Russia to dump nuclear waste in melting permafrost in Arkhangelsk Region
Approves radioactive waste disposal in melting permafrost December 22, 2015 http://thebarentsobserver.com/ecology/2015/12/approves-radioactive-waste-disposal-melting-permafrost
On Monday, the Government of Arkhangelsk Region sent an order to Russia’s national operator for radioactive waste management with the approval to locate a repository for low- and medium level radioactive waste on the south-western part of the southern island of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago.
Novaya Zemlya is geographically part of Arkhangelsk Oblast.
The repository will receive radioactive waste that already are in temporary storages in north-western Russia, including the large quantities stored at the naval yards in Severodvinsk on the coast of the White Sea, reports Nuclear.ru
The repository will be underground, but near the surface. Novaya Zemlya, like most other places in the High Arctic has permafrost in the ground. With climate changes, scientists fears the top layers of the permafrost could melt. That worries nuclear safety experts.
“It is important to consider the melting permafrost when studying risk-assessments for a radioactive waste repository on Novaya Zemlya,” says Nils Bøhmer, Nuclear Physicists with the Bellona Foundation in Norway.
He says the melting permafrost makes it highly uncertain for how long such waste can be protected.
Low- and medium level waste must be kept safe for hundreds of years according to Russian standards, reports Polit.ru that wrote about the Novaya Zemlya plans on Monday.
Bøhmer says it would be a much better alternative to establish a final repository for low- and medium level radioactive waste on the Kola Peninsula where the rocks are way more stable.
“In addition, it is safer to establish a repository where most of the waste already are located. Sea transport across the Barents Sea to Novaya Zemlya is a risky business in itself,” Bøhmer argues.
Novaya Zemlya was one of ten different sites in Northwest-Russia studied over the last couple of years to see if it is suited to be repository. Sites on the coast of the Kola Peninsula were also studied.
Yet more radiation “hot spots” found in St Louis suburb, along with high cancer rates
7 more nuclear waste “hot spots” found in St. Louis suburb http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seven-more-nuclear-waste-hot-spots-found-in-north-st-louis-county-missouri-suburb/ By VINITA NAIR CBS NEWS December 22, 2015, NORTH ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Mo. — Three-hundred residents of North St. Louis County crowded into a local gym, anxious about what they would hear. Soil near the local creek was contaminated by improperly stored nuclear weapons waste in the 1960’s and 70’s, and people have been getting sick.
The Army Corps of Engineers was there to deliver the latest test results.
Seven additional parcels have been identified,” one official announced.
The seven new “hot spots,” areas of low level nuclear contamination, were discovered as crews tested the creek this summer. The new sites include four commercial properties and three homes. Add in the five sites already slated for clean up, and that’s 12 places in the area with contamination.
- “Hot spot” near nuclear waste has St. Louis residents on edge
- “They found a tumor the size of a golf ball,” said Angela Powers. Last fall, she lost her 9-year-old grandchild Jordan to a brain tumor that is rare in children.
“If it came from this, wow, we want some answers. It’s making me angry. She was my only grandchild.”
It was a variety of rare illnesses that caught the attention of Jenelle Wright and her neighbors.
Four years ago, the group created a Facebook page that has since logged 2,700 cancers and autoimmune conditions around town. They begged federal health authorities to investigate.
“We’ve had to go through many battles, I don’t even know if I can count all of them…literally calling an agency 30 times and not having them return your phone call.”
- This month, they finally got results. The Centers for Disease Control sent a health assessment team to document the residents stories, which could confirm a link between radiation and the illnesses.
Mary Oscko has stage four lung cancer and blames it on the contamination.
“If I shake the table enough, you can’t eat your meal off of it. If I make enough noise, you’ll want to listen to me. And we are now starting to make enough noise. We’re standing up and saying “Hi, I’m Mary. I’m dying of cancer.'”
