UK government’s proposals on radioactive substances : -all of its 7 “consultation questions” should be vigourously opposed.
Nuclear Waste Consultation, No2 Nuclear Power SAFE ENERGY E-JOURNAL No.97, April 2023
The UK and devolved governments have launched a consultation on proposals to update and consolidate policies on managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning into a single UK-wide policy framework. (1) The new document will basically replace existing policy which dates back to a 1995 document commonly known as Command 2919. The proposals focus on 3 areas: managing solid radioactive waste; updating the policy for nuclear decommissioning; managing nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel. Proposals include leaving lower-level waste behind on decommissioned sites; disposing intermediate level waste in near surface facilities and, most shockingly, reintroducing reprocessing.
In a draft response, I argue that the consultation has its priorities the wrong way round. In Part 1 there is far more emphasis placed on cost-effectiveness and removing burdens from industry, whereas protecting public health appears to be relegated to a second-class objective. Even here the emphasis is on meeting safety and environmental regulations rather than maximising public health protection, with no recognition of the uncertainties involved in radiation protection.
There needs to be a new emphasis on openness, transparency and public consultation as plans for decommissioning and waste management are developed, so that the public is fully aware of the intended destination of each waste stream, radioactive discharges expected from each proposed method of waste management and the dose implications of each proposed action. The public should also be given access to independent advice.
The document says: Government “must strive to keep the creation of radioactive waste to a minimum,” which given that the latest UK Energy Security Strategy proposes increasing the target for new nuclear power stations from 16GW to 24GW is nothing short of misleading.
The proposals would embed the so-called Nuclear Waste Hierarchy into Government Policy. In our view the Hierarchy promotes methods of radioactive waste management which are basically ways of diluting and dispersing radioactive waste around the environment, ultimately discharging radioactive substances into our estuaries, seas and atmosphere whilst masquerading as the environmentally friendly sounding ‘waste hierarchy’. Diverting increasing quantities of radioactive waste to landfill, metal recycling and incineration plants is a policy of dilute and disperse rather than one of concentrate and contain. This is ‘waste management on the cheap’. Waste management techniques should be based on environmental principles, particularly the principle that hazardous waste should be concentrated and contained in isolation from the environment.
The document also proposes a new policy framework for near surface disposal facilities for some types of intermediate level waste in England and Wales. It should be noted that while these near surface facilities might resemble Scottish near surface facilities, in Scotland waste could be retrieved if something went wrong, but in England and Wales retrieval is not planned for.
The new policy also proposes the promotion of on-site disposal on nuclear and former nuclear sites with the rider “where it is safe to do so”. This is to “help drive earlier and more cost-effective nuclear decommissioning and management of radioactive waste without compromising safety and security.”
Finally, the consultation says “New and advanced reprocessing technologies, with integrated waste management, may be developed in the future which support advanced nuclear reactor systems. The UK Government is continuing to support the advanced nuclear sector through investments in research facilities and programmes.”
The Consultation Document asks 7 “Do you agree” questions. The answer to all seven should be “No”. https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SafeEnergy_No97.pdf
Reply to UK government’s nuclear dump consultation – STOP Undersea Nuclear Dump NOW!
Radiation Free Lakeland have just put together a reply to the Government’s consultation on the nuclear dump plans. You don’t have to write a long reply to all their (loaded) questions. The main thing is to say that the GDF and Near Surface plans are too dangerous and that the Government should think again. Please do use the below for inspiration for your own replies to the consultation which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-radioactive-substances-and-nuclear-decommissioning
Your reply does not need to be long – even a sentence or two explaining why the Government should halt GDF plans would be good – Email your reply to the consultation here: RSNDPolConsult@beis.gov.uk
Managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning
Consultation by: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
1 March 2023 Notes from Radiation Free Lakeland sent by email to:RSNDPolConsult@beis.gov.uk 3rd May 2023
Radiation Free Lakeland are a volunteer civil society group who formed in 2008 as a response to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely’s (now RWM/NWS) ‘steps to Geological Disposal’ which were halted by Cumbria County Council in 2013.. RaFL’s focus is nuclear safety.
Introduction: RaFL do not recognise the validity of this consultation for the following reasons:
a) TIMING – It is taking place at a time when the most expedient ( proximity to Sellafield ) target area for nuclear waste disposal is undergoing the upheaval of Local Government Organisation.
b) CRONYISM – The NDA and Nuclear Waste Services are being advised on “Investigation Techniques,” “Construction” and “Costings for Scenarios” including “co-location” of a GDF and NSD by the CEO of West Cumbria Mining. Mark Kirkbride’s coal mine, now approved by Government, lies directly between the target areas of Mid Copeland and Allerdale.
c) SAFE ENOUGH – The public are being misled over escalating radiation risks by the use of ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable), the Waste Hierarchy and Best Available Techniques to recycle, incinerate and dispose of radioactive wastes by increasingly novel routes from recycling radioactive scrap metal to burial of high level wastes in sub-sea geology.
Consultation: Part I UK policy proposals for managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning
- 1. Do you agree with the proposal to require the application of a risk-informed approach as a decision-making framework for the management of all solid radioactive waste?
NO. The public are being misled into answering Yes to this question – who would disagree with a “risk informed approach?” But what the consultation fails to reveal (or even refer to as far as we can see) is that the industry uses a device called ALARP which was instigated following a court case in 1949. A coal mine employee had been killed by a rock fall that might have been prevented if the tunnel roof had been shored up by the operator the UK National Coal Board (NCB). The appeal court’s decision was that the NCB did not have to take every possible physical measure to eliminate risk; it only had to provide protection where it was required.
This judgement enabled business owners to defend themselves from successful legal action by showing that they had taken all “reasonably practicable” measures to ensure safe operation, and that therefore risks were “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” or ALARP. The nuclear industry has taken this principle and used it to apply to radiation protection for the public – the consultation does not make any mention of ALARP but does mention its facilitator “Best Available Technique” which aims to provide “value for money” ie the cheapest option measured against human life.
