Stop government handouts to EDF for Hinkley Point C

Roy Pumfrey, 27th February, https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/your_say/postbag/24966410.letter-stop-government-handouts-edf-hinkley-point-c/
It’s been reported that EDF, under pressure from French national auditors, is still desperately looking for investors in Hinkley Point C (HPC) to replace lost top-up funding from its Chinese partner, CGN.
Despite having talks with lots of potential investors, EDF has been unable to proceed with any of them.
HPC was initially expected to cost £18 billion and to be completed in 2025, but the estimated cost has increased to roughly £46 billion in 2024 terms and the start date has been pushed back to 2029 at the earliest, possibly as late as 2031, because of construction delays.
The UK government is also trying to drum up investors for the Sizewell C (SZC) project in Suffolk.
EDF only wants to invest up to 20 per cent of the estimated cost in the project.
The government is hoping to make a final investment decision on SZC in June.
In January, France’s state auditor said EDF should not proceed with SZC until it had cut its exposure to HPC.
It seems quite likely that EDF is threatening to withdraw from SZC unless the government bails them out on HPC.
EDF has already been given an overly generous index-linked contract to supply electricity from HPC to British consumers at around £130/MWh (at today’s prices) compared to today’s cost of electricity from wind at £44MWh.
There should be no more government handouts to French government-owned EDF.
If they can’t afford to build it on such generous terms, they should stop now.
SZC would be funded in a different way to HPC, which could cost British consumers as much as £100 billion – official cost estimates do not include the cost of the finance needed to build Sizewell.
The obvious thing to do is to cancel SZC now before any more taxpayers’ money is wasted and resist pressure from EDF for us to bail them out on HPC.
Nuclear reactors killing Americans at accelerating rate

John LaForge Guest columnist, Feb 27, 2025 https://www.hometownsource.com/monticello_times/nuclear-reactors-killing-americans-at-accelerating-rate/article_7cb060d2-eef6-11ef-836b-8349ae8997a8.html
A new analysis of public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals alarming evidence that cancer deaths are rising in communities surrounding America’s oldest nuclear power plants.
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, executive director for the Radiation and Public Health Project in New York, has conducted a study showing a disturbing correlation between prolonged exposure to nuclear radiation and increased cancer mortality in affected counties.
According to Mangano’s research, which examines county-by-county cancer mortality data over three distinct time periods, radiation routinely released from nuclear reactors is directly impacting public health.
His findings indicate that cancer deaths in counties hosting 15 of the nation’s 16 oldest nuclear facilities have significantly increased over time, reinforcing longstanding concerns about the safety of prolonged nuclear plant operations.
“There is no safe dose of radiation,” Mangano states, citing the National Academy of Sciences’ BEIR VII report, which confirms that every exposure to ionizing radiation has the potential to trigger cancer.
As nuclear reactors age and continue to release radioactive gases such as helium, xenon and krypton into the atmosphere, residents in nearby communities are at increasing risk of developing cancer due to prolonged exposure.
The data further illustrates the impact of these radiation releases varies based on geographical factors, including wind patterns and local topography.
For example, in Wisconsin, excess cancer deaths were significantly lower near the Point Beach nuclear facility than in counties downwind of the Palisades and DC Cook plants on Lake Michigan’s eastern shore.
These findings suggest that radiation exposure is not uniform and that some communities bear a greater burden than others.
The implications of Mangano’s research are particularly concerning for residents of Wright and Sherburne counties in Minnesota, home to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
Since the plant began operating in 1971, the once-lower-than-average cancer mortality rate in these counties has risen sharply. Projections estimate that between 2031 and 2050, as many as 1,662 excess cancer deaths could occur if Monticello’s operating license is extended through 2051.
“These findings should serve as a wake-up call,” said Kelly Lundeen, a staff member at the Wisconsin-based environmental and nuclear watchdog Nukewatch. “We are urging local, state, and federal officials to take immediate action to phase out commercial nuclear power before more lives are lost.”
Despite growing concerns, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has already approved license extensions for several aging reactors, allowing some to operate for up to 80 years.
Given the demonstrated public health risks, advocates are calling for an immediate halt to these extensions and a transition toward safer, renewable energy sources.
The Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Mississippi River was planning to rally outside of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearing earlier this month to maintain the current shutdown date of the Monticello reactor.
The Radiation and Public Health Project, the organization behind Mangano’s analysis, is pushing for greater transparency in radiation monitoring, stricter regulations on radioactive emissions, and a comprehensive plan to phase out aging nuclear plants.
John LaForge serves as the co-director of Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based environmental and peace action watchdog group.
Nuclear reactors could become targets of war, defence experts warn