Residents are hoping the health study might result in compensation for their medical bills and their homes. But the assessment could take two years, and some folks like Oscko are worried they won’t be around to see it concluded.
USA Dept of Energy starting to begin to plan for nuclear waste disposal
DOE launches nuclear waste disposal initiative http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263959-doe-launches-nuclear-waste-disposal-initiative By Timothy Cama – 12/21/15 The Department of Energy is formally launching its initiative aimed at establishing a disposal site for spent nuclear fuel.
The department said Monday that it is accepting input on the disposal plan, which centers on finding at least one place to store spent fuel, with the consent of the local community.
It’s a key step toward rolling out what the Obama administration thinks is the best way forward for nuclear waste disposal.
It stands in stark contrast to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which was designated by Congress to be the country’s main waste site, but which the Obama administration canceled amid strong local and state opposition to it.
“The launch of our consent-based siting initiative represents an important step toward addressing this nuclear waste management challenge, so that we can continue to benefit from nuclear technologies,” Lynn Orr, the Energy Department’s deputy secretary for science and energy, wrote in a Monday blog post.
While it will take years before the first pilot storage site is established, the administration’s action nonetheless is a small step toward solving the problem of nuclear waste sitting at dozens of current and former nuclear power plants and defense-related sites around the country.
The administration’s plan is largely informed by a wide-ranging 2013 report from a blue-ribbon commission, which concluded that a “consent-based” waste site is the ideal strategy and alternative to Yucca.
Fukushima Prefecture’s problem of disposal of radioactive trash
Behind the Scenes / Waste disposal site a dilemma for Fukushima, Japan Times 21 Dec 15 By Yuki Inamura and Keita Aimoto / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writes
On Dec. 4, the Fukushima prefectural government notified the national government that it would accept a proposal to dispose of the radioactive designated waste [definition below page] stored in the prefecture, where a catastrophic accident struck Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant due to the 2011 earthquake. The Fukushima prefectural government’s recent decision signifies a step forward in efforts to rehabilitate the nuclear disaster-hit prefecture. However, the latest move poses a dilemma: In some neighboring prefectures that are home to a large amount of such designated waste, there are persistent calls for their waste to be concentrated in Fukushima Prefecture.
The government’s proposal would entail the use of the Fukushima Eco-tech Clean Center, an existing private-sector disposal plant in the town of Tomioka, to bury a portion of the designated waste stored in the prefecture. The waste subject to this disposal will consist of garbage and other waste material whose radiation levels stand at 100,000 becquerels or less per kilogram.
Two years ago, the national government formally presented the proposal to the Fukushima prefectural government. This coincided with the national government’s move to unveil another plan aimed at building an interim storage facility in the prefecture. This facility would be used to store, for extended periods, garbage whose radioactive levels exceed 100,000 becquerels per kilogram as well as a massive amount of contaminated soil. There has been a constant increase in the amount of contaminated soil as a result of ongoing decontamination work. The interim storage facility is currently being built. Continue reading
Transfer of Vermont Yankee’s dangerous nuclear used fuel trash to dry storage
Vermont Yankee to start moving spent nuclear fuel into dry storage in 2017 http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/vermont_yankee_to_start_moving.html By Mary Serreze | Special to The Republican On December 20, 2015 Entergy plans to start moving Vermont Yankee’s spent nuclear fuel into dry cask storage in 2017, two years earlier than originally anticipated, reports the online Vermont Digger.
The Louisiana-based Entergy announced the decision Wednesday, but the idea was first introduced in an October filing with the Vermont Public Service Board, as part of the company’s bid for approval to build a second concrete pad for spent fuel storage at the Vernon, Vermont site, located on the banks of the Connecticut River.
The 620-megawatt Vernon plant, which began operations in 1972, stopped producing power Dec. 29, but most of its spent fuel remains in wet storage in a pool inside the plant’s reactor building.