If risk is either impossible or hugely expensive to reduce the industry chooses to do what is “reasonably practicable” to manage it and label the process “ALARP”. The obvious alternative is that the process would have to shut down. The ALARP principle for fatality risk is effectively set at 1 in 10,000 per annum for members of the public and 1 in 1000 per annum for nuclear workplace risks. Even by this optimistic industry standard the public risk from radioactive emissions is twice that of a fatality by car accident (one in approx 20,000 according to some statistics) and in a reverse lottery many times greater than that of winning the National Lottery – the difference being that the public can choose to avoid the fatal traffic accident or winning lottery ticket. This equates to thousands of ALARP deaths every year due to radioactive emissions even by the industry’s own optimistic standard.
An example of this is the decommissioning of Sellafield’s Pile 1 and 2. A new landfill area called Calder Landfill Extension Segregated Area Disposals (CLESA) for nuclear waste dumping was created to dispose of wastes from the demolition. “This Best Available Techniques (BAT) justification demonstrates that the environmental permit for CLESA should be varied to allow it to accept radioactive waste material with higher levels of tritium..” Despite the Environment Agency previously pointing out in 2014 “ it is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site (at nearby Drigg) would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now. It would not be in accordance with current national and international siting practice for new facilities.” Despite knowing that radioactive wastes that will still be dangerous to the public in many decades to come will sooner or later end up scattered along the beach and in the sea the Environment Agency have acquiesced to Sellafield’s ‘necessity’ for a newly enlarged landfill just metres from the Irish Sea containing radioactive rubble using ALARP and BAT to justify the industry’s ‘need’. Coinciding with ALARP and BAT is the fact that in recent years the Environment Agency once fully autonomous from Government (and the nuclear industry) have been systematically declawed with massively reduced funding over recent years to become less of a watch dog than a lap dog.
Image the Calder Landfill is Expanding next to the Irish Sea in order to dump decommissioning wastes from Piles 1and 2 along with radioactively contaminated animal carcasses etc https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/cumbria-and-lancashire/sellafield-rsa-major-permit-review/supporting_documents/10.%20MARP003_CLESA%20PCRSA%20Updated%20Report%206.12.17.pdf-1
- 2. Do you agree that application of the waste hierarchy should be an explicit policy requirement for the management of all solid radioactive waste where practicable?
NO. Radiation Free Lakeland have previously warned that the application of the “waste hierarchy” has opened up novel routes to the environment with increasing radioactive risks to the public. Examples:…………………………………………………………………………………………..
- 3. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to current policies on geological disposal to allow disposal of Intermediate Level Waste in near surface facilities?
No. The NIREX inquiry of 1997 rejected the deep disposal of Intermediate Level Wastes. Nirex’s aim was “to prevent radioactive material from coming into contact with groundwater in which it could dissolve, because this is the principal route by which radioactive material could be transported from a repository through the overlying rock to the surface where it could affect humans.” The Nirex inquiry concluded that this aim could not be achieved with deep disposal of ILW. Roll on 20 years and this fact is airbrushed out with the plan for Near Surface Disposal which would mean that Intermediate Level radioactive wastes would reach groundwater and the surface far sooner than the rejected NIREX plan for deep disposal………………………………………………………………
- 4. Do you agree with the proposed policy framework for the development of near surface disposal facilities by the NDA for the disposal of less hazardous ILW?
No. See answer above. “less hazardous” does not mean safe to “dispose” by shallow grave.
- 5. Do you agree that the policy of the UK Government and devolved administrations should promote the use of on-site disposal of radioactively contaminated waste from the decommissioning of nuclear sites, subject to environmental permits?
No. See 3. and 4. Waste cannot be “disposed” unless radioactivity has reduced to background levels. Radioactive waste should be retrievable, monitorable and able to be repackaged/shielded giving future generations the ability to protect themselves.
- 6. Are there any further improvements that we might consider in relation to the proposed update of the nuclear decommissioning and clean-up policy?
Yes – see 3. 4. And 5. In addition the first step is to stop the process of generating more nuclear wastes.
- 7. Do you agree with our proposed updates to the policy statement on the management of spent fuel?
No. See 6. Reprocessing spent fuel should be banned completely. Reprocessing generates ever more waste streams to be discharged to the environment and increases the volume of nuclear wastes dangerous to all life forms by at least 160 times. Sellafield’s reprocessing wastes are found in the Arctic but much of the waste has settled on the Irish Sea bed to be resuspended with the tides and activities such as borehole drilling and subsidence from sub-sea mining.
- 8. Do you agree with our proposed policy statement on the management of uranium?
No. Uranium should not be ‘re-used.’ Uses of uranium include military use which should be banned as it is effectively a chemical weapon. Depleted uranium is used for tank armour, armour, armour piercing bullets and aircraft weights. Depleted uranium is both a toxic chemical and radiation health hazard when inside the body.
- 8. Do you agree with our proposed policy statement on the management of uranium?
No. Uranium should not be ‘re-used.’ Uses of uranium include military use which should be banned as it is effectively a chemical weapon. Depleted uranium is used for tank armour, armour, armour piercing bullets and aircraft weights. Depleted uranium is both a toxic chemical and radiation health hazard when inside the body
……………………………………………………………………………. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2023/05/03/tell-uk-government-stop-undersea-nuclear-dump-now/
France’s government postpones its nuclear safety reform indefinitely.
The merger of ASN and IRSN will not be examined by a joint committee during the
examination of the nuclear acceleration law on May 4th. The OPECST is
invited to discuss the future of this controversial merger. Game over for
the nuclear safety reform project. Announced by the government at the
beginning of February, the merger of the Nuclear Safety Authority, in
charge of civil nuclear safety, and the Institute for Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), in charge of nuclear safety expertise “is
withdrawn,” said the office of Energy Minister Agnès Pannier Runacher on
Friday.
Les Echos 28th April 2023
What happens to the UK’s nuclear waste?
Elly Foster. 2nd May 2023 https://ecohustler.com/technology/what-happens-to-the-uks-nuclear-waste
What are the plans for disposing of the UK’s nuclear waste?
