Utility Sues Nuclear Energy Institute For Extortion
We aren’t lawyers, but extortion sounds like a serious charge. NextEra Energy, parent of Florida Power and Light and owner of several nuclear power stations around the country recently launched a lawsuit against the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the nuclear industry’s trade group.
NextEra, which is also a major player in the renewable energy business, withdrew from NEI after that group backed the Trump Energy Department’s ill-fated proposed rulemaking. This measure was designed to prop up less-than-economically-viable nuclear and coal-fired power generating stations disguised as a reliability booster for the nation’s power network. However, the proposed rule did not even pass muster with the President’s own Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Nevertheless NextEra was not happy about the NEI’s stance, accusing the organization of trying to instill a false panic about reliability.
Disputes within trade organizations are not unusual, although the organization usually manages to keep them in house. Outright member withdrawals though occur less frequently. There are real downsides to withdrawing from a trade group like NEI.
NextEra as a major nuclear plant operator depends on a data base maintained by the NEI on existing and prospective nuclear workers. Like many nuclear facilities operators, NextEra hires outsider contractors and consultants to aid in refueling its nuclear power stations. And it cannot do so without a thorough personnel evaluation–which NEI’s data base conveniently provides.
According to the lawsuit, NEI denied NextEra access to its nuclear personnel data base without an $860,000 payment. NextEra claimed this was like being forced to pay for membership yet again. That’s where the charge of extortion comes in.
Let’s assume the name calling is the work of over-excited corporate litigators. It’s in both parties interest to allow NextEra access to the data they need to hire qualified workers. But there’s another, bigger issue here.
What does this say about nuclear policy issues and splits within the industry? Do we have two warring industry groups: regulated nuclear power generators, who are plugging along just fine, economically versus nuclear power generators experiencing difficult conditions in competitive power markets. The latter group look desperate for any lifeline. This is often the fate of high cost producers in a commodities market. (Not to be unsympathetic, but these firms willingly chose to enter competitive wholesale electricity markets. Nobody forced them.)
Under its previous leadership the NEI carefully parsed its arguments and lauded the improvements in nuclear operations for example. Attempting always to look and sound like a voice of industry reason (not always an easy task for an organization in an often controversial industry). And even attempting to paper over intramural differences so to speak.
Jumping into the polar vortex/reliability fracas and taking the easy political “bait” may have affected the credibility of the organization. But it also ends up discrediting the nuclear power endeavor by presenting such a weak or bogus rationale for keeping aging nuclear plants running. The nuclear industry still provides one fifth of our nation’s electricity. It needs to get its act together.
What’s next for the West Lake Landfill
St Louis Public Radio, By KAE M. PETRIN & ELI CHEN • FEB 6, 2018 , The Environmental Protection Agency has released the full details of its proposal to remove radioactive waste from the West Lake Landfill. The agency will make a final decision after a public comment period.
Last week, the agency announced plans to remove 70 percent of the radioactivity at the landfill, in northwest St. Louis County. The site sits about 600 feet from an underground smoking fire at the Bridgeton Landfill.
Residents have tried to convince the EPA to clean up the site for years, and to many, the agency’s decision is a victory. But activists and some people who live near the site worry that removing only some of the waste may not be enough…… http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-next-west-lake-landfill#stream/0
San Onofre nuclear waste moved closer to beach
CBS 8 Feb 08, 2018 By David Gotfredson, Investigative Producer SAN ONOFRE, Calif. (NEWS 8) — Millions of pounds of nuclear waste is being moved closer to the ocean at the closed-down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
News 8 recorded video at San Onofre State Beach on the morning of January 31, the first day workers started moving canisters full of spent fuel rods to dry storage at the nuclear power plant.
We were met by armed security guards on the public beach.
“You guys are at your own risk being in this area. It’s your own risk, radiation risk,” one unidentified guard warned.
From the fence line, the video shows a huge crane used to transport stainless steel canisters filled with highly-radioactive waste.
The dry storage area is about 100 feet from the beach.
“What you’re looking at are 73 silos that are going to hold very large cans filled with very heavy nuclear waste,” explained Charles Langley, the executive director of Public Watchdogs.
The group opposes the waste move near the beach.
Once stored in pools of cold water inside the plant, the hot fuel rods will now be kept outside in silos protected by a cement bunker.
“If you look at this, you can see that it’s 108 feet from the water. The one thing you don’t do is put nuclear waste close to the water,” said Langley.
The canisters are welded shut before the move. It will take more than a year to slowly relocate all of them – one by one – into the silos.
