A win for future generations in Saskatchewan, as nuclear waste dump rejected
The powerful Nuclear Waste Management Organization with all their money and all their experts could not beat back the duty we have to protect our future generations”
there has been strong Indigenous opposition in Ontario for years. Both the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), representing 49 First Nations in northern Ontario, and the Anishinabek Nation, representing 39 member First Nations across Ontario, have formally declared their opposition to nuclear waste in all of their traditional territories……
“This is what happens when people stick together and fight for what they believe in,” said Fred Pederson, a Pinehouse resident and member of the Committee for Future Generations Continue reading
USA wants new nuclear waste storage (doesn’t occur to them to stop making this trash)
Under current law, the DOE is responsible for nuclear waste generated by electric utilities. The department has already paid out US$4 billion for failing to meet its obligation to remove waste that is now building up at nuclear power plants. It could be forced to shell out up to $23 billion more over the next 50 years if the issue isn’t resolved, Moniz said
US government seeks new sites for nuclear-waste storage Department of Energy pursues interim plan for commercial fuel and permanent location for defence waste. Nature Jeff Tollefson 24 March 2015 The US Energy Department will seek interim storage facilities for commercial nuclear waste and a permanent geologic repository for radioactive material from the country’s nuclear weapons programme, energy secretary Ernest Moniz said on 24 March. Continue reading
Small Nuclear Reactors turn out to have an equally Big Radioactive Waste problem
1. Small Reactors and the UK’s Long-Term Nuclear Strategy. nuClear News, March 2015 “……Waste Implications The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has looked at the waste implications of a 75GW programme [ i.e Small Modular Reactor or PRISM] which would be equivalent to a programme of over 50 new large-scale reactors.
It said that since the Government has, so far, been mainly talking about the waste inventory from only a 16GW nuclear new build programme, it should consider defining a maximum size for a deep geological facility (GDF) and make clear that we might need multiple GDFs. (15)
first someone needs to build a massive supply chain. Money for that would presumably come from customer orders – if there were any. The problem is it appears that no one actually wants to buy oneGermany’s nuclear power companies have not set aside sufficient funds for nuclear decommissioning
Nuclear plant closure money insufficient – German gov’t report http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/germany-utilities-nadal-idUSB4N0VR00V20150320
BERLIN, March 20 Fri Mar 20, 2015 (Reuters) – A report commissioned by the German government believes nuclear power firms have not set aside enough money to cover the long-term costs of decommissioning plants, according to a copy of the report seen by Reuters on Friday.
The report from the law firm Becker Buettner Held said the 36 billion euros already set aside by Germany’s four nuclear operators E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Sweden’s Vattenfall was insufficient and meant the costs could fall on the public purse.
The report added the government should consider legal measures which would force the parent companies
of nuclear power plant operators to assume liability in the case ofbankruptcy. (Reporting by Markus Wacket; Writing by Caroline Copley; Editing by Stephen Brown)
What to do with ever accumulating radioactive waste? – Belgium doesn’t know
And then there’s the more hope-inducing prospect of transmuting the most-highly-radioactive long-living radioactive wastes into shorter-lived less radioactive isotopes. This is one of the possibilities for the particle-accelerator-driven liquid-metal-cooled MYRRHA(Multi-purpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications), currently under construction in Mol as well…..
