document_title: Wind power in Australia

question_text: when was the first wind farm built in australia

text: Wind power in Australia

text: Overview[edit]

text:
External images

 2008 wind resource map

 Current generation profile, all sources

text: Australia has excellent wind resources by world standards.[7][8] The southern coastline lies in the roaring forties and hundreds of sites have average wind speeds above 8 or even 9 m/s at 50 m above ground (the hub height of a modern wind generator). The southwest of Western Australia, southern South Australia, western Victoria, northern Tasmania and elevated areas of New South Wales and Queensland have good wind resources. Several states engaged in systematic wind speed monitoring in the 1980s and 1990s, the results of which are publicly available.[9] Australian wind farms produce on average capacity factors of 30–35%, making wind an attractive option.[10] South Australia's large share (along with nearby Victoria) means most of Australia's wind power occurs around the same time. The correlation between South Australia and NSW is 0.34, whereas the correlation between South Australia and Tasmania is 0.10.[11]

text: As of October 2010, wind power accounted for approximately 5 TWh out of a total of 251 TWh of electricity used per year,[12] enough electricity to intermittently power more than 700,000 homes during periods of high winds,[13] and amounting to about two percent of Australia's total electricity consumption.[12] This came from 52 operating wind farms with greater than 100 kW capacity, consisting of a total of 1,052 turbines. This figure represented approximately a 30% increase in wind power generation each year over the previous decade, or a total increase of more than 1,000% over that time. The total installed capacity at October 2010 was 1,880 MW (1.88 GW), counting only projects over 100 kW, with a further 1,043 MW under construction.[13]

text: Wind farms[edit]

text: As of December 2013, there were 68 wind farms of greater than 100 kW capacity operating in Australia.[14] As at the end of 2016 there were 79 wind farms in Australia, totaling 4327 MW in capacity.

text: The largest wind farm is Macarthur Wind Farm in Victoria, which opened in January 2013, with a capacity of 420 MW.[14]

text: By generating capacity, the ten largest wind farms in Australia are:

text:
No.
Project
State
Capacity (MW)

1
Macarthur Wind Farm
Victoria
420

2
Snowtown Wind Farm
South Australia
369

3
Hallett Wind Farm
South Australia
351

=4
Lake Bonney Wind Farm
South Australia
240

=4
Ararat Wind Farm
Victoria
240

6
Collgar Wind Farm[15]
Western Australia
206

7
Portland Wind Farm
Victoria
195

8
Waubra Wind Farm
Victoria
192

9
Musselroe Wind Farm
Tasmania
168

10
Gullen Range Wind Farm
New South Wales
165.5

text: Australia's first commercial wind farm, Salmon Beach Wind Farm near Esperance in Western Australia operated for 15 years from 1987, but was decommissioned due to urban encroachment; it has been replaced by Ten Mile Lagoon Wind Farm and Nine Mile Beach Wind Farm.

text: As of April 2017, 14 wind projects with a combined installed capacity of 1,642 MW are either under construction, constructed or will start construction in 2017 having reached financial closure.[4]

text: Wind power by state[edit]

text: A full listing of all the wind farms in Australia, can be found in List of wind farms in Australia. Relevant state articles are:

text:
New South Wales wind power
Queensland wind farms
South Australia wind power
Tasmania wind farms
Victoria wind farms
Western Australia wind farms

text: The following figures are based on capacity as at the end of 2016.[1]

text:
#
State /
Territory

Wind Power Capacity[1]
Proposed[1]

Installed capacity
Under construction or committed (end 2016)

Projects
Turbines
Total MW
Penetration (%)[14][1]
Projects
Total MW

1

SA

19
689
1,595
40 (end 2016)
3
213

2

Vic

18
602
1,250
5 (end 2013)
3
299

3

NSW

12
361
668
1 (end 2013)
1
175

4

WA

21
308
491
8 (end 2013)
—
—

5

Tas

7
124
310
5 (end 2013)
—
—

6

Qld

2
22
13
0
1
180 (expected 2018)

7

AAT

1
2
1
—
—
—

8

NT

0
0
0
—
—
—

9

ACT

0
0
0
—
—
—

Australia

79
2,106
4,327
—
8
867 (687 expected 2017)

text: Competitiveness of wind power[edit]

text: Making comparisons between wind and other sources of energy can be difficult because of the cost profiles associated with wind developments. The vast majority of the costs associated with wind developments are upfront capital costs. The operating costs are relatively low, with each additional unit of wind power costing very little to produce. By comparison, conventional gas and coal developments have large capital costs, as well as significant operating costs. The difference in cost profiles creates difficulties when trying to compare the cost of alternative energy sources.[16]

text: Despite these complexities, most of the data indicate that wind energy is one of the most cost efficient sources of renewable energy but approximately two times the cost of coal generated power in 2006.[16] When the costs associated with pollution are factored in it was competitive with coal- and gas-fired power stations even then.[16] By 2014, wind had the lowest levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of any power source in Australia.[17]

text: A 2012 study by SKM on the economic benefits of wind farms in Australia found that, for every 50 MW in capacity, a wind farm delivered the following benefits:

text:
direct employment of up to 48 construction workers, with each worker spending approximately $25,000 in the local area in shops, restaurants, hotels and other services – a total of up to $1.2 million
direct employment of around five staff – a total annual input of $125,000 spent in the local economy
indirect employment during the construction phase of approximately 160 people locally, 504 state jobs and 795 nationwide jobs
up to $250,000 per year for farmers in land rental income and $80,000 on community projects each year.[18]

text: Environmental impact[edit]

text: Australia is the fifth highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases with 25.8 tonne CO2-e per person annually, ranking first of the industrialized countries, and ranks sixteenth of all countries in total country emissions with 495 Mt CO2-e per annum.[19] It is one of the major exporters of coal, the burning of which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. It is also one of the countries most at risk from climate change according to the Stern report. This is partially because of the size of its agriculture sector and long coastline.

text: A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources:[20]

text:
It occupies less land area per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated than any other energy conversion system, apart from rooftop solar energy, and is compatible with grazing and crops.
It generates the energy used in its construction in just 3 months of operation, yet its operational lifetime is 20–25 years.
Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution produced by its construction are small and declining. There is very little emission or pollution produced by its operation.
In substituting for base-load (mostly coal power) in mainland Australia, wind power produces a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
Modern wind turbines are almost silent and rotate so slowly (in terms of revolutions per minute) that they are rarely a hazard to birds.[20]

text: Landscape and heritage issues may be a significant issue for certain wind farms. However, these are minimal when compared with the Environmental effects of coal. However, when appropriate planning procedures are followed, the heritage and landscape risks should be minimal. Some people may still object to wind farms, perhaps on the grounds of aesthetics, but their concerns should be weighed against the need to address the threats posed by climate change and the opinions of the broader community.[16]

text: Overseas experience has shown that community consultation and direct involvement of the general public in wind farm projects has helped to increase community approval.[21] Some wind farms become tourist attractions.[22]

text: The Garnaut Climate Change Review, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Mandatory Renewable energy Target announced by the Australian Government involve a reduction in Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the developed world[23][24] and wind power is well placed to grow and deliver greenhouse gas emission cuts on a cost competitive basis. A typical 50-megawatt (MW) wind farm in Australia can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 65,000 and 115,000 tonnes a year.[25]

text: Based on the 2010 figures for electricity production of 5 TWh nationally, it is estimated that wind power saved Australia 5,100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in that year. In relative terms, that is calculated to be the equivalent of removing 1,133,000 cars from the nation's roads.[26]

text: Politics of wind power[edit]

text: From 2001 to early 2006, the main driving force for the establishment of wind farms in Australia was the Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET).[27][28] However, by mid-2006, sufficient renewable energy had been installed or was under construction to meet the small MRET target for 2010. Also, in 2006, several Federal Government Ministers spoke out against a number of wind farm proposals.[28]

text: Dr Mark Diesendorf has suggested that the Australian Government has tried to stop the development of wind power, the lowest-cost, new, renewable electricity source, until such time as coal-fired power stations with CO2 capture and sequestration and possibly nuclear power stations are available. However, "clean coal" technologies may not be commercially available for at least 20 years. Furthermore, to bring down the high cost of nuclear power to a level where it could compete with wind power would require a new generation of nuclear power stations that is still on the drawing board, which could take at least 15 years.[28]

text: In November 2007 the Rudd (Labor) government was elected in Australia, replacing the Howard (Liberal/National Coalition) government. The new government ratified Australia's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, promised a target of 20% renewable power by 2020 and to do more to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, several new wind power projects have been proposed in anticipation of an expanded MRET.