The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned the Coalition’s nuclear plans could leave Australia vulnerable to devastating attacks.
Key Points
- The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned nuclear reactors could become targets of war in Australia.
- Nuclear reactors could be targeted by missile attack and sabotage, the group said.
- The Coalition is planning to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states.
Australian nuclear reactors could become a target of war if the Coalition was to go ahead with plans to build them, a group of former defence leaders warn.
The plan to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired stations could leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage, the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group says.
The group, including former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie and former director of preparedness and mobilisation at the Department of Defence Cheryl Durrant, is urging the nation not to go down the path of building nuclear power stations.
Modern warfare is increasingly being fought using missiles and unmanned aerial systems, Barrie said.
“Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage,” he said.
“With the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target.”
Durrant cited the Russia-Ukraine war where both sides have prioritised targeting their opponents’ energy systems
Australia would be no different,” Durrant said.
Nuclear power plants could become a dual target due to their role in energy supply, but also the catastrophic devastation which would occur if facilities were breached.
This means Australia would need to consider introducing expensive and complex missile defence systems and cyber and intelligence resources to defend the plants if war were to break out — which the nation currently lacks.
“Do we prioritise the protection of cities and population centres and military bases, or do we divert vital resources to defending seven nuclear power stations scattered across Australia?” Barrie said.
The group said building nuclear capabilities would derail Australia’s climate targets and exacerbate risks in the region.
How the Warfare State Paved the Way for a Trumpist Autocracy

