London may get radiation detectors to prevent a dirty bomb attack
Radiation detectors could be installed across London to protect the capital from a dirty bomb attack, Irish Independent 12 Feb 15 Radiation detectors could be installed across London to protect the capital from a dirty bomb attack, Boris Johnson has said. Supermarket-style self check-out technology could also be used to identify suspicious packages to bolster safety in the city, he suggested
The proposals have been inspired by the “extraordinary stuff” that protects New York, Mr Johnson said after talks with the US city’s Police Commissioner, Bill Bratton.
“I was thinking should we have those kinds of systems?”
Mr Bratton gave the London Mayor a tour of New York City’s Police Department domain awareness system, which brings together radiation detection, 8,000 surveillance cameras and a licence plate recognition system.
Geiger counter-style devices are spread across buildings in the city as well as being carried by police officers and installed in helicopters…….. Mr Johnson said he would talk to London police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to assess the need for such a move…….http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/radiation-detectors-could-be-installed-across-london-to-protect-the-capital-from-a-dirty-bomb-attack-30985192.html
Radiation poisoning of Litvinenko may have affected others, too
Litvinenko inquiry: Russians’ associate ‘had mystery illness’ BBC News 12 Feb 15 A retired British army officer had a “mystery illness” after meeting with two men suspected of poisoning ex-FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210, an inquiry has heard.
Tim Reilly, a director at security firm Erinys, suffered migraines and vomiting after meeting Russians Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun with Mr Litvinenko.
He said Mr Lugovoi called him after Mr Litvinenko’s death to deny involvement.
“Heaving” radiation levels were later found in the London firm’s boardroom.
Mr Litvinenko, a former Russian security service officer who became a vocal critic of the Kremlin and fled to Britain, died of radiation poisoning after drinking tea laced with polonium at a Mayfair hotel in November 2006.
The barrister representing Mr Litvinenko’s family claims he was murdered for trying to “expose the corruption” at the heart of Vladimir Putin’s “mafia state”.
The public inquiry into his death has heard that Mr Litvinenko have been poisoned twice – with one occasion around the time of the security company meeting in October of 2006.
Mr Reilly told the hearing he became “very ill” around the time of the meeting…….Atomic weapons experts later found “heaving” levels of radioactive contamination in the boardroom at Erinys, leading to the offices being closed for four months, the court heard………http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31444820
Austria refuses to be bullied by UK over its opposition to subsidies for nuclear power
Austria Says It Won’t Be Intimidated by U.K. in Nuclear Dispute, Bloomberg, Jonathan Tirone, 12 Feb 15— Austria said it won’t be cowed by alleged British threats over plans by the government in Vienna to contest state subsidies for a new nuclear-power plant at Hinkley Point in southwest England.
“We won’t let ourselves be intimidated,” Austrian Environment Minister Andrae Rupprechter said late Wednesday on Twitter. “No subsidies for atomic power.”
Tensions between Austria and the U.K. flared this week over the $26 billion European Commission-approved subsidy for Hinkley Point. British officials allegedly threatened Austria with retaliation if it appeals the subsidies, according to Austrian diplomatic cables leaked this week in Vienna.
“The U.K. will take every future opportunity to sue Austria in areas that harm or that have strong domestic political implications,” read the cable, written by Austria’s embassy in London, a copy of which was published by the newspaper Kronen Zeitung. “The U.K. has already begun to elaborate countermeasures.”………. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/austria-says-it-won-t-be-intimidated-by-u-k-in-nuclear-dispute
Cumbria’s tourism, milk and cheese may give way to dirty nuclear industry
Tourism, Milk and Cheese or Nuclear? 13 FridayFeb 2015 by miningawareness Over 50 years after the Windscale-Sellafield disaster caused milk in a 200 sq. mile area to be officially too radioactive to drink, and milk brought 
in from elsewhere, as recounted in the “Atomic Milk” documentary, http://youtu.be/hJnPWShSmKg Cumbria remains a major milk producer for the UK. Cows are grazing on the site of the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station, near Sellafield in Cumbria, UK.