text: In July 2011 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Four Corners program explored health concerns connected with Australian wind farms in its "Against the Wind" report.

text: Major wind power companies[edit]

text: Meridian Energy[edit]

text: Meridian Energy is a New Zealand state-owned enterprise and New Zealand's largest electricity generator. It specialises in renewable energy, namely hydroelectricity and windpower, and has 2353 MW of hydroelectric generation and 357 MW of wind generation in New Zealand. It has in recent years expanded into Australia, and its Australian operations are currently focused on windpower. Projects completed or currently being developed include:

text:
Macarthur Wind Farm, 140 wind turbines, 420 MW
Mount Mercer Wind Farm, 64 wind turbines, 131 MW
Mount Millar Wind Farm, 35 wind turbines, 70 MW

text: Pacific Hydro[edit]

text: Pacific Hydro is an Australian company that specialises in electricity generation using renewable energy. Its focus is on hydroelectricity and windpower. Wind power stations owned by Pacific Hydro include:

text:
Codrington Wind Farm
Challicum Hills Wind Farm
Portland Wind Project

text: Hydro Tasmania[edit]

text: Hydro Tasmania is based in Tasmania and has three wind farms operating in Australia: Woolnorth Wind Farm in northwest Tasmania, Musselroe Wind Farm in the northeast of Tasmania and Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm in South Australia.

text: Suzlon[edit]

text: Suzlon Energy Australia Pty. Ltd. (SEA), is based in Melbourne, and is a subsidiary of Suzlon Energy, an Indian multinational based in Pune, India.[29] Suzlon will install 45 units of its S88 – 2.1-megawatt wind turbines for AGL at the Hallett Wind Farm to be located on the Brown Hill Range, which is situated approximately 220 kilometers north of Adelaide.[30]

text: TrustPower[edit]

text: TrustPower is a New Zealand-based renewable electricity generator. It operates a number of hydroelectric schemes in New Zealand and several wind farms in New Zealand and Australia. Wind farms in Australia include Snowtown and the proposed Myponga, both in South Australia.

text: Wind Prospect[edit]

text: Wind Prospect undertakes all aspects of wind energy development, including design, construction, operation and commercial services, with offices in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and China. With over 18 years of successful development within the industry, the Wind Prospect Group has been involved in over 2,500 MW of approved wind farms, including onshore and offshore projects, in terms of development, construction, operations and commercial services, and has a further 4000 MW in the early phase of development. The company’s civil, electrical and mechanical engineers have been involved in the commissioning of over 50 wind farms around the world.

text: Wind Prospect’s development offices in Australia are in Adelaide, Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne. Wind Prospect Pty Ltd (WPPL) is the most successful developer in Australia, having achieved planning approval for 10 wind farms totalling over 860 MW, of which 565 MW is operating or under construction. Two recent successes in South Australia are the North Brown Hill Wind Farm (132.3 MW) and The Bluff Range Wind Farm (52.1 MW), both approximately 270 km north east of Adelaide, which are Wind Prospect’s sixth and seventh wind farm developments respectively to progress to construction in South Australia. More projects in this region have received planning approval and are expected to proceed to construction.

text: Windlab[edit]

text: Windlab Systems is an Australian company with operations in the USA, Canada and South Africa. It was established in 2003 as a CSIRO spin-off. The company uses self developed technologies, Windscape which is based on CSIRO’s atmospheric modelling technology and advanced wind monitoring tools, to undertake a program of site identification, site validation and wind farm development. Approximately 1,500 MW of projects in Australia have used Windlab intellectual property for site identification purposes. The company co-developed the Oakland's Hill (67 MW) wind farm and the Collgar Wind Farm (206 MW). With incentives from the ACT large scale feed-in tariff, Windlab is building the Coonooer Bridge Wind Farm, located North West of Bendigo, Victoria. This project is jointly owned by Windlab Limited, Eurus Energy and landholders neighbouring the project and has 6 turbines generating up to 19.4 MW. [31] From 2017, Windlab will begin building the Kiata Wind Farm, a 30MW wind energy project located 50km North West of Horsham, Victoria. Windlab is also developing the Kennedy energy park in North Queensland near Townsville, in two stages: Up to 40 - 50 MW of wind and 40 - 50 MW of solar in the first phase and up to 600 MW of wind and 600 MW of solar in the second phase. Windlab has since become a full wind farm developer and takes projects to the point of construction.[32]

text: Infigen Energy[edit]

text: Infigen Energy is a developer, owner and operator of renewable generation, specifically wind and solar power within Australia and the United States. Its head office is in Sydney. The company has developed several wind farms particularly in South Australia and New South Wales with further proposed wind farms in Western Australia and Victoria.

text: International comparisons[edit]

text: Australia's total wind generation capacity of 1,880 MW in 2010[13] was considerably lower in comparison to many other developed and developing nations, ranking 15th globally behind leaders such as China with 44,733 MW, the US with 40,180 MW, Germany with 27,215 MW, Spain with 20,676 MW, and India with 13,066 MW.[33]

text: In terms of installed capacity per head of population, Australia ranked 18th in the world in 2010, with 0.086 kW per person. This was only around one eighth of world leader Denmark, which had 0.675 kW per person, while other top countries were Spain with 0.442 kW per person, Portugal with 0.344 kW per person, and Germany with 0.334 kW per person. The top two countries in terms of total capacity, China and the US, only ranked 27th and 9th in terms of capacity per head, with 0.033 kW per person and 0.128 kW per person respectively.[33]

text: While Australia produced almost 2% of its electricity from wind power,[26] in comparison to other countries it again lagged well behind world leaders in 2010. Again Denmark topped this list, accounting for approximately 19% of electricity production, with Portugal at 18%, Spain at 16%, and Germany at 9%. Global leaders in terms of total capacity, China and the US, had contributions as a percentage of total electricity supply closer to that of Australia, with 1.2% and 2% respectively.[33]


document_title: Zebra mussel

question_text: when did zebra mussels come to north america

root

text: Zebra mussel

text: Ecology[edit]

text: Zebra mussel and the closely related and ecologically similar quagga mussels are filter-feeding organisms. They remove particles from the water column. The zebra mussels process up to one liter of water per day, per mussel.[6] Some particles are consumed as food, and feces are deposited on the lake floor. Nonfood particles are combined with mucus and other matter and deposited on lake floors as pseudofeces. Since the zebra mussel has become established in Lake Erie, water clarity has increased from 6 inches to up to three feet in some areas.[7] This improved water clarity allows sunlight to penetrate deeper, enabling growth of submerged macrophytes. These plants, when decaying, wash up on shorelines, fouling beaches and cause water quality problems.[8]

tag: p

text: Lake floor food supplies are enriched by zebra mussels as they filter pollution out of the water. This biomass becomes available to bottom-feeding species and to the fish that feed on them.[9] The catch of yellow perch increased 5 fold after the invasion of zebra mussels into Lake St. Clair.[10]

text: Zebra mussels attach to most substrates including sand, silt, and harder substrates, but usually, juvenile mussels prefer harder, rockier substrates to which to attach. Other mussel species frequently represent the most stable objects in silty substrates, and zebra mussels attach to, and often kill these mussels. They build colonies on native unionid clams, reducing their ability to move, feed, and breed, eventually leading to their deaths. This has led to the near extinction of the unionid clams in Lake St. Clair and the western basin of Lake Erie.[7]  This pattern is being repeated in Ireland, where zebra mussels have eliminated the two freshwater mussels from several waterways, including some lakes along the River Shannon in 1997.

