Macron promises 52 billion euros for 6 new EPR nuclear reactors – but this ”nuclear renaissance” is far from certain
Building at least 6 new generation EPRs, a challenge for the nuclear industry. It will be a “renaissance of French nuclear power”, promised Emmanuel Macron, but the construction of at least six new EPRs represents a real challenge for a weakened sector, which remains on the bitter failure of Flamanville.
The president announced Thursday in Belfort six new generation EPR2 reactors, with a first commissioning by 2035. To this is added the study for eight more copies. The investment will be “52 billion euros for 6 new EPR reactors, plus studies on eight possible new reactors, plus research on modular reactors”, quantified Friday the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire.
“It is an intention but there are a certain number of important stages which will take five years”, underlined Valérie Faudon, the general delegate of the French Company of nuclear energy (SFEN). Before even starting work for an EPR, it is indeed necessary to organize a public inquiry on the first site envisaged, that of Penly (Seine-Maritime) and to obtain a certain number of administrative
authorizations. Emmanuel Macron thus envisages a start of construction in 2028. “The deadline of 2028 that he drew is not impossible to meet but is already in itself optimistic vis-à-vis the various stages to be crossed”,judges Yves Marignac , nuclear expert from the NégaWatt association.
Connaissance des energies 11th Feb 2022
Fusion delusion – unsafe, too uncertain, too expensive, and too late – even if it worked
Fusion delusion no answer to climate emergency or cost-of-living crisis https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/fusion-delusion-no-answer-to-climate-emergency-or-cost-of-living-crisis/ 13 Feb 22,
Fusion is unsafe, too uncertain, too expensive and, if it is even possible, will still come far too late to address either climate change or Britain’s energy needs, says the UK’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities.
Slamming claims of a ‘major break-through’, Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLA, noted that scientists have made similar claims for decades when it has come to fusion. Commenting he said:
“Fusion has since the Second World War been heralded as the next big evolutionary development in our energy supply, and scientists have made similar claims for decades when it has come to fusion leading to countless billions being invested in this illusionary technology.”
Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy Stephen Thomas of the University of Greenwich suggested a motivation for the latest claims:
“It has always been said that fusion breakthroughs occur when there is a need for more public funding.”
Fusion is a complex technology to master, representing an attempt to reproduce on Earth the nuclear reactions that take place in the sun. As the Earth lacks the immense gravity of the Sun, the interior of the reactor must be superheated to 100 million degrees centrigrade (or six times the temperature of the Sun). Generating fusion reactions to date have used many times more energy than the energy produced, making fusion a technology that remains economically unviable. The reactor also requires intricate cooling and containment systems which ‘gobbles up’ much of the energy it produces; if these failed at any time reactor safety would be compromised.
Fusion is neither green nor safe. Neutrons produced by the reaction would bombard the walls of the reactor and its housing which over time would threaten the integrity of the structure. The radioactive tritium gas that is produced poses a real danger to public health even at very low levels if it enters the air or our water supply. And, like fission power, fusion would result in radioactive waste that will need to be safely stored and managed for countless years.
The UK Government is currently looking at five sites, one of which will soon be chosen to host a new experimental fusion reactor and has pledged £200 million towards its development.
Councillor Blackburn is sceptical there will be any result anytime soon:
“The earliest estimates that any fusion reactor could come on stream is in the late 2040’s, and that even assumes the technology will ever be mastered or economically viable. There is a need for humanity to address climate change and a need for Britons to address the energy crisis now. Fusion will come 30 years too late if at all. All of us are facing huge hikes in our energy bills, and we need power sources that are green, available now and affordable to keep our lights on and heat our homes.
“The UK Government has foolishly continued to pour billions of taxpayer money into the fusion delusion and other grandiose nuclear projects, whilst strangling financial support for renewables that work. We need a complete about-face in energy policy with the government instead investing massively in insulating Britain’s homes to reduce energy demand and energy bills and address fuel poverty, and also to finance the proven renewable technologies that can provide power now at an affordable price to Britain’s citizens, including solar generation, a renewable technology already available to us which harnesses the energy of the Sun.”
