Question: Of what nationality was Perrin?

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Answer: French

<hl> In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. <hl> The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

In 1972, the <hl> French <hl> physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.


Question: In what county was the Oklo mine located?

Answer: Gabon

<hl> In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon , West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. <hl> The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in <hl> Gabon <hl>, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in <hl> Gabon <hl> , West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors.


Question: How old are the ore deposits in the Oklo mine?

Answer: 1.7 billion years

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. <hl> The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. <hl> This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is <hl> 1.7 billion years <hl> old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.


Question: When the Oklo mine ore deposits came into being, what percentage of uranium on Earth consisted of uranium-235?

Answer: 3%

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. <hl> The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. <hl> This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about <hl> 3% <hl> of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.


Question: Where in the United States is there a nuclear waste repository?

Answer: Yucca Mountain

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. <hl> The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. <hl>

In 1972, the French physicist Francis Perrin discovered fifteen ancient and no longer active natural nuclear fission reactors in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa, collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. The ore deposit is 1.7 billion years old; then, uranium-235 constituted about 3% of the total uranium on Earth. This is high enough to permit a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction to occur, provided other supporting conditions exist. The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the <hl> Yucca Mountain <hl> nuclear waste repository.


Question: How many times more abundant than silver is uranium in the Earth's crust?

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.

Answer: 40

<hl> Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. <hl> The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about <hl> 40 <hl> times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.


Question: How many kilograms of uranium may be contained in the oceans?

Answer: 1013

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. <hl> The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). <hl> The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain <hl> 1013 <hl> kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.


Question: Why is the concentrate of uranium in farmland so high?

Answer: phosphate fertilizers

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). <hl> The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers ), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion. <hl>

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of <hl> phosphate fertilizers <hl>), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.

The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of <hl> phosphate fertilizers <hl> ), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.


Question: What is the concentration of uranium in sea water?

Answer: 3 parts per billion

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). <hl> The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion . <hl>

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is <hl> 3 parts per billion <hl>.

The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is <hl> 3 parts per billion <hl> .


Question: What isotope of uranium has the most stability?

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

Answer: Uranium-238

<hl> Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. <hl> Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

<hl> Uranium-238 <hl> is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.


Question: About how old is the Earth?

Answer: 4.468×109 years

<hl> Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years , roughly the age of the Earth. <hl> Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about <hl> 4.468×109 years <hl>, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about <hl> 4.468×109 years <hl> , roughly the age of the Earth.


Question: What is the half-life of uranium-234?

Answer: 2.48×105 years

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. <hl> Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years . <hl> For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about <hl> 2.48×105 years <hl>. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.

Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about <hl> 2.48×105 years <hl> .


Question: What fraction of the Earth's uranium was uranium-235 during the Earth's youth?

Answer: one-fifth

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. <hl> For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this. <hl>

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about <hl> one-fifth <hl> of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.


Question: What percentage of the alpha rays of natural uranium are emitted by 234U?

Answer: 49%

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. <hl> For natural uranium, about 49% of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this. <hl>

Uranium-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium, with a half-life of about 4.468×109 years, roughly the age of the Earth. Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 7.13×108 years, and uranium-234 has a half-life of about 2.48×105 years. For natural uranium, about <hl> 49% <hl> of its alpha rays are emitted by each of 238U atom, and also 49% by 234U (since the latter is formed from the former) and about 2.0% of them by the 235U. When the Earth was young, probably about one-fifth of its uranium was uranium-235, but the percentage of 234U was probably much lower than this.


Question: What happens to a majority of ingested uranium?

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Answer: excreted

<hl> Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. <hl> Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Most ingested uranium is <hl> excreted <hl> during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.


Question: Up to what percentage of uranyl ion can be absorbed when ingested?

Answer: 5%

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0. <hl> 5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. <hl> However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.<hl> 5% <hl> is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.


Question: About what percentage of uranium oxide is absorbed when ingested?

Answer: 0.5%

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. <hl> Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. <hl> However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only <hl> 0.5% <hl> is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.


Question: What does uranium have an affinity for?

Answer: phosphates

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. <hl> After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates . <hl> Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for <hl> phosphates <hl>. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for <hl> phosphates <hl> .