Biden said nothing about how almost 20 years of nonstop war funding and war making had already altered the character of the nation.
Biden’s designated successor, Vice President Kamala Harris, displayed a traditional militaristic reflex while campaigning against Trump ……… she pledged to maintain “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
In 2024, as in 2016, Trump notably benefitted from the unwavering militarism of his Democratic opponent.
While the warfare state seems all too natural to most politicians and journalists, its consequences over time have been transformational for the United States in ways that have distinctly skewed the political climate. Along the way, militarism has been integral to the rise of the billionaire tech barons who are now teaming up with an increasingly fascistic Donald Trump.
SCHEERPOST, February 28, 2025 , By Norman Solomon / TomDispatch
Donald Trump’s power has thrived on the economics, politics, and culture of war. The runaway militarism of the last quarter-century was a crucial factor in making President Trump possible, even if it goes virtually unmentioned in mainstream media and political discourse. That silence is particularly notable among Democratic leaders, who have routinely joined in bipartisan messaging to boost the warfare state that fueled the rise of Trumpism.
Trump first ran for president nearly a decade and a half after the “Global War on Terror” began in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The crusade’s allure had worn off. The national mood was markedly different than in the era when President George W. Bush insisted that “our responsibility” was to “rid the world of evil.”
Working-class Americans had more modest goals for their government. Distress festered as income inequality widened and economic hardships worsened, while federal spending on war, the Pentagon budget, and the “national security” state continued to zoom upward. Even though the domestic effects of protracted warfare were proving to be enormous, multilayered, and deeply alienating, elites in Washington scarcely seemed to notice.
Donald Trump, however, did notice.
Status-Quo Militarism
President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton represented the status quo that Trump ran against and defeated. Like them, he was completely insulated from the harsh boomerang effects of the warfare state. Unlike them, he sensed how to effectively exploit the discontent and anger it was causing.
Obama was not clueless. He acknowledged some downsides to endless war in a much-praised speech during his second term in office. “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he affirmed at the National Defense University. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
…………………………………………….President Bush’s messianic calls to rid the world of “evil-doers” had fallen out of fashion, but militarism remained firmly embedded in the political economy. Corporate contracts with the Pentagon and kindred agencies only escalated. But when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, being a rigid hawk became a negative with the electorate as pro-Trump forces jumped into the opening she provided.
Six weeks before the election, Forbes published an article under the headline “Hillary Clinton Never Met a War She Didn’t Want Other Americans to Fight.”
Clinton was following a timeworn formula for Democrats trying to inoculate themselves against charges of being soft on foreign enemies, whether communists or terrorists. Yet Trump, deft at labeling his foes both wimps and warmongers, ran rings around the Democratic nominee. In that close election, Clinton’s resolutely pro-war stance may have cost her the presidency.
……………………………….. Leading Democrats and Republicans remained on autopilot for the warfare state as the Pentagon budget kept rising.
On the War Train with Donald Trump……………………………………………………………….
While the warfare state seems all too natural to most politicians and journalists, its consequences over time have been transformational for the United States in ways that have distinctly skewed the political climate. Along the way, militarism has been integral to the rise of the billionaire tech barons who are now teaming up with an increasingly fascistic Donald Trump.
The Military-Industrial-Tech Complex
While President Trump has granted Elon Musk unprecedented power, many other tech moguls have rushed to ingratiate themselves. The pandering became shameless within hours of his election victory last November.
“Congratulations to President Trump on a decisive victory,” Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. “We have great opportunities ahead of us as a country. Looking forward to working with you and your administration.” Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, Whole Foods, and the Washington Post, tweeted: “wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”
Amazon Web Services alone has numerous government contracts, including one with the National Security Agency worth $10 billion and deals with the Pentagon pegged at $9.7 billion. Such commerce is nothing new. For many years, thousands of contracts have tied the tech giants to the military-industrial complex.
Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and smaller rivals are at the helm of corporations eager for government megadeals, tax breaks, and much more. For them, the governmental terrain of the new Trump era is the latest territory to navigate for maximizing their profits. With annual military outlays at 54% of all federal discretionary spending, the incentives are astronomical for all kinds of companies to make nice with the war machine and the man now running it.
While Democrats in Congress have long denounced Trump as an enemy of democracy, they haven’t put any sort of brake on American militarism. Certainly, there are many reasons for Trump’s second triumph, including his exploitation of racism, misogyny, nativism, and other assorted bigotries. Yet his election victories owe much to the Democratic Party’s failure to serve the working class, a failure intermeshed with its insistence on serving the industries of war. Meanwhile, spending more on the military than the next nine countries combined, U.S. government leaders tacitly lay claim to a kind of divine overpowering virtue.
As history attests, militarism can continue for many decades while basic democratic structures, however flawed, remain in place. But as time goes on, militarism is apt to be a major risk factor for developing some modern version of fascism. The more war and preparations for war persist, with all their economic and social impacts, the more core traits of militarism — including reliance on unquestioning obedience to authority and sufficient violence to achieve one’s goals — will permeate the society at large.
During the last 10 years, Donald Trump has become ever more autocratic, striving not just to be the nation’s commander-in-chief but also the commandant of a social movement increasingly fascistic in its approach to laws and civic life. He has succeeded in taking on the role of top general for the MAGA forces. The frenzies that energize Trump’s base and propel his strategists have come to resemble the mentalities of warfare. The enemy is whoever dares to get in his way.
A warfare state is well suited for such developments. Pretending that militarism is not a boon to authoritarian politics only strengthens it. The time has certainly come to stop pretending.
Reawakening a Nuclear Legacy: The Potential Return of the US Nuclear Mission to RAF Lakenheath

Federation of American Scientists 26th Feb 2025, by Eliana Johns & Hans Kristensen, https://fas.org/publication/potential-return-of-the-us-nuclear-mission-to-raf-lakenheath/
In the spring of 2022, researchers at the Federation of American Scientists began reading newly released U.S. Defense Department budget documents to look for updates concerning the Pentagon’s priorities for the next fiscal year. As the researchers poured over hundreds of pages, two words suddenly captured their attention: the Biden administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 budget request had added “the UK” to a list of countries receiving upgrades to their “special weapons” storage sites under a 13-year NATO investment program. The term “special weapons” is often used by the U.S. government when referring to nuclear weapons. However, the United States has not deployed nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom for nearly two decades. Those two words sparked dozens of questions, years of continued research, and a new local movement of protests against the return of a potential nuclear mission to RAF Lakenheath.
This new report provides an account of the nuclear history of RAF Lakenheath and the role it played in the US nuclear mission until nuclear weapons were withdrawn in 2008. The report then explains the mounting evidence from three years of collection of documentation and observations that show the United States Air Force is re-establishing its nuclear mission on UK soil for the first time in nearly two decades.
As of February 2025, there are no known public indications that nuclear weapons have been deployed to RAF Lakenheath – we assess that the return of the nuclear mission is intended primarily as a backup rather than to deploy weapons now. However, if this were to happen, it would break with decades of policy and planning and reverse the southern focus of the European nuclear deployment that emerged after the end of the Cold War. Even without weapons present, the addition of a large nuclear air base in northern Europe is a significant new development that would have been inconceivable just a decade-and-a-half ago.
Scotland can’t afford the risks of the nuclear fuel chain