While dry storage is considered safer than wet storage, concerns have been raised about the transfer process, in which fuel is pulled from the pool, placed in casks, loaded onto a large, tracked vehicle nicknamed “Cletus” and moved slowly to the spent fuel pad, Vermont Digger reports.
Entergy remains under a 2020 deadline to move the fuel into dry cask storage. Under the federally-sanctioned SAFSTOR process, full decommissioning could take up to 60 years. Under SAFSTOR, Vermont Yankee would be “mothballed” until its decommissioning fund reaches the level necessary to clean up the entire site.
State and regional officials, as well as critics of the plant, have raised concerns about the overall decommissioning project’s financing, as well as the presence of non-radiological and radiological waste at the site. The dry cask storage plan will be funded with a $145 million line of credit, which Entergy plans to repay by suing the U.S. Department of Energy for breach of its contract to remove spent nuclear fuel from the Vermont Yankee site.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the use of the plant’s decommissioning trust fund to pay for long-term fuel storage, although the state has challenged that decision in federal appeals court.
Mary Serreze can be reached at mserreze@gmail.com
Excavation planned – removal of NUMEC nuclear waste dump in Parks Township
NUMEC nuclear waste dump in Parks Township will be excavated http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourallekiskivalley/yourallekiskivalleymore/9678472-74/nuclear-corps-materials#axzz3v71kOvgB
According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Special Nuclear Material is only “mildly radioactive” but can include fissile material — uranium-233, uranium-235 and plutonium-239 — that, in concentrated form, can be the primary ingredients of nuclear explosives.
By Mary Ann Thomas, Dec. 22, 2015 After finding more complex radioactive contamination than expected in 2011 at the nuclear waste dump in Parks Township, the Army Corps of Engineers announced Tuesday it will stay the course for a $350 million project to dig up and remove 36,000 tons of waste.The Corps shut down the cleanup four years ago after unearthing more highly radioactive nuclear materials that required special handling, escalating cleanup costs.
The defunct Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. and successors, the Atlantic Richfield Co. and Babcock & Wilcox disposed of uranium, plutonium and other hazardous materials at the 44-acre, Armstrong county, site from 1960 until the early 1970s. With plants in Parks and Apollo, those companies produced fuel for Navy nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants and other government entities.
The Corps will release its request for proposals from contractors and likely name a new cleanup company in 2017. The contractor will develop new plans and start digging again in 2018. The waste will then be shipped out of state.
The project is expected to finish between 2026 and 2028 : http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourallekiskivalley/yourallekiskivalleymore/9678472-74/nuclear-corps-materials#ixzz3v728qWVp
Turning contaminated Hanford Nuclear Reservation into a tourist site!
Most polluted US nuclear weapons building site plans for influx of tourists, Guardian 20 Dec 15
Hanford Nuclear Reservation, country’s newest national park and home to the world’s first full-sized nuclear reactor, prepares for expanded crowds. Thousands of people are expected next year to tour the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, home of the world’s first full-sized nuclear reactor and the most polluted US nuclear weapons production site.
Hanford, near Richland, about 200 miles east of Seattle in south-central Washington state, is the newest national park.
Visitors will not, however, be allowed anywhere near the country’s largest collection of toxic radioactive waste.
“Everything is clean and perfectly safe,” said Colleen French, the US Department of Energy’s program manager for Hanford. “Any radioactive materials are miles away.”
The Manhattan Project national historical park, signed into existence in November, also includes sites at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Manhattan Project is the name for the US effort to build an atomic bomb during the second world war.
