Swutzerland’s Beznau plants to be focus of legal action against nuclear inspectorate
After the disaster at Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011, the government demanded Axpo, the Beznau plant operator, and other nuclear companies to step up their safety margins to make sure they were adequately flood and earthquake-proof. ………
Four of the country’s five reactors are temporarily offline for different reasons. Since August 14 block 2 at the nuclear power plant Beznau in canton Aargau has been offline. It will be out of service for four months while maintenance is carried out. Among the planned tasks is the replacement of the reactor pressure vessel cover. Block 1 at the plant has been out of service since March due to irregularities in the pressure vessel. Weak spots were found in the 15cm steel covering of the vessel.
Nuclear power plants in Leibstadt and Mühleberg are also currently not producing any energy due to annual maintenance service.
After the Fukushima disaster, the Swiss government decided to decommission all five of Switzerland’s nuclear power plants, starting in 2019 and ending by 2034. However, no exact dates were given for the individual reactors to be shut down. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/nuclear-power_nuclear-critics-threaten-legal-action-over-beznau-plant/41614406
Judge’s ruling prioritises uranium industry over Grand Canyon’s health and environment
TAKE ACTION: Tell President Obama to protect the Grand Canyon from mining and share the message on Facebook
This uranium project could haunt the Grand Canyon region for decades to come,” said Katie Davis with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Uranium mining leaves a highly toxic legacy that endangers human health, wildlife and the streams and aquifers that feed the Grand Canyon. It’s disappointing to see the Forest Service prioritizing the extraction industry over the long-term protection of a place as iconic as the Grand Canyon.”
‘Beyond Unacceptable’: Judge OKs Uranium Mine at Grand Canyon s underground aquifers. Slamming ruling, conservationists warn of irreversible contamination of the canyon’s underground aquifers.By Reynard Loki / AlterNet August 12, 2015 In June, the Grand Canyon was named one of the “Most Endangered Places” in America by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. But the designation came just two months too late to possibly influence U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell. In April, he denied a request by the Havasupai tribe and a coalition of conservation groups to halt new uranium mining next to Grand Canyon National Park, just six miles from the Grand Canyon’s South Rim.
“We are very disappointed with the ruling by Judge Campbell in the Canyon Mine case,” said Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi. “We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties.” He said that the Havasupai Tribal Council would appeal the decision.
Cleaning Up Contamination? Next to Impossible Continue reading
Lawsuit against USA government by young climate activists
Youth Sue Obama Administration For Allowing Climate Change, Violating Constitutional Rights
“We have a moral obligation to leave a healthy planet for future generations.” Huffington Post, 08/12/2015
Twenty-one young people from around the country filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on Tuesday accusing the federal government of violating their rights by contributing to climate change through the promotion of fossil fuels.
The plaintiffs, who range in age from 8 to 19, filed their complaint in U.S. District Court in Oregon. The complaint lists numerous defendants, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Defendants have for decades ignored their own plans for stopping the dangerous destabilization of our nation’s climate system,” the plaintiffs said in their complaint, which was filed with the help of the Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children’s Trust. “Defendants have known of the unusually dangerous risk of harm to human life, liberty, and property that would be caused by continued fossil fuel use and increase [carbon dioxide] emissions.”
While setting new policies to reduce carbon emissions, the Obama administration has often touted an “all of the above” approach to energy policy that includes oil, natural gas, coal and renewable energy, the complaint continues. By continuing to promote the development and use of fossil fuels, the federal government violated their constitutional rights, the young plaintiffs allege.
“What we are providing is an opportunity for them to participate in the civic democratic process and go to the branch of government that can most protect their rights,” said Julia Olson, the lead counsel on the case………
In early August, Obama called climate change “one of the key challenges of our lifetime.”
“We’re the first generation to feel the effects of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it,” the president told an audience at an event in the White House’s East Room, where he unveiled new regulations on emissions from power plants.
But in the eyes of Olson and the plaintiffs, that’s not enough. They are asking for a court orderto force Obama to immediately implement a national plan to decrease atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million — a level many scientists agree is thehighest safe concentration permissible — by the end of this century. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already hit 400 parts per million.
“It’s really important that the court step in and do their jobs when there’s such intense violation of constitutional rights happening,” Olson said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/youth-obama-climate-change-lawsuit_55cbc451e4b064d5910a7183
$4.1-million settlement to Hanford nuclear weapons site whistle-blower
Tamosaitis, who is well-known within the small community of experts in chemical mixing technology, had the largest national impact. The concerns he raised led the Energy Department to order a full-scale test of the mixing system, which has yet to be completed.
