Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude
Date: November 13, 2012 Source: University of South Carolina
The public policy video “Radioactive Berkeley: No Safe Dose” premiered at the Berkeley City Council in December of 1996. Featured speaker Dr. John Gofman M.D, Ph.D. addresses the medical impacts of low-level radiation exposure.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134224.htm
Summary: Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded, reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years. Variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
he review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there, including Ramsar, Iran, Mombasa, Kenya, Lodeve, France, and Yangjiang, China. These, and a few other geographic locations with natural background radiation that greatly exceeds normal amounts, have long drawn scientists intent on understanding the effects of radiation on life. Individual studies by themselves, however, have often only shown small effects on small populations from which conclusive statistical conclusions were difficult to draw.
“When you’re looking at such small effect sizes, the size of the population you need to study is huge,” said co-author Timothy Mousseau, a biologist in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina. “Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation.”
Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.
The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down’s Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.
The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.
“There’s been a sentiment in the community that because we don’t see obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to be small and localized, that maybe there aren’t any negative effects from low levels of radiation,” said Mousseau. “But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.”
“It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation,” he added. “A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.”
Mousseau hopes their results, which are consistent with the “linear-no-threshold” model for radiation effects, will better inform the debate about exposure risks. “With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,” he said. “But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine.”
“And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports.”
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of South Carolina. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
- Anders P. Møller, Timothy A. Mousseau. The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms. Biological Reviews, 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x
Remembering World War 1 – the movement for peace – theme for December 2014
This year and for the next three years, the world will remember World War 1. There will be significant commemorations in many countries, honouring those who died. There will also be the opportunity for militarism to flourish, and people can readily become confused between respect for those young lives, ended so tragically, and the militaristic ideals of ‘glory’ associated with war. Those who invest in weapons will be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the profits from the next war.
But many, many, people will respect and make use of this commemorative period to advance the world movements for peace, and against war. These movements have a long and honourable history, going back well before world war one.
Very often, it has been organisations of women, who have most strongly resisted and opposed war. “Some of the many groups that protested against the war, as well as the traditional peace churches, were the Woman’s Peace Party (which was organized in 1915 and led by noted reformer Jane Addams), the International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace (ICWPP) (also organized in 1915),[19] the American Union Against Militarism, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the American Friends Service Committee.[20] Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, was another fierce advocate of pacifism, the only person to vote no to America’s entrance into both WorldWars.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_movement
Today, the peace movement is active, across the world, with organisations too many to name here. We know that we are up against those who profit from war – the companies that make weapons, especially nuclear weapons. We are up against the nuclear power industry, with its pretense that it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. We are up against the militarists in every country – who will be glorifying World War 1. We are up against the strange so-called ‘religious’ ideas, of those who would kill unbelievers.
Today’s world threats, especially the chaotic conditions resulting from climate change, are being met by a world reasonable movement for co-operative action to deal with global problems, and by the growing understanding of the need for conflict resolution methods, and diplomacy, to deal with our differences
Belgian nuclear reactor shut down due to fire: Belgium phasing out nuclear power
Fire shuts down Belgian nuclear reactor https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25650869/fire-shuts-down-belgian-nuclear-reactor/A Belgian nuclear reactor has shut down after a fire broke out at the plant in the east of the country, the Belga news agency reported. The incident on Sunday could put a further strain on Belgium’s electricity grid, after warnings in August that outages at other nuclear plants could lead to power cuts in the approaching winter.
The Tihange 3 power station, situated 70 kilometres south-west of the German town of Aachen, shut down automatically after one of its transformers reportedly caught fire. The fire, which has since been extinguished, was caused by an explosion, Sudpresse newspaper group reported on its website.
It was unclear Sunday how long the 1,048-megawatt reactor will remain out of service.Tihange 3 is now the fourth Belgian nuclear reactor to be out of service, as another plant at Tihange and two at Doel have been shut down due to defects or security concerns.
The Tihange 1 reactor was not affected by Sunday’s incident, however. Belgium has adopted a nuclear phaseout plan that foresees the complete abandonment of nuclear energy by 2025.