The radioactive ‘Cumbrian mud patch’ would be shaken up by a coal mine at theSellafield site
A tsunami of radioactive wastes now largely inert (apart from tidal processes) would be resuspended in the water column – returning to the shores and to the rest of the world. It takes only 4 years for Sellafield’s seaborne waste to reach the Arctic. The coal mine would cause subsidence and resulting resuspension of nuclear wastes.
| *Sellafield** A great article by Paul Brown below – there is however a big elephant in the room regarding this story. The elephant in the room is the Cumbrian Mud Patch – the radioactive silts on the Irish Sea bed resulting from decades of reprocessing. The coal mine due to be decided upon soon by Government (after Planning Inspector Stephen Normington makes his recommendation) would churn up this nuclear crapola on the seabed. A tsunami of radioactive wastes now largely inert (apart from tidal processes) would be resuspended in the water column – returning to the shores and to the rest of the world. It takes only 4 years for Sellafield’s seaborne waste to reach the Arctic. The coal mine would cause subsidence and resulting resuspension of nuclear wastes. The coal mine would cause earthquakes. Both these outcomes are not “likely” they are certain. The coal mine CEO is also employed by government as advisor on the plans for a deep (and not so deep) nuclear dump for heat generating nuclear wastes – you couldn’t make it up. Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole 12th Feb 2022https://keepcumbriancoalinthehole.wordpress.com/2022/02/12/decades-of-sellafields-reprocessing-waste-on-irish-sea-bed-could-be-churned-up-by-coal-mine-subsidence/ |
French government supressed, postponed, distributing report that recommended no new EPR nuclear reactors
Nuclear: the government has postponed the dissemination of an official report contradicting Emmanuel Macron. Mediapart has obtained a report from Ademe, the public agency for ecological transition, according to which there is no need to build new EPR reactors.
But the government postponed the distribution of this report: the President of the Republic was going to
announce contrary projects.
Mediapart 11th Feb 2022
UK SPENDS OVER £80M ON MEDIA IN 20 COUNTRIES AROUND RUSSIA
The project is likely part of the ongoing information war between Russia and Nato.
The British government is spending tens of millions on media projects in Eastern Europe which are often presented as fighting “Russian disinformation”, but which may involve the UK’s own information operations. DECLASSIFIED UK , MATT KENNARD, 8 FEBRUARY 2022 The British government ploughed at least £82.7m of public money into media projects in countries bordering or near Russia in the four years to 2021.
The projects, which take place across 20 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, are run through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), a cross-government pot of money with the stated aim of preventing “instability and conflicts that threaten UK interests”.
The National Security Council, which is chaired by the prime minister, sets the fund’s strategic direction. But a parliamentary committee found the CSSF was “being used as a ‘slush fund’ for projects” which “do not meet the needs of UK national security.”
The findings come as tensions between Britain and Russia are high over Ukraine. The UK has accused Russia of planning to invade or launch a coup in Ukraine to install a pro-Moscow government.
Last month Britain began supplying the eastern European country with new anti-tank weapons. Some of the UK-funded media projects appear focused on Ukraine.
‘Counter-disinformation’
The project most clearly directed at Russia is the Counter Disinformation and Media Development programme. It is run around Russia’s western border, from the Baltic States to Central and Eastern Europe, although project documents do not disclose specific countries.
It cost £60.4m in the four years to 2021. …….
The project is likely part of the ongoing information war between Russia and Nato. The funds, UK documents note, aim to “understand and expose disinformation across the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) space.”
The project was launched in 2016 and initially called the Russian Language programme. ………
,,,,,,,,, the programme may be a cover for the UK’s own information operations in the region. The UK Ministry of Defence is one of the implementing departments in the counter-disinformation programme. It is not obvious what role the UK armed forces would have in a media support project.