text: In 2012, the National University of Ireland, Galway, said "The discovery of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in Lough Derg and the lower Shannon region in 1997 (McCarthy et al 1997, a & b) has led to considerable concern about the potential ecological and economic damage that this highly invasive aquatic nuisance species can cause."[11]

text: Lifecycle[edit]

text: The lifespan of a zebra mussel is four to five years.[6] A female zebra mussel begins to reproduce within 6–7 weeks of settling.[12]

text: An adult female zebra mussel can produce 30,000 to 40,000 eggs in each reproductive cycle, and over 1 million each year.[13] Free-swimming microscopic larvae, called veligers, drift in the water for several weeks and then settle onto any hard surface they can find. Zebra mussels also can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions and adults can even survive out of water for about 7 days.

text: Predators[edit]

text: Research on natural enemies, both in Europe and North America, has focused on predators, particularly birds (36 species) and fish (15 and 38 species eating veligers and attached mussels).

text:
The vast majority of the organisms that are natural enemies in Europe are not present in North America. Ecologically similar species do exist, but these species are unlikely to be able to eliminate those mussels already established and will have a limited role in their control.
[14]

text:
Crayfish could have a significant impact on the densities of 1- to 5-mm-long zebra mussels. An adult crayfish consumes around 105 zebra mussels every day, or about 6000 mussels in a season. Predation rates are significantly reduced at cooler water temperatures.
Fish do not seem to limit the densities of zebra mussels in European lakes. Smallmouth bass are a predator in the zebra mussels' adopted North American Great Lakes habitat.[15]

text: Other control[edit]

text: On June 4, 2014, Canadian conservation authorities announced that a test using liquid fertilizer to kill invasive zebra mussels was successful.  This test was conducted in a lakefront harbor in the western province of Manitoba.[16][17] However, there continue to be outbreaks in Lake Winnipeg.[18]

text: Similar tests were run in Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan, using Zequanox, a biopesticide[19]

text: As an invasive species[edit]

text: The native distribution of the species is in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea in Eurasia. Zebra mussels have become an invasive species in North America, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden. They disrupt the ecosystems by monotypic colonization, and damage harbors and waterways, ships and boats, and water treatment and power plants. Water treatment plants are most affected because the water intakes bring the microscopic free-swimming larvae directly into the facilities. Zebra mussels also cling to pipes under the water and clog them.

text:
Grossinger reported it in Hungary in 1794. Kerney and Morton described the rapid colonization of Britain by the zebra mussel, first in Cambridgeshire in the 1820s, London in 1824, and in the Union Canal near Edinburgh in 1834.[15]
In 1827, zebra mussels were seen in the Netherlands at Rotterdam. Canals that artificially link many European waterways facilitated their early dispersal. It is nonindigenous in the Czech Republic in the Elbe River in Bohemia since 1893;[20] in southern Moravia, it is probably native.[21] Around 1920 the mussels reached Lake Mälaren in Sweden.

text: The first appearance of the organism in northern Italy was in Lake Garda in 1973;[22] in central Italy, they appeared in Tuscany in 2003.[23]

text: Zebra mussels are also present in British waterways. Many water companies are reporting having problems with their water treatment plants with the mussels attaching themselves to pipeworks. Anglian Water has estimated that it costs £500,000 per year to remove the mussels from their treatment plants.[24] It has been argued that zebra mussels have also had an effect on fish populations, with dwindling fish populations in areas such as Salford Quays.[25]

text: North American invasion[edit]

text: They were first detected in Canada in the Great Lakes in 1988, in Lake St. Clair, located east/northeast of Detroit and Windsor.[26] It is believed they were inadvertently introduced into the lakes in the ballast water of ocean-going ships traversing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Another possible, often neglected, mode of introduction is on anchors and chains, although this has not been proven. Since adult zebra mussels can survive out of water for several days or weeks if the temperature is low and humidity is high, chain lockers provide temporary refuge for clusters of adult mussels that could easily be released when transoceanic ships drop anchor in freshwater ports. They have become an invasive species in North America, and as such they are the target of federal policy to control them, for instance in the National Invasive Species Act (1996).

text: Using models based on the genetic algorithm for rule-set production (GARP), a group of researchers predicted that the southeastern United States is moderately to highly likely to be inhabited by zebra mussels and the Midwest unlikely to experience a zebra mussel invasion of water bodies.[27] However, this model has since been proven incorrect. In 2006 a researcher (also using GARP) predicted invasion as far west as the North Platte River, Nebraska, by 2015.[28] As of March 2016, zebra mussels have affected hundreds of lakes in the Midwest including the Great Lake Michigan, and the largest freshwater lake in Wisconsin, Lake Winnebago. See the March 2016 USGS Zebra mussel distribution map for full scope of invasion.[29]

text: Congressional researchers have estimated that the zebra mussel has cost businesses and communities over $5 billion since their initial invasion.[30] Zebra mussels have cost power companies alone over $3 billion.[30]

text: By location[edit]

text:
From their first appearance in American waters in 1988, zebra mussels have spread to a large number of waterways, including Lake Simcoe in the Great Lakes region, the Mississippi, Hudson, St. Lawrence, Ohio, Cumberland, Missouri, Tennessee, Huron, Colorado, and Arkansas Rivers, and 11 lakes and 5 river basins in Texas. Today, the invasion continues. For instance, in 2009, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation confirmed that zebra mussels had been found in Laurel Lake in the Berkshires.[31]
That same year the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announced that live zebra mussels have been found in Pelican Lake, Minnesota. This was the first confirmed sighting in the Red River Basin, which extends across the international border into the province of Manitoba.[32] In 2013, their presence in Manitoba's Lake Winnipeg was confirmed and aggressive efforts to eradicate them in 2014 have not succeeded. New contamination was found outside treated areas of Lake Winnipeg in 2015 and they have also been found in the Red River near the lake in Selkirk Park in 2015.[33] Large number were seen at Grand Beach (Manitoba) in 2017 [18]

text: In July 2010, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department confirmed the presence of zebra mussel veliger in the Red River between Wahpeton, ND, and Breckenridge, MN.[34] As recently as 2008 California similarly reported invasions.[35] In 2011, an invasion of zebra mussels shut down a water pipeline in the Dallas area. This resulted in reduced water supplies during a drought year, worsening water restrictions across the Dallas area.[36]

text: A common inference made by scientists predicts that the zebra mussel will continue spreading passively, by ship and by pleasure craft, to more rivers in North America. Trailered boat traffic is the most likely vector for invasion into Western North America. This spread is preventable if boaters thoroughly clean and dry their boats and associated equipment before transporting them to new bodies of water. Since no North American predator or combination of predators has been shown to significantly reduce zebra mussel numbers, such spread would most likely result in permanent establishment of zebra mussels in many North American waterways.