similar to certain Thorium reactors, there is a possibility that innovative reactor designs like MYRRHA could assist in the transition from the extremely irresponsible era of currently used nuclear technologies towards a post-nuclear era. (Problem is that fans of such new technologies seem just Gung ho about continuing the nuclear era, period, usually 
while downplaying cleaner alternatives, ánd accompanied with spewing nuclear propaganda, including belittling the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as current nuclear waste disposal issues, and thus end up ultimately undermining their own credibility… The shameful propaganda-shit-movie, Pandora’s Promise, was such a horrid feat of deception, for example.) ……
A Visit to Belgium’s Nuclear Waste Depository Lab, HADES, 750 feet Underground. Not All Alleged is Apparent, March 20, 2015 “……..Part of my concerns stem not from what is going on at the lab per se, but more so from the Belgian government’s irresponsible delays to tackle key decisions, such as giving the green light and allocate the needed funds to start the search for an actual waste deposit site. Unbelievable: Although scheduled, thát actually hasn’t even started yet.The radioactive waste are simply accumulating in spent fuel pools and bunkers. No long-term disposal site is even under construction yet. They have NO IDEA YET where they’ll put it! HADES, as it is now, is only an undergound laboratory. Belgium has been researching the waste disposal issue longer than most other countries, but is currently (2015) near the end of the line for implementation (2035?).
Yet, also true, since disposal can’t even start until a couple more decades anyhow (during which the spent fuel and other wastes need to cool down more), ongoing research should help with making better decisions when that time has come. Anyhow… “We’ll see.” is the very attitude of kicking the can onto the next generation… Continue reading
Radioactive waste produced by fracking for gas
Fracking Radiation– North Dakota Considers Weaker Landfill Rules, Less Oversight , CounterPunch, MARCH 19, 201 by JOHN LaFORGE
Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land, particularly in North Dakota’s booming Bakken gas and oil field.
National news coverage of the scandalous illegal dumping of radioactive filter “socks” there — on Indian Reservations no less — has led North Dakota’s legislature to consider changes to its radioactive waste laws so that fracking’s contaminated wastes can be dumped in ordinary landfills.
One current bill would permit fracking’s radioactive waste in state landfills to be contaminated with 10 times the radioactivity that state law now allows — as long as it’s covered with 10 feet of dirt. Radioactive fracking waste that’s not being illegally discarded — no Victoria, mobster dumping probably hasn’t ended — is supposed to be being trucked out of state.
ND House Bills 1113 and 1114 — reportedly requested by the State Health Department — are being contested by some law makers and journalists who question the right of the department to set its own rules.
The ND Newspaper Association and the ND Broadcasters Association complained that one bill eliminates mandatory public hearings about landfill rule changes and instead permits them “when appropriate.” The bill also cancels public notification of the permitting process for disposition of radioactive materials.
Dave Glatt of the State Health Department told the Bismarck Tribunethat his agency commissioned Argon National Laboratory in Chicago to study the issue and make recommendations. The department wanted to know “radiation limits that would be safe for workers and the public.” Glatt forgets that there are no safe radiation doses, only legally permitted ones.
Locals are Worried
“We don’t want to have, when this oil and coal is gone, nothing left here, a wasteland, and I’m afraid that’s what might happen,” said Underwood farmer Gene Wirtz to KXNET news reporter Ben Smith in January. Wirtz is worried about the increased radioactivity in local landfills. “Any amount of radiation beyond what you’re already getting is not a good thing,” he said.
Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, radium-226, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived radioactive pollutants come in six forms:
* “Produced water” which is injected underground but later brought to the surface as waste;
* “Sulfate scales,” which are hard, insoluble deposits that accumulate on frack sand and inside drilling and processing equipment;
* Contaminated soil and machinery;
* Filter socks, contaminated by filtering “produced water”;
* Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and
* Sludge and “filter cake” solids of mud, sand, scale and rust that precipitate or are filtered out of contaminated “produced water. They build up in “filter socks,” and in waste water pipes and storage tanks that can leak.http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/19/fracking-radiation/
Japan has no solution to nuclear wastes. Closing reactors should start the end of nuclear industry
Decommissioning reactors should be step toward ending reliance on nuclear power Asahi Shimbun, 19 Mar 15 Kansai Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. on March 17 decided to decommission three nuclear reactors that have been in operation for more than 40 years. And on March 18, two more nuclear reactors, operated by Chugoku Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co., joined the “to be decommissioned” list.
