UK: Both Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B nuclear power stations will close early due to cracks in graphite cores
Times 20th Nov 2020, The Hinkley Point B nuclear power station will close by July 2022 at thelatest, EDF has announced, triggering renewed calls to invest in
replacement reactors. The Somerset plant started generating in 1976 and was
due to close in 2016 but in 2012 EDF secured an extension until March 2023.
However, the reactor developed cracks in its graphite core, which has
limited its operation. EDF said this summer that the Hunterston B plant in
Scotland, which also has cracks in the core, would close earlier than
planned, in January 2022. Tom Greatrex of the Nuclear Industry Association,
said it was “a reminder of the urgency of investing in new nuclear
capacity to hit net zero”.
Extradition hearing of Julian Assange – defence witnesses destroy myths, demonstrate his integrity
Julian Assange: Three myths destroyed by defence witness statements, Independent Australia, By Sara Chessa | 19 November 2020
Witness statements towards the journalistic integrity of Julian Assange have been heard in court, debunking various myths in the process. Sara Chessa reports from the UK.
THE EXTRADITION HEARING of Julian Assange closed last month in London’s Central Criminal Court, the world-famous “Old Bailey”. We will have to wait until 4 January next year for the decision of the Judge. However, the Court heard impressive and authoritative witness statements highlighting the importance of Assange’s journalistic work and years of smear campaigns carried out by those states which were embarrassed by the way WikiLeaks disclosures made civil society aware of war crimes and the reality of the public interest.
Reconstructing the events starting from these accounts means getting out of the chronic opinionism of our time and taking the first fundamental step to return to the concrete facts. Therefore, while we wait for Judge Vanessa Baraitser to announce her decision, let’s go through the main myths that have been debunked by the witness statements heard at the Old Bailey.
Debunked myth one: On the redaction of the classified documents
|
The subtle game of the prosecution has been to deny that the charges against Mr Assange are about the disclosure of information that the public had the right to know, such as the Collateral Murder video. They have rather claimed to have identified WikiLeaks fault in the failure to redact the secret papers in deleting names of people who gave information to the American military and intelligence services whose life could have been in danger after the release. However, several WikiLeaks media partners were heard in Court testifying that strenuous steps had been taken by Wikileaks to redact any names before the release of documents. John Goetz, the German journalist who collaborated with WikiLeaks on their reporting about the U.S. military Afghan and Iraq War logs before publication, testified under oath that the redaction initiative put in place by Assange was “robust” and had involved a huge investment by WikiLeaks, both financially and in human resources. The Court also heard from one of the most celebrated whistleblowers in history, former U.S. Marines officer Daniel Ellsberg, best known for leaking to the New York Times in 1970 the huge tranche of U.S. Government documents on the Vietnam War – the “Pentagon Papers” – showing that the American Government had lied to the public from the very beginning of the conflict. Ellsberg told the packed court that Assange’s approach was the exact opposite of that of a reckless publication. He also explained that the U.S. Government could have prevented sensitive names from being released merely by revealing those that raised concerns, so they could be redacted. They didn’t do this, Ellsberg suggested, so to leave open the possibility of future prosecution……….. Debunked myth two: On the Trump supporters desperately believing he was going to save AssangeIf before September hearings we could have said that only a complete ignorance of the case had led people to think of U.S. President Donald Trump as a “hope” for Assange, now, after listening to the witness statements, we have a complete dossier of facts proving how harshly the incumbent U.S. President is fighting against WikiLeaks and investigative journalism. ……….. Moreover, the naïve vision of Trump as Assange’s saviour does not match with the witness statement of Mark Feldstein, Professor in the Journalism Department of the University of Maryland. He told the Court that the Trump Administration wanted a “head on a spike” to discourage future leaks. Feldstein explained that in 2010 and 2011, the Obama Administration wanted to prosecute WikiLeaks. However, the Justice Department stated that this would have been unconstitutional and would have set a precedent that could lead to many other journalists being prosecuted, as Assange’s conduct was “too similar” to that of journalists in hundreds of different newspapers. However, the Trump Administration decided to prosecute him anyway, leveraging the attempt by Assange to access classified documents. “It can’t be right that the only way journalists can get information is anonymously by post,” Feldstein