Japan’s Basic Energy Plan – a (bad) April Fools Day joke
Is the joke still on Fukushima this April Fools’? MAR 31, 2014 What’s wrong with this picture? Japan Times, Eric Johnson, Japan’s new Basic Energy Plan sees nuclear power as an important base load energy source. But whatever “base load” means politically, the public is lulled — fooled — into a sense that, despite Fukushima, nuclear will remain a logistically viable long-term option.
Yet the realities of Japan’s nuclear power industry show keeping nuclear are l
ikely to be far more problematic — and expensive — than the pro-nuclear lobby wants to admit. Here are the most obvious hurdles.
First, as of 2013, of the remaining 48 reactors, three were more than 40 years and 13 were over 30 years old. The reactors were supposed to be decommissioned after 40 years but can now apply for a maximum two-decade extension.
Want to keep those reactors, with their increased risk of technical problems and thus lower efficiency rates, running until they’re 60? Even if they meet new safety standards, local governments hosting the reactors are sure to demand funding for pork-barrel projects in exchange for agreeing to any extension. Guess whose tax money will be used to ensure a continued flow of “cheap” nuclear power. Hint: look in the mirror.
Even if restarted reactors run at pre-3/11 levels, estimates are their spent fuel pools will be overflowing like public toilets sooner rather than later. A Tokyo Shimbun calculation shows 33 reactors could see their pools full within six years. Government figures estimate the pools will be full within three to 16 years, with most filled to the brim within eight years.
What happens then? Tokyo is now pushing local governments to build interim storage facilities for the fuel before it’s sent to Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, for reprocessing. But despite promises of even more tax money for their coffers, no local government wants to host such a facility.
Finally, Japan’s population, about 127 million, will shrink to 107 million by 2040 while the working population, i.e. the large volume of electricity users, will decline by 30 percent. Furthermore, 21 percent of all Japanese will be 75 years or older, also by 2040. Who is going to need how much electricity?
So, the “nuclear will be an important base load” argument assumes: 1. Older plants can be run until they are 60 years without major problems and at a lower cost than other sources; 2. Within the next, say, 16 years, new storage facilities for spent fuel will be built somewhere; and 3. By 2040, a country with 16 percent less people than in 2010 and one-fifth the population over 75 will not use less energy than today.
What’s wrong with this picture?…….http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/issues/is-the-joke-still-on-fukushima-this-april-fools/
Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant an earthquake-prone timebomb
Olivier Guitta: Iran’s other nuclear timebomb http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/31/olivier-guitta-irans-other-nuclear-timebomb/ Olivier Guitta, National Post | March 31, 2014 While the international community has been focusing on a potential Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, another much larger issue looms, and should be tackled very urgently. But interestingly, except for a few concerned neighbours in the Gulf, nobody is really looking at the possible implications of a potential earthquake in Bushehr, where Iran’s oldest and main nuclear plant is located.
Bushehr, a city of over a million people in southeast Iran, sits in one of the most active seismic regions in the world, at the intersection of three tectonic plates. Building a nuclear plant in this area should have been a no-no, but construction started in 1975 with the help of Germany. It was stopped in 1979, right before the Revolution that unseated the Shah. It was resumed in 1996 with Russian assistance. The project took over 15 years to complete because of the very difficult technical issues of merging German and Russian technology. After Russia provided necessary nuclear fuel, the plant went operational in July 2013.
The safety issues concerning the plant are numerous: It is built with a 40-year-old design that has shown its limitations; the emergency coolant system is also 30 years old; it is running on two different technologies; according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the staff is not properly trained to face any kind of accident. In February, 2011, a broken water pump caused small metallic pieces to infiltrate the reactor cooling system, forcing the unloading of the fuel rods.
Air Force officers sacked after USA nuclear test cheating probe
U.S. Air Force fires nine officers following nuclear test cheating probe WP, By Ernesto Londoño , March 27,
The Air Force announced Thursday that it has relieved nine mid-level commanders assigned to safeguard the nation’s nuclear arsenal following a wide-ranging probe into a test cheating scandal that implicated scores of airmen.
The dismissed officers, most of whom were colonels and lieutenant colonels, were not found to have facilitated or condoned the cheating at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. But they were held accountable for creating a culture that enabled it, officials said……. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-air-force-fires-nine-officers-following-nuclear-test-cheating-probe/2014/03/27/9e5eaffa-b5e0-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
UK’s new nuclear plant may endanger Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway.