This is the first application of the regulation that, in principle, limits the operation of nuclear reactors to 40 years. That rule was adopted after the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
Nearly 20 of Japan’s 48 commercial nuclear reactors have been in service for 30 years or longer. Utilities get a one-time-only chance to extend operations beyond 40 years, but the reactor in question must pass special inspections and will require further investments. As the reactors continue to age, the utilities will have to make up their minds from year to year.
Since succeeding in nuclear power generation in 1963, Japan has promoted nuclear energy without any plans for decommissioned reactors. As a result, the nation is now stuck with all sorts of issues that must be resolved if the decommissioning of older reactors is to proceed. Only by overcoming these challenges and becoming a “nation capable of decommissioning nuclear reactors” will Japan be able to take its first firm step toward weaning itself off nuclear energy.
NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEMS UNRESOLVED
Nuclear waste poses the most critical challenge to the planned decommissioning of nuclear reactors. Directives are effectively nonexistent as to where to store spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste left behind by dismantled reactors.
The government has never addressed this issue, citing its “nuclear fuel cycle” policy that presupposes the full recycling of all spent nuclear fuel. But in practice, this policy is completely useless. Utilities are effectively forced to resort to on-site storage of spent fuel in cooling pools or dry casks.
According to a promise made by Kansai Electric to the Fukui prefectural government, spent nuclear fuel will be “stored or disposed of outside the prefecture.” The utility’s decision to dismantle two reactors at the Mihama power plant means having to deal with this promise.
The handling of radioactive waste is just as problematic. While the waste is supposed to be sorted by the level of radioactivity and stored underground accordingly, nothing has been decided about specific storage locations, not only for highly radioactive waste but also for low-level waste. Nor have any standards been set for the management of buried waste.
Obviously, reactors cannot be dismantled in the absence of rules for spent fuel and nuclear waste disposal. In fact, Japan Atomic Power, which became the first in the nation to decide to decommission a reactor at the Tokai power plant in Ibaraki Prefecture, had to postpone the dismantling work for three years, and then an additional five years, because disposal rules for low-radiation nuclear waste could not be established in time.
Having given up on waiting for communities to volunteer as permanent storage sites for highly radioactive waste, the government has decided to take the initiative and start selecting candidate sites. But given that no community has ever volunteered, the selection process is obviously not going to be easy. To ensure that no community will be forced to become a nuclear waste dump against its will, the government must guarantee procedural transparency and be fully ready for dialogue with every candidate……..http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201503180044
In just one year, Sellafield nuclear clean-up bill jumps an extra £5bn
Cost of nuclear clean up at Sellafield increased an extra £5bn in the past year Chronicle Live UK By Will Metcalfe 15 Mar 15 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has been slammed by MPs for the ever-increasing costs at the site in Cumbria Constantly increasing costs for the clean up of Sellafield are Britain’s bill for the Cold War, an MP has claimed.
This week MPs launched a fresh attack against the rising cost and delays of decommissioning and cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear site.
Leading figures from the nuclear industry were questioned by the Public Accounts Committee following the revelation that the expected costs have increased by £5 billion in a year, to £53 billion.
In a recent progress report on the work, the National Audit Office (NAO) criticised the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which oversees the plant, for delays in cancelling a clean-up contract with the consortium Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) after demands from MPs a year ago to do so.
The report said the contract was terminated only last month, at a cost to the taxpayer of £430,000 in cancellation fees.
- The site is used to store nuclear material from across the UK and was the host of a facility which secretly produced nuclear materials for the UK’s defence programme during the Cold War which was finally demolished in 2014……..
Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, described the rise as “astonishing” and repeated her criticism during a hearing on Wednesday.
Delays had increased by 86 months since September 2013, while costs were going up by billions of pounds, she said…..