……….In the four years to 2021, the programme cost the UK public £140.5m, although a breakdown of the media component is not provided by the government.
The UK is also “working closely with the US on media reform” through the programme……………
Judicial review on the dumping of Hinkley Point C radioactive mud
A group campaigning against the dumping of sediment from the site of a
decommissioned nuclear power station has succeeded in securing a judicial
review challenging the legality of a licence to dump waste into the River
Severn.
The Save the Severn Estuary / Cofiwch Môr Hafren campaign involves
the Geiger Bay coalition and groups from the English side of the estuary
and is seeking to halt the dumping of sediment from the construction of the
Hinkley C power station in the Marine Protected Area (MPA) near Portishead,
Bristol.
In 2018, EDF, which is building the plant, dumped mud and sediment
off the coast of Cardiff despite fierce objections. The Campaign group says
that millions of tonnes of contaminated mud and sediment will contaminate
the waters and beaches used by local communities, and that by choosing to
ignore legal safeguards, energy giant EDF is threatening the health of
families and animal life.
Save the Severn Estuary / Cofiwch Môr Hafren say
that EDF are now trying to avoid further opposition and negative media
attention by moving the operation to Portishead, Bristol as a ‘soft
touch’ location after initially applying for a new license to dump more
waste off the Cardiff coast. At the judicial review on 8 March the campaign
group will challenge the legality of the licence granted by the Marine
Management Organisation (MMO), stating that several important procedures
haven’t been met and that an alternative to dumping at Portishead should
be adopted.
Nation Cymru
Nation Cymru 12th Feb 2022
Russian Congress of Intellectuals: An Open Letter to the Russian Leadership
Russian Congress of Intellectuals..An Open Letter to the Russian Leadership. https://johnmenadue.com/russian-congress-of-intellectuals-an-open-letter-to-the-russian-leadership-february-4-2022/ February 4, 2022, By John Menadue, (letter, signed by a large number of individuals)
Our position is simple: Russia does not need a war with Ukraine and the West. Such a war is devoid of legitimacy and has no moral basis.
There is an ever-increasing flow of alarming news about a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. Reports are emerging about stepped-up recruitment of mercenaries within Russia and the transfer of fuel and military equipment to Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In response, Ukraine is arming itself and NATO is sending additional forces into Eastern Europe. The tension is not abating, but rather mounting.
Russian citizens are becoming de facto hostages of a reckless adventurism that has come to typify Russia’s foreign policy. Not only must Russians live with the uncertainty of whether a large-scale war will begin, but they are also experiencing a sharp rise in prices and a devaluation of their currency. Is this the sort of policy Russians need? Do they want war—and are they ready to bear the brunt of it? Have they authorized the authorities to play with their lives in this way?
But no one asks Russian citizens for their opinion. There is no public debate. State television presents only a single viewpoint—that of the warmongers. Direct military threats, aggression and hatred are aimed at Ukraine, the US, and the West. But the most dangerous thing is that the war is being depicted not only as permissible, but as inevitable. This is an attempt to deceive the population, to impose upon them the idea of waging a crusade against the West, rather than investing in the country’s development and improving living standards. The cost of the conflict is never discussed, but the price—the huge, bloody price—will be paid by the common Russian people.
We, responsible citizens and patriots of Russia, appeal to Russia’s political leadership. We openly and publicly call out the Party of War that has been formed within the government.
We represent the viewpoint of those in Russian society who reject war, who consider unlawful the use of military threats and the deployment of a blackmailing style in foreign policy.
We reject war, whereas you, the Party of War, consider it acceptable. We stand for peace and prosperity for all Russian citizens, whereas you put our lives on the line for the sake of political games. You deceive and manipulate people, whereas we tell them the truth. You do not speak in the name of the Russian population—we do. For decades, the Russian people, who lost millions of lives in past wars, have lived by the saying: “if only there were no war.” Have you forgotten this?