At Hanford, the main attractions will be B Reactor and the ghost towns of Hanford and White Bluffs, which were evacuated by the government to make room for the Manhattan Project………
Nine reactors were built at Hanford and operated during the Cold War. That work created more than 56m gallons of radioactive waste that the government still spends more than $1bn a year to maintain and clean up…….. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/20/hanford-nuclear-reservation-manhattan-project-washington-national-park
Endless delays – that’s the system for Hanford nuclear waste clean-up
Will Hanford’s Big Clean-Up Ever Begin? Fifteen years past its originally scheduled start-up date, the nuclear facility’s glassification plant is way over budget and no one seems able to nail down a deadline. At fault, say critics, are mismanagement, frequent turnover in the top brass, and a culture that doesn’t take kindly to criticism. Seattle News Weekly, By John Stang , Dec 15 2015 “……….The story of Tamosaitis’ unheralded warnings is not the exception in the ongoing struggle to contain Hanford’s waste. Rather, this episode is just the latest in a litany of setbacks that has put the project over budget and off schedule again and again.
Officially, the reasons are that this is a first-of-its-kind project with difficult-to-perfect new technology.
In reality, the glassification project—like most of Hanford—resembles a giant Dilbert comic book. The culture is the culprit. There are immense corporate and social pressures to look good now and hope someone else is in charge when things go wrong later. These pressures include high turnover in upper management, bonuses to corporations, individual career advancement, and retaliation against those who rock the boat at inconvenient times. Continue reading
Ukraine’s troubles continue with the toxic Chernobyl site
Fukushima Amplifies Murphy’s Law COUNTERPUNCH DECEMBER 14, 2015 by ROBERT HUNZIKER “……….. In sharp contrast to Japan’s position, Chernobyl’s officialdom has a different take on “permissible annual radiation exposure,” specifically: “The radiation limit that excluded people from living in the 30km zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant exclusion zone was set at 5mSV/year, five years after the nuclear accident. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from within the zone and will never return,” (Greenpeace Japan). Never ever return!
Nuclear disasters don’t go away easily. For example, Chernobyl is already facing a brand new crisis. The durability of the original decaying blighted sarcophagus expires within the next 12 months. However, the new replacement sarcophagus, the world’s biggest-ever metallic dome, will not be accomplished in time as they are short of funds (615million EUR).
In addition to Ukraine’s internal strife with pro-Russian citizens, the country has serious financial difficulties. All of this amounts to one more “spoke in the wheel” against nuclear reactor proliferation (Incidentally, China has 400 reactors on the drawing board). Who knows if and when a crippled reactor ends up in the hands of a financially strapped country? Then what?
Already, Ukraine has 15 nuclear reactors standing tall, so far, amongst whizzing bullets and powerful rockets. Dismally, Ukraine has conceivably become a nuclear holocaust tinderbox in the midst of cannon fire, rumbling tanks, and surface-to-air missiles, for example, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a missile, supposedly by accident, on July 17, 2014, all 298 on board died……….. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/14/fukushima-amplifies-murphys-law/
Japan’s NRA may change nuclear waste burial rules, increase depth
NRA panel wants deeper disposal for nuclear waste http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20151211_01.html A team of experts at Japan’s nuclear regulator has proposed that nuclear waste with relatively high levels of radiation be buried deeper underground than current law requires.
The team at the Nuclear Regulation Authority, or NRA, presented a draft of regulations for such waste on Thursday. The waste comes from the decommissioning of reactors. The draft calls for such waste to be buried at least 70 meters underground. This is to prevent people from approaching the waste.
Current law requires that waste with low or relatively high levels of radiation be buried at least 50 meters underground. The draft requires utilities to maintain buried waste for 300 to 400 years.
The draft also would have the central government prepare a system to prevent the buried waste from being dug up after the maintenance period ends. The NRA team plans to gather opinions from the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan and compile basic ideas by the end of next March.
Germany’s process of decommissioning nuclear power plant
This Is How You Decommission a Nuclear Power Plant [great photos] German Chancellor Angela Merkel called time on nuclear energy in her country in 2011, after a tsunami severely damaged the Fukushima power plant in Japan, causing a major radioactive leak. Almost five years later, that process is in full swing – with an estimated cost of up to €77 billion ($84 billion). The operation to decommission Germany’s Greifswald nuclear power plant is described by German energy officials as the largest project of its kind in the world. Once the largest power plant in the former East Germany, Greifswald was closed in 1990 during German reunification. This is how it is being made safe. Bloomberg Tino Andresen , 10 Dec 15
Alexander Jones Germany’s nuclear plant operators are seeking public agreement on how to manage the burden of decommissioning the country’s atomic power stations. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government decided in 2011 to phase out nuclear power by 2022 in light of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. ……..