text: A major decrease in the concentration of dissolved oxygen was observed in the Seneca River in central New York in the summer of 1993. This decrease was due to extremely high concentrations of zebra mussels in the watershed. Additionally, the Seneca River had significantly less chlorophyll in the water, which is used as a measure of phytoplankton biomass, due to the presence of zebra mussels.[37]

text: Cost[edit]

text: The cost of fighting the pests at power plants and other water-consuming facilities is substantial, but the exact magnitude of the damage is a matter of some controversy. According to the Center for Invasive Species Research at the University of California, Riverside,[26] the cost of management of zebra mussel in the Great Lakes alone exceeds $500 million a year. A more conservative study estimated total economic costs of $267 million for electric-generation and water-treatment facilities in the entire United States from 1989 through 2004.[38]

text: Effects of zebra mussels[edit]

text: Zebra mussels are filter feeders. When in the water, they open their shells to admit detritus. As their shells are very sharp, they are known for cutting people's feet, resulting in the need to wear water shoes wherever they are prevalent.

text: Since their colonization of the Great Lakes, they have covered the undersides of docks, boats, and anchors. They have also spread into streams and rivers throughout the US. In some areas they completely cover the substrate, sometimes covering other freshwater mussels. They can grow so densely that they block pipelines, clogging water intakes of municipal water supplies and hydroelectric companies. Zebra mussels do not attach to cupronickel alloys, which can be used to coat intake and discharge grates, navigational buoys, boats, and motors where the species tends to congregate.[26]

text: Zebra mussels are believed to be the source of deadly avian botulism poisoning that has killed tens of thousands of birds in the Great Lakes since the late 1990s.[39]  They are edible, however because they are so efficient at filtering water they tend to accumulate pollutants and toxins.  For this reason most experts recommend against consuming zebra mussels.[40]

text: They are also responsible for the near extinction of many species in the Great Lake system by outcompeting native species for food and by growing on top of and suffocating the native clams and mussels.[41]

text: Zebra mussels also affect all classes of algae species, resulting in a shortage of food sources to native species of freshwater mussels and fish in the Great Lakes.[42]

text: However, zebra mussels and other non-native species are credited with the increased population and size of smallmouth bass in Lake Erie[43] and yellow perch in Lake St. Clair.[44] They cleanse the waters of inland lakes, resulting in increased sunlight penetration and growth of native algae at greater depths. This cleansing also increases water visibility and filters out pollutants. Each quagga and zebra mussel filters about 1 US quart (0.95 L) of water a day when confined to small tanks.[45] In lakes, their filtering effects are usually spatially restricted (near the lake bottom) due to nonhomogeneous water column mixing.

text: Because zebra mussels damage water intakes and other infrastructure, methods such as adding oxidants, flocculants, heat, dewatering, mechanical removal, and pipe coatings are becoming increasingly common.[46]


document_title: Exclusionary rule

question_text: what case applied the exclusionary rule to the states

text: Exclusionary rule

text: History of the rule[edit]

text: Up until the independence of the United States, the courts of England excluded self-incriminating evidence that was provided as a result of official compulsion, regardless of its reliability.[4] In 1769, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield explained as follows:

text:
“

[I]n civil causes, the court will force parties to produce evidence which may prove against themselves; or leave the refusal to do it (after proper notice) as a strong presumption, to the jury....But in a criminal or penal cause, the defendant is never forced to produce any evidence; though he should hold it in his hands in court.[5]

”

tag: table

text: Chief Justice Mansfield also explained that "If any evidence or confession has been extorted from her, it will be of no prejudice to her on the trial."[6] Additionally, a defendant could sue to suppress and regain possession of at least some types of illegally seized evidence, in a common law action for replevin.[7]

text: However, in the 1783 case of Ceglinski v. Orr, the English courts declined to suppress evidence obtained by illegal coercion. In the Warickshall case, evidence was gathered as a result of an involuntary confession, and the court held that the evidence (but not the confession itself) could be admitted.[8] It is questionable whether the Warickshall rule became known in the United States before 1789 (when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written), and whether it applied to confessions obtained by both governmental and private parties.[4] In any event, no decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has ever endorsed the Warickshall rule as a constitutional matter.[4]

text: Generally speaking, English law before 1789 did not provide as strong an exclusionary rule as the one that later developed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding unlawful searches and seizures.[7] The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the general warrant and the writs of assistance.[7]

text: In the 1886 case of Boyd v. United States,[9] the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Boyd was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures.[10]

text: In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Bram v. United States,[11] that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. The Court in Bram did not announce a strong version of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only self-incriminating testimony that was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate.[12]

text: Before a strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the Iowa Supreme Court, as that court would later describe:

text:
“

The genesis of Iowa’s exclusionary rule was a civil case, Reifsnyder v. Lee, 44 Iowa 101 (1876).... The first application of the exclusionary rule in a criminal context occurred in the Height case, decided in 1902. Height involved a physical exam of the defendant against his will. 117 Iowa at 652, 91 N.W. at 935. This court held that the examination of the defendant violated the due process clause of the Iowa Constitution, as well as article 1, section 8’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.[13]

”

text: In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.[14] This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks rule," which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through the Volstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations.[15]

text: In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[16] The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words".

text: Wolf v. Colorado 338 U.S. 25 (1949)  ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. In 1955, the Supreme Court of California ruled in People v. Cahan[17] that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations.[15]

text: It was not until Mapp v. Ohio[18] in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until Mapp, the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states.[19]

text: In 2016, Utah v. Strieff dealt with the exclusionary rule and outstanding warrants and was viewed to be generally favorable towards police.[20][21]

text: Limitations of the rule[edit]

text: The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.

text: Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan,[22] Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court:

text:
“

Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166 (1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364–365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected "indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held it to be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) – that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs,'" Scott, supra, at 363, (quoting Leon, supra, at 907). Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.

”

text: Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:

text:
Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.[23]
Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.[24] However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception.[25]
The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to his advantage, in face of other evidence against himself.  This falls under the exigent circumstances exception.[26]
The Silver Platter doctrine which was ruled unconstitutional in the case of Elkins v. United States in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.[27]
Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search (inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court.
If police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) rely upon a defective search warrant, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception.

tag: ul

text: The exclusionary rule is not applicable to non-U.S. nationals residing outside of U.S. borders. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain,[28] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Certain persons in the U.S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood).

text: In the case of Florida v. Jimeno it was found that the evidence found to convict Jimeno, although at first was not admissible, later was found to in fact be admissible since it passed the test of reasonable standards.  The defendant consented to a search of his car, and when the officer searched a package and found drugs, it was not said to be in violation because a reasonable person would expect illegal narcotics to be kept in a package or container.[29]

text: Parallel construction[edit]

text: The Special Operations Division of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to follow a process of parallel construction when launching criminal investigations of Americans based on SOD tips that may be based on warrantless surveillance.[30]

text: Criticism and defense[edit]

text: The exclusionary rule as it has developed in the United States has been long criticized. Judge Benjamin Cardozo, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals between 1927 and 1932, stated that under the rule, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." The judge noted that many states had rejected the rule, but suggested that the adoption by the federal courts would affect the practice in the sovereign states.[31][32][33][34]

text: In the 1970s, Dallin H. Oaks,[35] Malcolm Wilkey,[36] and others called for the exclusionary rule to be replaced with a comprehensive judicial remedy against all illegal arrests and searches and seizures (e.g., tort remedy). By the 1980s, the exclusionary rule remained controversial and was strongly opposed by President Ronald Reagan. But, some opponents began seeking to have the rule modified, rather than abolished altogether. The case, Illinois v. Gates, before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith.[37]  The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule.[38] It has been proposed that the exclusionary rule be replaced with restitution to victims of police misconduct.[39]

text: A major criticism of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is that it allegedly defies the original intent of the Constitution.  Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, for example, has argued that "nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Fourth Amendment" supports the rule.[40] Critics like Amar, Oaks and Wilkey point to the fact that the text of the Fourth Amendment does not indicate that illegally seized evidence must be excluded.  Some legal historians argue that the Constitution's Framers intended only that victims of unreasonable searches or seizures could file civil lawsuits.

