As nuclear power’s failures become more apparent, government and media enthusiastically promote it.
Why is support for nuclear power noisiest just as its failures become most clear? The UK government and mainstream media agree we need nuclear to avoid the worst climate change. They’re wrong – so why aren’t we hearing that? Open Democracy, Andrew Stirling, Phil Johnstone, 9 January 2022,
”…………………….This Green Party case is particularly noteworthy, since it is (strangely given underlying patterns of public concern on nuclear issues), the only organised political force in England collectively offering a consistently sceptical position about nuclear power in Parliament. With the longstanding Green grounding on this issue so strong over a half-century, it is especially strange that this development should come at a time when – at least for the Greens – the argument is more over than it has ever been.
What remains particularly striking about all the instances we cite is that none engage substantively with the real-world performance of nuclear power as it is. Despite vivid rhetorics around needs for ‘science-based’ policy – and occasionally colourful fear-mongering about intermittency ‘putting the lights out’ – none of these prolific voices address (let alone refute) the worldwide substantive picture that shows nuclear power overwhelmingly to be slower, less effective and more expensive at tackling climate disruption than are renewable and storage alternatives.
UK government policy
Despite the surface commitment, we see this trend in UK government energy policy too. Dig into more specialist civil service policy papers and you find spiralling prices and little in the way of an energy-related case for nuclear power. But – in a remarkable departure from the normally diligent attention to costs – the most recent energy white paper ignored all that boring economic detail. Official UK nuclear attachments are treated as an unquestionable given.
So, it might be understood why deep-rooted nuclear interests are seeking to hide these inconvenient facts behind pretty pictures of the West Highlands. But why is the media so keen to help, squirrelling realities away from view behind tales of repentant environmentalists? Why is so much new noise building up behind nuclear power in formerly critical political parties, just when the case has grown weaker than ever?
Profound issues are raised here, not only concerning the cost and speed of climate action, but about the independence and professionalism of the UK media and the health of British democracy as a whole. Whichever opinion we each take on nuclear issues – and whatever the undoubted uncertainties and ambiguities – we should all care very deeply about this. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-is-support-for-nuclear-power-noisiest-just-as-its-failures-become-most-clear/
Nuclear Energy Financing Bill – a poisoned chalice for the UK public.
The UK & Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) is supporting calls to MPs to reject the Nuclear Energy Financing Bill when it comes back to the House of Commons for its Report Stage reading next Monday (10th January). The Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, Councillor David
Blackburn, called the bill a ‘poisoned chalice’ for the British public:
“This bill will mean that consumers will ultimately pay the cost of developing any new ultra-expensive nuclear power plants through a surcharge applied to customers’ electricity bills. “Civil nuclear projects are
notorious for being delivered massively above budget and enormously behind time.
Consequently, there are only two main players in the nuclear market, and these have had their financial fingers burned. “The government wants to sweeten the pill by introducing a new method of financing nuclear plants called the Regulated Asset Base. This will mean that customers pay for cost
overruns and delays, and even the cost of abortive projects, whilst the developer and operator reap all of the rewards.”
NFLA 7th Jan 2022
The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill aims to provide for a new model for
financing new nuclear power stations in the UK. This briefing covers the
Bill’s progress through Parliament, through second reading and committee
stage.
House of Commons Library 7th Feb 2022
BBC Report on Closure of Hunterston B Fails to Mention that All the Nuclear Crapola will Come to Cumbria
BBC Report on Closure of Hunterston B Fails to Mention that All the Nuclear Crapola will Come to Cumbria. Radiation Free Lakeland. JANUARY 8, 2022 BY MARIANNEWILDART Radiation Free Lakeland have long argued for the closure of the cracked nuclear plants that EDF are running long past their planned lifetimes. Yesterday one of these cancer factories, Hunterston B was closed down because of the dangerously cracked graphite cores. The BBC report below toots a trumpet about the electricity produced by Hunterston but makes no mention at all of the 46 years of radioactive emissions and the fact that the resulting nuclear wastes (low, intermediate and high level wastes) and “cleaned up” infrastructure ( heading to landfill, incineration, recycled radioactive scrap metal, Drigg and proposed Deep Nuclear Dump ) will be dangerous to all life on the biosphere for so many generations to come. Yes lets toot a trumpet for the closure of a dangerous nuclear plant but the massive radioactive footprint of Hunterston will live on long after the limited use of electricity!
Hunterston B nuclear power plant closes down after 46 years
By Kevin Keane
BBC Scotland’s energy correspondent 7th Jan 2022 The Hunterston B nuclear power plant in North Ayrshire has been shut down for the final time after generating electricity for 46 years.