The decommissioning process could force those footing the bill to set aside anything from €25 billion to €77 billion, according to scenarios.
Germany’s Economy Ministry believes that utility companies do have enough funds to pay for the shutdown and cleanup of nuclear power plants……..
Depending on the severity of contamination, some of the components will go on to be housed in temporary disposal sites before a final storage solution is found….http://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2015-12-10/this-is-how-you-decommission-a-nuclear-power-plant
The nuclear industry’s plight – the COSTS OF RADIOACTIVE TRASH DISPOSAL
The politics of nuclear waste disposal, The Hill, 8 Dec 15 By Mark R. Maddox, The closure of nuclear power plants — seven at last count — and the role of nuclear power in a low carbon world has received a fair amount of media coverage, including a piece in The Hill. What hasn’t, however, is what to do about the nuclear waste stored at these plants and which will continue to be stored at these abandoned facilities for many decades to come. While the topic has become a political hot potato, some in Congress, like Illinois Rep. John Shimkus (R), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recognize its importance and the need to address it in short order.
First, it’s important to understand the reasons for the trend toward closures. The U.S. nuclear fleet is old. While many licenses to operate have been extended, required upgrades are expensive and regulatory oversight is extensive. Compounding the problem is the availability of reliable and cost-effective alternative power sources: shale production in the United States has contributed to a significant drop in gas prices and made natural gas-generated electricity comparatively cheap; also, increased accessibility to lower-cost renewable energy due to declining costs and supportive policies for investment has squeezed the profitability of nuclear generation. Finally, demand for electricity has declined due to a combination of efficiency improvements and manufacturing shifts.
As one analyst described the plight of nuclear energy: You cannot roll back the rules of economics…….
Not surprisingly, the government inactivity has led to a shift in the conversation away from plants producing electricity and creating waste to plants being decommissioned and the waste being stranded on site. If Yucca Mountain is taken off the table as a permanent storage site, every nuclear power plant that has been storing nuclear waste on an interim basis could become its own version of Yucca Mountain. The Maine Yankee Plant, closed in 1997, is still home to 60 nuclear casks and 550 metric tons of waste. As well, the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts recently announced it is to be closing and is estimated to have 3,000 radioactive rods in storage that will be stored on-site indefinitely.
Utilities owning a nuclear plant are now caught in real bind. According to press reports, every dismantling decision has been accompanied by a request to divert reserved funds to also cover costs for long-term fuel storage. In the case of Vermont Yankee, this is a double-whammy. Not only are its reserve funds insufficient, forcing the utility to mothball the plant for 60 years until the dismantlement fund is adequate, the utility is pursuing an additional line of credit of $145 million to build a storage facility and estimates that it will take an additional $225 million for storage operation and security…….http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/262407-the-politics-of-nuclear-waste-disposal
Germany expecting nuclear utilities to pay the costs of decommissioning and disposal of radioactive trash
Germany: Utilities Must Shoulder Nuclear Phase-Out Costs http://www.powermag.com/germany-utilities-must-shoulder-nuclear-phase-costs/ 12/01/2015 | Sonal Patel Germany’s nuclear power–producing companies will be able to shoulder the costs of the nuclear phase-out—including costs for decommissioning and the disposal of radioactive waste. That’s according to the country’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, as it published the results of a “stress test” on October 10. The government on July 1 reaffirmed that energy companies must bear the costs of dismantling their nuclear plants and concluded in October that reserves set aside by EON SE, RWE AG, Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG, Vattenfall AB, and Stadtwerke Muenchen GmbH of €38.3 billion ($41.98 billion) are within various scenarios examined during the stress test.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Germany decreed the phase-out of all its nuclear capacity by December 2022. It shuttered eight reactors in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and this June it closed the Grafenrheinfeld plant (Figure 3). Eight reactors remain open.