Let’s not talk about it!
Nuclear reactors have existed in the UK since 1956, 67 years. In all this time no single government nor the industry itself has come up with a decent plan for getting rid of the dangerous waste. I have been a science teacher for many years and in the curriculum on electricity generation, students are always taught the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. They are simply taught that it is expensive to dispose of the waste. What they are not taught is how it is being stockpiled in places like Sellafield and how open concrete ponds of water filled with dangerous waste exist right next to the Irish Sea.
We have all seen what happened in Japan when Fukushima was affected by an earthquake. But this is the UK and we don’t suffer earthquakes here, or do we? Listening to our Government, to the Labour Party, to the Liberal Democrats and to Plaid Cymru, nuclear power is the way to get us out of the climate emergency hole. Of course what they really want to promise voters is that they can carry on consuming electricity with abandon. They like to argue that nuclear power is clean. What they mean is that it produces no CO2 as a by-product of the reaction process, but they fail to tell you how much CO2 is emitted in the construction of the power station, the transport and the decommissioning. They like you to think that only nuclear power can provide a baseload so that we can ‘keep our lights on’. They don’t tell you that it is possible to generate enough electricity if we were to drastically cut our unnecessary consumption and use our grid in a smart way.
And they never talk about the waste issue
We need to have a close look at the plans for nuclear waste dumping. In the industry’s parlance this is called a Geological Disposal Facility. The name says it all. Find some geologically stable rocks and dispose of the waste for millennia. A previous government asked all communities politely who would be prepared to have such a facility on their doorstep. Naturally not many communities came forward willingly, one in Lincolnshire and one which is the subject of this article.
It’s not that the local people were shouting hoorah, no; it’s more that their local council chiefs shouted JOBS and COMMUNITY BENEFIT. And it is seen as a community with a nuclear ‘heritage’, hence it is the obvious choice. Certain local people immediately started campaigning against this idea as they understood the reality on the ground, or rather under the ground. They knew that in fact the geology in their area is not that stable at all.
Coal consipracy?
It gets worse. The community I am describing is in West Cumbria. Many of you will know of plans to open a new coal mine there. We have heard the arguments that it is for coking coal and that we need it for the steel industry or otherwise we’ll have to import it, stated to be the unsustainable option. The pro’s love to pull this sustainability argument out of the hat; they think they sound so green.
Now, did you know that the CEO of West Cumbria Mining is none other than the same guy the Government has appointed to be its chief advisor on dumping nuclear waste? Something stinks, doesn’t it? His name is Mark Kirkbride. The two areas in Cumbria assigned for the nuclear waste dump are absolutely adjacent to the proposed under the sea coal mine. And this is a deep coal mine, prone to worse earthquakes than fracking. I have checked major news outlets for linking the new coal mine approval with nuclear waste dumping but cannot find one item.
Harm to marine animals
It gets worse still. In 2006 an organisation I was involved with called Save Our Sea (SOS) was set up to stop drilling for oil and gas in Cardigan Bay. The companies involved couldn’t just start drilling, and they couldn’t just start carrying out seismic testing to see if there was any oil or gas. An environmental assessment had to be done. They needed to know if there are animals affected by this. In Cardigan Bay there is a resident population of bottlenose dolphins and there are harbour porpoises, common dolphins and other migratory cetaceans.
What makes Cardigan Bay so different from the Cumbrian Coast? Just recently a stretch of this Cumbrian coastline has been designated a Marine Conservation Zone. So there must be plenty to protect. And in any case, migrating species swim all over the Irish Sea. But for some unfathomable reason, no environmental assessment has been carried out and apparently is not needed. Says who? Answer: the Nuclear Waste Services, Radioactive Waste Management (this is the body with Mark Kirkbride as its key advisor) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Local people didn’t get a say but they did find lots of dead harbour porpoises, seals and hundreds of jellyfish. The seismic testing itself delivered blasts every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day, for 20 days. The dump pit in the Irish Sea they hope to create would be 25km2. Last year the seismic testing was carried out near Copeland, centred on Seascale, this year they are planning to do the same at Allerdale.
It’s up to us all to stop this madness
Please read the following links and help stop these plans. Demand an answer from your MP if they are in favour of nuclear power as to how they think the waste should be disposed of, and demand that they find out why no environmental assessment or public consultation needs to be carried out before any seismic testing can take place. Also demand to know why a person like Mark Kirkbride can be both CEO of a coal mine and advise on nuclear dump sites next to his coal mine. Then sign the petition and share it with your friends. We must stand by the campaigners of West Cumbria who are a seriously good bunch of activists and defeat plans for nuclear dumping and for coal mining.
Useful links
The dangers of nuclear escalation have not receded
Putin would use a tactical weapon if pushed
1ai news, 3rd May, Keir A. Lieber Keir Lieber is the Director of the Center for Security Studies and Security Studies Program, and Professor in the School of Foreign Service and Department of Government at Georgetown University.
Since the Cuban missile crisis, the idea of all-out nuclear war in Europe has been almost unthinkable. And many Western commentators have dismissed Putin’s recent threats of nuclear blackmail as scare tactics. But we should not be so confident in our assessment argues nuclear expert Keir Lieber. If the West doesn’t tone down it’s rhetoric of a decisive military victory against Russia, we could be heading for catastrophe in Europe.
Many analysts believe that the danger of Russian nuclear weapons use against Ukraine or NATO has receded. Occasional escalatory threats by Russian President Vladimir Putin have been largely dismissed as scare tactics by Western officials, who remain confident that nuclear deterrence will hold under most plausible circumstances.
Such confidence is misguided. Both strategic logic and international history suggest that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces the prospect of a devastating defeat in the Ukraine war or a future conflict with NATO. Specifically, if Putin perceives an existential threat to his regime, then he will be compelled to prevent that outcome – even if it requires taking risky escalatory steps, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate tools of last resort; any rational leader would consider using them if his or her regime or life were on the line.