The plant’s original 25-year lifespan was extended by more than two decades.
But the final closure was brought forward after cracks were found in the graphite bricks which make up the reactor cores.
A small group of former workers gathered at the power station at midday to see the final shut down.
The site, owned by EDF Energy, will now begin a three-year process of defueling with the spent nuclear fuel sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. After that, the site will be handed over to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority…………
The cracks were first spotted in two graphite bricks in the reactor in 2014.
By 2018, a total of 350 bricks had been affected although the Office for Nuclear Regulation subsequently gave permission to operate at much greater numbers.
Each of the two reactor cores is made up of 3,000 bricks which form vertical channels for nuclear fuel and control rods to slide in and out.
The concern was that too many cracks, combined with a rare seismic event, could affect the structural integrity of the core and prevent it being shut down in an emergency.
The Hunterston A plant, which is already closed, comprised two 180MWe Magnox reactors.
It began operation in 1964. Reactor 2 shut down in December 1989 and Reactor 1 in March 1990.
Construction of Hunterston B began in 1968 and reactors 3 and 4 began operating in February 1976 and March 1977……
Reactor 3, a 490MWe advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR), was permanently closed down on 26 November.
Hunterston Reactor 4 – also a 490MWe AGR – has now shut down……….
Similar cracks are expected to develop there and at several other similar sites in England. In December, EDF Energy announced that Torness would close two years earlier than planned in 2028 because of the issue. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2022/01/08/bbc-report-on-closure-of-hunterston-fails-to-mention-that-all-the-nuclear-crapola-will-come-to-cumbria/
Hunterston nuclear power workers need a just transition to sustainable work. No more subsidies to the nuclear industry.
Workers are key to a just transition at the Hunterston nuclear plant,
which retires today, according to the Scottish Greens.
The nuclear sectorbhas used the occasion to call for more subsidies, despite the UK Government
already subsidising the sector and proposing to charge bill payers upfront
to pay for nuclear power stations that haven’t even been built yet, like
at Hinkley Point.
Commenting, Scottish Greens energy spokesperson Mark
Ruskell said: “Respect and thanks must go to the workers at Hunterston
who have kept our lights on over the decades and those who will continue
the important work of de-commissioning. “These communities deserve a just
transition away from an energy source that is expensive and neither clean
nor sustainable. The vast subsidies involved would be better spent
investing in modern renewable energy solutions that provide a long-term
future for workers and our planet.”
Scottish Greens 7th Jan 2021
https://greens.scot/news/greens-workers-key-to-hunterston-transition
UK: Blackburn and Darwen Council approving and old nuclear dump site for commercial development ?
A CONTROVERSIAL development site which residents and politicians fear is
above buried nuclear waste has been kept in the latest version of a
borough’s planning blueprint.
Blackburn with Darwen Council included the 94
acres of countryside near the M65’s Junction 5 in its draft local plan
published last year as suitable for employment uses.
But residents and WestPennine Tory councillor Julie Slater fear nuclear waste was dumped down old
mineshafts in the 1950s. Now following a consultation a new version of the
blueprint has been published and the the green belt land between Belthorn
and Guide remains earmarked as ideal for commercial and job-creating
development.
Lancashire Telegraph 7th Jan 2022
Scotland very nearly reached goal of 100% renewable energy over 2020
Final figures released by the Scottish government show that the country
just missed out on reaching its goal of 100% of its energy consumption
being from renewables by 2020. In the year, the equivalent of 98.6% of
gross electricity consumption in Scotland was from renewable sources in
2020, up on the provisional figure of 97.4% released in May 2021.
Current 6th Jan 2022
UK’s Heysham nuclear plant to shut down two years earlier than planned
The Heysham 2 nuclear power station in Lancashire is set to shut down for
good two years earlier than planned following a new assessment. The power
station, the fuel for which is made at the Springfields factory at Salwick,
will now stop generating power in 2028. In 2016, the site’s operational
life was extended by seven years to 2030 as no new power station projects
were in the pipeline and nuclear is needed to maintain a steady base load
for the electricity grid.
Blackpool Gazette 9th Jan 2022
Government Wants YOU to Pay for New Nuclear
Thanks to CND for this information: The government is trying to force through controversial new legislation which will make consumers bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty. The electricity generated from nuclear power is double the costs of renewables. Nuclear […]
Government Want YOU to Pay for New Nuclear — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND (UK) ON BY MARIANNEWILDART
The government is trying to force through controversial new legislation which will make consumers bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty. The electricity generated from nuclear power is double the costs of renewables. Nuclear is hampered by generic design flaws, long delays and safety risks. It’s dangerous to people and planet. To meet Britain’s 2050 net zero goals, instead of forcing consumers to bankroll a failed industry, the government should be investing more in renewables.