UN warning over planned British nuclear plant 240km from Irish coast http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/un-warning-over-planned-british-nuclear-plant-240km-from-irish-coast-30110525.html 21 Mar 14, THE United Nations has accused the UK Government of 
suspicious actions over plans to develop its first nuclear power station in a generation. Environmental inspectors have warned there are concerns about a lack of talks with neighbouring countries, including Ireland, over potential risks posed by the Hinkley Point C plant on the Bristol Channel.
The £16 billion nuclear facility could supply 5% of the UK’s energy needs and would be 150 miles from the Irish coast if built.
A special UN environmental committee has written to the Government warning that it failed to notify countries which could potentially be affected by fallout or pollution from Hinkley, regardless of how unlikely an accident is.
“The committee found that there was a profound suspicion of non-compliance,” the UN states.
Vesna Kolar Planinsic, chair of the implementation committee on the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, said UK representatives will be called before a hearing in December to explain their actions.
The committee said concerns have been raised over Hinkley by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway. Continue reading
Mysterious plume over old New Mexico nuclear bomb test site
Weather experts baffled by mystery plume on New Mexico radar near 1945 nuclear bomb test site (EXCELLENT PICTURES) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584235/Weather-experts-baffled-mystery-plume-New-Mexico-radar-near-1945-nuclear-bomb-test-site.html
There is speculation that the cloud could be the result of a weapons test
But the U.S. has not done A-bomb tests since the Test Ban Treaty in 1992
Plume originated from White Sands Missile Range in Socorro county
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER, 19 March 2014 A mystery ‘storm cloud’ caught on weather radar after erupting off a U.S. military missile testing ground in New Mexico has left weather experts baffled.
Conspiracy theorists have speculated that the plume-like cloud, which seems to appear out of nowhere, could have been kicked up by the explosion from an unreported weapons test.
Deepening the mystery, U.S. National Weather Service offices in Albuquerque and El Paso have confirmed the reading, but say they have no idea where it could have come from. The plume first appeared at sunset on Monday evening over the part of the vast White Sands Missile Range in east Socorro county, close to the ‘Trinity Site’ where the first atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.
It was spotted in publicly accessible radar data by a blogger, who tracked its progress and has published his findings in two YouTube videos and a blog post.
New Mexico nuclear waste facility has a second radiation leak
Second radiation leak detected at New Mexico nuclear waste site About one month after radiation leaks were reported at the United States’ first nuclear waste repository, a second release has been detected in the air by Department of Energy officials. Rt.com 19 Mar 14, According to the Associated Press, air-monitoring stations near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, have picked up elevated radiation readings, suggesting another small batch of radiation has been released into the air.The WIPP – one of the world’s three deep nuclear repositories – has been shut down since February, when a sharp rise in radiation levels was linked to a leak in one of the underground tunnels storing radioactive waste about 600 meters underground. This radiation eventually made it into the plant’s surrounding area and was detected in the air by nearby monitoring stations…….One watchdog group, Southwest Research and Information Center, said plans to expand the plant’s operations could have led to lax security measures, and has labeled the WIPP a failure in terms of safety……http://rt.com/usa/second-radiation-leak-new-mexico-913/
The Coke Can Plutonium Experiment
On arrival at lecture halls, he would push his stand-in for plutonium into an empty Coke can he had sawn in half. During his talks, he would hold the can up so his audience could see it, and say the contents could incinerate a city. “A six-pack of these is a nuclear arsenal,” he would say.
A World Awash in a Nuclear Explosive? TruthOut, 19 March 2014 12:24 By Douglas Birch and R. Jeffrey Smith, Center for Public Integrity | Report Washington #……..The Coke Can Experiment In the abstract, there’s plenty of alarm in official circles. “Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city — be it New York or Moscow; Tokyo or Beijing; London or Paris — could kill hundreds of thousands of people,” President Barack Obama told the United Nations Security Council in September 2009. “And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.”
But Cochran has long criticized the effectiveness of one of Washington’s most costly and elaborate strategies to prevent such a catastrophe — a global effort to detect and capture illicit fissile materials at border crossings and major world ports.
Since 2003 the United States has spent more than $850 million on equipment and training for customs officials at 45 foreign ports so they can scan shipping containers to detect nuclear materials. It’s a daunting assignment. About 432 million shipping containers crisscrossed the oceans in 2009 alone. U.S. ports accept 15 million containers every year. Continue reading
UN nuclear chief – ‘we can only try to prevent’ a nuclear accident
UN nuclear watchdog chief says atomic plants never ‘100%’ safe, 7 News, March 17, 2014 Tokyo (AFP) – The head of the UN nuclear watchdog said Monday his agency would keep working to improve safety after 
the Fukushima crisis, but no atomic plant could be “100 percent” safe from natural disasters.
Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), made the comments before he meets Prime Minister Shinzo Abe later Monday, as Japan moves closer to restarting two reactors despite objections from a nuclear-wary public……..Amano added that “what we can do is to prevent an accident (as much) as humanly possible, and to get prepared for the mitigation of the consequences” of one………http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/22027660/un-nuclear-watchdog-chief-says-atomic-plants-never-100-safe/
Inconsistency in Nuclear Plant Safety Enforcement
Report: Inconsistent Nuclear Plant Safety Enforcement WLTX 19, Eric Connor, Greenville News, 10 Mar 14, Inconsistent enforcement by federal regulators stands in the way of protecting the public from the dangers of nuclear energy, across the country and at the Upstate’s Oconee Nuclear Station where concerns over fire and flood have hovered for decades, a nuclear watchdog group says in a new report………..The report — “The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2013: More Jekyll, Less Hyde” — lists 10 instances of what the group considers “near miss” events that required special inspections and posed higher-than-acceptable risks……..
The report’s author — Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert who once trained NRC inspectors — wrote that the NRC has been complicit in allowing utilities like Duke to ignore deadlines for years.
“What’s protecting the people around Oconee from fire risk? Luck,” Lochbaum wrote. “What’s protecting Oconee’s owner from the cost and bother of legally managing the fire risk? The NRC.”…….
Last year, The Greenville News reported on an NRC whistleblower’s analysis detailing dam concerns that spanned decades.
The NRC had held the analysis from public view on grounds that it contained security-related information, but the document has since been released in largely unedited form.
The News also reported on hundreds of internal emails that show NRC staffers expressing frustration over superiors they said were cowing to the industry instead of holding it accountable for the threat of a dam failure.
ust one month after the Fukushima meltdown, Lochbaum wrote, the NRC met with the public but didn’t mention the long-held concerns.
“The exact same flooding hazard that exists today at the Oconee nuclear plant was not mentioned by the NRC — so the public was actually misled into believing no such problems existed,” Lochbaum wrote………http://www.wltx.com/story/news/2014/03/10/safety-enforcement-at-nuclear-plants-inconsistent/6251227/
Japan could restart nuclear reactors with no proper emergency plan
Japanese nuclear power regulation does not require evacuation plan approval as a prerequisite for restarting nuclear power plants
No plan best plan in Kansai nuclear disaster Area leaders paralyzed by lack of answers, state guidance Japan Times, BY ERIC JOHNSTON 26 Jan 14 Ten months after regional governments were required to submit nuclear disaster evacuation plans, a lack of central government guidance and local-level cooperation is generating concern that Kansai will be ill-prepared to respond if any of Fukui Prefecture’s 13 commercial reactors suffers a meltdown.
Questions remain about how fleeing Fukui residents who pass through neighboring Kyoto would be stopped and screened for radiation, and how residents in the rural northern areas closest to the reactors would be gathered and evacuated in a timely manner. Evacuating the elderly, young mothers and the pregnant is also a serious concern.
There is also the question of what to do if Shiga’s Lake Biwa, which supplies drinking water to about 14.5 million people, gets contaminated with radiation.
Citizens’ groups have posed these and other detailed questions to prefectural officials in Kyoto and the Union of Kansai Governments, a loose federation of seven prefectures and four major cities in the region. But Kansai officials reply that, on many issues, there is little they can do because the central government hasn’t drafted specific guidelines…..
Kansai leaders recognize that more monitoring stations, particularly in northern Kyoto and Hyogo, are needed, but without guidance from the central government, as well as funding, there is little they can do.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has made restarting the nation’s nuclear reactors a primary goal. The discussions have focused mostly on the technical issues related to the plants and whether the fault lines surrounding them, or in some cases under them, are active.