She said she was struck by the “unpredictable massive burden on future generations”, telling the nuclear industry officials it was a good idea to have strong targets and ambitions……..http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/cost-nuclear-clean-up-sellafield-8838478
South Carolina – problem of nuclear wastes at coal plant
Nuclear waste, arsenic at SC coal plant raise concern BY SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com March 7, 2015 HARTSVILLE, SC — Just a few hundred yards from Lake Robinson lies an old waste pond that, until this year, was among the least of Duke Energy’s worries in the Carolinas……..documents that have surfaced recently show the unlined 55-acre basin has leaked arsenic – and it has the unusual legacy of being a dump site for low-level nuclear waste. Both findings are producing new questions about how to cleanse the mess at Duke Energy’s H.B. Robinson power station……..
in the 1980s, at least 69,000 cubic meters of radiation-tinged sediment wound up in the coal ash pond from the nuclear plant, a rare occurrence because most power plants don’t include both coal-and nuclear-fired units.
State regulators in South Carolina said they knew of no other power plant site where atomic waste wound up in a coal ash pond. A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Atlanta said the practice is rare…….http://www.thestate.com/2015/03/07/4031773_nuclear-waste-arsenic-at-sc-coal.html?rh=1
Depleted uranium for Utah – mind boggling scenario
Will Utah bury nation’s leftover depleted uranium? The Utah Department of Environmental Quality just received this week additional information from EnergySolutions related to potential erosion and other “deep time” problems suspected to impact its Tooele County disposal site, pushing back the start of a public review to April 13.
Helge Gabert, project manager for the state on the depleted uranium issue, said the requested information was about a month late. It was submitted Wednesday for review. It will be incorporated into a subsequent analysis or safety evaluation that the agency will release for public comment about a week beyond its earlier time frame.
In addition, a pair of public meetings will be held the week of May 4, with a decision on disposal due July 1 from Rusty Lundberg, director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control.
To take the nation’s leftovers of 750,000 metric tons of depleted uranium, EnergySolutions has to first convince Utah regulators that its site will be safe for 10,000 years. Beyond that, it has to prove that the threat to public health will be minimal in the advent of a return of a Lake Bonneville or other “deep time geologic events” over 2.1 million years.
It is a mind boggling scenario, planning for all manner of circumstances that could play out, modeling time and performance over such an extended period that it is difficult to grasp.
EnergySolutions must account for the farmer who wanders onto the disposal site, unaware of the radiological hazard underneath his feet. Or the burrowing rodent that could cause vulnerabilities to the at-grade disposal site.
The company must try to figure out how the wind will deposit the sand, how dunes will form and when the lake returns — as some say it inevitably will — how the water might disperse the radiological hazard from an anticipated breach of the disposal barrier.
Such planning is something Utah is requiring because of the unique nature of depleted uranium, which is the byproduct of the uranium enrichment process for nuclear fuel. While depleted uranium has commercial applications, such as antitank armaments, demand for it is far outpaced by the amount that is generated. The U.S. Department of Energy has responsibility for its disposal.
Depleted uranium gets more radioactive as its isotopes try to get back to their natural state, and as these “daughter products” break down, they not only multiply, but increase in intensity.
The instability that occurs in the decay process occurs over 2.1 million years, with what was once classified as “low-level” radioactive waste breaching Utah-imposed limits on what is allowed to be buried in the state.
Gabert said there is no question that by 40,000 years, depleted uranium will violate the state’s prohibition on anything “hotter” than Class A waste, so it becomes a policy issue for current regulators to decide if its disposal is acceptable in the here and now.
“You could argue why does not the state just make the decision based on the science, but we have not made that. We are willing to hear out what the facility has to say,” Gabert said.
The deep time analysis looks in particular if the threat will be mitigated enough — if the doses of radioactivity would be diluted to the degree that even exposure to a higher “category” of waste would not cause harm.
Critics of the EnergySolutions’ proposal to dispose of the depleted uranium say no amount of assurances or analysis can safeguard human health given the sheer amount of unknowns.
Nuclear wastes out of control? Fukushima’s bags of radioactive trash pile up
The fruits of the laborers’ efforts are stacked in those giant sacks—5.5 million of them and counting. They are spread out across Fukushima province, along roadsides, in parking lots and backyards. They are tagged and bar-coded so authorities know what’s inside and how radioactive it is – and when the bags might start to wear out.