Disasters might be “rare” as if that is at all comforting, but
Chernobyl and Fukushima are reminders of the consequences that nuclear can
bring. Scotland’s geography and weather conditions are, granted, somewhat
more stable than the likes of Japan – but that’s only true at this
moment in time.
We are already seeing the accelerated effects of climate
change taking hold here, and while we might be shielded to an extent for
now – we can’t guarantee that stability long term. In fact, it’s
pretty likely that stability will be eroded if we continue hurtling down
this path of climate destruction that we’re currently on, and we’re
showing no signs of slowing down. Even without potential changes to our
natural environment, the long-term risks of building a nuclear plant near
populated areas are just too high.
A major accident, however unlikely,
would have unimaginable consequences for a small country like Scotland.
Reactors themselves might not emit carbon, but nuclear energy is by no
means “clean” as it is marketed. The entire life cycle of nuclear
energy involves environmental risks that Scotland can’t afford – risks
that we simply do not need to take.
The National 27th Feb 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24967406.independence-nuclear-option-will-unlock-potential/
‘Not everyone knows acronyms’: Australian politicians shrug off Trump blunder on AUKUS

By Richard Wood • Senior Journalist Feb 28, 2025, https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-stumbles-when-asked-about-aukus-defence-deal/6a602864-b990-4d37-95a4-530e31bd96e8
Politicians from both sides in Australia have weighed in today on US President Donald Trump’s apparent stumble when he said he did not know what AUKUS was.
Trump was hosting visiting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House when the pair were asked by a reporter whether they’d be discussing AUKUS, under which Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
“What does that mean?” Trump replied.
First shipment of 280,000 tons Aggregate arrives by rail at Cumbria low-level nuclear waste site for final capping