British jihadi claims that Islamic State has a ‘dirty bomb’
Islamic State has a ‘dirty bomb’ says British jihadi, amid claims 40kg of URANIUM was taken from Iraqi university, Daily Mail,
- Chemical was stolen from Mosul University, northern Iraq, in July
- UN ambassador wrote letter at time of theft fearing ‘mass destruction’
- Hamayun Tariq among jihadis to boast of explosives on Twitter
- Hinted at the potential destruction of such a bomb if detonated in London
- British 37-year-old had social media account suspended afterwards
By JENNIFER SMITH FOR MAILONLINE, 30 November 2014 |slamic State fanatics claim to have constructed a dirty bomb after stealing 40kg of uranium from an Iraqi university.
Militants boasted of the device on social media, with one even commenting on the destruction such a bomb would wreak in London, four months after the chemical was reported missing from Mosul University.
Among extremists making online threats to the West is British explosives expert Hamayun Tariq, who fled his home in Dudley, West Midlands, for the Middle East in 2012.
Scroll down on original page for video ………http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2854729/Islamic-State-dirty-bomb-says-British-jihadi-amid-claims-40kg-uranium-taken-Iraqi-university.html
The spiralling costs of Britain’s Project Pegasus nuclear plant
MoD orders review into spiralling cost of Project Pegasus nuclear plant The Independent, Mark Leftly, 30 Nov 14 The Ministry of Defence has ordered a review into the costs and construction timetable of a highly sensitive manufacturing plant that will enrich uranium for Trident nuclear missiles, amid fears the budget had spiralled out of control.
Project Pegasus, a £634m facility to be built at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Berkshire, is said to be struggling over costs and scheduling. The MoD had said that Pegasus would be completed between 2016 and 2020.
The AWE, which manufactures and maintains Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and the MoD played down the review, but a senior nuclear industry source said it was “extremely serious”. The source added: “Certainly, this is an issue that is going to run and run – and, don’t forget, the Government has a golden share, meaning it can re-procure the contract.”
The golden share is a tiny stake the Government has kept in AWE while a private sector consortium comprising the UK’s Serco and US engineering giants Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering manages the site over 25 years. It permits the government of the day to outvote automatically the three main shareholders in order to protect the national interest. It also grants the MoD the power to strip the consortium of the deal……….
Dr David Lowry, a research policy consultant, has written to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to demand to know how it will cover the staff shortage. Colin Tait, the ONR’s principal inspector, acknowledged there is “increasing competition for scarce nuclear-competent engineers and scientists across the sector”, but said recruitment is yielding results.
Dr Lowry is concerned the shortage is occurring as the Government embarks on building a new fleet of nuclear reactors. “If the Government expands the new build nuclear programme, there would be more pressures on staff and even more stress on an already stressed nuclear regulator.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-orders-review-into-spiralling-cost-of-project-pegasus-nuclear-plant-9893206.html
The most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases – yes, it’s energy efficiency!
Energy Efficiency May Be the Key to Saving Trillions NYT 30 Nov 14 Compared with eye-catching renewable power technologies like wind turbines and solar panels, energy efficiency is nearly invisible. But advocates say doing more with less power may be an even more critical weapon in the fight against climate change and offers big economic benefits, too.
Worldwide, governments, companies and families could be saving trillions of dollars by improving efficiency with cars that go farther on less fuel and improved appliances, light bulbs and factories, experts say. “It’s logical, because we simply waste so much,” said Harry Verhaar, head of global and public affairs at Philips Lighting and chairman of the European Alliance to Save Energy. “Some people call energy efficiency low-hanging fruit. I would even say energy efficiency is fruit lying on the ground. We only need to bend over and pick it up.”
Realizing those energy savings would be a huge boon to the climate, ease illness-causing air pollution, reduce many nations’ reliance on fuel imports and increase competitiveness by lowering costs, the advocates say. It creates jobs in fields like upgrading buildings, and is generally cheaper than the alternative of constructing new power plants and buying more energy, they argue.
But increasing efficiency is logistically complicated, requiring many individuals and organizations to take a tremendous number of small steps, and most nations have failed to aggressively pursue the potential savings………..