Opponents worry the canisters will eventually corrode and crack in the salt air. And, if water gets inside, they say, a meltdown could result.
“These cans are literally a few feet above the salt water table. They’re made of steel. It’s good quality stainless steel but it’s only about the diameter of dime,” Langley said.
A 28 foot high sea wall protects the San Onofre facility from tidal wave action.
But what about an earthquake or a tsunami?
Scientists say they’ve studied the risks and there’s nothing to worry about…….. http://www.cbs8.com/story/37441429/san-onofre-nuclear-waste-moved-closer-to-beach
Research into effects of uranium waste exposure on Native Americans
Albuquerque Journal 5th Feb 2018, Researchers hope to measure the effects of mixed metals and uranium waste
exposure on Native American populations living in close proximity to
abandoned mines, and better understand how these toxins spread through the
environment.
That’s the objective of the newly created Superfund Research
Center at the University of New Mexico, which is funded by $1.2 million a
year for five years from the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences.
There are more than 4,000 abandoned uranium mines — some 500 on
the Navajo Nation alone — and some 160,000 abandoned hard rock mines
scattered throughout the West, and some 600,000 Native Americans who live
within about six miles of those sites, said center director Johnnye Lynn
Lewis, a research professor in the UNM College of Pharmacy.
https://www.abqjournal.com/1129580/researchers-to-measure-mixed-metals-mining-contamination-on-native-americans.html
Chairman of USA nuclear weapons oversight agency steps down amid internal turmoil
Chairman of nuclear weapons oversight agency steps down amid internal turmoil,
The Trump administration’s planned nuclear upgrade is being undermined by cost overruns.
Tennessean 5th Feb 2018, https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/05/trump-administrations-planned-nuclear-upgrade-being-undermined-cost-overruns/303310002/
Amarillo-area nuclear weapons plant affected by cost overruns for federal
program. Millions of dollars in promised savings at the Pantex Plant in the
Panhandle and another nuclear weapons facility in Tennessee haven’t
appeared. But the federal government has still awarded a contractor extra
profits.
City Council opposes construction of a Piketon nuclear waste facility
City Council: Members oppose construction of a Piketon nuclear waste facility, The Post , 8 Feb 18
Athens City Council passed a resolution Monday night opposing the construction of a nuclear waste disposal facility in Piketon.
The Village of Piketon conducted an independent survey of the 10-acre site and found that there are fractures in the bedrock that the Department of Energy didn’t include in its report. The site is also 8,000 feet from a school.
“This is a David vs. Goliath fight we’re in here,” Piketon Mayor Billy Spencer said.
Piketon officials also approached various other cities and municipalities, including Waverly and Chillicothe, asking for support.………http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2018/02/athens-nuclear-waste-carbon-fee
Oyster Creek stuck with 50 years’worth of stranded nuclear wastes
Oyster Creek’s Spent Nuclear Fuel Casks Aren’t Going Anywhere, Almost 50 years of spent nuclear fuel dry casks are stored at the Route 9 plant in Lacey Township. Lacey Patch By Patricia A. Miller, Patch Staff | LACEY TOWNSHIP, NJ – The Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant may be closing in October, but the spent nuclear fuel stored at the plant off Route 9 here for nearly 50 years isn’t going anywhere.
Why? There is no place in the United States to store them.
The proposed Yucca Mountain underground storage facility in Nevada never materialized. So nuclear plants around the country have been storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks onsite for decades. Oyster Creek’s spent fuel is stored in horizontal dry casks in an area located near the entrance checkpoint off Route 9, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.
“It is in the plant’s Protected Area, which is the fenced-in, highly secured area,” he said.
Spent fuel pools were originally designed as a short-term solution. The fuel would then cool enough so it could be shipped offsite to be reprocessed.
“But reprocessing didn’t end up being an option for nuclear power plants and the pools began to fill up,” according to the NRC.
Janet Tauro, chairman of the environmental group Clean Water Action and other environmental groups are calling for Oyster Creek’s dry casks to be “hardened,” meaning additional reinforcement in the future. They also want the capability for instrumentation, with the amount of heat and radiation inside each cask able to be monitored.
“Lacey Township is going to be a mini-Yucca,” Tauro said.
Sheehan says Oyster Creek’s dry casks consist of stainless steel canisters that hold the spent fuel. The canisters are then loaded into a steel-reinforced concrete vault.
“The vaults certainly qualify as “hardened,” as they weigh more than 100 tons when loaded and must be able to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes and more,” Sheehan said.