As the bags pile up and workers fan out across the landscape, some locals are questioning the cost-benefit analysis.
Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup has cost $13 billion and counting After 4 years, Fukushima nuclear cleanup remains daunting, vast LA Times, By JULIE MAKINEN contact the reporter 12 Mar 15 “…..Karimata is in charge of the work here in an evacuation zone about 12 miles north of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant—part of the most extensive, and expensive, nuclear cleanup ever attempted.
The scale and complexity of what Japan is trying to do in the aftermath of the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima is mind-boggling. Decontamination plans are being executed for 105 cities, towns and villages affected by the accident at Fukusima Dai-ichi, 140 miles northeast of Tokyo.
Many Japanese regard this massive undertaking as a solemn obligation to right a terrible wrong. Others, even some of the people directly affected, question whether it’s a quixotic waste of resources.
Karimata’s delegation marches up a side street to check on a brigade of laborers wearing gloves, masks, helmets and fluorescent vests with radiation detectors tucked in their chest pockets. Some are spreading fresh soil in the yard of an uninhabited home. Next door, workers are up on a scaffold, preparing to wipe down the roof and gutters.
Across the street, near a bamboo grove, two men are erecting a plastic frame to support a massive double-lined garbage bag about the size of a hot tub. Dozens of identical black sacks, each weighing about a ton and stuffed with radiation-contaminated soil, leaves, wood chippings and other debris, stretch out behind them, awaiting transport at some uncertain date to a yet-unspecified final resting place.
Four years after the Great Tohoku Earthquake shook northern Japan to its core, touched off a deadly tsunami and precipitated the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, hundreds of square miles remain off-limits for habitation due to radioactivity. Some 79,000 people still cannot return home.
But unlike the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, where authorities simply declared a 1,000 square-mile no-habitation zone, resettled 350,000 people and essentially decided to let the radiation dissipate over decades or centuries, Japan is attempting to make the Fukushima region livable again. It is an unprecedented effort.
The sheer manpower and money dedicated to the house-to-house effort is staggering: Continue reading
Japanese public to bear the costs of scrapping 5 old nuclear reactors
Five ageing nuclear reactors to be scrapped in Japan Sun Daily, 12 March 2015 -TOKYO: Japanese power companies are expected to announce the decommissioning of five ageing nuclear reactors next week, local media reported Thursday.
Four operators – Kansai Electric Power Co, Japan Atomic Power Co, Chugoku Electric Power Co and Kyushu Electric Power Co – will decide on Wednesday to scrap the reactors, which went into service in the 1970s, Kyodo News agency reported without citing any sources.
The operators will avoid the cost of beefing up safety measures to meet higher standards following Japan’s worst nuclear accident in Fukushima prefecture in 2011, Kyodo said.
The Industry Ministry said in January that the cost of decommissioning reactors, which can run to hundreds of millions of dollars and take decades until the property is ready for other uses, should be met by the general public……..http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1353191
Japan must face the problems and politics of demolishing dead nuclear reactors
Questions remain over future plan for Japan’s aging nuclear plants Japan Times, 12 Mar 15 BY ERIC JOHNSTON As the debate about what to do with Japan’s aging nuclear reactors intensifies, questions remain about the ramifications of decommissioning plants, and how to tear down the facilities in a way that’s efficient, affordable, safe, and that has the support of the local community.
In the United Kingdom, these concerns formed the basis of a policy that has led to the decommission of numerous power stations, two of which began operating in the 1950s……
Seven of Japan’s 48 commercial reactors are at least 40 years old — in principle their maximum operating life. Another five are at least 35 years old and their fate will have to be decided within the next few years.
Kyushu Electric plans to decommission the 40-year-old Genkai No. 1 plant, while Kepco is expected to shut down the Mihama No. 1 and 2 reactors, both of which are over 40 years old. Chugoku Electric plans to decommission the 41-year-old Shimane No. 1 reactor, while the Tsuruga No. 1 reactor, which is 45 years old and run by Japan Atomic Power, will be closed.