The first shipments via rail of 280,000t of aggregate by Nuclear Transport
Solutions (NTS) have been delivered to the Low Level Waste Repository
(LLWR) site in Cumbria, which will form a 100-year barrier for nuclear
wastes.
Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) is responsible for managing the
disposal of the UK’s low-level radioactive waste including at the LLWR
site. NTS is a transport and logistics provider which operated Direct Rail
Services (DRS) which transports nuclear and radioactive materials via rail.
Both NWS and NTS are part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which
itself is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). The LLWR is the only
facility in the UK permitted to receive all categories of radioactive and
nuclear low level waste (LLW) and NWS describes it as “the nation’s
principal disposal facility for LLW”.
New Civil Engineer 26th Feb 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/aggregate-arrives-by-rail-at-cumbria-low-level-nuclear-waste-site-for-final-capping-26-02-2025/
Ukraine to soon jump back out of the fire and into the frying-pan?
https://theaimn.net/ukraine-to-soon-jump-back-out-of-the-fire-and-into-the-frying-pan/ 1 Mar 25
Volodymyr Zelensky met Donald Trump and J.D. Vance to work out a peace agreement. “What started as nervous diplomacy ended as a Three Stooges pie-fight,”- but as Trump put it “It made great television“.
Was anyone really expecting Zelensky to cave in to the planned deal, when he continued to insist on NATO membership for Ukraine, all territories returned, and American military support? As Trump unkindly put it, the Ukrainians “don’t have any cards” in this negotiation.
The military situation? It looks as if Russia is winning, and there is no doubt that Ukraine cannot prevail unless the USA continues its military backing:
“Russia’s military for months has been reporting a slow but steady advance westward across Donetsk region, capturing village after village……….The troops have been closing in for several seeks on the key logistics centre of Pokrovsk….. Moscow’s troops have focused on capturing Donbas — made up of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.”
The humanitarian situation:
“The conflict in Ukraine has displaced over 3.5 million people within the country and forced over 6.8 million to leave the country as of January 2025……….. an estimated 12.7 million requiring humanitarian aid and protection, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR).The war has sparked economic shocks and disruption with global ramifications, impacting people in poverty and contributing to an escalating global hunger crisis”
“Millions of people are living in damaged buildings without basic necessities like electricity, water, or heat.”…………………………………According to the United Nations (U.N.), 12.7 million people will need humanitarian aid and protection in 2025
The war in Ukraine has had a devastating impact on children, with over 2,400 killed or injured since the conflict escalated in February 2022, an average of 16 child casualties every week, according to UNICEF.
So where do negotiations stand now?
Zelensky doesn’t seem to understand that in a real negotiation, both sides have to get something out of it. However much Zelensky and the West hate the Russian President, Vladimir is in a powerful position, and it is simple logic that he would need some concessions from Ukraine. That’s something that Donald Trump well understands, (along with the opportunities for American business in this negotiation.)
What happens next is very much up to the Ukrainian Parliament, and also to Trump, who has already shown willingness to make some concessions on his demands for financial repayments to USA . We could see a dramatic fall from grace by Volodymyr Zelensky, and his departure into irrelevance.
Politics in Ukraine.
The Western media have fawned over Zelensky, and ignored some unsavoury aspects of his government. His rule has become dictatorial. “The president has reduced the national legislature to a tool for rubber-stamping his decisions, a major outlet reports” The national parliament – the Verkhovna Rada has long been tightly controlled by the presidential administration. Before 2022 Zelensky cracked down on opposition politicians and critical media. He has admired, and restored the reputation of, Ukraine’s past Nazi group leaders, Stepan Bandera, Evgeny Konovalets, Yaroslav Hunka. He banned Ukraine’s largest Christian orthodox, church, banned the use of the Russian language in official and public documents, banned performance of all Russian language books, music, and films, in public. He has supported one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in modern Ukrainian history: Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky.
Business and Corruption in Ukraine. One can hardly blame Zelensky for this – corruption has been consistent in Ukraine, following paths similar to organised crime and political parties in the post-Soviet Union . Transparency International ranks Ukraine low on the “clean” list. In the annual ranking it still ranks 104th among 180 countries. 92% of Ukrainians identify corruption as a severe national issue in 2024, second only to the war.
The USA role in corruption in Ukraine. Well, it’s hard to find information on this. The U.S. Republicans tried hard to pin this on President Biden’s son Hunter, without much success. However he did not come up squeaky clean. Hunter Biden did have business dealings in Ukraine, which included high paid consultancies and gifts, In December 2024, Biden’s father pardoned him for all federal offenses committed between 2014 and 2024, including any potential offenses not yet discovered.
But let’s wait and see what kind of corruption might emerge in Ukraine, once Trump has achieved this contentious peace deal. His record from his previous presidency:
“As president, Donald Trump has flouted all kinds of norms, starting with his decision not to divest from his business interests while in office. That set the stage for an administration marked by self-interest, profiteering at the highest levels and more than 3,700 conflicts of interest.”
All of which leads me to conclude that things are not going to be easy for Ukraine, whatever the outcome of this crisis about a peace deal. It is generally accepted that Ukraine simply cannot fight on without the military backing of the USA. It’s difficult, and confusing, to predict what kind of backing can Ukraine expect from European nations and the UK.
The most likely outcome – the Ukrainian parliament does decide to agree to a deal with Russia, which will entail considerable USA business presence , and commercial gain from resources, both in Ukraine and in Russia. Hardly a surprise – as that’s what Donald Trump is all about- American business interests in control.
It doesn’t sound like a great outcome for Ukraine. But from the humanitarian point of view, it sounds better than the carnage of war.
More powerful than Hiroshima: how the largest ever nuclear weapons test built a nation of leaders in the Marshall Islands.