Our position is quite simple. Russia does not need a war with Ukraine and the West. No one is threatening us, no one is attacking us. Policies based on the idea of such a war are immoral and irresponsible and must not be conducted in the name of the Russian people. Such a war is devoid of legitimacy and has no moral basis. Russian diplomacy should take no other position than a categorical rejection of such a war.
Not only does such a war not reflect Russia’s interests, but it also threatens the country’s very existence. The senseless actions of the country’s political leadership, which is pushing us in this direction, will inevitably lead to a mass anti-war movement in Russia. Each of us will naturally play a part in it.
We will do everything in our power to prevent this war, and if it begins, to stop it.
Signed,
Continue readingMacron goes for a new nuclear renaissance, despite the industry’s woes in France
France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050, says Macron. French president says ‘renaissance’ of atomic energy industry will help end country’s reliance on fossil fuels, Guardian, Angelique Chrisafis in Paris 11 Feb 22, Emmanuel Macron has announced a “renaissance” for the French nuclear industry with a vast programme to build as many as 14 new reactors, arguing that it would help end the country’s reliance on fossil fuels and make France carbon neutral by 2050.
“What our country needs … is the rebirth of France’s nuclear industry,” Macron said in a speech in the eastern industrial town of Belfort, in which he lauded the country’s technological prowess.
The centrist French president, who is expected to announce his campaign for re-election this month, is conscious of a growing debate about energy ahead of this spring’s presidential vote as costs to consumers rise. Environmental issues are also a growing concern among French voters.
….. recent attempts to build new-generation reactors to replace older models have become mired in cost overruns and delays.
Presidential candidates on the right have supported more nuclear power plants saying France should have “sovereignty” over its electricity, while detractors on the left have warned of the cost and complexity of building new reactors. Environmentalists have raised safety concerns over radioactive waste that remains deadly for tens of thousands of years.
……… He also announced a major acceleration in the development of solar and offshore wind power. He said France had no choice but to rely on renewables and nuclearand that the country would also have to consume significantly less energy in the next decades.
He said he would seek to extend the lives of all existing French nuclear plants where it was safe to do so.
The announcement comes at a difficult time for debt-laden, state-controlled energy provider, EDF, which faces delays and budget overuns on new nuclear plants in France and Britain, and corrosion problems in some of its ageing reactors.
Macron announced the construction of at least six new reactors by EDF by 2050, with an option for another eight.
His recent focus on nuclear power marks a policy shift from the start of his presidency, when he had promised to reduce its share in France’s energy mix.
The French government lobbied hard and successfully to get the European Commission to label nuclear power “green” this month in a landmark review which means it can attract funding as a climate-friendly power source.
The Green presidential candidate, Yannick Jadot, said it was a moral imperative to progressively end France’s dependence on nuclear to protect the climate and French people’s safety. He said Macron’s project was backward-looking and would condemn France to a kind of “energy and industrial obsolescence”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron
Amid Ukraine Tension, US Deploys Nuclear-Ready B-52 Bombers to UK
Amid Ukraine Tension, US Deploys Nuclear-Ready B-52 Bombers to UK “The West is trying to make a tragedy out of this,” said Russia’s foreign minister. Common Dreams, JULIA CONLEY February 11, 2022 Despite repeated warnings from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the U.S. is driving the rise of tensions at Ukraine’s eastern border, the U.S. Air Force has deployed four B-52 bombers with nuclear capabilities to the U.K., where one official acknowledged that the deployment is at least partially connected to Russia’s recent military activities.
Two B-52 Stratofortress aircrafts arrived at Royal Air Force Fairford on Thursday, with two more following. The bombers integrated with other NATO members’ forces en route to Fairford, according to the Air Force, including “British Typhoon aircraft and Portuguese F-16s currently assigned to NATO’s Icelandic Air Policing mission.”………
According to The Telegraph, a former British intelligence official noted that the Pentagon could launch air strikes from Fairford as it has before.