Of course, Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine makes a future direct attack by Russia on a NATO country seem unlikely. But that same conventional military weakness explains the danger of Russian nuclear escalation in both the current war in Ukraine and any conflict with NATO, if one were to occur.
The brutal fate of leaders like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, who lost wars to superior adversaries without having a nuclear option, looms large…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Both strategic logic and international history suggest that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces the prospect of a devastating defeat in the Ukraine war
The only wise response to Putin’s nuclear use in Ukraine would be to negotiate some kind of resolution in which all parties could declare Potemkin victories. If that is the path we are heading down, the United States and its allies should dial-down any rhetoric about achieving decisive victory and, instead, find a solution before nuclear weapons are used.……………. https://iai.tv/articles/the-dangers-of-nuclear-escalation-have-not-receded-keir-lieber-auid-2470
DEPLETED URANIUM: COURTS ACCEPT CANCER RISK DENIED BY ARMY
400 Italian soldiers who were exposed to DU in the Balkans had since died from cancer, and another 8,000 were suffering from the disease. They interviewed the lawyer at the centre of the litigation, Angelo Tartaglia, who urged Britain to “think about the risks and the consequences” of supplying Ukraine with DU shells.
Tartaglia said: “There’s the possibility that both Ukrainian and Russian military officials might fall ill but most importantly pollution caused by military activities could cause irreversible damage to the environment which means that civilians too would be at risk”.
An Italian Parliamentary commission into the issue found “shocking” levels of exposure among Italian veterans and said it had “helped sow deaths and illnesses”.
Courts across Europe have ruled that depleted uranium can cause cancer among troops. Yet the British army insists it is safe to supply Ukraine with the toxic tank shells.
PHIL MILLER, 2 MAY 2023
More than 300 Italian veterans who developed cancer after being exposed to depleted uranium ammunition have won court cases against Italy’s military. Some of the cases were brought by their bereaved relatives.
The judgments have mounted in recent years, with Italian courts repeatedly finding a link between cancer and service in the Balkans where such weapons were fired.
Although Italy does not have depleted uranium weapons in its own arsenal, Italian police and soldiers were deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo where NATO allies fired the controversial ammunition in the 1990s.
Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal produced as waste from nuclear power plants. Britain uses it to make armour-piercing tank shells, which are now being supplied to Ukraine.
Scientific debate continues about DU’s long-term risks to human health and the environment in post-conflict zones. British ministers insist it is low risk, and that there is only “some potential heavy metal contamination localised around the impact zone.”
But in the Balkans and Iraq, many believe it has caused cancer. That view was shared in 2009 by a coroner in England, who held an inquest into the death of Stuart Dyson, a British army veteran.
Dyson cleaned tanks during the Gulf war in 1991 and later developed a rare cancer, passing away in 2008. An inquest jury found it was “more likely than not” that depleted uranium had caused his death.
The Ministry of Defence rejected the ruling and refused to pay his widow a pension for those who die from service. By contrast, the widow of Captain Henri Friconneau, a French gendarme who served in Kosovo, was granted a service pension when he later died from cancer.
An appeal court in Rennes ruled in 2019 that Friconneau’s death was due to his exposure to DU dust. France’s interior ministry accepted the judgment and added his name to a monument for those who died on operations in Kosovo.
When in Rome
But it is in Italy where the highest number of veterans have won compensation. One family received a 1.3m euros pay out in 2015 after the court of appeal in Rome found “with unequivocal certainty” a link between exposure to depleted uranium dust and cancer.
The Il Fatto newspaper said the judgement went further than previous rulings, as it recognised a causal link beyond just the balance of probabilities.
A more recent ruling in 2018 seen by Declassified found the court could not “rule out the possibility that a soldier who served” in the Balkans “would have been exposed to genotoxic pollutants, thus increasing the likelihood of illness.”
An Italian Parliamentary commission into the issue found “shocking” levels of exposure among Italian veterans and said it had “helped sow deaths and illnesses”.
Last month, Euronews reported that 400 Italian soldiers who were exposed to DU in the Balkans had since died from cancer, and another 8,000 were suffering from the disease. They interviewed the lawyer at the centre of the litigation, Angelo Tartaglia, who urged Britain to “think about the risks and the consequences” of supplying Ukraine with DU shells.
Tartaglia said: “There’s the possibility that both Ukrainian and Russian military officials might fall ill but most importantly pollution caused by military activities could cause irreversible damage to the environment which means that civilians too would be at risk”………………………………………………………………. more https://declassifieduk.org/depleted-uranium-courts-accept-cancer-risk-denied-by-army/
France and Russia have “a win-win partnership” on the nuclear industry
France to Work With Russia on Hungarian Nuclear Project Despite EU Criticism
France’s energy transition ministry has permitted Framatome, a nuclear energy subsidiary of Électricité de France (EDF), to contribute to the construction of two reactors at the Hungarian Paks-2 nuclear power plant alongside Russian state-run nuclear bigwig Rosatom, according to a report by French news outlet Le Monde on April 27.
………… The said project has been contentious among some EU members, owing to the bloc’s sanctions against Russia.
…………………………. Last month, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó disclosed that Hungary might increase the contributions of Framatome in the project, after encountering roadblocks with Germany’s Siemens Energy, in the context of Ukraine-linked sanctions and Germany’s reduction of nuclear power as an energy source. Both companies had been contracted to provide control systems for new reactors at Paks-2 as part of a French-German consortium.
“Since the German government is blocking for political reasons the contractual participation of Siemens Energy, we wish to rely more on the French,” said Szijjártó ……………………………………..
Unveiled in 2014 under an agreement between Hungary and Russia, the Paks-2 project aimed to construct two new nuclear reactors by Rosatom and a Russian state loan to bankroll most of the project……..
In wake of the Russo-Ukraine conflict, anti-Russian observers and policymakers saw Framatome’s participation in the setting up of two nuclear reactors in Hungary led by the Russian state-owned group Rosatom as an ill-advised move.
……. , “to date, European sanctions [against Russia] do not target the nuclear industry,” the French ministry said.