“The safety culture in the entire Energy Department complex is bad,” he said. “The Energy Department needs to clamp down on the contractors. It is systemwide.”
Hanford nuclear weapons site whistle-blower wins $4.1-million settlement LA Times, By RALPH VARTABEDIAN contact the reporter Twitter: @rvartabedian When Walter Tamosaitis warned in 2011 that the Energy Department’s plans for a waste treatment plant at the former Hanford nuclear weapons complex were unsafe, he was demoted and put in a basement room with cardboard boxes and plywood for office furniture.
Tamosaitis had been leading a team of 100 scientists and engineers in designing a way to immobilize millions of gallons of highly toxic nuclear sludge as thick as peanut butter. The sludge, which could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to a nearby person within minutes, is stored in leaking underground tanks near the Columbia River in Washington state.
Two years later, Tamosaitis was fired after 44 years with San Francisco-based engineering firm URS, which was later acquired by Los Angeles-based AECOM. He filed a wrongful termination suit but encountered some initial legal setbacks, and it looked as if he had been blackballed from the industry.
But on Wednesday, Tamosaitis won a $4.1-million settlement from AECOM, among the largest known legal damages paid out to a whistle-blower in the Energy Department’s vast nuclear waste cleanup program. Continue reading
Lawsuit against TEPCO, over Fukushima resident’s suicide
Fukushima operator sued over suicide of 102-yo by hanging during evacuation,
Fumio Okubo was living in the village of Iitate, only 38 km from Fukushima Daiichi, when a massive earthquake and tsunami led to the meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the nuclear plant in March 2011. His village was in an area of moderate contamination.
A month later in April, the authorities called for the village to be evacuated, but Okudo was apparently emotionally unable to leave the home where he was born and had lived his entire life.
After learning about the evacuation order on April 22, 2011 via TV, the old farmer told his daughter-in-law Mieko Okubo:“I don’t want to evacuate… I think I have lived a bit too long.”
The next day Mieko found him hanging his room.
Now Mieko, 62, says the 102-year-old’s family is suing Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) for 60 million yen ($485,000) in compensation.
“I want them to realize the gravity of what happened. A person who lived to become 102 chose to kill himself. We want them to know the pains that we as his family have to suffer,” she said at a press conference in Fukushima, adding that the family “will use this opportunity to speak about our feelings.”
The lawsuit filed on Wednesday also says Okubo “was not able to think about living anywhere else” because his“acquaintances, property and purpose of life were all in the village.”………..
Subsidies for UK’s Hinkley nuclear plant – appealed in court by 10 companies
10 Companies Appealing €100 Billion In Subsidies For UK’s Hinkley Nuclear Project http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/23/10-companies-appealing-e100-billion-subsidies-uks-hinkley-nuclear-project/ by James Ayre
The relatively recent decision by the European Commission to approve roughly €100 billion in subsidies for the Hinkley Point C nuclear energy project in the UK is already being legally challenged, according to recent reports. The legal challenge is coming via an alliance of 10 companies — which includes various renewable energy suppliers and municipal utility companies, as well as Greenpeace Energy. The plea for an annulment of the approval is being made via the European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Reportedly, according to the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, the chances that the challenge will be successful are low. Based on recent events, one could argue that Germany is essentially the de facto head of the Commission, so that doesn’t seem to bode well for the legal challenge.
The challenge is being handled by Dörte Fouquet, of the Becker Büttner Held law firm. He commented on the situation thusly: “(The European Commission used) an incorrect evaluation benchmark because these British subsidies are an unlawful State Aid and not an investment aid. Moreover … there is no general failure of the energy market which could justify these proposed subsidies.”
For some background here, the subsidies call for the European Commission to provide £92.5/megawatt-hour (MWh) in support for 35 years to the 3.2 gigawatt (GW) nuclear project.
Figures provided by Greenpeace show that subsidies for the Hinkley Point C project will total some €108.6 billion over that period if inflation is taken into account (€53.7 billion without taking inflation into account). These subsidies are in addition to more than €20 billion in credit guarantees made by the UK.
That’s certainly quite a lot of state support for nuclear energy, is it not? And people are still claiming that it’s economically viable?
“This high level of subsidization means that Hinkley Point C can generate power at negative prices without suffering financial losses. Hinkley Point C lowers the wholesale price of power in the UK. Lower prices lead to an increased import of electricity from the UK to Germany. These imports lower the price of power in Germany, reducing the profits of its conventional and renewable power plants. This effect can lower the price of electricity in Germany by as much as 20 euro cents per megawatt-hour,” as Greenpeace put it in a recent statement.