Contact your MP, urging them to vote against the Bill on Monday 10th January. See briefing CND is sending to MPs.
We are writing now to urge you to vote against the Nuclear Energy (Finance) Bill which has its final reading in the House of Commons on Monday 10 January.
This controversial new legislation will force consumers to bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty.
The Bill will enable energy companies to charge consumers to construct and operate new nuclear power plants under a regulated asset base (RAB) funding model. Evidence shows that under such models, costs for nuclear power stations abandoned during construction as well as cost over-runs of $2.1 billion are all being passed on to consumers. Richard Hall, Chief Energy Economist at Citizens Advice, who gave evidence to the parliamentary Committee examining the Bill, argues ‘…consumers do not have any control over the risk. Essentially, they are the passive recipient of the risks.’
The electricity generated from nuclear power is twice the price of renewables. Nuclear is hampered by generic design flaws, long delays and safety risks. It’s dangerous to people and planet. To meet Britain’s 2050 net zero goals, instead of forcing consumers to bankroll this costly, inefficient and dangerous form of power generation, the government should be investing in renewables and making homes energy-efficient to reduce carbon emissions as well as energy bills.
As you know there is no “away” for nuclear wastes and the government are presently spending eyewatering amounts of money on public relations largely in Cumbria to try and persuade the County to bury heat generating nuclear wastes under our precious and irreplacable land and sea. The reason? Not for safety’s sake but in order to clear the decks for more nuclear crapola for which we all must pay time and time again in every way possible?
We urge you to vote against this Bill.
with many thanks
Marianne Birkby on behalf of
Radiation Free Lakeland
UK Parliament to debate Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill on 10 January – may transfer billions of new nuclear costs to consumers
The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill has its final reading in Parliament on Monday 10 January. If passed, it will change the way the nuclear power industry is financed, transferring billions of pounds onto individual
consumers, whilst affording them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty. CND is urging all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.
CND Briefing 6th Jan 2022
Coronavirus cases doubled in a few days at Sellafield nuclear site
CORONAVIRUS cases at Sellafield have more than doubled in a week as
Omicron continues to spread rapidly throughout the county. Numbers of cases
among those employed on the site rose from 320 in the week to Wednesday 29,
up to 712 in the week to January 5.
Carlisle News & Star 7th Jan 2022
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19829854.coronavirus-rates-double-week-sellafie
Falkland Islands in a nuclear-free zone, yet Britain deployed 31nuclear weapons there.
UK Deployed 31 Nuclear Weapons During Falklands War, January 5, 2022 British warships in 1982 were armed with dozens of nuclear depth charges in a nuclear-free zone in Latin America, Richard Norton-Taylor reports. Consortium News, By Richard Norton-Taylor Declassified UK.
The revelation is contained in a new file released to the National Archives. Marked “Top Secret Atomic,” it shows that the presence of the nuclear weapons caused panic among officials in London when they realized the damage, both physical and political, they could have caused.
The military regime in Argentina claimed the Falkland islands and invaded on April 2, 1982. The U.K. government under Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force to the South Atlantic to retake the islands.
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) minute, dated April 6, 1982, referred to “huge concern” that some of the “nuclear depth bombs” could be “lost or damaged and the fact become public.” The minute added: “The international repercussions of such an incident could be very damaging.”
Nuclear depth bombs are deployed from navy ships to attack submerged submarines.
The unidentified official who wrote the minute continued:
“The secretary of state [John Nott] will wish to continue the long-established practice of refusing to comment on the presence or absence of UK nuclear weapons at any given location at any particular time.”
Heated Row
The existence of the weapons provoked a heated row between the MoD and the Foreign Office. The latter asked the MoD to “unship” the weapons. The Navy refused to do so……………………………….
Nuclear Free Zone
The Foreign Office was also anxious about the presence of the nuclear weapons because of the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco. This established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and surrounding waters, including the Falklands.
Although Britain had signed and ratified the treaty’s protocols other countries, including Argentina, had not done so. According to Freedman, Margaret Thatcher insisted that no ship carrying nuclear weapons would enter the three-mile territorial waters around the Falklands which would be a “potential breach” of the Tlatelolco treaty.
The MoD admitted in 2003 that British ships in the task force carried nuclear weapons and that a weapon container had been damaged. But the number of weapons had not been revealed before this document was transferred to the National Archives in Kew, south west London.
