not all plants had clusters around them. Detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 found no evidence of raised childhood cancer around nuclear power plants, but did find an excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) near other nuclear installations including Sellafield, AWE Burghfield and UKAEA Dounreay. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".[131]

text: An opinion poll in Britain in 2002 by MORI on behalf of Greenpeace showed large support for wind power and a majority for putting an end to nuclear energy if the costs were the same.[132] In November 2005 a YouGov poll conducted by business advisory firm Deloitte found that 36% of the UK population supported the use of nuclear power, though 62% would support an energy policy that combines nuclear along with renewable technologies.[133] The same survey also revealed high public expectations for the future rate of renewables development – with 35% expecting the majority of electricity to come from renewables in only 15 years, which is more than double the government's expectation.

text: In the early 2000s there was a heated discussion about nuclear waste,[134] leading to the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (see above).

text: A large nationally representative 2010 British survey about energy issues found that public opinion is divided on the issue of nuclear power. The majority of people are concerned about nuclear power and public trust in the government and nuclear industry remains relatively low.  The survey showed that there is a clear preference for renewable energy sources over nuclear power.[135]

text: According to a national opinion poll, support for nuclear power in the UK dropped by twelve percent following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.[136] However, support recovered within a few months.[137][138] By July 2012, a YouGov poll showed that 63 percent of respondents agreed that nuclear generation should be part of the country's energy mix, up from 61 percent in 2010. Opposition fell to 11 percent.[139]

text: In October 2011 more than 200 protesters blockaded the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site. Members of several anti-nuclear groups that are part of the Stop New Nuclear alliance barred access to the site in protest at EDF Energy's plans to renew the site with two new reactors.[140]

text: In January 2012, three hundred anti-nuclear protesters took to the streets of Llangefni, against plans to build a new nuclear power station at Wylfa. The march was organised by a number of organisations, including Pobl Atal Wylfa B, Greenpeace and Cymdeithas yr Iaith, which are supporting farmer Richard Jones who is in dispute with Horizon.[141]

text: In February 2013, a Yougov poll published in the Sunday Times found that nuclear was the most popular choice to provide for Britain's future energy needs.[142][143][144]

text: In July 2012, a YouGov poll reported that 63% of UK respondents agreed that nuclear generation should be part of the country's energy mix, up from 61% in 2010. Opposition fell to 11%.[145]

text: In February 2013, a poll published by Ipsos MORI which queried 1046 British individuals determined that support for new nuclear generation capacity was at 42% of the population. With the proportion of the population opposed to new nuclear generation being reported as unchanged at 20%, close to the lowest recorded proportion, by the agency in 2010, of 19% opposed. The results also report that the proportion of the population that was undecided or neutral had increased, and it stood at 38%.[146]

text: In 2013, a survey by Harris Interactive of more than 2000 UK respondents found that 'one in four people (24%) considered nuclear power to offer the greatest potential' alongside solar (23%) and ahead of wind power (18%). Immediately following the announcement of the agreement between EDF and the UK government, 35% considered it to be a positive step, 21% felt it was a negative development and 28% were indifferent.[147]

text: Nuclear power in Scotland[edit]

text: Though the UK Government has recently given the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built, the Scottish Government has made clear that no new nuclear power stations will be built in Scotland and is aiming instead for a non-nuclear future. This was made clear when, First Minister Alex Salmond said there was 'no chance' of any new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.[42] The Government's stance has been backed by the Scottish Parliament that voted 63–58 to support the Scottish Government's policy of opposing new nuclear power stations.[148]


document_title: List of highest paid film actors

question_text: who is the highest paid actor of all times

text: List of highest paid film actors

text: Salaries for the world's highest paid film actors currently range from $20–30 million, but an actor can earn substantially more by deferring all or part of their salary against a percentage of the film's gross, known within the industry as a "profit participation" deal. Since not all salaries are made public, this is a non-definitive list of actors who have received $30 million or more as compensation for their services. The figures are given at their nominal value, since earnings from profit based deals are accumulated over many years, making it unfeasible to adjust for inflation.

text:
Highest-earning actors in films

Actor

Film

Year

Salary

Total income

Ref

Keanu Reeves

The Matrix ReloadedThe Matrix Revolutions

2003

$30,000,000

$156,000,000

[1]

Bruce Willis

The Sixth Sense

1999

$14,000,000

$100,000,000

[1]

Tom Cruise

Mission: Impossible 2

2000

$100,000,000

[1]

Tom Cruise

War of the Worlds

2005

$100,000,000

[1]

Will Smith

Men in Black 3

2012

$100,000,000

[2]

Robert Downey, Jr.

Iron Man 3

2013

$75,000,000

[3]

Sandra Bullock

Gravity

2013

$20,000,000

$70,000,000+

[4]

Tom Hanks

Forrest Gump

1994

$70,000,000

[1]

Tom Cruise

Mission: Impossible

1996

$70,000,000

[1]

Harrison Ford

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008

$65,000,000

[5]

Jack Nicholson

Batman

1989

$6,000,000

$60,000,000

[1][6]

Leonardo DiCaprio

Inception

2010

$59,000,000

[7]

Robert Downey, Jr.

Captain America: Civil War

2014

$40,000,000

$40,000,000+

[3]

Robert Downey, Jr.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

2014

$40,000,000

[8]

Johnny Depp

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

2011

$35,000,000

$55,000,000

[7][9]

Robert Downey, Jr.