The government-commissioned study, prepared by auditing company Warth & Klein Grant Thornton AG, breaks down expected costs across five different categories, from dismantling to final storage. It finds that cost estimates made by companies are higher than the international average. Dismantling costs in Germany are estimated by the companies at €857 million ($939 million) per reactor compared to between €205 million ($224 million) and €542 million ($594 million) in other countries. If nuclear plants are dismantled in “an efficient manner,” overall costs could be slashed by about €6 billion ($6.5 billion), the auditors also said.
“We do not consider the scenarios requiring the highest provisions to be likely to materialise, as they are based on the assumption of major losses being incurred by the companies over a long period of time,” Minister Sigmar Gabriel said. Gabriel noted that the Federal Cabinet will soon establish a commission to review financing for the nuclear phase-out to adopt draft legislation on extended liability for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the disposal of nuclear waste. The results of the stress test will be made available to the commission.
Despite bribes offered, 47 Prefectures not keen to host Japan’s 166,000 tons of nuclear waste
Japan’s 166,000 tons of nuclear waste still waiting to be buried, Digital Journal, By Karen Graham 29 Nov 15 In a survey conducted last month by the Kyodo News survey, none of the 47 prefectures showed much interest in hosting a nuclear waste dump site, with 14 saying “absolutely no.”
Being that the government considered the situation an “emergency,” temporary sites were set up in a number of prefectures, with the government promising landowners to only lease the land for a period of two years. The waste has been stored in polyvinyl buildings.
But the government has reneged on those promises. Shigetaro Chiba, a 73-year-old farmer who leased land to the government for two years, said, “I was made to agree to extend the lease after the initial two-year period promised by the government expired. The new contract no longer specifies a deadline.”
In 2014, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NUMO) started work on updating guidelines, as well as working to design, construct, and operate an underground storage facility nearly 4 square miles in area, which would be operated for 50 years and monitored for an additional 300 years before being shut down.
Work on updated guidelines for a nuclear waste site
NUMO is funded by every power company in Japan that has nuclear power plants, with their fees based on how much radioactive waste they produce each year. The agency has worked on getting communities to express interest in a waste disposal site, but have had no takers despite being told they would receive billions in subsidies.
Public Trust is one option under discussion for managing Germany’s nuclear waste storage
Minister signals German trust could handle nuclear waste storage http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/29/uk-germany-nuclear-decomissioning-idUKKBN0TI0MH20151129 Germany could share responsibility for phasing out nuclear power with energy firms by setting up a publicly managed trust, the environment minister said on Sunday.
Barbara Hendricks’ comments to Deutschlandfunk radio follow calls by Germany’s top energy firms utilities on Berlin to help
handle the country’s nuclear exit and set up a trust for decommissioning plants and the storage of radioactive waste.
A government-appointed commission is tasked with recommending by early 2016 how to safeguard the funding of fulfilling the exit.
The use of a public trust is one option under discussion and closely eyed by investors, as utilities would then have to transfer certain assets, most likely cash and minority stakes.
Chancellor Angela Merkel accelerated the shift away from nuclear power and fossil fuels towards renewable sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar and biomass power afterJapan‘s Fukushima disaster in 2011.
Germany’s “big four” utilities – E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall – have already set aside nearly 40 billion euros ($42 billion) to fund the decommissioning and waste disposal but say they cannot handle the problem on their own. Hendricks said half of provisions could remain with the utilities to pay for the dismantling of the nuclear power plants.
“And yes, if the other half was put into a publicly managed fund, so that the finances were available for finding and establishing sites for storage, then that would be progress. I would agree to that.” (Reporting By John O’Donnell and Christoph Steitz)
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
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
- October 2026 (209)
- 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)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