But a number of documents from the file have been weeded by the MoD or the Cabinet Office. They include an intriguing note, dated April 11, 1982, beginning “The Chiefs of Staff believe…” What they believed we are not allowed to know.
What About Gibraltar?
Many more documents are missing from a separate file, now declassified, entitled “Gibraltar: Impact of the Falklands Crisis”.
Gibraltarians, like the Falkland Islanders, inhabited a British “Overseas Territory” and were concerned because Spain supported Argentine claims of sovereignty over the islands just as it claimed Gibraltar, the large rock and British base on the southern tip of the Iberian peninsula.
Whitehall weeders have withheld no fewer than 73 documents from the Gibraltar file. They have done so under exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, and, specifically, sections 27(i), 40 (2), and 41.
These cover information whose disclosure might “prejudice” the interest of the U.K. abroad, “personal data” and “information provided in confidence.” Passages in other documents in the file have also been excised.
What has the British government to hide? Documents declassified previously may offer some clues. Thatcher repeatedly expressed concern about the implications of the Falklands crisis for Gibraltar.
Despite the public rhetoric, successive U.K. governments have been prepared to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands and sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain over Gibraltar in 2000 and again in 2002. This article is from Declassified UK. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/05/73354/
Pro nuclear shills use UK’s energy crisis to promote nuclear, but with government action, renewable energy would solve the problem
Government failure behind energy crisis, Chartist, By Dave Toke -31/12/2021 The only thing wrong with renewables is that we’ve not built nearly enough of them, says Dave Toke. Amidst a global shortfall of gas supplies in relation to demand (and a global increase in gas prices), the anti-renewables lobbies are busy blaming a lack of wind and solar (wot, solar too?) for the soaring energy prices. It’s nonsense of course to pin the blame on renewables for a combination of a global oil and gas crisis and the UK’s unique market vulnerability to natural gas supply squeezes, but that’s precisely what is happening. The truth is we’d be much more secure and greener with a much higher proportion of energy coming from renewables backed up with a revived storage network that successive UK governments have allowed to run down.
Of course we’ve had fossil fuel energy price surges and crises for decades, but now, suddenly, to read some papers and a lot of tweets, I’m told mainly from fossil fuel lobbyists, it’s the fault of renewables! Remarkable!
Some are even using the crisis to boost the case for nuclear power. Now that’s ironic, given that five out of 14 of EDF’s nuclear units are offline as I write! With nuclear, of course, it’s always going to be better in the future (and never is). Certainly, the idea that the UK relying on 3.2GW units (like Hinkley C and the planned Sizewell C) for its security at times of pressure is a guarantee of system security needs rather clearer analysis than is being done at the moment. (By the way, did you know that the first Hinkley C – like EPR in China – got shut down this summer because of radioactive leaks? Somebody please tell me when it gets back online.)………………..
We need much, much more renewables. Currently, the UK generates about 100TWh a year of wind and solar, compared to around 900TWh of natural gas consumption. How on earth can you blame wind and solar for a failure to meet gas demand when the Government has so far incentivised only a small fraction of the renewable energy generation required to phase out reliance on natural gas? It’s gaslighting on a grand scale (pun intended).
And, yes, there’s easily enough renewables to do the job. All of UK energy could be supplied from offshore wind occupying less than less than 8 per cent of the UK’s offshore waters, not counting all the solar and other renewable energy resources in the UK. https://www.chartist.org.uk/government-failure-behind-energy-crisis/
Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND
Originally posted on Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole: The following letter has just been sent to the Coal Mine Planning Inspector Mr Stephen Normington following a letter from the Rt Hon Greg Hands, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (this Govnt department appointed the coal mine boss as “invaluable” nuclear…
Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND
Excerpts – ”……………………..should the coal mine be approved by government, then a seismic Traffic Light System at least as stringent as that for the oil and gas industry should be part of the conditions imposed. The empirical evidence (presented by Radiation Free Lakeland at the Planning Inquiry) is unequivocal in its findings that coal mining produces earthquakes of far greater magnitude and frequency than that of fracking. Despite this Greg Hands MP states that there will be no Traffic Light System for the coal mine.
In tandem with the absence of a seismic Traffic Light System is the outrageous allowance of 6mm/s Peak Particle Velocity as agreed by the Inquiry’s Rule 6 Parties and Developer for ground movements as a result of the deep mining proposed. As you will be aware the PPV at which “receptors” will make complaints is 1mm/s.