………………………… The EU and Ukraine have been mounting pressure on France to fully sever relations with Russia’s atomic sector amid rounds of sanctions against Moscow, ramping up scrutiny of France’s links with Rosatom.
Collaboration with Rosatom has been a hot-button issue among France and other EU countries dependent on Russia for nuclear fuel. While 2022 saw the suspension of a great deal of commercial cooperation, some French state-controlled companies continue to maintain some ties with Rosatom.
…………………………………… Rosatom called the Franco-Russian alliance “a win-win partnership” that is “a driver of development both in the field of nuclear energy and scientific projects.”
……. French companies provide technology to Rosatom whenever the Russian behemoth constructs a nuclear plant abroad, with Rosatom usually spending up to €1 billion per project, encompassing command and control systems from Framatome, Faudon revealed.
……….. Apart from France, the United States also purchased $830 million of enriched uranium from Russia last year. Reactors in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, and Hungary obtain fuel from Russia as well…………………………………….more https://thenewamerican.com/france-to-work-with-russia-on-hungarian-nuclear-project-despite-eu-criticism/
The age of small modular nuclear?
the CEO of Rolls Royce described it as “a Lego kit of parts” for building a nuclear reactor. So it’s not actually an Small Modular Reactor , but why not call it one if you can tap government funding by pretending it is?
BY AGREENERLIFEAGREENERWORLD ON By Jeremy Williams
There was something of a non-sequitur from Britain’s Chancellor Jeremy Hunt recently. “We don’t want to see high bills like this again,” he said of the country’s current energy costs. “It’s time for a clean energy reset. That is why we are fully committing to nuclear power in the UK, backing a new generation of small modular reactors.”
If I was hoping to bring down energy bills, then nuclear isn’t the first place I’d look. The cost of Hinkley Point C, Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in decades, was originally priced at £16 billion. That made it the most expensive building in the world, and that was before costs began to spiral upwards. The latest estimate is that it will cost £32 billion. So it really doesn’t make much sense for Jeremy Hunt to be promising lower bills with nuclear power.
But maybe it’s not about megaprojects like Hinkley. Maybe, as Hunt suggests, the future lies in the much-vaunted Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). A number of agencies are looking for smaller reactors that can be standardised and therefore built quickly and cheaply – cheap being relative in the world of nuclear. It ought to be cheaper to install a chain of SMRs than to build one massive and bespoke power station.
The theory is that if they are small and they are modular, then SMRs would be closer to a manufactured product than a construction project. That would mean economies of scale, and potentially prompt the kind of decline in costs that we’ve seen in solar or in battery technologies.
But SMRs have been discussed for years. How close are we to seeing them as part of a low-carbon electricity grid?
Let’s start with who is working on the idea. A recent overview of the sector from the OECD includes this map of various projects. It’s not exhaustive, but it shows the major players.
Most of the action is in the US, with other projects in China, Britain, France, Russia and a handful of others. Some of these are private enterprises, particularly the American ones. Elsewhere a lot of the work is coming from state-owned nuclear companies such as EDF in France, or Argentina’s CNEA. Anyone who has invested in nuclear power and research in the past is likely to have an SMR project on a drawing board somewhere.
Is anyone actually building them? Sort of, but only China and Russia have working SMRs so far – a demonstration plant in China, and Russia’s pioneering floating nuclear power station, the Akademik Lomonosov. I wouldn’t consider either of those to be good examples of what SMRs are supposed to be, but they’re the ones that get mentioned. Construction on further plants is underway in both countries, along with Argentina. As the OECD notes, “there are currently no SMRs licensed to operate outside of China or Russia.” Everywhere else, SMRs are in various phases of research, design and planning.
This doesn’t tell us much about how long it’s going to take to bring SMRs into the energy mix. That’s because the big obstacle in nuclear power isn’t technology, but regulation. It’s incredibly difficult and slow to bring a new nuclear technology to market, and rightly so, given its dangers. Licensing a new nuclear design in the US takes five years and costs a billion dollars – and that’s before you even apply to build anything. That’s just to confirm that the design is safe.
Things move incredibly slowly in the nuclear world. The concepts for the European Pressurised Reactor that’s being built at Hinkley Point – and which is considered a new design, were being done in the mid-nineties. So of the long list of companies with concepts for SMRs, how many of those will ever get built, and in how many decades? From a climate change perspective, speed matters. We don’t want to accelerate nuclear power at the expense of safety, but at the moment it is going to take too long to bring any of these new reactors online.
Here in the UK, there is one firm that is synonymous with SMRs, and that’s Rolls Royce. Any article on the subject in the UK will mention Rolls Royce and often illustrate the article with a glossy picture of their proposed design – as I’ve done above. What’s odd about this is that Rolls Royce’s design isn’t a small modular reactor. It’s being called that because it’s a buzzword, but it’s 470Mw in capacity. That’s smaller than Hinkley Point C at 3,300Mw, but it’s a whole lot larger than what is generally called an SMR.
Neither does it use modular reactors to achieve its larger power output. What Rolls Royce is doing is using modular construction techniques to build a traditional reactor a bit quicker. On Michael Liebriech’s Cleaning Up podcast, the CEO of Rolls Royce described it as “a Lego kit of parts” for building a nuclear reactor. So it’s not actually an SMR, but why not call it one if you can tap government funding by pretending it is?
Looking at where we are at the moment, I expect there will be a new generation of smaller nuclear power stations at some point in the future. I expect China will do it first, and that the economies of scale will happen there. If it ever reaches the UK, it will be a few years away.
A more urgent question is whether or not a new generation of nuclear power will happen in time to make a difference to climate change. That looks far less certain.
First published in The Earthbound Report.