The companies involved in the legal challenge are oekostrom AG, Greenpeace Energy, and Energieversorgung Filstal. The municipal utilities involved in the appeal are Bochum, Mainz, Schwäbisch Hall, Tübingen, Mühlacker, Aalen, and Bietigheim-Bissingen.
Legal action against Canada’s plan for radioactive trash dump near Lake Huron
Group taking battle over nuclear waste burial plan to court http://london.ctvnews.ca/group-taking-battle-over-nuclear-waste-burial-plan-to-court-1.2419411 Scott Miller, CTV London June 12, 2015
Plans to build Canada’s first permanent nuclear waste storage facility are heading to court.
A citizen’s group called Save Our Saugeen Shores has asked the Federal Court of Canada to put the project on ice.
They are appealing for a judicial review of the Joint Review Panel decision of May 7th, which recommended approval of the multi-million dollar project. Following six weeks of public hearings and months of deliberation a three-person panel recommended Ontario Power Generation be allowed to build an underground facility near Lake Huron to house all of Ontario’s low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste.
If approved by the federal government, it would be Canada’s first permanent nuclear waste storage facility.
Save our Saugeen Shores argues the Joint Review Panel erred in their decision because of “multiple legal errors, bias-tainted process, and its acceptance of evidence of, and reliance on, deceptive and unlawful conduct.”
Jill Taylor is president of Save our Saugeen Shores. She says “If the federal government is not prepared to respect its own environmental laws and processes, how can they expect Canadian industry and the Canadian public to do so?”
The federal environment minister has moved a deadline to make a final decision on the project until early December. The deadline was initially early September, before October’s federal election.
Save our Saugeen Shores wants the Joint Review Panel decision quashed and a new, more thorough process to be undertaken before allowing Ontario Power Generation to proceed with construction.
If built, 200,000 cubic metres of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste would be buried within 1.5 kilometres of Lake Huron on the Bruce Power site north of Kincardine. If approved by the federal Ministry of the Environment, construction could begin by 2018.
Hinkley Point nuclear project could be delayed by years, due to Austrian legal action
AUSTRIAN LEGAL ACTION COULD DELAY HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR FOR THREE TO FOUR YEARS, Power Engineering 09/07/2015 By Diarmaid Williams
That timeframe is based on the average expectation associated with such cases, as confirmed this week by a legal expert who had been advising the Austrian government on the matter. It is less than the worst case scenario timeframe of five to eight years but that delay is not beyond the bounds of possibility as the subsequent decision could still be challenged.
Dr Dorte Fouquet, Partner, BBH Brussels who has been advising Vienna on the matter of their objection to Britain’s flagship nuclear power project on the basis of State Aid contravention told Power Engineering International, “From the publication on average statistics from the European Court in State Aid cases the duration can be on average between 31,5 und 50,3 months.”
Dr Fouquet quoted the information from the 2013 Annual report of the European Court of Justice, (pg. 186).
She had told an audience at Platts Power Summit in central London at the end of April that if Vienna pressed on with its challenge it could set back construction of the Hinkley Point C project for even longer than that average.
“Based on whether a party was unhappy with that, it could then go again before the European Court of Justice, which could also take years, though probably not as much as the first; this is based on average procedures.”……….
Lawsuit against Hinkley nuclear plant to be filed by Greenpeace and Austrian utilities
Greenpeace and utilities launch suit against Hinkley nuclear plant, Guardian 2 July 15
Nine German and Austrian utilities selling renewable energy join with green group to launch legal action against state aid for new nuclear power in UK. Greenpeace and nine German and Austrian utilities selling renewable energy said on Thursday they are launching legal action against state aid for a new British nuclear power plant, which was approved by the European commission.
Greenpeace and the others in the group said at a news briefing that the lawsuit would be filed with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the coming days, over the Hinkley Point C project in south-west England.
It would be based on the argument that billions of euros of subsidies for nuclear energy would distort prices in mainland European power markets, which are linked to those in Britain via a small French interconnector.
“We are complaining against these boundless nuclear subsidies, because from an ecological and macro-economic viewpoint, they appear senseless and bring substantial financial disadvantages for other energy suppliers, renewable energies and for consumers,” said Soenke Tangermann, managing director of the Greenpeace Energy co-operative……… http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/greenpeace-utilities-launch-suit-against-hinkley-nuclear-plant
UK government and EDF anxious about Austria’s lawsuit against state aid for Hinkley Point nuclear station
Government and EDF in talks over liabilities if Austria wins nuclear state aid appeal, Telegraph, Energy giant and Government yet to agree what would happen if Austrian challenge against state aid for Hinkley Point C is successful By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor 30 Jun 2015 The Government and EDF are in talks over who will pick up the costs if Austria wins its appeal against the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear plant once construction has begun.