Lillyhall, to the north, lost the chance for a Dutch cheese factory-showroom because Swedish Studsvik applied for a nuclear waste processing facility, next door, at the same time. Note, as well, that there won’t always be someplace else from which to bring in the milk, as the world is increasingly contaminated with long-lived radiation-contamination.
Moorside Nuclear reactors would be built by a Westinghouse (owned now by Toshiba) and GdF Suez (France) consortium. A proposed nuclear reactor, nearby at Braystones was canceled.
Would you rather have Sellafield Cheese or Appenzell Swiss Cheese?
Although Switzerland was contaminated by Chernobyl, Sellafield was contaminated by the Windscale fire, Chernobyl, as well as ongoing radioactive emissions, especially into the Irish Sea………..https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tourism-milk-and-cheese-or-nuclear/
The negative effects of more nuclear developments in Cumbria
Tourism, Milk and Cheese or Nuclear? 13 Friday Feb 2015 by miningawareness “…..proximity to Moorside means that the issues are still essentially the same, as described below by the Braystones Concerns Group in their memorandum to Parliament: “Memorandum from Braystones Concerns Group (NWN 15)”
“Job opportunities, economy and economic diversity in West Cumbria.”
“1. Whilst jobs are welcome in West Cumbria, the overall effects of multiple nuclear developments would have many negative effects. What is frequently referred to as an area of outstanding natural beauty, would be greatly defaced by such extensive nuclear industrial sprawl. This would have a detrimental effect on the visitors perception of West Cumbria as a tourist destination. At a time when the area is desperately trying to diversify its economy, tourism jobs would simply be displaced by more ‘nuclear’ jobs, thus not actually increasing real jobs with the numbers being promised.It would greatly increase the economic stranglehold that the nuclear industry has on the area and would discourage many other discerning businesses that might otherwise have chosen West Cumbria. (A £45m cheese factory planned for Workington in West Cumbria did not go ahead in 2007, because of plans by Studsvik to build a radioactive waste processing plant at Lillyhall.) There are already a number of nuclear developments proliferating in West Cumbria, with Copeland and Allerdale councils trying to coax the public into accepting even more.”
“Economic/infrastructure viability of West Cumbria for nuclear power generation.”
“2. West Cumbria is not an economically suitable region for multiple reactor builds, as grid connectivity would prove particularly difficult and costly in such a remote area. West Cumbria is not where energy production is most needed.Any multiple reactor builds should be sited close to centres of high energy demand, where more suitable infrastructures and grid systems already exist. The recent devastation from flooding in West Cumbria has highlighted the wholly inadequate infrastructure throughout the region, which already struggles to service existing industrial demand. Repair and replacement of crucial bridges is currently estimated to take years. The southern sector of the main arterial route through Copeland has been de-trunked and is literally the width of a single vehicle in places. Road closures due to accident or maintenance can require alternative diversion routes 120 miles long. Major road improvements take at least 10 years to provide. If the Braystones site was developed, it would seriously compromise the existing Emergency Arrangements for the Sellafield site.” https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tourism-milk-and-cheese-or-nuclear/
UK government bullying Austria over UK subsidies to the nuclear industry?
Diplomatic row with Austria over EDF nuclear power station escalates http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/diplomatic-row-with-austria-over-edf-nuclear-power-station-escalates-10040309.html MARK LEFTLY 
ASSOCIATE BUSINESS EDITOR THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2015 The UK will take “every opportunity to sue or damage Austria” if Vienna does not drop a legal challenge to the construction of a £24.5bn nuclear power station in Somerset, according to a leaked memo.
Austria is staunchly anti-nuclear and will soon formalise an appeal against the EU’s decision to allow the UK government to pay subsidies to the French energy giant EDF to build Hinkley Point C, the first in a new generation of civil reactors.
According to the memo, written by the deputy Austrian ambassador in London, Christoph Weidinger, this has sparked a diplomatic row that could “escalate” when Vienna submits its appeal.