Given the widespread concerns, Smith says such thinking puts the cart before the horse. “It’s a very serious problem that Japanese nuclear power regulation does not require evacuation plan approval as a prerequisite for restarting nuclear power plants,” she said. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/26/national/no-plan-best-plan-in-kansai-nuclear-disaster/
USA Defense Dept calls to ramp up spying
“The report’s big technical conclusion centers on the importance of overhauling the monitoring framework used to find groups that represent a nuclear threat before they act ”
I wonder if they are thinking of people like Sr Megan Rice
Defense Dept. Calls For Expanded Nuclear Monitoring, Information Week, 22 Jan 14 US must ramp up surveillance and big data analytics tools to meet challenge of global nuclear proliferation monitoring, warns DOD Defense Science Board report. The world’s nuclear future looks a lot different than its past. As access to nuclear knowledge widens, so does the need to monitor nuclear proliferation globally. But that’s not something that the US government is fully equipped to address, according to a report released by the Defense Department’s Defense Science Board this month.
The report, “Assessment of Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies,” argues that the lines between intelligence and traditional monitoring are blurring, therefore technologies for battling terrorism should also be used to address the threat of proliferation.
The report lists two types of proliferation of equal concern: “vertical,” the increase in capabilities of existing nuclear states; and “horizontal,” the increase in the number of states and non-state players owning or attempting to own nuclear weapons.
Future “monitoring will need to be continuous, adaptive, and continuously tested for its effectiveness against an array of differing, creative, and adaptive proliferators,” Dr. Paul Kaminski, chairman of the Defense Science Board, said in a memo included in the report.
The report argues that the standard for monitoring nuclear activity should happen as early in the planning and acquisition process as possible.
“New intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies, demonstrated in recent conflicts, offer significant promise for monitoring undesirable nuclear activity throughout the world,” the report said. However, the “advances in persistent surveillance, automated tracking, rapid analyses of large and multi-source data sets, and open source analyses to support conventional warfighting and counterterrorism have not yet been exploited by the nuclear monitoring community.”…..
The report’s big technical conclusion centers on the importance of overhauling the monitoring framework used to find groups that represent a nuclear threat before they act……http://www.informationweek.com/defense-dept-calls-for-expanded-nuclear-monitoring/d/d-id/1113521
“Acceptable nuclear risk”- Is there such a thing?
Whatever we decide, the outcome may not be as relatively benign next time
What is ‘acceptable risk’ when planning a nuclear power plant, The Conversation, Peter Bernard Ladkin Professor of Computer Networks and Distributed Systems at University of Bielefeld 23 Jan 14, Modern safety engineering follows the aphorism, “there is no such thing as zero risk, only acceptable risk”. However, calculating chances and risk is a finicky process, especially when played out against factors of cost, time and complexity. Major accidents such as at Fukushima Dai-ichi – still unfolding as it approaches its third anniversary – demonstrate how essential it is to correctly assess risks and safeguards.
Risk is expectation of loss, and is dependent on the chance of a loss-event occurring combined with its magnitude. The chance can be tiny, but the loss huge, and the risk therefore considerable. Analyses of the possibility that the universe would collapse when operating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) were undertaken, despite the infinitesimal chance.
Calculating risk is now de rigeur in big engineering projects, but it wasn’t always so. Built in the late 1940s, the Windscale piles, Britain’s first two nuclear reactors, used air blown over the core and up a chimney as their cooling. Exhaust filters were added to the chimneys only as an afterthought, insisted on by designer Sir John Cockcroft at some expense – the so called “Cockcroft’s Follies”. Continue reading
Seven nuclear disasters. Who’s next?
Is Nuclear Experimentation Fascism? OpEdNews Op Eds 1/22/2014By Ethan Indigo Smith (about the author) opednews.com
“……..HANFORD, USA, 1943 — 1987
As an early “flagship’ nuclear experiment, many of the safety procedures and waste disposal practices employed at the Hanford site were completely inadequate. Although most of the reactors were shut down between 1964 and 1971, government documents have since confirmed that operations at the Hanford site released significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River, which still threatens the health of residents and ecosystems today. Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States, representing two-thirds of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste by volume. .
BIKINI ATOLL, NORTHERN PACIFIC OCEAN, 1946
The United States military undertook nuclear weapons tests at Bikini Atoll in mid-1946. At the request of the US military, Bikini’s 146 native residents agreed to temporarily evacuate the island so the United States government could begin testing atomic bombs for “the good of mankind and to end all world wars.” After “confused and sorrowful deliberation”, the Bikinians agreed to the relocation request, announcing “we will go believing that everything is in the hands of God.”