Plans for the £16bn Hinkley Point plant received state aid clearance from the European Commission last year but Austria has vowed to challenge this, alleging that subsidies for the project constitute illegal state aid.
Although the Government and EDF both insist the appeal, expected to be lodged this week, has no merit, it is understood they are yet to agree on what would happen in the unlikely event Austria does win.Andrea Leadsom, the new energy minister, said on Tuesday she was “confident that the key investment decision on Hinkley C will happen soon, which will enable construction to start”.
But speaking on the fringes of the Nuclear Industry Association’s annual conference, Ms Leadsom also confirmed that the Government was “looking very closely” at the issue of how the project could go ahead with a state aid challenge ongoing.Austria’s state aid appeal is likely to hang over the project for at least a year and potentially as long as six years – during which time billions of pounds would be spent on construction.
The Government and EDF are believed to be targeting a final investment decision by October.A series of issues remain outstanding including EDF’s takeover of reactor-maker Areva’s nuclear business, deals with Chinese investors, and finalising contracts with the Government.
• Hinkley Point new nuclear power plant: the story so far………
Writing on legal website Lexology, lawyers at Shearman and Sterling LLP wrote: “While the prospect of success is low, even a small chance of success creates additional risk for project financiers.
“In a worst-case scenario, where the Commission makes an adverse decision, the UK Government’s support scheme – including the strike price and guarantee – would be ruled unlawful and unenforceable, with any aid already received having to be repaid. A competitor or other party with standing could apply to the UK national court to enforce this.
“While this outcome is the least likely, it may have a severely adverse impact on investors in the Hinkley Point C project.”
They added that “investors may find insuring themselves contractually (e.g., via indemnities or similar means) difficult” and that “any provision seeking protection from the UK Government for such an eventuality could itself risk being struck down as unlawful State aid”…..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11709083/Government-and-EDF-in-talks-over-liabilities-if-Austria-wins-nuclear-state-aid-appeal.html
Court orders TEPCO to pay over suicide linked to nuclear evacuation
Tepco ordered to pay over suicide linked to nuclear evacuation, Japan Times, FUKUSHIMA 30 June 15 – Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Tuesday was again held responsible for a suicide linked to the 2011 nuclear crisis and ordered to pay damages.
The Fukushima District Court ordered Tepco to pay ¥27 million to the family of 67-year-old Kiichi Isozaki, who committed suicide in July 2011 after being forced out of his home near the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant and fell into depression.
It is the second time that a court has determined there was a link between the nuclear disaster and a suicide, and ordered the utility to pay damages.
In the latest ruling, presiding Judge Naoyuki Shiomi said the severe experiences Isozaki had gone through made him depressed and led to his suicide. But Shiomi said the disaster had a “60 percent” impact on the man’s decision to take his own life, given that he had diabetes, which may also have played a role.
Isozaki’s wife, Eiko, 66, and two other relatives had sought ¥87 million.
“The ruling aside, I really want Tepco to apologize,” Eiko Isozaki said after the decision.
Tepco issued a statement saying it will “thoroughly examine the ruling and handle the case sincerely.”………
Last August, the same district court ordered the utility to pay ¥49 million in damages to the family of a 58-year-old woman who burned herself to death after she was forced to evacuate from her home in a Fukushima town contaminated by the nuclear disaster.
Although more than four years have passed since the powerful earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, triggered the country’s worst nuclear crisis, suicides linked to the event continue as more than 100,000 people remain evacuated in and around Fukushima.
Sixty-nine suicides in Fukushima Prefecture committed by the end of May have been deemed linked to the earthquake-tsunami or nuclear disasters, according to the Cabinet Office. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/30/national/crime-legal/tepco-ordered-pay-suicide-linked-nuclear-evacuation/#.VZMNYBuqpHx
A legal win for Australia’s nuclear test veterans
Radiation in court: landmark success for Australia’s nuclear veterans, Ecologist Chris Busby 24th June 2015A legal judgment in Australia has fatally damaged the ‘official’ ICRP model of health damage by nuclear radiation, writes Chris Busby – reflecting the fact that cancer originates through the mutation of individual cells, not whole organs or organisms. The ruling is good news for Britain’s bomb test veterans whose day in court is coming up; and for all who suffer radiation induced cancers.
At the end of last month the Veterans Appeals Tribunal Decision on the Case Jean Mahoney vs. Australian Repatriation Commission was published.
The result was a win for the appellant, setting aside of the earlier Australian government decision not to grant a pension to the widow of a veteran who worked among the ruins of Hiroshima and later died from metastatic colon cancer.