An observer of the bulk of the Planning Inquiry would have had no idea of the uniquely dangerous sense of place regarding the planned coal mine. If this same coal mine was anywhere in the world the climate impacts would be the same.
………. But this coal mine is not anywhere in the world. It is five miles from Sellafield, the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site, under the arguably most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and directly beneath the radioactively contaminated Cumbrian Mud Patch………
our concerns lay with the undeniable connections/cronyism between the coal mine and the proposed Geological Disposal Facility.
The Government’s refusal to consider a seismic Traffic Light System for the earthquake inducing coal mine is a case in point.
Mark Kirkbride the CEO of West Cumbria Mining was appointed in 2019 as an “invaluable” adviser to the Government (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) on the digging of big holes for a Geological Disposal Facility for Heat Generating Nuclear Wastes and for shallower Near Surface Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes.
We are painfully aware, as no doubt is government nuclear dump advisor Mark Kirkbride, that a seismic Traffic Light System for an earthquake inducing deep undersea coal mine would also impact negatively on the facilitation of an even deeper hole for a GDF. The Irish Sea area adjacent to the coal mine is in the frame for a GDF.
…….. which is far more than the sum of its (more widely reported) climate/jobs parts. Should this coal mine go ahead the people and environment of Cumbria and the planet WILL be exposed to deep radiological, immediate and irreversible impacts that will make the more widely reported and not to be sneezed at climate impacts pale into insignificance.
The whole thing feels like a massive stitch up in which the climate issues have been used as a smoke screen to hide the nuclear impacts of this coal mine. If Leonardo DiCaprio (of “Don’t Look Up” fame) thinks climate campaigners have it bad he should walk a mile in the shoes of nuclear safety campaigners! https://keepcumbriancoalinthehole.wordpress.com/2022/01/03/climate-noise-has-obscured-nuclear-dump-cronyism-and-nuclear-impacts-of-coal-mine-why-bother-with-traffic-light-system-for-induced-earthquakes/
Britain’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) advises government against new nuclear power projects.
UK NIC backs alternatives to nuclear, Renew Extra Weekly, 2 Jan 21, The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster.
It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at least 50% longer than planned. If a new project began development next year and took the same amount of time as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it would not come online until at least the mid 2040s’. So that put it well outside the 2035 timeframe.
Small Modular/advanced reactors might be a faster option, but the NIC said ‘relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky’. It pointed out that ‘no SMR has gone through the Generic Design Assessment process and some developer proposals are conditional on government support to progress project development. There are no SMRs in operation in countries similar to the UK.
To fill the same capacity gap illustrated in the BEIS modelling, at least six SMRs would be needed by 2035, if not more. This would require compressing the normal delivery timeline and doing things in parallel rather than in sequence, significantly increasing the risk of delays. Delivery success will also be dependent on the capability of the developer.’
Alternatives likely to be faster
Instead of these nuclear options, for delivery within the timeframe to 2035, it backed ‘renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture & storage’. It said ‘these alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years’. …………………..
even without costing analysis, it said its analysis clearly demonstrated ‘that a third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and that more gas CCS, hydrogen powered gas plants, and BECCS could be deployed instead. Whilst these technologies are yet to be deployed at scale, the Commission considers them to be a lower delivery risk than nuclear.’ And it claimed that its proposed alternative technology mix was supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other bodies such as National Grid ESO & the Climate Change Committee. …………………
It’s odd that the NIC plunge into CCS and Hydrogen, rather than talking about renewables more. Maybe they are taken for granted. But if, led by wind and solar, they could be expanded much faster than BEIS and NIC envisage, then maybe we could forget about fossil CCS, BECCS and also Sizewell C. That might be helped if tidal stream technology could also get going- with CfD help, it ought to be able to by 2030. Geothermal too, for heat and power. All NIC says is that, from the BEIS analysis, it’s clear that ‘significant volumes of renewables are needed to deliver a low carbon power system by 2035. This is supported by previous analysis for the Commission and others. Rapid cost reductions and short and reliable build profiles mean that renewables will be the backbone of any future GB power system’. OK, fine, but we need details & plans now for faster expansion, along with a much improved commitment to energy saving! https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/01/uk-nic-backs-alternatives-to-nuclear.html
Risky for UK to plan for small and advanced nuclear reactors
New nuclear technologies, such as small and advanced nuclear reactors, may
have a role to play in the long term. But relying on significant capacity
being deployed before 2035 would be risky. They will face both the
challenges of being first of a kind plants and being a nuclear technology.
National Infrastructure Commission (Accessed) 1st Jan 2022
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (84)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