The countries that have made the most progress on efficiency are those whose governments have prioritized it, Mr. Nadel said. Many are in Europe, where Germany, for example, requires regular efficiency audits of manufacturers and has stringent building codes, Ms. Young said.
Environmentalists, though, are disappointed with an October agreement by European Union leaders to set a non-binding target of increasing the bloc’s energy efficiency by at least 27 percent by 2030, as part of a broader climate deal.
Monica Frassoni, president of the European alliance, said that would hardly exceed the rate of efficiency improvements already happening, and stronger government action was needed. “These things do not fall from the sky,” she said. “You need political leadership and you need money.” China has made major strides in recent years and ranks fourth on the efficiency scorecard.
When Deng Xiaoping set his sights in the early 1980s on quadrupling economic output, China’s leaders realized that, without dramatic efficiency improvements, it would depend heavily on imported energy, Mr. Sinton said.
“It really takes persistence, and persistence is what has characterized the Chinese effort,” he said. “They began to institutionalize energy efficiency, they allocated money to research and development, they started to set targets.”
While China still has wasteful factories and buildings, it also boasts some of the world’s most efficient, he said………..
Despite up-front costs, advocates say efficiency measures are a bargain compared with other pieces of the puzzle. “Energy efficiency is the only energy that you could say is for free, where you get your money back,” Mr. Verhaar said. “Because it’s energy that you don’t use.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/business/energy-environment/energy-efficiency-may-be-the-key-to-saving-trillions.html?ref=earth&_r=0
Book: Analysis of Europe’s nuclear power industry, and alternatives
Expanded nuclear power capacity in Europe, impact of uranium mining and alternatives http://www.ejolt.org/2014/10/expanded-nuclear-power-capacity-in-europe-impact-of-uranium-mining-and-alternatives/ October 31st, 2014
Ejolt report 12: Expanded nuclear power capacity in Europe, impact of uranium mining and alternatives
The report can be downloaded here.
The policy briefing is here.
Abstract
The nuclear industry has recently undergone what the nuclear lobby called a ‘nuclear renaissance’, with several countries planning to construct or constructing new plants or prolonging the life of existing reactors. However, this ‘nuclear renaissance’ has encountered difficulties in Europe: new reactors currently under construction in Finland and France have been delayed and are running over-budget, while in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy nuclear energy expansion has been put on hold in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident. In the present report we explore the situation in Bulgaria and Slovenia. For both countries nuclear energy is an important part of the national energy mix and both have plans for new nuclear power plants (NPPs).
We closely analyse the history and present situation of nuclear energy in these countries and the internal debate that has evolved in relation to the construction of new plants. Despite many particularities, there are common traits that are also shared in the rest of Europe, notably, the debate over whether to maintain and/or increase a powerful and relatively autonomous source of energy in the face of the high costs of construction and environmental and health risks nuclear energy and radiation entail. The report describes the expansion of nuclear energy – two new planned power plants in Bulgaria and the prolongation of one plant and the construction of a second one in Slovenia. First an overview of the energy mix in both countries is offered. Then a chronology of the nuclear projects is outlined, highlighting the main risks and problems, including social and environmental issues. This overview concludes with an analysis of the cost and benefits of the planned power plants. We also look at the often forgotten first stage of nuclear energy production: uranium mining. We describe the current status and main problems of the closed mines of Bulgaria and Slovenia. Then we analyse alternatives to nuclear projects by focusing on different energy scenarios. With the objective of envisioning a sustainable energy future, we analyse the costs and benefits, and thus the potential for Renewable Energy Sources (RES) as an alternative to NPP expansion.
Keywords: Bulgaria, energy mix scenarios, nuclear power, nuclear renaissance, Public participation, Slovenia, uranium mining
Authors: Dragomira Raeva, Todor Slavov, Desislava Stoyanova, Marta Conde, Lidija Živčič, Tomislav Tkalec, Špela Rode
2014 heading to be the hottest year on record
U.S., British data show 2014 could be hottest year on record Thu Nov 27, 2014
* Warm ending to year could make 2014 hottest after 2010
* U.N. to publish preliminary ranking on Dec. 3
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent OSLO, Nov 27 (Reuters) – This year may eclipse 2010 as the hottest since records began in the 19th century, a sign long-term global warming is being stoked by rising greenhouse gas emissions, scientists said.