“From Fairford they could operate against a range of targets: troop concentrations in southern Russia and Belarus, Moscow/St. Petersburg, even the naval bases in the White Sea,” the former official told the outlet. “In 1991 they hit Baghdad from Fairford, flew on to Diego Garcia, refueled and rearmed, bombed Baghdad again on the way back, and returned to Fairford.”
The bombers sent from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota are capable of carrying precision-guided and nuclear weapons…………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/11/amid-ukraine-tension-us-deploys-nuclear-ready-b-52-bombers-uk
BBC Cons the Public with Reports of “Sadness as Somerset nuclear power station nears closure” Tell us the Truth.
BBC Cons the Public with Reports of “Sadness as Somerset nuclear power station nears closure” Tell us the Truth, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2022/02/11/bbc-cons-the-public-with-reports-of-sadness-as-somerset-nuclear-power-station-nears-closure-tell-us-the-truth/ The following is a Guest Blog by Jim Duffy former co-ordinator of Stop Hinkley republished with permission from a social media post. This lifts the veil on Hinkley Point B in a way that the BBC are wilfully neglecting to do.
No sadness on my part. It all started badly with bodged welds in the cooling circuit which luckily a welder owned up to some years later when the Chernobyl accident made him worry about the defects he and others made. A regulator told me that the whole cooling system had to be rebuilt while the welder was threatened with prosecution for his honesty and not allowed on site to show the faulty areas.
In 1995 a new low level waste incinerator was refused permission from the Environment Agency after Somerset Green Party campaigned against it with Dr Chris Busby ‘s help. It already had planning permission from the local council but Somerset County Council was worried it would pave the way for a regional incineration centre for radioactive waste. We argued it would harm people’s health.
Chris Busby researched local cancer rates from 2000 onwards which Stop Hinkley commissioned and publicised. He found a doubling of breast cancer mortality in downwind Burnham on Sea together with raised leukaemia and other cancers. BNFL announced the closure of Hinkley ‘A’ when Dr John Large also lambasted the plant for dangerous corrosion. Hinkley ‘B’ carried on running despite evidently contributing to the radioactive discharges.
In the 2000’s Dr John Large supported Stop Hinkley’s campaign to shut it down after worrying cracks and weight depletion were discovered in the graphite reactor core. The regulators forced it to operate at lower temperature and radiation levels to try to maintain safety thus generating less electricity.
At the same time we discovered that one of the three vital safety systems was never fitted to the twin reactors. The boron beads system is designed to slow down the nuclear reactions if the reactors overheat. For some unexplained reason the system was not fitted nor added later despite our protests at the increased risks from the cracks in the reactor cores.
In the mid 2000’s a 20 by 20 metre patch of radiation was found on nearby Kilve beach by a retired submarine engineer with his Geiger counter. His two dogs had died unexpectedly after digging and playing in the sand. The Environment Agency refused to visit the site for five weeks by which time they couldn’t detect the patch. It wasn’t clear if the leak came from Hinkley ‘A’ or ‘B’.
So I can’t cheer at the closure of the plant as it has caused so much worry and concern over the years. Relief is more my feeling although the story isn’t over by a long chalk with all the spent fuel and radioactive waste to take care of for hundreds of thousands of years…”
Hugely costly venture – nuclear fusion – now going private – but success is as elusive as ever
So far, while nuclear fusion has been successfully achieved in labs, ignition has remained elusive.
Europe’s Nuclear Fusion Race Is Going Private. The race is on to achieve commercial nuclear fusion. Believers in the “holy grail of clean energy” are hopeful that a breakthrough in nuclear fusion is imminent
enough that the clean energy source could power a green energy transition sweeping and swift enough to help the world achieve the emissions targets set by the Paris climate accord.
So far, relatively few large-scale nuclear fusion initiatives have gotten off the ground, due to huge barriers to entry. Because of the enormous expense associated with building a reactor capable of facilitating fusion, so far the field has been dominated by publicly funded projects such as Europe’s ITER and China’s EAST (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak). As scientists have gotten closer and closer to achieving ‘ignition’ – which refers to a nuclear fusion reaction that emits more energy than it consumes – the private sector has become increasingly interested in getting into the industry on the bottom floor and positioning itself at the forefront of what could be a world-changing innovation. So far, while nuclear fusion has been successfully achieved in labs, ignition has remained elusive.