said, concluding by highlighting that the nature of the accusation showed that the Trump Administration had journalism firmly in its sights. Debunked myth three: On the fact that Assange prosecution will only destroy his lifeKey witnesses have been clear: Assange’s conviction would criminalise all journalists. Trevor Timm, the founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the court that there have been numerous attempts by the U.S. Government to use espionage charges against journalists and none have ever succeeded. His qualified opinion is that this prosecution would mean that any journalist in possession of confidential information could be arrested. As he explained, if the charges against Assange were applied in 1970, the journalists who revealed the Watergate scandal under the Richard Nixon Administration – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – could have been thrown in jail under this standard. Reconnecting the issue to the present, he said that if asking a source for classified information is espionage, then the secure “dropbox” systems used by more than 80 publications worldwide to encourage whistleblowers to send them information would also be illegal, since they “solicit classified information” — one of the charges against Assange. Despite this, we are still waiting for a massive reaction from journalists. Of course, the International Federation of Journalists has taken action and the UK National Union of Journalists is finally organising to do the same. However, a lot of work still needs to be done to explain the impact that a decision to extradite Assange would have on the freedom of the press to inform the public, so the people could truly assess the action of their rulers.https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/julian-assange-three-myths-destroyed-by-defence-witness-statements,14531
|
|
|
British govt produced no evidence that nuclear plants are essential, in secret deals for the convenience of the nuclear industry
Greenpeace 17th Nov 2020, Greenpeace briefing on SMRs and Sizewell. The government has produced no analysis to show that nuclear reactors are essential, despite being asked by select committees to do so. It is making the same strategic mistakes in decision making as the Cameron and May governments did with Hinkley. Being drawn in to commitments they can’t pull out from, by conducting secretive deals behind closed doors with no scrutiny or competition, for the convenience of the nuclear industry.
What energy policies is Greenpeace calling for instead of nuclear?
A commitment to ensuring at least 80% of the UK’s power is generated from renewables by 2030; In addition to a commitment to delivering at least 40GW of total offshore wind generation by 2030, publicly commit to targets for total generation of 45GW of solar and 35GW of onshore wind by 2030.
Hazardous plan for Peel Ports to take over the decommissioning of Britain’s dead nuclear submarines
|
Ferret 17th Nov 2020. The company that runs the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire wants to useit to break up the radioactive hulks of defunct nuclear submarines, The Ferret can reveal. A plan by Peel Ports, released under freedom of information law, discloses that the firm sees “opportunities” for military submarine decommissioning at Hunterston.
But the idea has brought condemnation from politicians, environmental and community groups. They warn that the transport and dismantling of submarines would be “potentially hazardous” and could cause “significant environmental damage”. The 50-strong group of nuclear free-local authorities (NFLA) in the UK pointed out that prolonged public consultations had resulted in
agreement that decommissioning should only take place at Rosyth and Devonport. “If Peel Ports is lobbying for a change in that policy to undertake this work at Hunterston port, we would be concerned,” said NFLA Scotland’s convenor, SNP Glasgow councillor, Feargal Dalton. There were “complicated and potentially hazardous transport issues of moving
submarines from the east to the west coast of Scotland, and the required level of expertise to do this,” he argued. “It would also require a new consultation process at a time when the last one took years to deliver. I doubt the Ministry of Defence would like to reopen that process – and if they do, we and others will robustly challenge any significant change that increases the hazards to this operation.” https://theferret.scot/hunterston-peel-ports-nuclear-submarines/ |
Russia and the United States Nuclear Industry
Trump’s Impact on Nuclear Proliferation, Treating Foreign Policy as a Business, Just Security, by Tamsin Shaw, November 18, 2020 “…………….Russia and the United States Nuclear Industry
It’s only relatively recently that the public and private U.S. institutions have begun to examine seriously the intricate financial network that lies behind and links Russian nuclear business dealings in the United States. Public perception of these dealings has been dominated by the false Uranium One conspiracy theory. This distraction has diverted attention from the extent to which Russia has established a strong foothold in the US nuclear industry in a way that suggests an aspiration to vertical control.