text: In 2009, Roger Roots presented evidence that the idea of exclusion can be found in the earliest set of law books published in American history.[41] In 2014, Roots elaborated that certain eighteenth-century British law books and pamphlets which discuss the exclusion of illegally seized evidence circulated widely in the American colonies and were owned by numerous prominent Framing-era lawyers and statesmen.[42]  Also in 2014, Professor Richard Re proposed that the Due Process Clause provides an ample basis for the Exclusionary Rule.[1]


document_title: The Concept of Law

question_text: who stated law is the command of sovereign

text: The Concept of Law

text: Background[edit]

text: The Concept of Law emerged from a set of lectures Hart delivered in 1952. The lectures were preceded by Hart's Holmes lecture, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals at Harvard Law School. The book developed a sophisticated view of legal positivism.

text: Among the ideas developed in the book are:

text:
A critique of John Austin's theory that law is the command of the sovereign backed by sanction.
A distinction between primary and secondary legal rules, where a primary rule governs conduct and a secondary rule allows the creation, alteration, or extinction of primary rules.
A distinction between the internal and external points of view of law and rules, close to (and influenced by) Max Weber's distinction between the sociological and the legal perspectives of law.
The idea of the rule of recognition, a social rule that differentiated between those norms that have the authority of law and those that do not. Hart viewed the rule of recognition as an evolution from Hans Kelsen's "Grundnorm", or "basic norm".
A reply to Ronald Dworkin, who criticized legal positivism in general and especially Hart's account of law in Taking Rights Seriously (1977), A Matter of Principle (1985) and Law's Empire (1986).

text: Austin's "command theory"[edit]

text: The starting point for the discussion is Hart's dissatisfaction with John Austin's "command theory": a jurisprudential concept that holds that law is command backed by threat and is meant to be ubiquitous in its application. Hart likens Austin's theory to the role of a gunman in a bank and tries to establish the differences between the gunman's orders and those made by law. (For instance, the gunman forces us to obey but we may not feel inclined to obey him. Presumably, obedience to the law comes with a different feeling.)

text: Hart identifies three such important differences: content, origin, and range. In terms of content, not all laws are imperative or coercive. Some are facilitative, allowing us to create contracts and other legal relations.

text: Austin believed that every legal system had to have a sovereign who creates the law (origin) while remaining unaffected by it (range), such as the bank scene's gunman, who is the only source of commands and who is not subject to other's commands. Hart argues that this is an inaccurate description of law, noting that laws may have several sources and legislators are very often subject to the laws they create. Hart lets us know that laws are much broader in scope than coercive orders, contrary to the "command theory" of Austin. Frequently laws are enabling and so allow citizens to carry out authoritative acts such as the making of wills or contracts which have legal effect.

text: Social habits and rules[edit]

text: Hart draws a distinction between a social habit (which people follow habitually but where breaking the habit does not bring about opprobrium - going to the cinema on Thursday for example) and a social rule (where breaking the rule is seen as wrong - neglecting to take off one's hat upon entering a church, for example). We feel in some sense bound by social rules and laws frequently appear to be types of social rule.

text: There are two perspectives to this: the external aspect, which is the independently observable fact that people do tend to obey the rule with regularity, and the internal aspect which is the feeling by an individual of being in some sense obligated to follow the rule, otherwise known as the critical reflective attitude. It is from this internal sense that the law acquires its normative quality. The obedience by the populace of a rule is called efficacy. No law can be said to be efficacious unless followed by the majority of the populace. Though an average citizen in a modern state with a developed legal system may feel the internal aspect and be compelled to follow the laws, it is more important for the officials of the society/peoples to have the internal aspect since it is up to them to follow the constitutional provisions which, if they wish, could ignore without accountability. Yet, the officials must use the internal aspect and accept the standards as guiding their behaviour in addition to also guiding the behaviour of other officials.

text: Hart's Empirical Legal System in "The Concept of Law"[edit]

text: Hart believed law is the union of primary rules (rules of conduct) and secondary rules (empowering rules). [5]

text: Primary Rules[edit]

text: Primary rules are rules, or laws, that govern general societal conduct. Thus, primary rules construct legal obligations and consequences when they are disobeyed. A good example of a primary rule is the law against murder; it prohibits a person from killing and attaches consequences for committing, attempting to commit, and conspiring to commit the crime.[6]

text: Secondary Rules[edit]

text: Secondary rules confer power to create sovereignty; they also confer the power to change, modify, or enforce primary (and secondary) rules.[7] Secondary rules combat the three major issues of legal systems that primary rules can't–(1) uncertainty of the law, (2) efficiency of the law, and (3) static quality of the law. Each kind of secondary rule addresses a separate one of those three issues, yet all are interdependent.[8] Hart separates secondary rules into three types–the rules of recognition, the rules of change, and the rules of adjudication.[9]

text: Rules of Recognition[edit]

text: Hart states that the remedy for the uncertainty of the regime of primary rules is a rule of recognition. [10] The rule of recognition is a collection of standards and requisites that govern the validity of all rules; thus, the rule of recognition confers power to new rules by validating them. For a rule to be valid is to recognize it as passing all the tests provided by the rule of recognition. [11]

text: Rules of Change[edit]

text: There are no legal systems that can be classified as pareto optimal. The next best thing is to make sure that the system does not remain at a static quality but instead is dynamic and progressive. The remedy for the static quality of the regime of primary rules are rules of change.[12] Generally, rules of change confer and prohibit power of the creation, extinction and alteration of primary and secondary rules. Rules of change range in complexity: “the powers conferred may be unrestricted or limited in various ways: and the rules may, besides specifying the persons who are to legislate, define in more or less rigid terms the procedure to be followed in legislation.” As mentioned earlier, rules of change are interdependent with the other rules. Hart emphasizes the “close connection between the rules of change and the rules of recognition.” Where rules of change exist, rules of recognition "ʺwill necessarily incorporate a reference to legislation as an identifying feature of the rules, though it need not refer to all the details of procedure involved in legislation.” [13]

text: Rules of Adjudication[edit]

text: Rules of adjudication were intended to remedy the inefficiency of its diffused social pressure. Rules of adjudication empower individuals to make authoritative determinations of the question whether, on a particular occasion, a primary rule has been broken.[14] Rules of adjudication govern the election and procedure of the judiciary. However, intermingled with who adjudicates is what laws they adjudicate. [15] Under that logic, rules of adjudication, like rules of change, must also be supplemented by rules of recognition of some sort. Thus, “the rule which confers jurisdiction will also be a rule of recognition, identifying the primary rules through the judgments of the courts and these judgments will become a 'source' of law.”[16]

text: Other Jurisprudential Philosophers[edit]

text:
John Austin
Max Weber
Hans Kelsen
Ronald Dworkin
John Finnis
Jeremy Bentham


document_title: Qaumi Taranah

question_text: who wrote the national anthem of pakistan in urdu

text: Qaumi Taranah

text: History[edit]

text: In early 1948, A. R. Ghani, a Muslim from Transvaal, South Africa, offered two prizes of five thousand rupees each for the poet and composer of a new national anthem for the newly independent state of Pakistan. The prizes were announced through a government press advertisement published in June 1948. In December 1948, the Government of Pakistan established the National Anthem Committee (NAC) with the task of coming up with the composition and lyrics for the official national anthem of Pakistan. The NAC was initially chaired by the Information Secretary, Sheikh Muhammad Ikram, and its members included several politicians, poets and musicians, including Abdur Rab Nishtar, Ahmad G. Chagla and Hafeez Jullundhri.[citation needed] The NAC encountered early difficulties in finding suitable music and lyrics.