The period of January to October 2014 is already among the warmest ever recorded, and a warm ending to the year could easily make it top, according to U.S. and British data.
Sceptics who doubt the necessity of a shift away from fossil fuels to stop the Earth’s climate from heating up point out that world average temperatures have not risen much since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
But the final ranking for 2014, due next year, may influence public and businessperceptions about the severity of climate change. Almost 200 governments are due to agree a U.N. deal to combat global warming in Paris in December next year.
“2014 is more likely than not to be the warmest year,” Tim Osborn, a professor at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told Reuters, saying manmade greenhouse gas emissions are tending to push up temperatures…….http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/27/climatechange-heat-idUKL6N0TG1VV20141127
New book: Uranium mining, unveiling the impacts of the nuclear industry
Uranium mining, unveiling the impacts of the nuclear industry http://www.ejolt.org/2014/11/uranium-mining-unveiling-impacts-nuclear-industry/ November 18th, 2014 Ejolt report 15: Uranium mining, unveiling the impacts of the nuclear industry
The report can be downloaded here.
The policy briefing is here.
Abstract
Uranium mining and milling comprise the first phase of the nuclear fuel cycle, and is one of the most polluting ones. The aim of this report is to give workers and communities basic information about radioprotection. The document deals with the radiological characteristics of materials and waste from the mines, principles of radiation protection, and methods of dose evaluation.
The report draws from on-site studies performed in Bulgaria, Brazil, Namibia and Malawi in the course of the EJOLT project and from previous studies performed by CRIIRAD in France and Africa over the last twenty years. It gives examples of the various impacts of uranium mining and milling activities on the environment (air, soil, water) and provides recommendations for limiting these impacts.
This report aims to contribute towards the development of the critical capacities of communities, so that they might have more information with which to face conflicts with states or companies in relation to uranium mining projects.
Keywords: radiological impact, uranium mining, uranium milling, nuclear power, environmental impact, uranium daughter products, health impact, radioprotection
Authors: Bruno Chareyron, Lidija Živčič, Tomislav Tkalec, Marta Conde
IAEA tells France to smarten up on nuclear power safety
IAEA recommends France raises funds, workforce for nuclear safety, Reuters, PARIS Fri Nov 28, 2014 “……..As the reactors age, approaching 40-years old in the next decade, French nuclear watchdog ASN will need more frequent safety checks requiring more staff and funds, both hard to obtain given government budget constraints……..The head of ASN, Pierre-Frank Chevet, has regularly warned officials of the need to increase the authority’s budget and workforce, but has so far obtained only a fraction of its estimates…….
Chevet also called for a new tax on nuclear operators that would be ringfenced for nuclear safety.
The IAEA mission, which did not disclose the draft report to reporters, also identified issues in need for improvement in the regulatory framework for the control of medical exposure to radiation and in “processes needed to deliver ASN’s mandate.”………
The final report will be given to the French government and made public in about three months. (Reporting by Michel Rose Editing by Jeremy Gaunt) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/28/us-france-nuclear-safety-idUSKCN0JC1LF20141128
No transparency in Ontario Energy Board’s multi-billion-dollar plan to overhaul six nuclear reactors
Ontario Energy Board won’t probe Bruce nuclear overhaul Opposition, Ontario Clean Air Alliance want to see public scrutiny of the multi-billion-dollar plan to overhaul six reactors at the Bruce nuclear generating station. By: John Spears The Star, Business reporter, Nov 27 2014
The multi-billion-dollar plan to overhaul six reactors at the Bruce nuclear generating station won’t be submitted to the Ontario Energy Board for scrutiny.
Nuclear critics had called for public examination of the project, expected to cost in the range of $15 billion.
An energy official confirmed Wednesday that energy minister Bob Chiarelli won’t send the issue to the energy board for hearings.
Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance said the energy board should examine at the project in public.
“This would be the hugest private-sector deal in Ontario’s history,” he said in an interview.
Peter Tabuns, energy critic for the New Democrats, agreed.