The grain of truth in the Uranium One story is that in 2010 Canadian company Uranium One, which was responsible for mining 20% of the currently licensed uranium in the United States, made an agreement with JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, giving them a controlling stake (51%). In 2013 Rosatom acquired full ownership. Uranium One continues to mine approximately 10% of that licensed in-situ uranium.
The United States also relies, both for civilian utilities and defense purposes, on nuclear fuel supplied by Russian subsidiary of Rosatom called Techsnabexport (TENEX). No U.S. uranium enrichment facilities are currently in operation. The U.S. company, Centrus has a new centrifuge design but it will likely be over a decade before it goes into action.
Nor does the United States currently have a company that builds commercial nuclear reactors. The only U.S. company now aiming to construct them is Bill Gates’s TerraPower, which is working on what will likely be the next generation of reactors, small modular reactors (SMRs), but again these won’t be commercially viable for a decade. Commercial nuclear reactors were previously designed and built by US company Westinghouse. But on March 24, 2017, Westinghouse declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The sale of that company naturally has serious national security implications. But the story of the sale and of the role that the Trump administration played in it raises many questions.
Trump’s friend and adviser, Tom Barrack, seized on the opportunity presented by the Westinghouse bankruptcy to put together a new version of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East, producing his own document setting out the details. In his March 2017 white paper, Barrack refers to the plan interchangeably as the “Trump Marshall Plan” and the “Trump Plan.” The July 2019 House Oversight and Reform Committee report details the ambitious deal Barrack tried to put together to purchase Westinghouse. Barrack had permission from the highest levels at the White House for a US-led consortium involving Colony Capital, IP3, and financial firms Blackstone and Apollo. Barrack assured Blackstone CEO Steve Schwartzman,
Our GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] allies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE have committed to invest in the Westinghouse acquisition and are willing to concurrently lock in Westinghouse as the primary partner on the 30+ reactors expected to be constructed in their countries in the coming decade.
IP3 officials were very optimistic. President Trump and Jared Kushner had met with MBS on March 14, and IP3 boasted that this meeting prepared the way for a “partnership to acquire Westinghouse between IP3 and Saudi Arabia.” They eagerly arranged meetings with officials in the administration to promote the plan, including then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, and top National Security Council (NSC) Staff officials. They also briefed Jared Kushner.
But in January, 2018 it was announced that Canadian company, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of investing giant Brookfield Asset Management, would purchase Westinghouse. And Westinghouse promptly and unilaterally decided to sever ties with IP3. ProPublica discovered that Kushner was the one who prevented the IP3-led deal from happening, reporting that Kushner “wanted to table the nuclear question in favor of simpler alliance-building measures with the Saudis, centered on Trump’s visit in May, according to a person familiar with the discussions.”
The Westinghouse sale went through on August 1, 2018. Three days later it was announced that Brookfield Properties, another subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management that had just purchased Westinghouse, would buy Jared Kushner out of his catastrophic real estate deal involving 666 Fifth Avenue.
Who Owns Westinghouse?