Shiva Gounden and Shaun Burnie , Greenpeace 28th Feb 2025, https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/65565/nuclear-victims-remembrance-day-united-states-must-comply-with-marshall-islands-demands-for-recognition-and-nuclear-justice/
71 years ago, on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, a nuclear bomb with the codename “Castle Bravo”, exploded with an energy of 15 megatons. The mushroom cloud reached 40 kilometres into the atmosphere, resulting in thousands of square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean being contaminated by radioactivity. Its explosive yield was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb; and within four hours of the explosion, radioactive fallout made up of crushed coral, water, and radioactive particles, rained down over inhabited atolls, including Rongelap Atoll, which was 150 kilometres away. A fine white ash landed on the heads and bare arms of people standing in the open, dissolving into water supplies and drifting into houses. Witnesses of the Bravo nuclear fireball described seeing a second sun rising in the west, just before the terrifying shock waves hit them.
For the people of the Marshall Islands, that day on March 1 1954 will forever be known as Remembrance Day – the anniversary of Castle Bravo, the largest ever nuclear weapons ‘test’ conducted by the United States military.
In the 1950s, after the explosion, U.S. government scientists warned that the people of Marshall Islands were subjected to “high sub-lethal dose of gamma radiation, extensive beta burns of the skin, and significant internal absorption of fission products”. They were subjected to decades of medical experiments run by secretive U.S. laboratories, later to be discovered as “Project 4.1”.
71 years after the detonation, there remains no cancer clinic in the whole country. Many of the citizens still live in permanent exile, with some of the islands vaporised by nuclear weapons, while others remain too radioactive for safe return. The consequences of Castle Bravo have echoed through generations of the people in the Marshall Islands who have been denied the right to justice, proper medical care, and full reparation for loss and damage.
“After centuries of colonial rule, the people of the Marshall Islands and the wider Pacific, were made 20th century victims of a nuclear arms race which for them was never a ‘Cold War’,” said Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. “But all through this, their decades of resilience, resistance and refusal to be silenced in their quest for nuclear justice, has been an inspiration across generations. The proud people of the Marshall Islands have retained their profound and deep connection to their Pacific home, despite all efforts to destroy that connection through displacement and contamination. That same determination is now evident in their response to the devastating impacts of climate change. The refusal of the U.S. to meet in full their obligations, is matched today by the neo-colonial forces which deny the right of Pacific islanders to climate justice, funds for climate adaptation and mitigation, and financing for loss and damage. Today, we pay our deepest respects to the people of the Marshall Islands and their demands for nuclear and climate justice.”
The Marshall Islands government continues its strenuous efforts to secure compensation and justice from the U.S. government. It received US$150 million in nuclear compensation under its 1986 Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the U.S. The COFA established a tribunal to adjudicate compensation claims. The tribunal sought over US$3 billion in today’s dollars that the U.S. has never paid. In addition the US government has left the Marshallese with a “ticking time bomb” – the Runit Dome. After years of nuclear testing, a concrete dome measuring 114 meters in diameter and filled with radioactive waste has been left to the Marshallese. Climate change and rising sea levels have caused cracks to appear; and since the Marshall Islands independence in the late 70s, the US has absolved all responsibility of the maintenance of the Dome and have left it to the Marshall Islands government.
Like the resilient people of the Marshall Islands who refuse to give up, Greenpeace stands in genuine and deep solidarity by elevating the voices and stories of the communities impacted by the testing of nuclear weapons and the dangers it imposes. As their people are today pursuing those responsible for their suffering through the human rights institutions of the United Nations, Greenpeace will also continue to highlight this injustice. Jimwe im Maron
This article was originally published in 2024, to mark the 70 year anniversary of the Castle Bravo test. In 1957, just three years after the detonation, the people of Rongelap were told by the US government their island was deemed safe and asked to return. Decades later, after experiencing too many health complications and finding the island unsafe to live in, the people of Rongelap asked for assistance from Greenpeace; and in 1985, the Rainbow Warrior helped evacuate them from their home and move them to Mejatto Island.
In 2025, the Rainbow Warrior will be visiting again – this time to support and amplify the Marshall Islands’ courageous ongoing call for justice and fight for systemic change at a global level.
Shiva Gounden is the Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Shaun Burnie is International Climate & Nuclear Campaigner for Greenpeace International.
ELON AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX

Bruce Gagnon, Feb 28, 2025, Pentagon and StarLink
“…………………………………………………………………………………………….Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.
Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.
After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was savedby an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.
Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.
Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.
In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.
Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

The repugnantly infantile libertarian extremist Elon Musk
An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.
In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.
The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.
In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.
More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.
The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.
On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make. https://brucegagnon177089.substack.com/p/the-pentagon-and-starlink-satellites?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3720343&post_id=158057576&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Supreme Court faces the absurdly difficult problem of where to put nuclear waste