Most residents were moved by the military to Rongerik Atoll, 125 miles away. Only one-sixth the size of Bikini Atoll, no one lived on Rongerik because it had an inadequate water and food supply, however the United States Navy left the natives there with only a few weeks of food and water. Predictably, this soon proved to be insufficient and the Bikinians were left starving on Rongerik. (Read more: http://www.bikiniatoll.com/history.html)
As a series of large thermonuclear tests continued at Bikini Atoll into the 1950″s, the island was eventually rendered unfit for subsistence farming and fishing, and because of radioactive contamination still remains uninhabitable today. So much for the “temporary” evacuation of the Bikinians from their native island to help the United States “end all world wars.”
WINDSCALE FIRE, UK, 1957
The worst nuclear accident in Great Britain’s history, the core of the nuclear reactor at Windscale, Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cumbria) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. Caused by operators pushing the first-generation design of the Windscale facility beyond its intended limits, the fire burned for three days releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere that spread across the UK and Europe.
SANTA SUSANA, USA, 1959
A reactor at the Atomics International field laboratory in the Santa Susana Mountains, California, experienced a power surge and subsequently spewed radioactive gases into the atmosphere. According to a 2009 report from the Los Angeles Times, residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated.
THREE MILE ISLAND, USA, 1979
The worst accident in U.S. commercial history, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor near Middletown (PA) partially melted down on March 28, 1979. A combination of equipment malfunctions, design-related problems and worker errors led to TMI-2″s partial meltdown and off-site releases of radioactivity. 14 years later, the clean up effort officially ended in December
CHERNOBYL, UKRAINE, 1986
Widely considered to have been the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, Chernobyl’s reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase leading to explosions in its core. The explosion and resulting fire released large quantities of radioactive particles into the atmosphere, which spread over much of the western USSR (the then-Soviet Republic) and Europe.
ROCKY FLATS PLANT, USA 1987
Following insider reports of unsafe conditions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found numerous violations of federal anti-pollution laws, including the contamination of water and soil. A grand jury report released following this incident criticized the Department of Energy and Rocky Flats contractors for “engaging in a continuing campaign of distraction, deception and dishonesty”, and noted that Rocky Flats had discharged pollutants, hazardous materials and radioactive matter into nearby creeks and water supplies for many years. But even the DOE itself acknowledged that Rocky Flats’ ground water was (at the time) the single greatest environmental hazard at any of its nuclear facilities.
The contamination levels at Rocky Flats itself, as measured by the United States government remain sealed records and have not been reported to the public. Clean-up was not declared complete until October 13, 2005 — 18 years later.
FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI, JAPAN 2011
The troubled Fukishima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has experienced a number of “incidents’ since its construction in 1971, culminating in total reactor failure when the plant was hit by a tsunami triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake. At the time of the disaster, the plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials making it the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second in history (with Chernobyl) to measure at Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. More than two years after the incident it was revealed that the plant is still leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, and despite the technical assistance of GE (the corporation that designed the failing reactor) the situation appears to keep deteriorating as time goes on.
WHO IS NEXT?
Lucky they fixed nuclear reactor’s coolant leak
Workers discovered the leak Monday in a valve on a water line that carries reactor water back to the reactor after it has run through the plant’s steam turbine and then been condensed back into water.
The leaky valve was in a pipe contained in a hallway-sized steam tunnel running from the turbine and generator building through a second, auxiliary equipment building and then back into the reactor containment building, said Young.
Cameras monitoring the tunnel 24 hours a day first spotted the small spray of water and steam coming from the pipe, she said. ……http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/01/perry_nuclear_power_plant_trit.html
On the assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists
How the IAEA Basically Helped Assassinate Iranian Nuclear Scientists By Global Research News December 29, 2013 “……In the fifth attack of its kind, terrorists killed a 32-year-old Iranian scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, and his driver on January 11, 2012.
The blast took place on the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, who was also assassinated in a terrorist bomb attack in Tehran in January 2010.
The assassination method used in the bombing was similar to the 2010 terrorist bomb attacks against the then university professor, Fereidoun Abbassi Davani – the former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization – and his colleague Majid Shahriari. While Abbasi Davani survived the attack, Shahriari was martyred……..
Over the course of the investigations, all other elements behind the assassination of Iranian scientists Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, Majid Shahriari and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan as well as Reza Qashqaei (Roshan’s driver) have been apprehended, the statement read.
Some of the perpetrators of the assassination of Dr. Fereydoun Abbasi are among those arrested, the ministry added.
The statement said Iran’s Intelligence Ministry has detected some of Mossad’s bases within the territories of one of Iran’s Western neighbors, which provided training and logistic support to the terrorist networks…….http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iaea-basically-helped-assassinate-iranian-nuclear-scientists/5362939
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