The Westinghouse purchase was naturally considered an extremely sensitive deal, deserving scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which at the time included Steve Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Wilbur Ross and Dan Coats. The committee approved the transaction but with a Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) Requirements Notice forbidding transfer of their licenses and insisting on compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. But the NRC filing submitted to CFIUS is fairly thin. It tells us that Westinghouse would be “ultimately controlled” by Brookfield Asset Management, but little about the money behind the deal. According to their 2018 20-F annual report, BBU acquired 44% of the company, while having a 100% voting interest, having put in $405m of equity totaling $920m, with the balance coming from “institutional partners.” The rest of the purchase price was funded with approximately $3b of long-term debt financing. The sources of the equity and financing aren’t disclosed.
Immediately prior to the Westinghouse sale, prominent foreign policy experts Thomas Duesterberg and William Schneider wrote an article expressing serious concerns about the opacity………….https://www.justsecurity.org/73422/trumps-impact-on-nuclear-proliferation/
£525 million pledged to build UK small nuclear reactors, no funding package yet revealed for £20 billion Sizewell plant
Times 18th Nov 2020. A total of £525 million has been pledged “to help develop large and
smaller-scale nuclear plants, and research and develop new advanced modular
reactors”. However, there is no word as yet on a funding package to
support the proposed £20 billion new nuclear plant at Sizewell in Suffolk.
British govt’s foolhardy plan to pay up for non existent Rolls Royce small nuclear reactors
Guardian 17th Nov 2020, Boris Johnson’s £12bn plan for a “green industrial revolution” spans renewable energy, nuclear power and countryside restoration. However, some of the objectives are likely to be difficult to reach, and the plan has been criticised for a lack of ambition in key areas.UK government wastes tax-payer money on small and large nuclear reactors that will never be cheap or safe
FoE Scotland 17th Nov 2020, Friends of the Earth Scotland gave a scathing reaction to 
the UK Government’s announcement of a 10-point plan on climate and energy, calling for much more priority on solutions which can reduce emissions and create jobs today.crisis like carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and nuclear. “While there are some crumbs from the table in terms of the welcome new target of 2030 to phase out fossil-fuelled cars, overall there is too little new money and too much funding committed to long-term, dangerous distractions.
https://foe.scot/press-release/response-to-the-uk-10-point-climate-plan-for-net-zero/
Sizewell C nuclear plant ‘not value for money’, and would sabotage the govt’s pledge for nature
|
New Civil Engineer 18th Nov 2020, Plans for proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast,
which is currently waiting for planning approval, would “sabotage” the |
|
Uranprojekt -The Nazi Nuclear Program
|
Uranprojekt -The Nazi Nuclear Program , Heritage Daily, 17 Nov 20,
Uranprojekt, also known informally as the Uranverein (meaning Uranium Club) was a secret German project, to research and develop atomic weapons and energy during the Second World War.Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Germany was at the forefront of nuclear fission, with the discovery of the first nuclear fission of heavy elements by Otto Hahn (referred to as the father of nuclear chemistry), and his assistant Fritz Strassmann from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in 1938. This was shortly followed by Lise Meitner, an Austrian-Swedish physicist who theorised, and then proved in 1939 that the uranium nucleus had been split, giving the name “fission”. In light of the recent discoveries, Germany was encouraged by a paper submitted by experimental physicist Wilhelm Hanle, which proposed the use of uranium fission in a reactor. This led to a small team being tasked to study the potential military applications of nuclear energy. The Germans then established a new research project on the 1st September 1939 (the same day generally considered to be the start of WW2 with the invasion of Poland by Germany), under the auspices of the Wehrmacht’s Heereswaffenamt (HWA), the German Army Weapons Agency responsible for researching weaponry, ammunition, and equipment. The USA also became aware of the German program that same year, when Albert Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt, warning of the German threat in creating a “nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.” It was quickly realised by the HWA that the project would be unable to make a decisive contribution to ending the war in the near term, so authority was placed under