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.
America’s worst NIMBY problem comes to the Supreme Court.
by Ian Millhiser, Vox , 26th Feb 2025,
https://www.vox.com/scotus/399304/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby
On March 5, the Supreme Court will hear a case that may involve one of the most toxic examples of NIMBYism in American history. The issue at the heart of Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas arises out of a predictable problem: Absolutely no one wants radioactive waste anywhere near where they live or work, but that waste has to go somewhere.
Texas, as the case name suggests, involves an effort by the federal government to store nuclear waste in Texas, and at the same time, solve a problem it’s struggled with for nearly 40 years.
To fully understand what’s before the Supreme Court in Texas, we need to go back to 1982, when Congress passed a law that was supposed to establish a permanent repository for all of the radioactive waste produced by America’s nuclear power plants. This waste remains dangerous for thousands or even tens of thousands of years after it is produced, so it made sense to find a spot far from human civilization where it can be buried.
But then NIMBY — that’s “not in my backyard” — politics set in.
The US Department of Energy identified several possible sites for the waste, and eventually culled those sites down to three — one in Texas, one in Washington state, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But, in 1987, before these officials could complete the selection process, Congress stepped in and chose the Nevada site for them.
According to a Slate article on the eventual collapse of the Yucca Mountain plan, this choice is easy to explain when you look at who ran Congress at the time. The House speaker was Jim Wright, a representative from Texas. The House majority leader was Tom Foley, from Washington. So Nevada, which had the weakest congressional delegation at the time, lost out.
Indeed, according to Rod McCullum of the Nuclear Energy Institute, “the 1987 Amendment is now commonly referred to as the ‘screw Nevada’ bill.”
By the time President Barack Obama took office, however, the balance of power in Congress had changed. Sen. Harry Reid, of Nevada, was the majority leader. He set out, with the Obama administration’s support, to kill the Yucca Mountain project. Congress, at Obama’s urging, zeroed out funding for Yucca Mountain. Then, just in case the project wasn’t already dead enough, a 2013 court decision ordered the government to stop collecting taxes that would have funded the permanent storage facility until it could figure out where that facility would be located.
And that brings us to the present date, and to the issue before the Supreme Court in the Texas case. Without a permanent storage facility on the horizon, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned to an older statute which has been understood to allow it to authorize temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste since the 1970s, licensing a private facility to handle storage in Andrews County, Texas.
Texas eventually sued to block this facility, as did a nearby landowner. Their case wound up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Two of these judges are from Texas. It’s not hard to guess what happened next.
And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.
Indeed, the 1954 law’s language allowing the NRC to license possession of these three kinds of material is quite broad. The NRC may license possession of special nuclear material for reasons that it “determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes” of the law. It may license possession of source material for any “use approved by the Commission as an aid to science or industry.” And it may license possession of byproduct material for “industrial uses” or for “such other useful applications as may be developed.”
Though both Texas and the landowner claim that this language should not be read to permit the kind of license at issue in the Texas case, they are swimming against at least a half-century of precedent. The landowner’s brief concedes that the NRC first claimed the authority to license facilities under the 1954 law in 1975 (it claims that this fact cuts against the government’s case, because the NRC waited two decades to claim this power, but the fact remains that this question has been settled for 50 years). The landowner’s brief also concedes that the NRC finalized regulations governing licenses for such facilities in 1980.
That said, the landowner’s brief does make a plausible — if not, exactly, airtight — argument that the 1982 law overrides the 1954 law’s provisions concerning private storage facilities. (Texas’s brief, by contrast, is heavy on overwrought rhetoric claiming that nuclear waste must be stored at Yucca Mountain, and light on the kind of statutory analysis that a responsible judge would rely upon in deciding this case.)
Among other things, the landowner’s legal team points to three provisions of the 1982 law which say that the NRC shall “encourage” storage of nuclear waste “at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor,” and take other steps to promote such onsite storage. They also point to a provision calling for a federal storage facility. And, they highlight a provision stating that the 1982 law should not be read to “encourage” or “authorize” private storage facilities away from a reactor.
As the landowner’s legal team writes, allowing the Texas facility to exist would “discourage” creating new storage capacity at reactor sites, the opposite of what the 1982 law was supposed to accomplish.
It’s safe to say that, when Congress wrote the 1982 law, they imagined a world where nuclear waste would be stored either at reactor sites or at a federal facility, and not at a private facility like the one at issue in Texas. But the 1982 law also does not explicitly repeal the 1954 law’s provisions governing the three kinds of nuclear material. So the government has a very strong argument that it can still rely on those provisions to license the facility in Texas.
There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will simply make this case go away
There’s a real possibility that the Supreme Court will get rid of this case on procedural grounds, effectively handing a victory to the government.
Briefly, the federal law that both Texas and the landowner relied upon to bring their case to the Fifth Circuit permits “any party aggrieved by the final order” of the NRC to challenge that decision in a federal appeals court. The government argues that, to qualify as a “party,” Texas or the landowner must have participated “as a litigant” in the NRC’s internal proceeding governing the Andrews County license.
While both the state and the landowner took some steps to make their views known to the NRC during that proceeding, neither ever officially became litigants. Thus, the government argues, they do not count as a “party” to that proceeding which can appeal the NRC’s decision, and the Court should toss the case out. The key thing to know about this legal argument is that it may be enough to prevent the justices from reaching the merits of this particular case.
If the Court does reach the merits, however, it faces a difficult decision. Allowing the Andrews County project to move forward will undoubtedly trigger the same kind of political backlash that has accompanied every other attempt to pick a site to store nuclear waste. But, if this project is not allowed, it’s far from clear where the waste would go.
Tonnes of nuclear waste to be sent back to Europe