The memo says that a senior Foreign Office official, Vijay Rangarajan, threatened three legal counter-challenges to Austria’s energy practices, a move environmental campaigners at Greenpeace blasted as “bullying”.
Details of the exchange, which occurred last month, come as David Cameron is due to meet the Austrian chancellor, Werner Faymann, at a summit in Brussels today.
Warning that the Austrian challenge will have “negative effects on bilateral relations, because there would be strength of feeling, up to the PM”, the UK is said to have demanded a meeting to explain the damage that Austria could face.
Mr Weidinger said that the UK will complain that Austria’s decision to make electricity distributors mark the source of electricity on bills, allowing householders to snub any energy originating from nuclear stations, violated internal market rules.
Mr Rangarajan is alleged to have warned that the UK will also investigate whether Austria’s challenge to the EDF deal violates an existing treaty and will try to force Austria to take a larger share of electricity from sustainable sources than its European neighbours.
The subisdy deal, which EDF wanted before it risked billions building the plant, involves the UK guaranteeing the French a minimum price for every unit of electricity generated from Hinkley.
The memo states: “The UK has obviously started, including the use of the UK Embassy in Vienna… with systematic preparation of counter measures to damage Austria.”
David Lowry, an environmental consultant, said: “It’s extraordinary that the Foreign Office has gone to this level of diplomatic incident in order to protect the unsustainable.”
A Whitehall source said the UK there was no “bullying” involved. A government spokeswoman said: “We have no reason to believe that Austria, or any other party, is preparing a case which has any merit.”
EDF’s financial problems delay decision on proposed new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point
EDF Energy delays Hinkley Point nuclear decision French power firm’s plans to build first British atomic reactors in almost 30 years suffers further setback Guardian, Terry Macalister, 13 feb 15 The timetable surrounding the construction of Britain’s first new atomic reactors in almost 30 years has once again been blown off course, its developer, EDF Energy, has admitted. The setback came as the French-owned generator and supply company reported a 25% slump in operating profits for 2014 to £863m, which it blamed on challenging market conditions.EDF had originally promised to tie up a new deal with financial backers and then take a final investment decision on the proposed new plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset by the middle of last year. This date was later revised to March 2015.
But in a new statement, the largely state-owned energy group said a final investment decision might only be possible in a matter of months, and it had still not finalised talks with Chinese financial backers……….
Meanwhile, there is growing speculation that Chinese investors are hardening the terms under which they would be willing to help underwrite some of the cost of the new plant. China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Corporation are expected to be minority shareholders in the project, but are also pushing for commitments to build and operate their own plant at Bradwell in Essex.
EDF has declined to confirm that it too is trying to limit the financial damage through compensation from the UK government should there be a successful legal challenge in the European courts by Austria to the UK subsidy arrangement.
Critics of the £24.5bn nuclear programme in Somerset have highlighted the industry’s poor track record for constructing facilities on time and on budget. They have questioned whether Hinkley Point C reactors would able to meet their timetable of opening for operations in 2023.
EDF has already run into problems with a new project at Flamanville in Normandy, while another project in Finland, the European pressurised reactor, which uses the same design as Hinkley, is also massively behind its original timetable.
Financial problems at its French design partner, Areva, have not helped the sense of uncertainty surrounding EDF’s nuclear ambitions,……http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/12/edf-energy-delays-hinkley-point-nuclear-decision
UK: Establishment pressure on the Press
Interception Commissioner: 82 journalists’ phone records grabbed by police in three years, judicial oversight needed, Press Gazette William Turvill 04 February 2015 Some 82 journalists have had their communications data obtained by police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in three years, the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office has found.
And the IOCCO has said forces should require judicial approval to do so in the future.
The report, which was partly prompted by the Press Gazette Save Our Sources campaign, reveals that in the last three years 608 RIPA applications have been made by forces for communications data to find journalistic sources……..
The RIPA scandal broke in September, when Press Gazette was the first news outlet to report that The Sun’s phone records had been targeted by the Met Police as part of Operation Alice into Plebgate.