Oyster Creek is the oldest nuclear plant in the United States. It went online in December of 1969. The plant has a General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor, the same as the ill-fated Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
“None of our country’s Fukushima-design reactors should have operated for even one more day
once we saw the catastrophic events publicly unfold worldwide at Fukushima,” said Paul Gunter, of Beyond Nuclear, an anti-nuclear watchdog group…….. https://patch.com/new-jersey/lacey/oyster-creeks-spent-nuclear-fuel-casks-arent-going-anywere
US disarmament ambassador Robert Wood’s tirade at UN attacking North Korea, Russia AND China
US attacks North Korea, Russia AND China over nuclear ambitions in STUNNING tirade THE UNITED States has taken aim at North Korea, Russia and China and accused the countries of growing their nuclear stockpiles while “pursuing the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other peaceful nations”. By WILL KIRBY, Express UK Feb 6, 2018
He said: “Russia, China and North Korea are growing their stockpiles, increasing the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and – in some cases – pursuing the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other peaceful nations.”
He then warned Pyongyang “may now be only months away from the capability to strike the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles”.
The only way to address the “urgent and unpredictable threat to the United States, its allies and partners” posed by North Korea is, according to Mr Wood, to ensure the hermit state’s nuclear programme is “completely, verifiably and irreversibly eliminated”.
In response, North Korea accused the US of seeking to aggravate the delicate situation on the Korean peninsula by “deploying large nuclear assets” nearby.
Pyongyang diplomat Ju Yong Chol said the scale of the US military enforcements shows “they are designed to make a preemptive strike against the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea].”
Ju said: “US officials including the defence secretary and the CIA director repeatedly talked about DPRK nuclear and missile threat to justify their argument for a military option and a new concept of a so-called ‘bloody nose’, a limited pre-emptive strike on the DPRK is under consideration within the US administration.”
North Korea launched a series of ballistic missiles in 2017 as well as carrying out its biggest-ever nuclear test, prompting fears across the globe about the Kim regime’s ability to attack the international community.
Estimates on the size of North Korea’s arsenal vary but it is likely to be dwarfed by the weapons caches of its rivals.
The US has 450 silo-based Minuteman III missiles, while Russia has 369 missiles based in silos or mobile launchers.
China, meanwhile, has between 55 and 65 missiles deployed in an underground tunnel network……. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915088/north-korea-nuclear-usa-russia-china-missile-attack-trump-weapon-stockpile-world-war-3
World back in Cold War peril, with Trump’s new Nuclear Posture Review
Ironically, an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Russia went into full effect Monday. It was aimed, like previous agreements forged by the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, to defuse the possibility of just such a cataclysmic “Great Power” conflict. Under the terms of the New START treaty, as it’s known, both Russia and the United States are committed to deploying no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. There’s a strict verification regime on both sides, and proponents of the pact say those inspections have built confidence in the otherwise severely strained U.S.-Russia relationship.
Trump’s nuclear policy is taking us back to the Cold War, WP The Trump administration has touted its new nuclear policy, released at the end of last week by the Pentagon, as a tough, realistic assessment of foreign threats and U.S. capabilities. The Nuclear Posture Review, the first to be conducted since 2010, purportedly describes “the world as it is, not as we wish it to be” — and calls for an expansion of America’s nuclear arsenal to confront the evolving capabilities of other nuclear powers.
If that is the administration’s view of the world, it is far from a consensus. A legion of critics blasted a potential nuclear buildup as dangerous, fiscally ruinous and redolent of outdated Cold War thinking. Some pointed out that a coterie of nuclear hawks helped draft the NPR, including one academic who argued in 1980 that the United States could defeat the Soviet Union in a nuclear war, while stomaching “approximately 20 million” casualties, “a level compatible with national survival and recovery.”
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, echoed the administration’s recommendations to increase the stockpile of “low-yield” nuclear weapons — armaments that could still wipe out whole cities — and deploy a number of these warheads on submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles as a sign of American intent. “The U.S. must recognize the reality of a return to great power competition and posture itself accordingly,” he wrote in an op-ed for Defense News.
President Trump also plugged the new approach during last week’s State of the Union address.
Though boosters of the administration’s nuclear agenda frame it as a continuation of long-standing American policy, it is a marked reversal from the strategy of Trump’s predecessor. “The previous administration’s policy hinged on what President Barack Obama called a moral obligation for the United States to lead by example in ridding the world of nuclear weapons,” wrote my colleague Paul Sonne. “Officials in the Trump administration and the U.S. military argue that Obama’s approach proved overly idealistic, particularly as relations with Moscow soured. Russia, China and North Korea, they say, all advanced their nuclear weapons capabilities instead of following suit.”