text: When President Sukarno of Indonesia became the first foreign head of state to visit Pakistan on 30 January 1950, there was no Pakistani national anthem to be played. In 1950, the impending state visit of the Shah of Iran added urgency to the matter and resulted in the Government of Pakistan asking the NAC to submit an anthem without further delay. The NAC Chairman, then Federal Minister for Education, Fazlur Rahman, asked several poets and composers to write lyrics but none of the submitted works were deemed suitable. The NAC also examined several different tunes and eventually selected the one presented by Ahmed G. Chagla and submitted it for formal approval.[4] On 21 August 1949, the Government of Pakistan adopted Chagla’s tune for the national anthem.[5]

text: The anthem, without lyrics, was performed for the first time for a foreign head of state on the state visit of the Shah of Iran to Pakistan in Karachi on 1 March 1950 by a Pakistan Navy band.

text: It was later played for Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan during his official visit to the United States on 3 May 1950. It was played before the NAC on 10 August 1950.[6] Official recognition to the national anthem, however, was not given until August 1954.[6] The NAC distributed records of the composed tune amongst prominent poets, who responded by writing and submitting several hundred songs for evaluation by the NAC. Eventually, the lyrics written by Hafeez Jullundhri were approved and the new national anthem was broadcast publicly for the first time on Radio Pakistan on 13 August 1954, sung by Hafeez Jullundhri himself. Official approval was announced by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 16 August 1954. The composer, Ahmed G. Chagla, died in 1953, before the new national anthem was officially adopted. In 1955, there was a performance of the national anthem involving 11 major singers of Pakistan, including Ahmad Rushdi, Kaukab Jahan, Rasheeda Begum, Najam Ara, Naseema Shaheen, Zawar Hussain, Akhtar Abbas, Ghulam Dastagir, Anwar Zaheer and Akhtar Wasi Ali.[7]

text: Music[edit]

text: The Qaumi Taranah is a melodious and harmonious rendering of a three-stanza composition with a tune based on eastern music but arranged in such a manner that it can be easily played by foreign bands.[citation needed]

text: The music, composed by the Pakistani musician and composer, Ahmad G. Chagla in 1949, reflects his background in both eastern and western music. Twenty-one musical instruments[5] and thirty-eight different tones[5] are used to play the Qaumi Taranah,[8] the duration of which is 80 seconds.[1][5][9]

text: Lyrics[edit]

text: The Urdu lyrics, written by the Pakistani Urdu-language poet, Hafeez Jullundhri in 1952, have commonality with Persian, making them understandable in both languages. No verse in the three stanza lyrics is repeated.[1] The anthem has heavy Persian poetic vocabulary and only uses one exclusively Urdu word 'kā'.[10][11][12][13][14]

text:
Urdu lyrics

كشورِ حسين شاد باد
پاک سرزمین شاد باد

ارضِ پاکستان!
تُو نشانِ عزمِ عالی شان

مرکزِ یقین شاد باد

قوّتِ اُخوّتِ عوام
پاک سرزمین کا نظام

پائنده تابنده باد!
قوم، ملک، سلطنت

شاد باد منزلِ مراد

رہبرِ ترقّی و کمال
پرچمِ ستاره و ہلال

جانِ استقبال!
ترجمانِ ماضی، شانِ حال

سایۂ خدائے ذوالجلال

Transliteration (ALA-LC)
Translation[15] (poetical)
Translation (literal)

Pāk sarzamīn shād bād
Kishwar-i ḥasīn shād bād
Tū nishān-i ʿazm-i ʿālī shān
Arẓ-i Pākistān!
Markaz-i yaqīn shād bād

May the holy land, stay glad;
Beautious realm, stay glad.
Thou, the sign of high resolve—
O Land of Pakistan!
Citadel of faith, stay glad.

Blessed be the sacred land,
Happy be the bounteous realm.
Thou symbol of high resolve,
O Land of Pakistan!
Blessed be the citadel of faith.

Pāk sarzamīn kā niz̤ām
Quwwat-i Ukhuwwat-i ʿawām
Qaum, mulk, salt̤anat
Pāyindah tābindah bād!
Shād bād manzil-i murād
Order of the holy land,
Power of fraternity of the populace;
The nation, country, and domain;
Ever luminous remain!
The cherished goal, stay glad.
The order of this sacred land,
The might of the brotherhood of the people,
May the nation, the country, and the state,
Shine in glory everlasting!
Blessed be the goal of our ambition.

Parcam-i sitārah o-hilāl
Rahbar-i taraqqī o-kamāl
Tarjumān-i māẓī, shān-i ḥāl
Jān-i istiqbāl!
Sāyah-yi Khudā-yi Ẕū l-jalāl
Flag with the star and crescent,
The leader of progress and ascent,
Dragoman of past, the pride of present;
Soul of the future!
Shadow of the God of grandeur.

The flag of the crescent and star,
Leads the way to progress and perfection,
Interpreter of our past, glory of our present,
inspiration for our future!
Shade of God, the Glorious and Mighty.

text: Milestones[edit]

text:
1947 – The new state of Pakistan came into being on 14 August.
1949 – Music for the Qaumi Taranah is composed by the Pakistani musical composer, Ahmad G. Chagla (running time: 80 seconds).
1952 – Verses written by the Pakistani poet, Hafeez Jullundhri, are selected from amongst 723 entries.
1954 – Officially adopted as the national anthem and broadcast for the first time on Radio Pakistan on 13 August
1955 – Sung by 11 famous Pakistani singers including Ahmad Rushdi, Shamim Bano, Kokab Jehan, Rasheeda Begum, Najam Ara, Naseema Shaheen, Zwar Hussain, Akhtar Abbas, Ghulam Dastgir, Anwar Zaheer and Akhtar Wassi
1996 – Rendered in electric guitar for the first time by Pakistani rock band Junoon in their album Inquilaab
2009 – Rendered as an acoustic instrumental for the first time by Pakistani musician Jehangir Aziz Hayat
2011 – On 14 August, 5,857 people gathered in a stadium in Karachi to sing the Qaumi Taranah and set a new world record for most people gathered to sing a national anthem simultaneously.[16]
2012 – On 20 October, 42,813 people gathered in a stadium in Lahore to sing the Qaumi Taranah and set a new world record for most people gathered to sing a national anthem simultaneously, which was certified by Guinness World Records.[17] The record was subsequently broken on 26 March 2014 in Bangladesh.[18]
2017 – The Coke Studio released a collaborative rendition of Qaumi Taranah on 4 August by the featured artistes, to celebrate the 70 years of Pakistan in the tenth season.[19][20]
2017 – An Indian A capella band Voxchord sent an independence gift to the people of Pakistan by singing Pakistan's national anthem. It was indeed a surprise for the people of Pakistan. The video was shared by 'Voice of Ram' – An Indo-Pak peace initiative page on Facebook.[21][22][23][24]


document_title: Minister of Science and Technology (India)

question_text: who is the current science and technology minister of india

text: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Minister of Science & Technology

Emblem of India

Incumbent
Harsh Vardhan[1]
since 9 November 2014

Ministry of Science & Technology

Style
The Honourable

Appointer
President on the advice of the Prime Minister

Inaugural holder
V. P. Singh

text:
India

This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
India

Constitution and law[show]

Constitutional amendment
Basic structure doctrine
Fundamental rights
Human rights

———————

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Uniform civil code

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code
Law enforcement

Government of India[show]

President (Head of state) (List)
Vice president (List)

———————
Executive:

Prime minister (Head of government) (List)
Union Council of Ministers
Cabinet secretary

Secretaries:
(Defence • Finance • Foreign • Home)

Civil services

All India Services (IAS • IFS/IFoS • IPS)

———————
Legislature:

Parliament

Rajya Sabha (Chairman)
Lok Sabha (Speaker)