the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council), maintaining its kriegswichtig (war importance) designation. The project was then expanded into three main areas of research, the Uranmaschine to investigate creating a nuclear reactor, the production of uranium and heavy water, and the separation of uranium isotopes. Research struggled with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), as the majority of Germany‘s scientific minds were turned to focus on developing other new technologies that could have a more immediate impact on the war effort (namely rocket technology and jet aircraft). The project also suffered from a drained talent pool. Many top German scientists and nuclear physicists (some of which were Jewish or with Jewish heritage) had fled the country, and there was a lack of understanding and investment from the regime in the pure scientific application of the research (in comparison, the Manhattan Project consumed some $2 billion (1945) in government funds, compared to a mere 8 million reichsmarks $2 million (1945) on the Uranprojekt). This resulted in the Germans never achieving a successful chain reaction, nor did they manage to develop a method of enriching uranium (having never seriously considered plutonium as a viable substitute). In 1942, a conference was initiated by Albert Speer as head of the “Reich Ministry for Armament and Ammunition” (RMBM: Reichsministerium für Bewaffnung und Munition) to discuss the continuation of research, and the prospects for developing nuclear weapons……. https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/11/uranprojekt-the-nazi-nuclear-program/136152 |
|
Russia’s latest nuclear icebreaker had to abort maiden Arctic voyage
|
Russia’s latest nuclear icebreaker had to abort maiden Arctic voyage The powerful “Arktika” set off from Murmansk on Saturday for a three-week assignment to the Northern Sea Route. Mid-Barents Sea, though, the icebreaker turned around and sailed back to port. Barents Observer, By Thomas Nilsen. November 17, 2020
Following last month’s test voyage to the North Pole, and formal launch ceremony in Murmansk, the new giant icebreaker was now supposed to embark on her first real-working tour to the Northern Sea Route.“Arktika” left from Atomflot’s service base in the Kola Bay on Saturday, according to the state-owned operator Rosatomflot. “On November 14, the leading universal nuclear-powered icebreaker “Arktika“ left the port of Murmansk on its maiden voyage. The vessel headed towards the Kara Sea. Until mid-December, the nuclear-powered icebreaker “Arktika“ will operate in the Northern Sea Route,” a press release posted November 16 said. The Northern Sea Route Administration’s permission granted for ”Arktika” to enter the Kara Gate, where the Northern Sea Route starts, is valid from November 16. Online ship tracking service VesselFinder.com shows the path of the icebreaker sailing out the Kola Bay on a steady course towards the Kara Sea. Halfway in the Barents Sea, the ship suddenly makes a 180 degrees turnaround and sails back on a northwestern course before turning south on Tuesday directly towards Murmansk. Asked about the hastily return to port, Head of the Communication department with Atomflot, Evgeny Sviridov says to The Barents Observer that “Staff is conducting adjustment works onboard.” He would not elaborate but adds: “The icebreaker will leave the port of Murmansk in the nearest future.” In Murmansk, people have already started to post speculations on the regional Vkontakte page on what could have gone wrong. Unconfirmed reports hint at “mechanical problems” onboard, and nothing related to the two nuclear reactors. “Arktika” is the lead of five vessels of Project 22220, the world’s most powerful nuclear-powered icebreakers. Construction of two similar vessels, the “Ural“ and “Sibir” are currently well underway at the yard in St. Petersburg, while keel-laying of the fourth icebreaker, the “Yakutia” took place in May this year. The contract for the fifth, the “Chukotka” is signed. When sailing north from the shipyard on September 22, there was already a problem with the propulsion. During sea trials in the Baltic Sea in February this year, a short circuit caused serious damage to the winding in one of the three electro engines. The damaged propulsion motor is 50 % functional and can deliver 10 megawatts of propulsion power to the starboard wing propeller. It’s a tandem unit and only one half of it was damaged during the sea trials….. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2020/11/russias-latest-and-most-powerful-nuclear-icebreaker-had-abort-maiden-arctic-voyage |
Destruction of wildlife habitat, Coronation Wood to be felled, for Sizewell C nuclear project
(TASC), and the invaluable financial and moral support from many concerned
citizens, TASC are devastated to learn that the Courts have refused its
application to make a final appeal to overturn the decision to allow the
destruction of Coronation Wood.