Since then, it has emerged that two more Sun journalists had their phone records obtained by the Met under Operation Alice.
In addition, Kent/Essex Police has admitted to using RIPA to find a Mail on Sunday source, and Press Gazette has revealed how Suffolk, Thames Valley and Cleveland forces have also used the act to find journalistic sources.
Last month, Press Gazette co-ordinated a letter sent to the Prime Minister stating that the Home Office’s draft RIPA code was not acceptable. It was signed by every UK national newspaper editor.
More then 1,500 people have signed the Press Gazette Save Our Sources petition calling for judicial oversight of police requests to view journalists’ call records.
Sir Anthony May, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, said: “In October 2014 due to the serious nature of the concerns reported in the media about the protection of journalistic sources, and the allegations that the police had misused their powers under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of RIPA to acquire communications data the Rt Hon.
“Sir Paul Kennedy, who was at the time acting as interim Commissioner, considered it necessary to launch this inquiry and make an additional report to the Prime Minister……
“I am very pleased to be able to publish our inquiry report today and I hope that Parliament and the public will find it helpful.
“Our report sets out the extent to which these powers have been used by police forces to identify journalistic sources, examines the appropriateness of the use of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of RIPA for this purpose, and makes recommendations to ensure adequate safeguards are provided to protect journalistic sources.”
The full report can be read here. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/interception-commissioner-82-journalists-phone-records-targeted-police-three-years-forces-should
Nuclear power is simply NOT “low carbon”
Greenhouse gases are emitted in all stages of the lifecycle of a nuclear reactor: construction, operation, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal. Leaving out any of these five stages will bias estimates towards lower values.
The last two contributions, dismantling and waste disposal are particularly difficult to estimate. Not many commercial reactors have been fully decommissioned. Also there is still no scientific or political consensus on the approach to be used for the long-term storage of waste.
The fuel preparation contribution is also problematic. Considerable amounts of carbon are released in the mining, milling and separation of the uranium from the ore. Also the carbon emitted is very dependent on the concentration of uranium in the ore.
It’s important to appreciate that these three problematic contributions, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal are either non-existent or small contributions in the case of electricity generation by renewable technologies. Estimates of the carbon footprint of renewably generated electricity therefore should be much more reliable than those for nuclear.
But what is the carbon footprint of nuclear power? I have trawled the literature and found that there is no scientific consensus on the lifetime carbon emissions of nuclear electricity.
Remarkably, half of the most rigorous published analyses have a carbon footprint for nuclear power above the limit recommended by the UK government’s official climate change advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
According to the CCC, if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, by 2030 all electricity should be generated with less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide emitted for each kilowatt-hour (50 gCO2/kWh).
Since all new generators have lifetimes well over 20 years, I believe this limit should be imposed on all new electricity supply systems here and now – and all the more so for those with lifetimes spanning many decades.
Note that thanks to long construction times for the EPR design and a forthcoming legal challenge, it’s entirely possible that the planned Hinkley C reactor will not be completed until 2030 or beyond. It will then be subsidised for the first 35 years of its projected 60 year lifetime – taking us through until 2090.
What is the carbon footprint of renewable electricity? Continue reading
The true carbon footprint of nuclear power – the ‘Third Generation’ reactor at Hinkley Point C?
As we have seen, the EPR’s very high cost suggests considerably higher emissions in the construction stage. So too does the fact that, over its projected 60-year lifetime, it will be using uranium from very low quality ores.
The likely delay due to the Austrian appeal against the European Commission’s decision on the EPR subsidy offers an opportunity for a full, independent and peer reviewed assessment of the environmental impact of this complex and expensive new technology.
“………..Using 0.005% ore, nuclear has higher carbon emissions than gas
Nuclear fuel preparation begins with the mining of uranium containing ores, followed by the crushing of the ore then extraction of the uranium from the powdered ore chemically. All three stages take a lot of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. The inescapable fact is that the lower the concentration of uranium in the ore, the higher the fossil fuel energy required to extract uranium.
Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas.
This remarkable observation has been further confirmed in a report from the Austrian Institute of Ecology by Andrea Wallner and co-workers. They also point out that using ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% could result in more energy being input to prepare the fuel, build the reactor and so on, than will be generated by the reactor in its lifetime.
According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%.
A conservative estimate for the future LCA of nuclear power for power stations intended to continue operating into the 2090s and beyond would assume the lowest uranium concentration currently in proven sources, which is 0.005%.
On the basis that the high concentration ores are the easiest to find and exploit, this low concentration is likely to be more typical of yet to be discovered deposits.
Using 0.005% concentration uranium ores, the van Leeuwen, Berteen and Wallner analyses agree a nuclear reactor will have a carbon footprint larger than a natural gas electricity generator. Also, it is unlikely to produce any net electricity over its lifecycle.
What is the carbon footprint of the ‘Third Generation’ reactor at Hinkley Point C? Continue reading
Dismantling nuclear weapons industry could become a political possibility in Britain
It is not just the SNP who oppose the continuation and renewal of Trident. The Green Party of England and Wales also support the abolishment of weapons and are rising steadily in the polls and could play a part in the waking-up of arapidly-rising share of the population’s younger voters to green issues, including the abolishment of these weapons. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has for decades looked to end the madness and recently attracted tens of thousands of protestors to London for their“Wrap-up Trident” demo.
There is a will there amongst many same-minded people and organisations and if given a chance they could help force an unprecedented move; the willing disarmament by a world power of their nuclear arsenal.
Putting Nuclear Abolition on the Table The Nuclear Option for the British Elections, CounterPunch There is a chance that at the end of voting come the 2015 General Election in the United Kingdom, the nation’s nuclear “deterrent” and its renewal may become central to the formation of a coalition government. Imagine it, one of the biggest nuclear powers in the world committing to the dismantling of its nuclear weapons industry. How could this happen? Continue reading
Solar energy leads the pack as Britain’s renewable energy surges ahead
Britain’s Renewable Energy Sector Is Surging — Mostly Thanks To Solar, Business Insider TOMAS HIRST JAN 9 2015 The UK’s renewable energy sector is quietly booming and much of the gains are being driven by a single technology — solar panels…… a report released by the UK government shows that the prospects for the sector are quickly improving.
Firstly, the UK’s embarrassingly low share of renewable energy is showing signs of significant improvement. Renewables’ share of electricity generation increased from 13.6% in 2013 Q3 to 17.8% in 2014 Q3. To put that into context, the figure was below 8% in the first quarter of 2011……..
A big part of the gains in recent years have come from two sources in particular — bio-energy and solar………
the stand-out story of the past few years has been the rise and rise of solar. As the report states:
“Solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was the largest contributor to the increase on a year earlier, increasing by 1.9 gigawatts [equal to one billion watts], with the majority of this coming from large-scale schemes.”
While those figures are encouraging, there is still a great deal of potential yet to be exploited. An analysis undertaken by the government in 2012 suggested that by 2020 solar panels could potentially produce as much as 20 gigawatts of electricity — an amount that would almost double the total current output from the sector.
Although that represents the maximum potential it nevertheless is indicative of the possibilities that are opening up from developments in solar. In particular, technological advances have made solar panels much more efficient than ever before. This has meant that over the past decade the cost of solar energy has plummeted by over 50%………..http://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-energy-is-driving-a-renewable-energy-sector-boom-in-britain-2015-1
UK claims that Russian bomber carrying nuclear missiles flew across the channel
World War 3: Russian Bomber Intercepted, Tu-95 Carried Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Claims England Inquistr 1 Feb 15 Fears of World War 3 continue to rise, and when the RAF fighters scrambled to have a Russian bomber intercepted over the channel it was uncertain whether or not they actually carried Russia’s nuclear weapons. Now the British Ministry of Defense is claiming that Russian nuclear missiles were indeed on board the Tu-95 “Bear” bomber.