UK courts Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates for investments to salvage the nuclear dream
Gulf states poised to bail Britain out of energy crisis
Bahrain and the UAE courted by energy secretary Grant Shapps for fresh nuclear investment
By Rachel Millard, 30 April 2023
Gulf states are poised to help bankroll Britain’s efforts to build new
nuclear power stations to keep the lights on, the energy security secretary
has indicated. Grant Shapps visited the region in January and said he
remains “in constant contact” with investors in the region who are
“very interested” in the nuclear sector. Countries such as the UAE and
Bahrain have built up vast sovereign wealth funds which are now pushing
into clean energy amid global efforts to cut fossil fuel use.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, met with the UAE’s Mubadala, a sovereign investment firm,
in February, and has abandoned plans to toughen tax rules for sovereign
wealth funds. Mr Shapps said: “I was in the Gulf states [this year] and
I’m in constant contact with our friends and colleagues over there. “They
have already been investing massive amounts in renewable energy – and
they’re very interested in nuclear power as well. The scale of their
ambitions are pretty big – watch this space.”
Ministers are trying to drum up investment for EDF’s planned £20bn power plant in Suffolk as well as other nuclear projects as part of a push on the carbon-free [?] power
source. Legal & General, Britain’s biggest money manager with £1.3 trillion
of assets, has said it is focused on supporting other “viable, and
cost-effective” {?] clean [?] energy solutions.
French state energy giant EDF
owns Britain’s nuclear fleet but will need outside investors to build its
planned Sizewell C project in Suffolk. The Government and EDF have pushed
China’s CGN out of the project amid concern about China’s involvement in
critical national infrastructure.
Telegraph 30th April 2023
Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant: a Catastrophe Waiting to Happen
BY CAROL WOLMAN CounterPunch 1 May 23
A meltdown at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant grows more likely with every passing day. With a meltdown, radioactive water from the plant would flow into the Dnieper River, which empties into the Black Sea, and thence to the Mediterranean. See below for map. The consequences would be catastrophic for Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Clearly this is an international problem. It calls out for an international solution.
Perhaps it is time to send in UN Peacekeeping Forces.
ZNPP has been at risk for a Fukushima-type meltdown since the Russians occupied the plant in March 2022. It sits on the front line of the war, the south side of the Dnieper River. The Russians quickly occupied the south side early in their invasion; the Ukrainians still occupy the north side.
The International Atomic Energy Agency was able to establish a presence at ZNPP after months of lobbying by its Director- General Mariano Grossi. He has personally visited twice and gets daily updates from the IAEA personnel on site. His latest report can be found here.
Grossi has been trying for almost a year to negotiate a safety zone around ZNPP. After his visit to the plant on 3/29/23, Grossi stressed that the increasing combat makes it urgent to find a way to prevent a potentially catastrophic nuclear accident.
He complains that he is not getting support from the UN, and even from his own agency. The EU issued a statement a few months ago but is not keeping the pressure on. Given the potential for catastrophe, it is astounding that more attention is not being given to the need to support Grossi’s efforts.
Instead, the media publishes reassuring articles about how many safety features ZNPP has.
Safety features are useless if the cooling water stops circulating around the nuclear material. The reactors have been shut down, so the pumps need an external power source.
The main power lines cross the Dnieper to the Ukraine energy grid on the north side of the river. The back up lines connect to conventionally fired plants in Ukrainian territory. They are right on the front line, and mortar fire from either side can cut them.
Since the invasion, all the external power lines to the plant- 4 major lines and 2-4 backup lines- have been cut simultaneously at least SIX times, forcing the pumps to rely on emergency diesel generators. As Grossi says ““Each time we are rolling a dice…And if we allow this to continue time after time, then one day our luck will run out.”
Without the constant circulation of cooling water, the nuclear fuel would overheat, resulting in a chain reaction and meltdown. This is what happened at Fukushima Daiichi 1:
; the earthquake and tsunami cut off the power and the pumps stopped working. A huge discharge of radioactive water into the vast Pacific Ocean continued for several years, until an ice wall was built around the damaged reactors.
Within three years after the Fukushima disaster, there were massive die-offs throughout the Pacific. Mollusks in particular suffered, and the result went up the food chain, so that sea mammals were starving and mutated. The sea bird population was decimated.
A meltdown at ZNPP would release large amounts of radioactive water into a much smaller body of water than the Pacific Ocean. The Dnieper River empties into the Black Sea and eventually into the Mediterranean. All the countries which border the Mediterranean would be affected. The consequences are unthinkable.
The circulation of cooling water could fail for another reason. It cycles through a holding pond nearby. Because of the constant influx of warm water from the reactors, still hot even in shutdown mode, the pond is prone to algae growth, which could clog the intake valves and stop the water flow. It is stocked with tropical fish, which eat the algae and keep the water clear.
The cooling pond is at risk. Global warming may cause the pond to overheat this summer, killing the scavenging fish…………………………………………………
Clearly this is an international problem. The danger of a meltdown at ZNPP is real; the consequences would be catastrophic for Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East…………………………………………………………….. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/05/01/znpp-a-catastrophe-waiting-to-happen/
REGAN Vest: Inside Denmark’s secret nuclear bunker
BBC 1 May 23,
A top-secret atomic bunker has opened to the public in Denmark. Built to withstand a nuclear attack, it’s now an astonishing subterranean museum that sheds light on Cold War paranoia.
Hidden in northern Jutland’s Rold Forest, some 400km north-west of Copenhagen, is the sprawling bunker complex of Koldrigsmuseet REGAN Vest (The Cold War Museum REGAN West). Secretly built in the 1960s at the height of Cold War tensions, this is where the Danish government and even the queen would have been evacuated if nuclear war broke out.
The plan was to run the country from inside this shelter, 60m below ground, and its very existence was kept hushed for decades until it was finally revealed in 2012. After years of preparations, it opened to the public for the first time in February 2023 as a museum. Only 50,000 visitors are permitted annually, and access has been limited to small groups of 10 on 90-minute guided tours that explore 2km of the labyrinthine bunker system. It’s an eye-opening journey into the heart of a Cold War-era time capsule…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The resulting nuclear-proof bunker was a staggering 5,500sq m behemoth, shaped like two large, connected rings, each with an upper and lower floor, and more than 230 rooms that would house around 350 personnel. Mostly these would be ministers and civil servants, part of a slimmed down administration tasked with running the nation’s affairs during the darkest of times, plus a few medical staff, several journalists and a priest……………………………………………. more https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20230501-regan-vest-inside-denmarks-secret-nuclear-bunker
UK underlines commitment to NATO nuclear capability and a £3 billion funding uplift for the nuclear enterprise
UKDJ, By Tom Dunlop 1 May 23
Defence Minister Baroness Goldie recently hosted members of the North Atlantic Council and NATO Military Committee at His Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde, emphasising the UK’s commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrence.