Question: Where does uranium accumulate in the body?

Answer: bone tissue

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. <hl> After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. <hl> Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.

Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body, whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when inhaled by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in <hl> bone tissue <hl> because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.


Question: How were the appointments to the Order of the British Empire made?

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

Answer: nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors

<hl> Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors , as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. <hl> As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the <hl> nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors <hl>, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the <hl> nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors <hl> , as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom.


Question: What remained the head of state of the British Empire?

Answer: the monarch

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. <hl> As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. <hl> These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which <hl> the monarch <hl> remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.


Question: What evolved as the Commonwealth nominations continued?

Answer: Empire

<hl> Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. <hl> As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

Appointments to the Order of the British <hl> Empire <hl> were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.


Question: Why did the oversea nominations discontinue?

Answer: established their own Orders

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. <hl> These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders —such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories. <hl>

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have <hl> established their own Orders <hl>—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have <hl> established their own Orders <hl> —such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.


Question: What countries established new orders?

Answer: Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. <hl> These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit —but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories. <hl>

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were at first made on the nomination of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, the Viceroy of India, and the colonial governors, as well as on nominations from within the United Kingdom. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth, nominations continued to come from the Commonwealth realms, in which the monarch remained head of state. These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the <hl> Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit <hl>—but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.

These overseas nominations have been discontinued in realms that have established their own Orders—such as the <hl> Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit <hl> —but members of the Order are still appointed in the British Overseas Territories.


Question: Who could wear a emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves?

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Answer: Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry

<hl> Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. <hl> It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

<hl> Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry <hl> could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.


Question: What year was it replaced?

Answer: 1974

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. <hl> It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. <hl> If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in <hl> 1974 <hl> with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.


Question: What was the emblem?

Answer: two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge

<hl> Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge . <hl> It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of <hl> two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge <hl>. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of <hl> two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge <hl> .


Question: What kind of medal was replaced in 1974?

Answer: Queen's Gallantry Medal

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. <hl> It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal . <hl> If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the <hl> Queen's Gallantry Medal <hl>. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the <hl> Queen's Gallantry Medal <hl> .


Question: They continued to wear what the insignia of what?

Answer: lower grade with the oak leaves

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. <hl> If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the lower grade with the oak leaves . <hl> However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

Any individual made a member of the Order for gallantry could wear an emblem of two crossed silver oak leaves on the same riband, ribbon or bow as the badge. It could not be awarded posthumously and was effectively replaced in 1974 with the Queen's Gallantry Medal. If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the <hl> lower grade with the oak leaves <hl>. However, they only used the post-nominal letters of the higher grade.

If recipients of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry received promotion within the Order, whether for gallantry or otherwise, they continued to wear also the insignia of the <hl> lower grade with the oak leaves <hl> .


Question: Who are appointed to citizens of nations?

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Answer: Honorary knighthoods

<hl> Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. <hl> Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

<hl> Honorary knighthoods <hl> are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".


Question: Where was Queen Elizabeth ll not Head of State?

Answer: citizens of nations

<hl> Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. <hl> Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to <hl> citizens of nations <hl> where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".


Question: What is honorary appointees are incorrectly referred to?

Answer: Sir or Dame

<hl> Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame . <hl> Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of <hl> Sir or Dame <hl>. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of <hl> Sir or Dame <hl> .


Question: Who are examples of Sir of Dame?

Answer: Bill Gates or Bob Geldof

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. <hl> Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof , for example. <hl> Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - <hl> Bill Gates or Bob Geldof <hl>, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - <hl> Bill Gates or Bob Geldof <hl> , for example.


Question: What is an example of irish broadcaster?

Answer: Terry Wogan

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. <hl> An example is Irish broadcaster Terry Wogan , who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE". <hl>

Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame - Bill Gates or Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order. An example is Irish broadcaster <hl> Terry Wogan <hl>, who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".

An example is Irish broadcaster <hl> Terry Wogan <hl> , who was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order in 2005 and on successful application for dual British and Irish citizenship was made a substantive member and subsequently styled as "Sir Terry Wogan KBE".