Decommissioning a plant is a decades-long process that does not necessarily immediately involve the most crucial step of tearing down the reactors and hauling away radioactive material.
“During the decommissioning of the Berkeley power station in southwest England, we’ve left the reactor building standing because it’s safer to remove the nuclear material in another 60 years,” Franklin said. “We’ve closed the doors on the reactor building until 2074.”
However, he acknowledged publicly visible gestures were important because they could help reassure local communities that the plant was actually being dismantled.
“A skyline change helps garner support for the decommissioning process and for difficult decisions, such as not tearing down and hauling away nuclear materials in reactor buildings,” he said.
“In one case, we destroyed the plant’s cooling towers, which were not actually a major hazard but could be seen for miles. If you live nearby and you see them come down, you feel progress is being made, and that’s more effective than simply telling people about the progress.”
Perhaps the biggest lesson the U.K. learned was that effective decommissioning starts with addressing the corporate and bureaucratic culture at a nuclear plant.
“Changing your culture from making something — electricity — to actually taking power stations down requires a huge cultural change on a nuclear site. That’s something we’re really working on sharing with Japanese nuclear operators,” Franklin said. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/11/national/questions-remain-over-future-plan-for-japans-aging-nuclear-plants/#.VQH9CNKUcnk
Japan’s piles of radioactive trash
Radioactive Fukushima, Asia One Reuters, Mar 11, 2015 “…..Today, four years after the disaster, residents are torn over government’s plan to build a radioactive waste storage site in the shadow of the wrecked nuclear plant, reported Reuters.
Norio Kimura, 49, who lost his father, wife and daughter in the tsunami, walks to where his house used to stand before it was washed away by massive waves.
Kimura knows the brokers are circling, ready to offer a deal for his land to build the waste storage facility.
He has vowed not take it.
“I can’t believe they’re going to dump their trash here after all we’ve been put through,” he told Reuters.
Japan has allocated more than US$15 billion (S$20.7 billion) to an unprecedented project to lower radiation in towns around Fukushima. Every day teams of workers blast roads with water, scrub down houses, cut branches and scrape contaminated soil off farmland.
That irradiated trash now sits in blue and black plastic sacks across Fukushima, piled up in abandoned rice paddies, parking lots and even residents’ backyards.
Tokyo plans to build a more permanent storage facility over the coming years in now-abandoned towns close to the Fukushima nuclear plant – but like Kimura, many locals are angry that the government is set to park 30 million tons of radioactive debris on their former doorstep.
According to Reuters, some 2,300 residents who own plots of land in Futaba and Okuma which the government needs for the waste plant face what many describe as an impossible choice. The storage site will be built if the government can lease or buy enough land – whatever concerns the last hold-outs may have.
– See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/radioactive-fukushima#sthash.gzfTklgA.dpuf
Massive buildup of radioactive debris at Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant
FOUR YEARS AFTER: Radioactive debris continues to stack up at Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201503080013 March 08, 2015 By HIROMI KUMAI/ Staff Writer
FUTABA, Fukushima Prefecture–With nowhere to put it, refuse and debris contaminated with radioactive materials continue to pile up at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant here.
A total of 258,300 cubic meters of radioactive debris was produced from the March 2011 accident to the end of this January in the plant, where decommissioning work is under way.
The amount is equivalent to the capacity of about 650 25-meter-long swimming pools.
Of the 258,300 cubic meters, 178,600 cubic meters were mainly debris that had been scattered around reactor buildings, wood refuse produced in the work in the plant and protective suits used by workers, according to the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co.
The remaining 79,700 cubic meters were trees that were felled to create space for tanks storing radioactive water. There were also 1,846 objects that absorbed radioactive materials from contaminated water.
According to the road map worked out by the government and TEPCO, the basic plan for disposing of the radioactive waste will be released in fiscal 2017.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
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
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- 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 