The sight of the two Russian bombers so close to British air space was yet another sign that Cold War 2 was upon us. During the confrontation, Tu-95 bombers and the RAF Typhoons came as close as 1,000 feet away from each other. They were so close that the British pilots could communicate with the Russian bomber with hand signals.
Sources within the British Ministry of Defense claims that one of the two Russian bombers intercepted carried at least one of Russia’s nuclear weapons designed to “seek and find” Trident submarines. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense Secretary Michael Fallon were alerted after cockpit conversations confirmed the Russian bomber’s nuclear payload were intercepted by a Norwegian military listening post.
“We downloaded conversations from the crew of one plane who used a special word which meant the would-be attack was a training exercise,” said a senior RAF source according to Express. “They know that we can pick up their transmissions and it would only be of concern if the often used release weapon order was changed. We also knew from another source that one of the aircraft was carrying a nuclear weapon long before it came anywhere near UK airspace.”
Experts say the belief that the Russian bomber was carrying nuclear weapons is an example that Vladimir Putin is upping his game.
“This continual and increasing probing of NATO airspace by these nuclear bombers and fighter aircraft, tankers and electronic aircraft by Russian is a pattern of increased pressure by Russia designed to remind the West and NATO that they remain a large nuclear power, and a serious military power with reach,” said Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute………
Fortunately, the Russian bomber was not on a mission to start World War 3, and Vladimir Putin would have been required to give a direct order in order to make the warhead live. The other Russian bomber was apparently acting as a “mothership” during the military exercise. http://www.inquisitr.com/1804787/world-war-3-russian-bomber-intercepted-tu-95-carried-russias-nuclear-weapons-claims-england/#PzH5oQQ11saMITcH.99
UK Tax-payers fleeced by the nuclear industry – Sellafield the perfect example
This is an extraordinary and detailed article. I regret that I have here just picked out significant parts and headings (in order to get across the main points) . This is a perfect example of how a government can be captured by vested corporate interests. This process is certainly not new – for Sellafield, for Britain, for the world. The author has carefully researched and detailed the way the government, Parliament, UK
“The use of cost reimbursement contracts for Sellafield Limited and its subcontractors means the financial risks are borne by the taxpayer.”
Sellafield – how the nuclear industry fleeced taxpayers, Ecologist, David
Lowry 19th January 2015 Last week the consortium holding a £22bn contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site was sacked, writes David Lowry. But this is just the end of a long and scandalous tale of corporate
profit at taxpayers’ expense, and the active collusion of ministers and senior officials in fighting off Parliamentary scrutiny. Continue reading
A most dangerous autopsy – the prost-mortem on radioactively poisoned Alexander Litvinenko
Alexander Litvinenko inquiry: Post-mortem on poisoned former KGB spy ‘one of most dangerous ever’ Radio Australia 29 January 2015, Europe correspondent Barbara Miller, wires
The autopsy on the body of poisoned former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has been described as one of the most dangerous ever undertaken, on day two of an inquiry into his death. Mr Litvinenko died in a London hospital on November 23, 2006, three weeks after drinking tea infused with deadly polonium-210 at a luxury hotel in the city’s Mayfair district.
The London inquiry was told “an inspired hunch” by police led them to bring in atomic scientists, who found Mr Litvinenko tested positive for alpha radiation poisoning two days before he died.
Lead pathologist Nathaniel Cary said without that finding, the cause of death would not have been discovered in a post-mortem.
He added he was unaware of any other case of someone being poisoned with alpha radiation in Britain, and probably the world.
“It has been described as the most dangerous post-mortem examination ever undertaken in the Western world and I think that is probably right,” he told the inquiry.
Those involved had needed to wear two white protective suits with specialised hoods fed with filtered air……….The British government long opposed the public inquiry but agreed last year amid worsening relations with Moscow.
The inquiry is expected to last two months. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2015-01-29/alexander-litvinenko-inquiry-postmortem-on-poisoned-former-kgb-spy-one-of-most-dangerous-ever/1410551
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
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 (109)
- 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