Skeptics of the Trump administration’s embrace of nuclear weapons argue that they won’t be able to credibly deter the sort of low-level aggression carried out by countries like Russia in Eastern Europe and North Korea in northeast Asia. The strategy seems to embrace the weapons more for their own sake than any utility they might provide.
“The document reads less like a strategy of how best to deter threats to the United States and its allies and more like a piece of advocacy for nuclear weapons — a self-conscious defense of their utility, affordability, and an effort to expand their mission. It is less a Pentagon policy document than a memo from a powerful lobby,” wrote Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists. “Rather than working to reduce nuclear dangers, the nation’s nuclear policy now reflects the reasoning of U.S. adversaries and readily follows them into a more dangerous world.”
Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which pushes for global disarmament, warned that the new nuclear posture also gives Trump wider scope to order nuclear strikes. That’s something a majority of Americans don’t trust him with, according to a recent Washington Post poll.
“The authors spend pages arguing that the world has grown exponentially more dangerous due to the weakness of Trump’s predecessors,” Cirincione said in a recent op-ed. “They completely ignore the agreements that decreased Russian arsenals, rolled back and froze Iran’s nuclear program, and eliminated and secured tons of nuclear material from terrorists. The Nuclear Posture Review paints a world of terrifying ‘Great Power’ conflict.”
Ironically, an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Russia went into full effect Monday. It was aimed, like previous agreements forged by the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, to defuse the possibility of just such a cataclysmic “Great Power” conflict. Under the terms of the New START treaty, as it’s known, both Russia and the United States are committed to deploying no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. There’s a strict verification regime on both sides, and proponents of the pact say those inspections have built confidence in the otherwise severely strained U.S.-Russia relationship.
But there’s little indication that the Trump administration has much interest in extending the agreement beyond 2021, when it is set to expire. Critics say that’s a scary prospect. “Even in this environment, as long as Russia complies, extension is critical,” wrote John F. Kerry, the former secretary of state, who as a senator marshaled support for the treaty’s passage through Congress. “To let one of the last elements of constructive engagement expire with no follow-on process would ignore the hard-fought lessons of the Cold War. It would court nuclear competition that brings neither stability nor security.”
ndeed, experts warn that the climate of nuclear competition ushered in by Trump could risk a new global buildup of nuclear weapons that offers little strategic gain.
“Risking a new nuclear arms race, as is now likely and would be even more so should New START be allowed to expire without a replacement in hand, would divert American resources away from our conventional advantage, and bring us no additional security,” wrote Jon Wolfsthal, a nonresident fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former Obama administration official. “It would also repeat the great mistakes of the Cold War when we learned that arms races and nuclear wars cannot be won, and are better left unfought.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/06/trumps-nuclear-policy-is-taking-us-back-to-the-cold-war/?utm_term=.4f13c0dbcc63
USA Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis changes his mind – now wants massive increase in nuclear weapons
Mattis has flipped on nuclear weapons since the Pentagon decided to take on China and Russia, Business Insider, ALEX LOCKIE, FEB 6, 2018
USA- Russia New START Treaty takes effect – with central limits on strategic arsenals for 7 years
The United States of America and the Russian Federation have implemented the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty) for seven years. February 5, 2018 marks the date that the Treaty’s central limits on each country’s strategic nuclear arsenal take effect.
The United States completed its reductions and achieved these limits in August 2017. The Russian Federation has repeatedly stated its commitment to the New START Treaty, including meeting the central limits, and we expect our upcoming data exchange under the Treaty to reaffirm that commitment.
Implementation of the New START Treaty enhances the safety and security of the United States and our allies and makes strategic relations between the United States and the Russian Federation more stable, transparent, and predictable; critically important at a time when trust in the relationship has deteriorated, and the threat of miscalculation and misperception has risen. The Treaty exemplifies an enduring commitment by both parties to cooperate on issues affecting the strategic relationship and international security. The United States looks forward to continuing implementation of the Treaty with the Russian Federation.
The United States and the Russian Federation will exchange data on their respective strategic nuclear arsenals within the next month, as we have done twice per year over the last seven years in accordance with the Treaty. Through the Treaty’s verification regime, which includes short-notice, on-site inspections at military bases and facilities, the United States is able to verify the data provided by the Russian Federation regarding its strategic nuclear arsenal. The verification regime provides both countries insight into each other’s strategic nuclear delivery systems, warheads, and facilities, as well as data exchanges to track the status and makeup of nuclear weapons systems.