This comes as the UK government announced a £3 billion funding uplift for the nuclear enterprise in the Spring Budget.
………………………….. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace commented, “We have declared our nuclear deterrent to the defence of NATO for over 60 years, and our commitment to the security of the NATO Alliance is absolute. The UK’s round-the-clock nuclear deterrent is more crucial than ever, as the ultimate guarantee of our collective security.” https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-underlines-commitment-to-nato-nuclear-capability/
The long and dirty legacy of nuclear power
The trouble is that nuclear-power adherents are now seriously contemplating for future generations a ghastly rerun of the decommissioning nightmare. Small-to-medium-sized reactors, such as envisaged for Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, are the smart way forward, they chorus. Once more, the probably insoluble decommissioning and nuclear waste-management problem is being blanked out.
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/opinion/the-long-and-dirty-legacy-of-nuclear-power-610039By Patrick O’Brien Sunday 30th April 2023
In the normal course of events, you’d know when you were financing a dodgy venture. It’s hard to imagine your money being ploughed into an enterprise doomed from the start and being ignorant of the fact.
So how many of us knew we’re bankrolling an outfit with a boat in the Irish Sea embarked on a mission guaranteed to be a very bad idea all round?
The craft in question operates with a simple instruction: to blast off underwater seismic guns – to the certain detriment of dolphins and porpoises – as part of a madcap exercise to find a subterranean cemetery for large amounts of lethal radioactive waste from Cumbria’s Sellafield nuclear site.
I refer to pollutants that, for the last 70 years, have contaminated seas off vast coastal areas of Wales and Ireland, and parts of England, with radioactive substances that take, literally, tens of thousands of years to decay.
Let me introduce Nuclear Waste Services, an entirely taxpayer-funded public body under the wing of the UK government, which is engaging marine geological surveyors to comb the seabed for an out-of-sight-out-of-mind repository for the terrifying remnants of a dangerous and long discredited system of energy-generation.
Yes, the UK is looking for a storage site for the world’s biggest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste, including 100 tonnes of plutonium.
Currently the search centres on the seabed off Cumbria. The nearby notorious Sellafield nuclear complex having, since 1952, openly discharged substantial quantities of liquid and solid radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, a disreputable industry’s servants are now embarked on a final fling, dressed up, naturally, as a service to the UK population.
Thus Chris Eldred, a Nuclear Waste Services senior manager, expounding on the benefit of the gorgeously clinically named geological disposal facilities (GDFs) his company has set its heart on.
GDFs, he vouchsafes, “will protect future generations from the risks of keeping hazardous radioactive waste in surface stores for thousands of years.” Thank goodness, therefore, that we have the sea at our unfettered disposal, there to hide away nuclear power’s abiding torment – what to do with the reverberating remnants of a spent technology that will never in thousands of years be stilled.
To help us with this vital work”, Mr Eldred says, “we will undertake surveys to provide a better understanding of the deep geology beyond the coast, while doing everything we can to minimise any environmental impact.”
In his apparent innocence, you wonder whether he has in mind earplugs for dolphins and porpoises, which are observed to be disorientated, distraught and damaged by the monstrous decibels of seismic guns. These theoretically protected animals, let it be remembered, are in all probability some of those we marvel at off the Ceredigion coast.
Not that the UK government or Nuclear Waste Services or anyone else has checked with us, the funders of this desperate exploration.
Not that they have seen fit, either, to mention that sea-borne radioactive waste, pumped for seven decades into the sea at Sellafield, has been detected off coasts of Wales, as well as hundreds of miles further south and west of the Cumbria nuclear site.
We’re talking here about insoluble radionuclides, such as highly dangerous plutonium-239, which has a half life of, truly, 24,110 years and can attach to particles in the sea, there to be transported over long distances and timescales and ultimately deposited into fine sediments. such as estuarine and coastal mudflats and salt-marshes. Since the early 1950s, this stuff has floated unhindered down from Sellafield off Wales’s west coast, ending up as far away as the Bristol Channel and the southern North Sea.
Sellafield’s tentacles have even reached inland Wales. In the late 1980s, the then Dyfed County Council commissioned a study of radioactivity in the county which found Caesium-137 – proved to have come from Sellafield sea discharges – in pasture grass seven miles inland from the Cardigan Bay coast. Radiocaesium, which has a 30-year half-life, can increase the risk for cancer.
The size of the current nuclear power-station decommissioning conundrum is mind-boggling. Even the UK government admits the seabed dump site it seeks for the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste would need to keep its terrible debris “safe and secure over the hundreds of thousands of years it will take for the radioactivity to naturally decay”.
Meanwhile, councils signed up to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities grouping, including Ceredigion’s and Gwynedd’s, believe the pretty well obvious: no matter how effective the marine storage barriers, some radioactivity would eventually leak to the surface of the sea. They prefer the idea of a “near surface, near site storage of waste” to allow for monitoring and management.
Trying to show willing, they’re seizing on a least-worst option, which is nevertheless woefully inadequate.
The trouble is that nuclear-power adherents are now seriously contemplating for future generations a ghastly rerun of the decommissioning nightmare. Small-to-medium-sized reactors, such as envisaged for Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, are the smart way forward, they chorus. Once more, the probably insoluble decommissioning and nuclear waste-management problem is being blanked out.
All that’s left is for the realists among us to resolve, very firmly, that we will never allow a return to the insanity of a 1950s future.
Why did Russians dig trenches in radioactive Chernobyl woods?
Even Ukrainians who stayed after the nuclear disaster tried to warn their
enemies. On February 24, 2022, the first day of the invasion of Ukraine,
the Russians crossed into the area from Belarus. They stayed for five
weeks, camping out for part of that time in some of the most contaminated
land around the site of the worst nuclear accident in history.