“I don’t think it’s something that should be negotiated behind closed doors and stamped in the premier’s office,” he said.
“The public have to be shown a business case for going down this route.” The contract is currently being negotiated between Bruce Power — the private consortium that operates the station under lease — and the Ontario Power Authority. Bruce Power produces about 30 per cent of Ontario’s electricity.
The reactors are owned by Ontario Power Generation, whose sole shareholder is the province………
Gibbons and Tabuns argued that the public needs to be able to see what’s proposed and ask questions before an agreement is signed.
One question: Whether the deal would push up electricity prices, and by how much.
Another: How badly the power is needed, or whether it could be obtained elsewhere. Currently, Ontario frequently has surplus power, some of which is exported at a loss. At times the province has to pay neighbouring jurisdictions to take it.
Tabuns also said he’d like to question whether having a private company operating the plant is the right thing.
“We have not been well served by private ownership and operation of our hydro system,” he said.
“I think it’s time to question that in the kind of forum that the OEB can provide.” http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/11/27/ontario_energy_board_wont_probe_bruce_nuclear_overhaul.html
Uranium spot price plummets as buyers exit market
Uranium spot price plummets as buyers exit market Peter Koven | November 24, 2014 | http://business.financialpost.com/2014/11/24/uranium-spot-price-plummets-as-buyers-exit-market/?__lsa=3fae-7175
The Invisible Belt That Saves Earth From Radiation
Be Thankful For the Invisible Belt That Saves Earth From Radiation, Gizmodo, 26 Nov 14
Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan A NASA-led study of the Van Allen radiation belts has uncovered new information about the invisible “shield” that keeps harmful ultrarelativistic electrons from the Earth.
In a study published in Nature, scientists from MIT and the University of Colorado at Boulder detail their analysis of data from NASA’s Van Allen Probes, which are studying the radiation belts around Earth—just last year, the probes reported the existence of a new, previously-unknown third belt thousands of miles above the Earth. In short, these craft are sending back vital information about the space around our planet. And in Nature this week, we found out even more.
In the study, we learn about the existence of a hard barrier at the bottom of the outermost belt, about 7,000 miles above Earth, and something called “plasmaspheric hiss.” This layer of electromagnetic waves stop the high-energy electrons zinging around the Earth from actually getting close to it. MIT News explains that the “hiss” in the phenomenon’s name is actually due to the sound the waves make over the radio, and that they keep us safe from otherwise quite dangerous radiation:…….http://gizmodo.com/be-thankful-for-the-invisible-belt-that-saves-earth-fro-1663882527
Finland’s parliament greenlights Fennovoima nuclear plant despite opposition
Parliamentary committee greenlights Fennovoima nuclear plant in Finland Alaska Dispatch NewsYLE NewsEye on the Arctic November 27, 2014 Parliament’s Finance Committee voted Thursday to grant a new decision-in-principle for the construction of a nuclear power plant by the Finnish power consortium Fennovoima.
Members of Parliament from the Green League and the Center Party opposed the vote.
The committee upheld the government’s decision to accept changes to the application for a new nuclear power plant to be constructed at Pyhäjoki in northern Ostrobothnia. Members voted 14-2 to give a green light to the Finnish power consortium Fennovoima, which has contracted the Russian state-owned nuclear plant provider Rosatom to build the nuclear facility. Rosatom currently owns 34 percent of the proposed nuclear project. MPs opposing the decision were the Greens’ Johanna Karimäki and the Center Party’s Antti Kaikkonen………
The Greens have long objected to the addition of nuclear capacity and have called for greater investment in renewable energy sources — and in fact based their participation in Jyrki Katainen’s administration on a government undertaking not to construct any new nuclear power plants.
At the time of their departure from government, Greens leader Ville Niinistö also criticised the decision to ink a major deal with a Russian state-owned company at a time when the EU had imposed trade sanctions against Russia over its role in the conflict in Ukraine.
This story is posted on Alaska Dispatch News as part of Eye on the Arctic, a collaborative partnership between public and private circumpolar media organizations. http://www.adn.com/article/20141127/parliamentary-committee-greenlights-fennovoima-nuclear-plant-finland
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (293)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 