The recently released U.S. Nuclear Posture Review notes that arms control can contribute to U.S. security by helping to manage strategic competition among states. The United States remains committed to arms control efforts that advance U.S., allied, and partner security. The United States will continue to fully implement the New START Treaty and remains committed to working with others, including the Russian Federation, to create the conditions to support the ultimate goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The New START Treaty remains a critical component for supporting global non-proliferation efforts and strategic stability between the United States and the Russian Federation. Through implementing the New START Treaty, the United States continues to demonstrate its commitment to fulfilling its arms control obligations, including under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
American companies’plans to market nuclear technology to India have come to nothing
The Hindu 3rd Feb 2018, Watching the Republic Day parade, where 10 ASEAN leaders were chief guests,
it was easy to miss the fact that the dates of their visit also marked the
anniversary of another big visit three years ago: the visit by then U.S.
President Barack Obama, when he announced a “breakthrough” in the
India-U.S. civil nuclear deal, to finally pave the way for a commercial
contract.
“The deal is done,” Sujatha Singh, who was Foreign Secretary
at the time, said as the government issued papers and held briefings
describing the nature of the agreement between India and the U.S. on
supplier liability and tracking requirements, which would enable American
companies to build nuclear power reactors in India.
Today, nearly a decade since the memoranda of understanding were inked, and three years after the
last wrinkles were ironed out, there is no sign yet of any concrete
contract between an American company and the Indian authorities to build a
reactor.
In 2009, both GE-Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse had begun talks
on techno-commercial agreements for six reactors each in India. These
commercial contracts were to be the start of the ‘payoff’ for the U.S.
that had considerably shifted its stand on non-proliferation to give India
the waivers needed, and they were to herald India’s arrival on the global
nuclear power stage in return.
Instead, GE-Hitachi’s plans were shelved after it rejected the Obama-Modi agreement in January 2015, saying GE would
not accept the compromise formula on supplier liability. (While others have
indicated they would accept the liability offer, none of them has put that
on paper.) Toshiba-Westinghouse then carried the baton to actualise the
India-U.S. civil nuclear deal, but ran into a different storm as both
Toshiba and Westinghouse had major financial troubles last year. After a
near-bankruptcy, Toshiba jettisoned Westinghouse for just $4.6 billion to a
Canadian consortium, a deal that is now expected to be cleared by the end
of 2018.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/forging-a-new-nuclear-deal/article22637628.ece
China wants USA to drop its “Cold War mentality
The US military believes its nuclear weapons are seen as too big to be used and wants to develop low-yield bombs.
Russia has already condemned the plan.
Iran’s foreign minister claimed it brought the world “closer to annihilation”……….
China said on Sunday it “firmly” opposed the Pentagon’s review of US nuclear policy.
The defence ministry in Beijing said Washington had played up the threat of China’s nuclear threat, adding that its own policy was defensive in nature.
“We hope that the United States will abandon its Cold War mentality, earnestly assume its special disarmament responsibilities, correctly understand China’s strategic intentions and objectively view China’s national defence and military build-up,” its statement said. …..http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42935758
Trump administration wants $716 billion for defense for fiscal 2019
Why the military wants $716 billion from Congress,The Hill , BY REBECCA KHEEL – 02/04/18 The Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for $716 billion for defense for fiscal 2019, a major hike that budget analysts say aligns with administration’s stated goals of bulking up the military and preparing it to potentially fight near-peer rivals after years of focusing on terrorism.
“A total of $716 billion means that they are putting themselves on the trajectory for a big buildup in military power,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The caveat, though, is to really carry out the plans that they talked about in the past, you wouldn’t just need 7 percent growth in [fiscal] ’19; you would need similar levels of growth in the years following.”
President Trump came into office pledging to rebuild what he described as a “depleted” military. …..
“I’m not subtle,” Mattis told House and Senate Republicans on Thursday at their annual retreat at The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia.
“I need to make the military more lethal. Some people think I’m supposed to be an equal-opportunity employer,” Mattis added, according to several sources in the closed-door meeting.
Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday that he is “very happy” with the $716 billion request for next year.
“The money is going from readiness to modernization to nuclear deterrent,” he said. “You look at the strategy, and you see where it’s going.” ……..http://thehill.com/policy/defense/372110-why-the-military-wants-716-billion-from-congress
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (156)
- 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 