Judiciary:

Supreme court (Chief justice)

High courts (Chief justices)

District courts

Elections[show]
Election commission:

Chief Election Commissioner (Election commissioners)

Recent general elections: 2009
2014
2019

Recent state elections: 2017
2018
2019

———————
Political parties

National parties
State parties

National coalitions:

National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
United Progressive Alliance (UPA)

Federalism[show]

Administrative divisions

———————
State governments

Governors (List)
Chief ministers (List)
Chief secretary (Principal secretaries)

Field-level officers

Divisional commissioners
District magistrates
Sub-divisional magistrates

Legislatures:

Vidhan Sabha
Vidhan Parishad

———————
Local governments: Rural bodies:

District councils
Block panchayats
Gram Panchayats

Urban bodies:

Municipal corporations
Municipal councils
Nagar panchayats

Other countries
Atlas

v
t
e

text: The Minister of Science & Technology is the head of the Ministry of Science & Technology of the Government of India. It is a key office in the Union Cabinet.[2]

text: List of Science & Technology Ministers[edit]

text:
Name
Portrait
Term of office
Political party
Prime Minister

V. P. Singh[3]

1989
1990
Janata Dal

V. P. Singh

Chandra Shekhar[4]

1990
1991
Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

Chandra Shekhar

P. V. Narasimha Rao[5]

1991
1996
Indian National Congress

P. V. Narasimha Rao

Murali Manohar Joshi[6]

13 October 1999
21 May 2004
Bharatiya Janata Party

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Kapil Sibal[7]

23 May 2004
May 2009
Indian National Congress

Manmohan Singh

Pawan Kumar Bansal[8]

19 January 2011
19 July 2011

Vilasrao Deshmukh[9]

19 July 2011
14 August 2012

Vayalar Ravi

14 August 2012
28 Oct 2012

Jaipal Reddy

28 Oct 2012
26 May 2014

Dr. Jitendra Singh[1]

26 May 2014
9 November 2014
Bharatiya Janata Party

Narendra Modi

Harsh Vardhan

9 November 2014
Incumbent


document_title: Love & Hip Hop

question_text: when does love & hip hop hollywood come out

text: Love & Hip Hop

text: Franchise history[edit]

text: Love & Hip Hop had its origins as a 2006 pilot called Keeping Up With the Joneses, which centered around rapper Jim Jones and was produced by Stefan Springman and Toby Barraud.[1][2] When VH1 brought producer Mona Scott-Young on board, its focus shifted to include Jim's girlfriend Chrissy Lampkin and her circle of friends.[3] The series was first mentioned in VH1's programming development report in early 2010 as Diary of a Hip Hop Girlfriend.[4] On January 4, 2011, it was announced that Love & Hip Hop would debut on March 6, 2011, as an eight-episode series. The first season was later expanded to nine episodes in order to include the first season reunion, which aired on May 16, 2011.[5]

text: On May 25, 2011, the series was renewed for a second season, which premiered on November 14, 2011.[6] The season garnered big ratings for the network, averaging 2.8 million total viewers per episode, making it VH1's highest rated series in over three and a half years.[7]

text: On May 15, 2012, VH1 announced Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta, the Atlanta-based spin-off of Love & Hip Hop, would make its series premiere on June 18, 2012.[8] After its premiere, the show's audience grew substantially over the season, garnering even higher ratings than its predecessor. Its finale garnered 5.5 million people overall.[9]

text: On September 7, 2012, VH1 announced that Chrissy Lampkin and Jim Jones would leave Love & Hip Hop, to star in their own spin-off show Chrissy & Mr. Jones.[10] The third season of Love & Hip Hop, now titled Love & Hip Hop: New York in promotional material, premiered on January 7, 2013, with nearly a whole new cast.[11]

text: On April 1, 2013, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta would be returning for a second season on April 22, 2013.[12]

text: On October 10, 2013, VH1 announced Love & Hip Hop: New York would be returning for a fourth season on October 28, 2013. The season premiered back-to-back with the second season of Chrissy & Mr. Jones.[13]

text: On April 14, 2014, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta would be returning for a third season on May 5, 2014.[14]

text: On August 18, 2014, VH1 announced Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood, the Los Angeles-based spin-off of Love & Hip Hop, would make its series premiere on September 15, 2014.[15]

text: On October 15, 2014, VH1 announced the spin-off K. Michelle: My Life, starring cast member K. Michelle, would make its series premiere on November 3, 2014.[16]

text: On December 2, 2014, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: New York would be returning for a fifth season on December 15, 2014.[17]

text: On April 9, 2015, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta would be returning for a fourth season on April 20, 2015, and would premiere alongside Love & Hip Hop Atlanta: The Afterparty Live!, a half-hour-long interactive after-show hosted by Big Tigger.[18]

text: On April 14, 2015, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: The Wedding, a two-hour special featuring the marriage between cast members Yandy Smith and Mendeecees Harris, would air live on May 25, 2015.[19]

text: On August 10, 2015, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood would be returning for a second season on September 7, 2015.[20]

text: On October 12, 2015, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Out in Hip Hop, a round-table discussion moderated by T. J. Holmes of ABC News, would air on October 19, 2015. The special focused on the reality on being openly LGBT in the hip hop community, and coincided with the airing of the seventh episode "Truth", in which bisexual cast member Miles comes out to his ex-girlfriend Amber.[21]

text: On November 2, 2015, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: New York would be returning for a sixth season on December 14, 2015.[22]

text: On December 2, 2015, VH1 announced the spin-off Stevie J & Joseline: Go Hollywood, starring Stevie J and Joseline Hernandez, would make its series premiere on January 25, 2016, back-to-back with the second season of K. Michelle: My Life.[23]

text: On March 8, 2016, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta would be returning for a fifth season on April 4, 2016.[24]

text: On August 3, 2016, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood would be returning for a third season on August 15, 2016.[25]

text: On August 8, 2016, VH1 and 345 Games announced the release of Love & Hip Hop: The Game, a mobile game for iOS and Android. It was released worldwide on September 22, 2016.[26]

text: On November 14, 2016, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop would be returning for a seventh season on November 21, 2016.[27]

text: On December 1, 2016, VH1 announced the spin-off Leave It To Stevie, starring Stevie J, would make its series premiere on December 19, 2016, back-to-back with the third season of K. Michelle: My Life.[28]

text: On February 21, 2017, VH1 announced Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta would be returning for a sixth season on March 6, 2017.[29] On April 19, 2017, VH1 announced Joseline's Special Delivery, a special documenting the birth of Joseline's child, which aired between the season's eighth and ninth episodes on May 1, 2017.[30][31] Additionally, Dirty Little Secrets 2, a special featuring unseen footage and deleted scenes, aired on May 10, 2017.[32]

text: On April 13, 2017, VH1 announced that season four of Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood would premiere on July 17, 2017.[33] On June 19, 2017, the season premiere date was moved to July 24, 2017. On July 3, 2017, three weeks before the season four premiere, VH1 aired Dirty Little Secrets, a special featuring unseen footage and deleted scenes from the show's first three seasons, along with interviews with the show's cast and producers.[34]

text: On August 25, 2017, VH1 announced Love & Hip Hop: Miami, the Miami-based spin-off of Love & Hip Hop, would make its series premiere in January 2018.[35]

text: On October 2, 2017, VH1 announced that Love & Hip Hop: New York would return for an eighth season on October 30, 2017. A behind-the-scenes special, Dirty Little Secrets, will air on October 17, 2017.

text: Proposed spin-offs[edit]

text: Since 2013, Mona Scott-Young has discussed expanding the franchise to other cities, such as New Orleans,[36] Detroit [37] and Houston.

text: On February 28, 2016, it was reported that potential spin-offs set in Miami and Houston were in pre-production and the producers were auditioning potential cast members.[38] However, Scott-Young denied reports of a spin-off being filmed in New Orleans, saying "I would love to do a show there but there is no Love & Hip Hop: New Orleans being cast or shot right now."[39][40] Love & Hip Hop: Houston was to feature Jhonni Blaze, Kirko Bangz, Kat St. John, Just Brittany, Nessacary, J. Prince Jr, Propain, the Sauce Twinz, the Charlo Brothers, DJ Eric, Lil' Keith and Mehgan James as cast members. However, the show was put on hold indefinitely midway through filming in June 2016 due to concerns for the crew's safety, after several shoots were shut down by cast violence, as well as locals interrupting filming.[41] On July 7, 2017, Scott-Young said "Houston I love. We wanted to do Houston and we went into Houston to cast and we may go back to Houston." [42]

text: Domestic installments[edit]

text:
Series
Abbrev.
Series premiere
Series finale
No. of
seasons
Ref.