Naked Capitalism 10th Feb 2022
Government approval for Bradwell B project does not really give a green light for nuclear reactors to be built.
“This absolutely does not give a green light for reactors to be built at Bradwell. “And, given the problems of the Bradwell site and the fierce local opposition, CGN would surely struggle to gain the permits, licences and planning permission that it will need over coming years.
A MAJOR milestone has been reached for a nuclear reactor intended for a new power plant in Essex, but campaigners say the approval shouldn’t be seen as a go-ahead for the plant. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA) have confirmed the UK HPR1000 nuclear reactor is suitable for construction in the UK after completion of an in-depth assessment of the design, marking the end of a five year process.
The technology has been developed by China General Nuclear Group (CGN) and its adaptation to the UK has been jointly performed by CGN and EDF. It is intended to be used in their Bradwell B project.
However. the approval by the regulators should not be read as a go-ahead for a new nuclear power
station at Bradwell, according to the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG). Prof. Andy Blowers, BANNG’s chairman, said: “This absolutely does not give a green light for reactors to be built at Bradwell. “And, given the problems of the Bradwell site and the fierce local opposition, CGN would surely struggle to gain the permits, licences and planning permission that it will need over coming years.
Prof. Blowers said the approval does not recognise the “serious long-term risks” the impacts of
climate change pose to “people and environments from reactors and radioactive waste stores on vulnerable low-lying coasts threatened by flooding, storm surges and sea level rise”. He added: “If Bradwell B ever comes to pass, the ONR and EA will have to grant permits and licenses and we must hope that they will then apply their ‘rigorous and detailed asesssment’ to the issues of radioactive waste, decommissioning, cooling, environmental impact and climate change at the Bradwell site.
Maldon Standard 10th Feb 2022
Macron pledged to close down over a dozen nuclear plants, but now he’s done a U-turn
Mr Macron’s decision to extend the lifespan of existing plants marked a U-turn on an earlier pledge to close more than a dozen of EDF’s 56 reactors by 2035. Nuclear safety still divides Europe following Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
Independent 10th Feb 2022
Slovak government plans to tax nuclear power plants
Slovak government plans to tax nuclear power plants, owners threaten bankruptcy
By Michal Hudec | EURACTIV.sk 11 Feb 22, The “excessive profits” of nuclear power plants should be taxed as this would open up millions to compensate for the soaring energy prices, the economy ministry has said. But Slovenské elektrárne a.s, the owner of both Slovak nuclear power plants, claims the bill would lead to the private company filing for bankruptcy.
The government already agreed on a proposal and sent it to parliament to request a shortened legislative procedure. “The proposal introduces a tax on excessive profits for trading in electricity produced by nuclear facilities. The tax period will be a calendar month, ” the ministry wrote in an explanatory report.
According to the bill, excessive profit is a difference between electricity market prices and expenditures for their production in nuclear power plants. If parliament approves the bill, the state will get half of this difference. This year, it would be approximately €50 million………..
Slovenské elektrárne a.s. is a company owned by EPH of Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský and Italian energy giant Enel. Together, they own two-thirds of the shares, with the rest belonging to Slovakia’s economy ministry. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/slovak-government-plans-to-tax-nuclear-power-plants-owners-threaten-bankruptcy/
Reactor at Oskarshamn 3 nuclear power plant in Sweden shut down due to ‘fuel damage’.
Reactor at Oskarshamn 3 nuclear power plant in Sweden shut down due to
‘fuel damage’. Oskarhamn 3 will be temporarily taken out of production for
nine days from February 19 after assessments showed a “fuel damage” issue
needed urgent repair, according to owner OKG.
Mirror 10th Feb 2022
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/reactor-oskarshamn-3-nuclear-power-26197599
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (180)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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 