I was the expert witness in this case and persuaded the Australian Tribunal (in an expert report and with oral cross examination by telephone, Brisbane to Riga) that the radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was not applicable to the kind of internal exposure to radioactive particles which her late husband, George Mahoney will have received. Continue reading
Appeal filed for compensation for 7,000 Tochigi residents affected by Fukuashima nuclear disaster
7,000 Tochigi residents seek compensation over Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan Times KYODO JUN 15, 2015 UTSUNOMIYA, TOCHIGI PREF. – Some 7,000 people living in Tochigi Prefecture sought compensation Monday worth ¥1.85 billion through an out-of-court settlement with Tepco over the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
In the first collective appeal by residents who have not been compensated by Tokyo Electric Power Co., 7,128 people from Tochigi, located some 100 km from the crippled plant, argue that they should be eligible for compensation even though they were not living in Fukushima at the time of the 2011 nuclear disaster.
The residents, who were living at the time in Otawara, Nasushiobara, and Nasu are also demanding an apology and the establishment of a fund to pay for decontamination work and health checks, their lawyers said. The combined population of the two cities and town stands at around 218,000.
The appeal was filed Monday with the Nuclear Compensation Dispute Resolution Center under an alternative dispute resolution system that enables quicker settlements with the participation of a third party that has expertise.
Legal action against Canada’s nuclear waste plan for Lake Huron area
Burial of nuclear waste near Lake Huron subject of legal action The Canadian Press Jun 12, 2015 A review panel decision in favour of a plan to bury dangerous nuclear waste near Lake Huron was illegal and unreasonable, a citizen’s group argues in a new Federal Court application.
In asking the court to set aside the decision, the group says the panel that approved the Ontario Power Generation proposal failed to consider Canada’s international obligations, was biased, and violated the Canadian environmental rules.
“The (panel) erred in failing to require OPG to fully study accidents and malfunctions that would result in adverse effects to human health and safety and to the environment,” the application by Save our Saugeen Shores states.
“(It) erred in failing to require OPG to adequately evaluate the potential for reasonably foreseeable or unplanned events, singly or in combination, to produce significant short- and long-term adverse effects on the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, home to 40 million people and containing 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water.”
Approval of the billion-dollar deep geological repository near Kincardine, Ont., along with any conditions currently rests with federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, who has delayed making a decision until December — after the fall election………..
More than 150 communities — many in the United States — have passed resolutions against any storage of nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.
The federal court application argues Ontario Power Generation failed to take into account Canada and Ontario’s obligations to be “good neighbours” to the U.S. and individual states.
“No Canadian representative, whether formally or informally, notified the United States of the proposal,” the application states………Jill Taylor, president of Save Our Saugeen Shores, said the federal government cannot expect industry and the public to respect environmental laws and processes when it has failed to do so. The project is simply too risky, she said, noting last year’s failure at an American underground nuclear waste site in New Mexico.
“To risk contaminating (Great Lakes) water with nuclear waste that will remain highly radioactive for 100,000 years is unthinkable,” Taylor said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/burial-of-nuclear-waste-near-lake-huron-subject-of-legal-action-1.3111403
Marshall Islands is suing nine countries that possess nuclear weapons
Marshall Islands, site of largest-ever U.S. nuclear weapons test, sues 9 superpowers including USA, Boing Boing.net By Xeni Jardin , Jun 6, 2015 “The tiny nation of the Republic of the Marshall Islands is once again at the center of international activism, filing two lawsuits, one in US federal court against the United States, and one in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons,” writes Robert Alvarez at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
The Pacific island nation is suing the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China for failure to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as called for by theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and also names India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel as defendants.
The Marshall Islands site known as Bikini Atoll was the site of the fabled Castle Bravo test, the USA’s first experiment of a dry fuel hydrogen bomb. Detonated on March 1, 1954, it was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States.
For many Marshall Islanders, this history remains part of personal and family memory.
Tony DeBrum, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), asked attendees at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference how many of them had personally witnessed nuclear weapon detonations. He and his family had vivid memories………
Between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islands, then a trust territory of the United States, sustained significant damage and radiological contamination from 67 US atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. The US government exiled hundreds of Marshallese people so the Bikini and Enewetak atolls could be used to host ever more powerful nuclear weapons explosions. Residents of other islands, who were not relocated, suffered serious harm from radioactive fallout. By 1963, outrage originating with the Bravo explosion led to a global campaign that compelled the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom to ratify the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which outlaws nuclear weapons explosions in the oceans, atmosphere, and outer space. http://boingboing.net/2015/06/06/marshall-islands-sues-9-superp.html
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (327)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 