Love & Hip Hop: New York
LHHNY
March 6, 2011 (2011-03-06)
N/A
8
[43]

Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta
LHHATL
June 18, 2012 (2012-06-18)
N/A
6
[44]

Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood
LHHH
September 15, 2014
N/A
4
[45]

Love & Hip Hop: Miami
LHHMIA
January 2018
N/A
1
[46]

text: Spin-offs[edit]

text:
Series
(Parent installment)

Cast member
Series premiere
Series finale
No. of
seasons
Ref.

Chrissy & Mr. Jones
(Love & Hip Hop: New York)

Chrissy Lampkin & Jim Jones
September 24, 2012 (2012-09-24)
December 16, 2013 (2013-12-16)
2
[47]

K. Michelle: My Life
(Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta)

K. Michelle
November 3, 2014 (2014-11-03)
February 6, 2017 (2017-02-06)
3
[48]

Stevie J & Joseline: Go Hollywood
(Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta)

Stevie J & Joseline Hernandez
January 25, 2016 (2016-01-25)
March 21, 2016 (2016-03-21)
1
[49]

Leave It To Stevie
(Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta)

Stevie J
December 19, 2016 (2016-12-19)
N/A
1
[50]

text: Specials[edit]

text:
Series
(Parent installment)

Cast member
Premiere
Ref.

Love & Hip Hop Live: The Wedding
(Love & Hip Hop: New York)

Yandy Smith & Mendeecees Harris
May 25, 2015 (2015-05-25)
[51]

Love & Hip Hop: Out in Hip Hop
(Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood)

Milan Christopher & Miles Brock
October 19, 2015 (2015-10-19)
[52]

Love & Hip Hop: Joseline's Special Delivery
(Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta)

Joseline Hernandez
May 1, 2017 (2017-05-01)
[31]

text: Cast crossovers[edit]

text:
Cast member
First
appearance
Series

Love & Hip Hop
Spin-Offs

New York
Atlanta
Hollywood
Miami
Chrissy & Mr. Jones
K. Michelle: My Life
Stevie J & Joseline: Go Hollywood
Leave It To Stevie

Chrissy Lampkin
Love & Hip Hop: New York
Main
Guest[note 1]

Main

Emily Bustamante
Main

Supporting

Somaya Reece
Main

Guest[note 2]

Guest[note 2]

Jim Jones
Supporting
Guest[note 1]

Main

Nancy "Mama" Jones
Supporting
Guest[note 1]

Supporting

Rich Dollaz
Supporting

Supporting

Teairra Marí
Supporting

Main

Cisco Rosado
Supporting

Supporting

Mariahlynn
Main
Guest[note 3]

DJ Self
Supporting

Guest[note 2]

Felicia "Snoop" Pearson
Main

Guest[note 4]

Jade Wifey
Supporting

Supporting

Joseline Hernandez
Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta
Guest[note 5]
Main

Guest
Main

Rasheeda
Guest[note 5]
Main

K. Michelle
Main

Main
Guest

Karlie Redd
Guest[note 5]
Main

Guest

Mimi Faust

Main

Supporting

Stevie J
Guest[note 5]
Main

Main

Lil Scrappy
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Supporting

Ariane Davis
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Momma Dee
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Kirk Frost
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Shay Johnson

Supporting

Main

Adiz "Bambi" Benson
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Yung Joc
Guest[note 5]
Supporting

Supporting

Jessica Dime

Supporting

Guest

Tommie Lee

Main

Supporting

D. Smith

Supporting
Guest[note 4]

Gunplay

Supporting

Main

Moniece Slaughter
Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood
Supporting

Main

Ray J
Guest[note 5]

Main

Supporting

Lil Fizz

Guest
Main

Nikki Mudarris
Guest[note 5]
Guest
Main

Princess Love
Guest[note 5]

Main

Safaree Samuels
Supporting

Main

Guest

Keyshia Cole
Guest

Main

Alexis Skyy

Guest
Supporting

Trina
Love & Hip Hop: Miami

Main

Guest

Freddie Robinson Jr.
Chrissy & Mr. Jones
Guest

Supporting

Talia Coles
Guest

Supporting

Deb Antney

Supporting

Supporting

Paris Phillips
K. Michelle: My Life
Guest

Supporting

Jonathan Fernandez
Supporting
Guest

Supporting

Tracie Renee
Guest

Supporting

Stevie Jordan Jr.
Stevie J & Joseline: Go Hollywood

Guest

Supporting

Sade Jordan

Guest

Supporting

Savannah Jordan

Supporting

Supporting

Faith Evans
Leave It To Stevie

Guest

Guest
Supporting

Eva Jordan

Guest

Guest
Supporting

text: Note:

text:
^ Jump up to: a b c Appears in archival footage in the Dirty Little Secrets special only.
^ Jump up to: a b c Appears in an uncredited cameo only.
Jump up ^ Appears in the Joseline's Special Delivery special only.
^ Jump up to: a b Appears in the Love & Hip Hop: Out in Hip Hop special only.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Appears in the Love & Hip Hop Live: The Wedding special only.

tag: ol

text: Cultural impact[edit]

text: During a speech at a campaign rally in North Carolina on November 4, 2016, President Barack Obama referenced the show, comparing the 2016 presidential race to reality television, saying "I mean, its like some Love & Hip Hop stuff." [53]

text: On a 2013 episode of the BET television series The Game, Wendy Raquel Robinson's character Tasha makes reference to the franchise, saying "Back in the day we weren't carrying ourselves like them damn crazies you see on Love & Hip Hop, we conducted ourselves as upstanding women who were looked up to in the community".

text: In the 2016 film Barbershop: The Next Cut, when Eve and Common's characters get into an argument over their relationship, Cedric the Entertainer's character makes a reference to the franchise, saying "This ain't no Love & Hip Hop reunion."

text: Lee Daniels is a fan of Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta [54] and his 2016 Fox television series Star (set in Atlanta) makes several references to the show. Joseline Hernandez appears in a recurring role as Michelle, a stripper. In the second episode, Lenny Kravitz's character is seen watching a scene of the show featuring Mimi Faust and Stevie J. In a later scene in the same episode, Jessica Dime makes a cameo appearance as a stripper. The references to the franchise continue into the second season, with the premiere featuring Star (Jude Demorest) singing a line from Love & Hip Hop: New York cast member Mariahlynn's single "Once Upon A Time (I Was a Hoe)". Additionally, Star cast member Jasmine Burke guest starred in Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta's sixth season as herself.

text: In the 2017 pilot of the Netflix television adaptation Dear White People, a character attempts to break up an argument between two female characters by saying "Yo, fam, can we cut the Love & Hip Hop auditions and get to it?"

text: In an overview of the television cultural divide, The New York Times reported that Love & Hip Hop was most popular show in the Black Belt.[55]