Question: Who are the six officials of The Order?

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

Answer: Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher

<hl> The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher . <hl> The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Order has six officials: the <hl> Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher <hl>. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Order has six officials: the <hl> Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher <hl> .


Question: Who was The Dean of St. Paul?

Answer: ex officio the Dean of the Order

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. <hl> The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order . <hl> The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is <hl> ex officio the Dean of the Order <hl>. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Dean of St Paul's is <hl> ex officio the Dean of the Order <hl> .


Question: Who serves as the Order's Prelate?

Answer: The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. <hl> The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England , serves as the Order's Prelate. <hl> The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. <hl> The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England <hl>, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

<hl> The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England <hl> , serves as the Order's Prelate.


Question: Who is not a member of the College of Arms?

Answer: The Order's King of Arms

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. <hl> The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. <hl> The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. <hl> The Order's King of Arms <hl> is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.


Question: What is the Usher of the Order?

Answer: Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. <hl> The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod ; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords. <hl>

The Order has six officials: the Prelate; the Dean; the Secretary; the Registrar; the King of Arms; and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the <hl> Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod <hl>; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

The Usher of the Order is known as the <hl> Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod <hl> ; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.


Question: Who was discontinued in the Commonwealth realms?

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.

Answer: Appointments to the Order of the British Empire

<hl> Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. <hl> In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.

<hl> Appointments to the Order of the British Empire <hl> were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.


Question: Who established a national system of honours and awards?

Answer: Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit

<hl> Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit . <hl> In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the <hl> Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit <hl>. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the <hl> Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit <hl> .


Question: How were the different levels of award and honour reflected the imperial system?

Answer: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. <hl> Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) <hl> Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. <hl> Canada, Australia, and New Zealand <hl> all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes.


Question: What were the highest class?

Answer: Knights and Dames

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) <hl> Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having Knights and Dames as their highest classes. <hl>

Appointments to the Order of the British Empire were discontinued in those Commonwealth realms that established a national system of honours and awards such as the Order of Australia, the Order of Canada, and the New Zealand Order of Merit. In many of these systems, the different levels of award and honour reflect the Imperial system they replaced. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have (in increasing level of precedence) Members of, Officers of, and Companions to (rather than Commanders of) their respective orders, with both Australia and New Zealand having <hl> Knights and Dames <hl> as their highest classes.


Question: Who were MBE'S?

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

Answer: The members of The Beatles

<hl> The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. <hl> John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

<hl> The members of The Beatles <hl> were made MBEs in 1965. John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.


Question: In what year was the Beatles made MBE's?

Answer: 1965

<hl> The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965 . <hl> John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in <hl> 1965 <hl>. John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in <hl> 1965 <hl> .


Question: Who compared military membership in the Order?

Answer: John Lennon

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. <hl> John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. <hl> I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. <hl> John Lennon <hl> justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.


Question: Who said "lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE received thris for heroism in the war.

Answer: John Lennon

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. <hl> John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. <hl> I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. <hl> John Lennon <hl> justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.


Question: When did John Lennon return his MBE insignia?

Answer: 25 November 1969

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." <hl> Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on 25 November 1969 as part of his ongoing peace protests. <hl> Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.

The members of The Beatles were made MBEs in 1965. John Lennon justified the comparative merits of his investiture by comparing military membership in the Order: "Lots of people who complained about us receiving the MBE [status] received theirs for heroism in the war – for killing people… We received ours for entertaining other people. I'd say we deserve ours more." Lennon later returned his MBE insignia on <hl> 25 November 1969 <hl> as part of his ongoing peace protests. Other criticism centres on the claim that many recipients of the Order are being rewarded with honours for simply doing their jobs; critics claim that the civil service and judiciary receive far more orders and honours than leaders of other professions.


Question: Who was the most excellent Order of the British Empire?

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

Answer: order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy

<hl> The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the " order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy ", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. <hl> It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "<hl> order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy <hl>", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the " <hl> order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy <hl> ", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service.


Question: When was the order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy established?

Answer: 4 June 1917

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. <hl> It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. <hl> There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on <hl> 4 June 1917 <hl> by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.


Question: Who rewarded contributions to the arts and sciences?