Federica Bedendo, BBC News, North East and Cumbria, 27th Feb 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwddyg7e4do
More than 700 tonnes of nuclear waste is due to be shipped to Europe as part of a project to send back spent fuel to the countries that produced it.
The Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria was tasked with reprocessing the nuclear material used to produce electricity in Germany.
Seven cylindric containers, each carrying up to 110 tonnes of recycled nuclear waste, are due to make the journey to the Isar Federal storage facility by sea on a specialist vessel.
A Sellafield spokesman said the move was a “key component” of the strategy to “repatriate high level waste from the UK”.
This will be the second of three shipments from the UK to the European country.
The first shipment of six containers – known as flasks – to Biblis, was completed in 2020.
Each flask is about 20ft (6m) long, with a 8ft (2.5m) diameter.
The waste will be transported by sea on a specialist vessel to a German port, then onwards by rail to its final destination.
The Pentagon and Starlink Satellites

it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.
The stakes are high. If successful, the US could again intimidate the world through nuclear blackmail
Bruce Gagnon, Feb 28, 2025
Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.
A NEW GLOBAL ARMS RACE
Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.
Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:
Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”
Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.
Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisorsare ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.
Castelion’s advisors and leadership team are extensively connected to SpaceX and the CIA
Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:
Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”
The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.
WAR AND PEACE
Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.
In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.
If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.
President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparked vast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.
With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.
The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.
Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.
However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.
In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.
NUKING JAPAN? OK. NUKING MARS? EVEN BETTER!
Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimed that nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.
According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.
Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.
Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.
“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.
The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.
ELON AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX……………………………………………………………. more https://brucegagnon177089.substack.com/p/the-pentagon-and-starlink-satellites?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3720343&post_id=158057576&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Letter: Hinkley Point C will be a Sellafield waste dump

By Jo Smoldon,
Burnham & Highbridge Weekly News 25th Feb 2025, https://www.burnhamandhighbridgeweeklynews.co.uk/news/24957412.letter-hinkley-point-c-will-sellafield-waste-dump/
In response to your Hinkley article around all the jobs created at Hinkley Point C, yes, of course it is good that the nuclear industry is training people to understand the nuclear sites and maybe later the nuclear process.
Nuclear, due to its very, very long-term footprint, has to be understood for thousands of years to come when the radioactive waste will need managing at high costs and high risk on this Hinkley location.
Trying to attract young people into a subject that is very antiquated in its science has been something that government and business will have to invest in forever.
Nuclear power for electricity is made by the last century science of steam driving turbines to condense to hot water.
Two-thirds of the energy produced from the reactors is thrown out in the form of hot water to be discharged into the Severn Estuary, hardly a ‘low-carbon energy’ if looked at in real terms!
What hasn’t been mentioned with all this bigging up the Hinkley site is that it will be the big Sellafield waste dump of the south, as after B station waste has been transferred to Sellafield, no more nuclear waste will move from Somerset.
Radioactive waste will remain on the North Somerset coast forever, how does that fit with the predicted sea level rise, extreme coastal events and Somerset’s regular flooding events?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (246)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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