case to court, said “Due to the crass decision-making of East Suffolk
Council, EDF have now been given the green light to carry out their
Sizewell B relocation plans which include taking their chain-saws to and
destroying the whole of Coronation Wood.
allow the felling of the wood. Sizewell C may never get permission and a
100 year old wood cannot be replaced. Due to its removal there will be a
major loss of visual screening of the nuclear industrial complex causing
increased noise and light pollution, totally ignoring the site’s status
as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
setts, bird and bat habitats blows EDF’s environmental credentials out of
the water. There are alternatives but EDF and the council chose not to
pursue them. EDF is not concerned in any way, shape or form for the well
being of the ecology of the area, nor that of locals who are deeply upset
by their plans”
https://tasizewellc.org.uk/latest-on-coronation-wood-judicial-revue/
 |
ReplyForward
|
USA looks to get $18billion now, maybe $40billion later, in flogging off nuclear reactors to Poland
|
U.S. sees $18 billion from purchases in nuclear power agreement with Poland, By Timothy Gardner, WASHINGTON (Reuters) 16 Nov 20, – The United States and Poland have struck a nuclear power agreement in which Poland will likely buy $18 billion in nuclear technology from U.S. companies, the U.S. energy department said on Monday.
The United States has been competing with China and Russia and other countries to supply nuclear power technology to countries hoping to build their first reactors, or boost their programs. “We are hopeful that the ultimate decisions that are made by Poland … over a period of time will result in them choosing U.S. technology,” U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told reporters in a teleconference. …… Over the next 18 months, the United States and Poland will work on an a report for the program that seeks to build six reactors, as well as potential financing arrangements, the department said. The first reactors are planned to be in operation by 2033 in a program that will potentially be worth $40 billion, a senior U.S. energy department official said. Poland would buy at least $18 billion from U.S. companies, the official said. Westinghouse, owned by Brookfield Asset Management BAMa.TO, Bechtel and Southern Co SO.N and the U.S. government, will participate in a first step in the agreement, an engineering study for planned plants, the official said. This month the United States and Romania came to an initial $8 billion agreement on the construction of two reactors on the river Danube. Romanian state-owned nuclear power producer Nuclearelectrica ROSNN.BX ended talks with China General Nuclear (CGN) about the construction of the reactors after they had dragged on for six years. Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Nick Zieminski and Marguerita Choy https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-poland-idUSKBN274239 |
|
The Irish sea – plagued by dumped munitions and radioactive trash
Belfast Telegraph 13th Nov 2020, A report highlighting the dangers of underwater explosions and radioactive
waste has cast doubt on the viability of any Irish Sea bridge. The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) study focused on Beaufort’s Dyke, one of the deepest sections of water in Europe and a training sitefor nuclear submarines. Munitions from both world wars and radioactive waste, when it was permitted in Europe, are known to have been dumped in the stretch of sea.
Relentless lobbying by Small Nuclear Reactor companies still doesn’t make them economic or safe
Telegraph 14th Nov 2020 ”………Rolls-Royce, via a relentless lobbying campaign over the past few years, seems to have convinced the 
Government that its “mini-nukes” project is a runner. It claims billions are needed from taxpayers to underpin investment in a new production line that will reduce the costs and risks compared with bespoke new reactors such as the £22bn monster at Hinkley Point C.
There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical that even with its nuclear submarine experience, Rolls and its partners can pull it off. The technology is unproven anywhere and – as anti-nuclear campaigners argue – more reactors inevitably mean more potential points of failure. Nuclear power has a poor record of delivering its budgets too…….”
1 This Month
19 May – Webinar No To Nuclear: Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War
1 June Webinar – The High Cost of Nuclear Power – Register
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (187)
- 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 