Answer: "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy

<hl> The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy ", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. <hl> It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the <hl> "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy <hl>", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the <hl> "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy <hl> ", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service.


Question: Who established the chivalry of british constiutional monarchy?

Answer: King George V

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. <hl> It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V , and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. <hl> There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on 4 June 1917 by <hl> King George V <hl>, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

It was established on 4 June 1917 by <hl> King George V <hl> , and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female.


Question: Who is the recipient?

Answer: knight if male, or dame if female

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. <hl> It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a knight if male, or dame if female . <hl> There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the "order of chivalry of British constitutional monarchy", rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences, work with charitable and welfare organisations and public service outside the Civil Service. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a <hl> knight if male, or dame if female <hl>. There is also the related British Empire Medal, whose recipients are affiliated with, but not members of, the order.

It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V, and comprises five classes, in civil and military divisions, the most senior two of which make the recipient either a <hl> knight if male, or dame if female <hl> .


Question: What was instituted to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation?

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

Answer: Medal of the Order of the British Empire

<hl> At the foundation of the Order, the " Medal of the Order of the British Empire " was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. <hl> In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the "<hl> Medal of the Order of the British Empire <hl>" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the " <hl> Medal of the Order of the British Empire <hl> " was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership.


Question: What was the medal renamed as?

Answer: British Empire Medal

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. <hl> In 1922, this was renamed the " British Empire Medal ". <hl> It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "<hl> British Empire Medal <hl>". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

In 1922, this was renamed the " <hl> British Empire Medal <hl> ".


Question: In what year was the Medal of the Order of the British Empire established?

Answer: 1922

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. <hl> In 1922 , this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". <hl> It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In <hl> 1922 <hl>, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

In <hl> 1922 <hl> , this was renamed the "British Empire Medal".


Question: When was it stopped being rewarded?

Answer: 1993

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". <hl> It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. <hl> In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the <hl> 1993 <hl> reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".


Question: How many BEM's were awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee?

Answer: 293

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". <hl> It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with 293 BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. <hl> In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".

At the foundation of the Order, the "Medal of the Order of the British Empire" was instituted, to serve as a lower award granting recipients affiliation but not membership. In 1922, this was renamed the "British Empire Medal". It stopped being awarded by the United Kingdom as part of the 1993 reforms to the honours system, but was again awarded beginning in 2012, starting with <hl> 293 <hl> BEMs awarded for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In addition, the BEM is awarded by the Cook Islands and by some other Commonwealth nations. In 2004, a report entitled "A Matter of Honour: Reforming Our Honours System" by a Commons committee recommended to phase out the Order of the British Empire, as its title was "now considered to be unacceptable, being thought to embody values that are no longer shared by many of the country’s population".


Question: From what year could the Sovereign appoint a person as Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire?

From 1940, the Sovereign could appoint a person as a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) below the level required for the George Medal. The grade was determined by the same criteria as usual, and not by the level of gallantry (and with more junior people instead receiving the British Empire Medal). Oddly, this meant that it was awarded for lesser acts of gallantry than the George Medal, but, as an Order, was worn before it and listed before it in post-nominal initials. From 14 January 1958, these awards were designated the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry.

Answer: 1940

<hl> From 1940 , the Sovereign could appoint a person as a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) below the level required for the George Medal. <hl> The grade was determined by the same criteria as usual, and not by the level of gallantry (and with more junior people instead receiving the British Empire Medal). Oddly, this meant that it was awarded for lesser acts of gallantry than the George Medal, but, as an Order, was worn before it and listed before it in post-nominal initials. From 14 January 1958, these awards were designated the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry.

From <hl> 1940 <hl>, the Sovereign could appoint a person as a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) below the level required for the George Medal. The grade was determined by the same criteria as usual, and not by the level of gallantry (and with more junior people instead receiving the British Empire Medal). Oddly, this meant that it was awarded for lesser acts of gallantry than the George Medal, but, as an Order, was worn before it and listed before it in post-nominal initials. From 14 January 1958, these awards were designated the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry.

From <hl> 1940 <hl> , the Sovereign could appoint a person as a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) below the level required for the George Medal.