They dug defensive positions in the Red Forest, within a six-mile radius of reactor
No 4, where they lived, ate and slept for a fortnight. Nobody can
understand why.
“Don’t try to find logic,” said Oksana Pyshna, 30, a
tour guide turned employee of the state ministry responsible for the
exclusion zone, who showed us around. “It’s stupid.” The place is
called the Red Forest because that’s the colour the trees went after the
disaster as the cloud of poison spread through Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, on
to the Baltics and Scandinavia.
In 1986 and the years after, teams of men
dug up the topsoil and buried it: under the surface it is far more
poisonous. Carving trenches there was a terrible idea, said Pyshna.
“It’s the most dangerous territory in the special zone, because under
the ground we have nuclear waste.”
Perhaps the Russians felt safer there
because they knew the Ukrainians wouldn’t shell the area around the
nuclear plant. Perhaps the beauty of the woods blinded them to the danger.
Catfish throng the reactor’s cooling channel, deer shy through the silver
birches when visitors pass. There are, apparently, bears in the forests;
wolves too, wild ponies. In the autumn, the trees hang heavy with the most
perfect apples, green and pink.
But their pips can hold radioactive
isotopes: caesium-137 or strontium-90. Some Russian soldiers stationed in
the forest got radiation sickness, diplomats have confirmed. Kicking up the
dust or walking on the moss can contaminate you. Digging is much worse. The
few dozen locals – average age, 86 – who remained here after the
disaster have become unspeakably blasé about the risks of nuclear
radiation. Even they were shocked.
Times 29th April 2023
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-chernobyl-nuclear-putin-russia-invasion-rgjzskfvq
“We won’t be scapegoats!” — French opposition to nuclear waste dumping
“This land is our land.” French goats bleat against nuclear fuel pool threat
“We won’t be scapegoats!” — Beyond Nuclear International
Contrary to popular propaganda, nuclear reprocessing is not recycling. This has never been more evident than in the current crisis at La Hague, where the irradiated fuel pools are now full to capacity. Part of the reason is the country’s insistence on producing mixed-oxide reactor fuel from the plutonium and uranium separated at La Hague. So much of it has proven defective, that is has been returned to La Hague, filling up the fuel pools.
opposing French plans to extend the licenses of current reactors and to build new ones with, as they point out, absolutely no consideration of what will happen to the radioactive waste.
A new tongue-in-cheek rebellion has risen in France, but the cause is deadly serious
By Linda Pentz Gunter, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/04/30/we-wont-be-scapegoats/
In France, civil disobedience and defiance of authority — and authoritarianism — is in the national DNA. We have seen it most recently in the demonstrations against the raising of the retirement age, and against proposed agricultural reservoirs known as mega-basins. Before that it was the “yellow vests”, angered at a rise in fuel prices. Further back came the Resistance during World War II, and even further back, of course, the Revolution of 1789.
The French anti-nuclear movement is no exception and has engaged in protests that deliver considerable numbers and abundant creativity — and sometimes a lot of useful tractors as well.
It’s no surprise then to learn that such continued defiance has now spread: to goats.
Before continuing, it’s necessary to explain what a ZAD is. In French, it stands for Zone À Défendre (zone to defend.) ZADs are usually occupations or blocades created by citizens protecting something they deem precious from development or destruction. There are scores of ZADs across France, deemed illegal by French authorities. ZADs have sometimes won, most notably at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, where an unpopular airport project was stopped.
But raids on ZADs can sometimes turn violent, and authorities can over-react as they did in February 2018 at Bure, when 500 gendarmes went in to remove just 15 anti-nuclear activists occupying and attempting to protect the forested site targeted to become the country’s high-level radioactive waste dump.
Dressed in riot gear, the gendarmes used bulldozers, trucks, helicopters, drones and chainsaws to confront the occupiers, self-described “owls” who had been living in tree houses and lookout towers for the past 18 months.
Now, activists around the La Hague nuclear reprocessing site on the northern Cherbourg peninsula, have redefined the ZAD acronym to stand for Zone À Déchets (Waste Zone), and specifically radioactive waste.
Contrary to popular propaganda, nuclear reprocessing is not recycling. This has never been more evident than in the current crisis at La Hague, where the irradiated fuel pools are now full to capacity. Part of the reason is the country’s insistence on producing mixed-oxide reactor fuel from the plutonium and uranium separated at La Hague. So much of it has proven defective, that is has been returned to La Hague, filling up the fuel pools.
A slowdown in reprocessing due to technical failures has also hastened the overcrowding of La Hague’s four spent fuel pools with excess irradiated fuel rods. These pools risk saturation by 2030 and the French safety authority has criticized La Hague owner, Orano’s suggestion that it could pack the pools more densely as this raises safety risks.
The owner of the French nuclear fleet, EDF, is responsible for managing the waste fuel their reactors produce. Its solution to the overcrowding at La Hague is to build a new fuel pool at the site, at a cost of $1.37 billion.
And that has locals up in arms — and hooves.
Normandy, the province in which La Hague is located, is strongly agricultural. Cows — and dairy products — abound. As do goats. While those still domesticated produce cheese, there is also a significant and famous wild goat population, known as les chèvres des fossés, that ranges freely on the coastal cliffs.
Accordingly, a new La Hague opposition group, Piscine Nucléaire Stop (Stop the Nuclear Fuel Pool), found a way to communicate the threat a new fuel would pose to agriculture and the environment by recruiting some goats to their cause.
In an amusing action that was posted on Facebook and was covered in the press, the activists placed an array of artistic — and realistic — cut-out goats at an intersection in the town of Jobourg, one of the communities that would be affected by the health and environmental risks of a new nuclear fuel pool. The town gives its name to the famous wild Jobourg goats and has erected a statue in their honor.
Then the goats put out their own statement. It read:
“We nanny and billy goats of Jobourg, claim our right to decide the fate of our land, and affirm today our opposition to the EDF spent fuel storage pool project.
Continue reading-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- 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 