The Avengers

2012

$50,000,000

[10]

Cameron Diaz

Bad Teacher

2011

$42,000,000

[11]

Leonardo DiCaprio

Titanic

1997

$40,000,000

[1]

Tom Hanks

Saving Private Ryan

1998

$40,000,000

[1]

Johnny Depp

Alice in Wonderland

2010

$40,000,000

[7]

Aamir Khan

Dangal

2016

$37,000,000+

[nb 1][12][13]

Jim Carrey

Yes Man

2008

$35,000,000

[14]

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

2003

$29,250,000

$30,000,000+

[nb 2][1]

Mel Gibson

Lethal Weapon 4

1998

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

[1]

Brad Pitt

Ocean's Eleven

2001

$10,000,000

$30,000,000

[1]

text:
Jump up ^ ₹257 crore ($37–41 million at 2017 exchange rates).

Jump up ^ Arnold Schwarzenegger received a $29,250,000 salary for Terminator 3 plus a 20% royalty on the worldwide box office gross over $380 million. The film ultimately had a global gross of $433 million.

tag: ol


document_title: Scooby-Doo! Curse of the Lake Monster

question_text: who played shaggy in scooby doo curse of the lake monster

text: Scooby-Doo! Curse of the Lake Monster

text: Plot[edit]

text: School has just ended for the summer, and Velma (Hayley Kiyoko), Shaggy (Nick Palatas), and Scooby-Doo (Frank Welker) meet up with Fred (Robbie Amell) and Daphne (Kate Melton) so they can go to meet Daphne's uncle, Thornton "Thorny" Blake V, who has given them summer jobs at his country club in Erie Point.

text: That night at the club's opening party, a huge frog-like monster suddenly appears and wreaks havoc. The gang decides to solve the mystery. They decide to investigate the only person who has ever taken a picture of the lake monster, Mr. Uggins, the lighthouse keeper. He then tells them the story of the lake monster: how when people were first settling Erie Point, an old woman named Wanda Grubwort warned them not to come onto her land. They paid no attention to her, so she used her magic staff - which used moonstones as the source of her power - to turn a frog into a horrible monster that attacked the villagers. Wanda was later tried for witchery and burnt at the stake.

text: The next day, Velma shows the others security footage of the lake monster meeting a mysteriously masked figure on the beach. They begin to zoom in on the figure to see its face, but Velma accidentally spills her green tea on the computer and destroys the footage.

text: The next morning, they find Velma unconscious on the beach. Shaggy begins to tell her that he was very worried, but stops when he notices warts on her hand. Velma looks surprised, but guiltily assures them that it's nothing. After they fill her in on the latest monster attack, Daphne says that she saw purple paint on the figure's cloak, and suggests they check out a boat that they saw on the way to Erie Point.

text: Shaggy asks Velma out on a date. Things go well until he lights a match to light some candles. Velma flings herself back in terror, though she is unsure why. Shaggy calls out the waiter, who turns out to be Scooby, who is angry at Shaggy for ignoring him and tries to ruin the date. Scooby bites Shaggy, causing Shaggy to knock over the table and drop the moonstone on the ground that he was going to give to Velma as a surprise. Fred and Daphne go to see the boat.

text: The gang drives to the home of the woman who is Wanda's descendant. They see the witch's figure through the windows, which is a very warty Velma. However, she claims to not be Velma and attacks the gang, knocking them out for a moment. The gang wakes up later and find Mrs. Grubwort, who says that her evil ancestor has possessed Velma.

text: The gang realizes that they missed all the little signs - the warts, Velma's fear of fire, her love of moonstones, and how she spilled the tea on the video of the witch because it was going to show her face - that should have proved Velma was up to something. The woman says that Wanda probably would have gone to the underwater caves. They arrive in the cave and Shaggy bursts out of hiding and commands Velma to stop. Wanda sets her monsters on the gang, and while Scooby, Fred and Daphne run for their lives, Shaggy stays back and tries to help Velma fight the witch.

text: Meanwhile, Fred and Daphne reach a dead end. The lake monsters then burst through the wall. At the same time, Shaggy tries to save Velma by singing her favorite song. Velma joins in, and manages to break free of the witch's control. The ghost of Wanda tries to grab her staff, but Scooby Doo arrives just in time and smashes it into a rock, destroying Wanda. Fred and Daphne, who are about to be killed and are clutching one another for dear life, see the monsters turn back into frogs. They run back to Shaggy, who is confessing how much he really likes Velma. Velma and Shaggy kiss, but afterwards both agree that they did not feel a single spark, and it's better if they are just friends and they all agree as they do a group hug.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Robbie Amell as Fred Jones
Kate Melton as Daphne Blake
Hayley Kiyoko as Velma Dinkley
Nick Palatas as Norville "Shaggy" Rogers
Frank Welker as Scooby-Doo (voice)
Ted McGinley as Thornton "Thorny" Blake V
Richard Moll as Elmer Uggins
Marion Ross as Hilda Trowburg
Beverly Sanders as Wanda Grubwort

text: Trailer[edit]

text: A short trailer of the film was shown on Cartoon Network on August 1, 2010, depicting Scooby and Shaggy at the beach.[2]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: The television premiere drew 5.1 million viewers.[3]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The film was released on DVD by Warner Home Video on March 1, 2011. Warner Bros. Home Entertainment distributed the film on Blu-ray Disc.[4]