||Gillespie wants 300 test scalps for each candidate running for governor in 2018. That's more than double the amount that was provided earlier this year to help him prepare for the 2018 elections.
The governor's office has yet to release the figure for the total number of people who signed a waiver to participate in the testing.
RELATED: 'If there's no Trump, there is nothing for Gillespie'
One of the candidates running to succeed Governor Bob McDonnell said the test program is "a good experiment."
"The governor and the legislature are doing a great job of supporting the research," says state Sen. Jaxon Nichols (R), noting that the governor's office also offers free testing for a limited number of registered voters.
Gov. McDonnell has said the test program is an opportunity for voters to "get out to the polls and express your views and share your concerns." But it's unlikely to be a slam dunk. Republicans who back the state's education funding law have warned that the tests have been too weak for the governor's signature legislative goal of universal pre-K.
"This is just the beginning, and I am very proud of how much attention these state legislators were paying to it," says Nichols.
One challenge for the testing is ensuring everyone who takes the test can pass.
RELATED: What the governor is saying about the Virginia pre-K testing
International ngo releases report on illegal nuclear testing. This is from November 2010.
What they report is that in 2009, after the US and its allies began a massive bombing campaign in Iraq in response to the Iranian nuclear program, the Iraqi government decided to test some of its nuclear weapons at sites in the country, the site of the alleged use of these weapons by the Islamic regime's regime. After this, several sites outside the country were tested. In 2010, it was confirmed that at least 9 of these 9 sites have been used, and most likely 20 or more.
The UK's National Nuclear Security Centre reported that in 2009 a small number of nuclear explosive tests at six of these sites were declared safe for military use by Baghdad. All but one of these were reportedly conducted by Britain. The test site near Erbil was used for training, although other sites were used for maintenance work. It is not clear if these were tests for conventional (non-nuclear) bombs or chemical weapons.
This report, by the National Nuclear Security Centre, came out just before Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit to Baghdad. In 2010, after he became prime minister, Blair visited each of the sites where the weapons were tested and told the media that he had heard the Iraq army was using these weapons. This statement seems to contradict the fact that no UN Security Council resolution has ever said that any of these weapons have been used in any sort of military conflict, although Iraq and Iran (which has weapons of mass destruction) have repeatedly said that they have had these weapons.
In 2010, in response to questions from the British media about whether or not these tests were safe for military use, Blair told the BBC, "no, and we will be putting pressure on them to find out whether these are legitimate or illegitimate."
This statement is important. If it is a real fact that the Iraqi army used these weapons for training exercises, then this could be evidence of some form of criminal activity, not only for which sanctions are being applied, but also, to give the military a fighting chance against the Islamic Republic.
In order to show that these tests were genuine, it is necessary to find out who tested them. So far, that has not been a question raised. All that was done was to confirm the fact that these weapons were used for training exercises. It is the same for the inspections, which were the last thing the inspectors did. These inspections do not suggest the presence of weapons of mass destruction, only that they were conducted for maintenance, and most likely for training. It is also quite clear, from what the inspectors observed, that such a test, even if it were true that the government had used these weapons for training, may be conducted as a form of "pre-planning" for testing mor