Oh goody! America has a more ‘usable’ bomb in Europe!
America’s new, more ‘usable’, nuclear bomb in Europe The B61 bomb, 180 of which are stockpiled in Europe, is getting an upgrade which will make it more “usable” in the eyes of some in the American military, Guardian, Julian Borger Wednesday 11 November 2015, The $8 billion upgrade to the US B61 nuclear bomb has been widely condemnedas an awful lot of money to spend on an obsolete weapon. As an old fashioned ‘dumb’ bomb it has no role in US or NATO nuclear doctrine, but the upgrade has gone ahead anyway, in large part as a result of lobbying by the nuclear weapons laboratories.
In non-proliferation terms however the only thing worse than a useless bomb is a ‘usable’ bomb. Apart from the stratospheric price, the most controversial element of the B61 upgrade is the replacement of the existing rigid tail with one that has moving fins that will make the bomb smarter and allow it to be guided more accurately to a target. Furthermore, the yield can be adjusted before launch, according to the target.
The modifications are at the centre of a row between anti-proliferation advocates and the government over whether the new improved B61-12 bomb is in fact a new weapon, and therefore a violation of President Obama’s undertaking not to make new nuclear weapons. His administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Reviewsaid life extension upgrades to the US arsenal would “not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”
The issue has a particular significance for Europe where a stockpile of 180 B61’s is held in six bases in five countries. If there is no change in that deployment by the time the upgraded B61-12’s enter the stockpile in 2024, many of them will be flown out to the bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey………
The great thing about nuclear weapons was that their use was supposed to be unthinkable and they were therefore a deterrent to contemplation of a new world war. Once they become ‘thinkable’ we are in a different, and much more dangerous, universe.
It is a universe in which former vice president Dick Cheney has apparently lived for some ………….http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2015/nov/10/americas-new-more-usable-nuclear-bomb-in-europe
Cover-up of radiation hazard at children’s holiday camp in Southern California
LA’s Nuclear Secret: Camp Cover-Up, The popular 2,800-acre Southern California camp sits just over the hill from the Santa Susana Field Lab NBC News By Joel Grover and Matthew Glasser Tens of thousands of children who attended a popular camp in the hills northwest of Los Angeles over the last 65 years may have been exposed to radioactive waste and toxic chemicals from a former nuclear and rocket testing facility right next door, the Santa Susana Field Lab, according to documents and scientific studies obtained by the NBC4 I-Team.
LA’s Nuclear Secret: Timelines, Maps, Documents, Interviews
Families who sent their kids to the camp, as well as former camp staff and board members, say top leadership, including a famous TV personality, covered up evidence of the risk and continue to hide important information.
“It’s criminal not to disclose this,” said Erwin Sokol, a counselor at the camp in the 1950s, who later sent his own kids there, and whose wife Caren served on the board of directors. “There are people’s lives at risk.”
Sokol is referring to the Brandeis-Bardin Institute next to Simi Valley, a world famous center for Jewish learning, which runs Camp Alonim for kids and teens and hosts retreats for college students and adults. Purchased in 1947, the 2,800-acre camp is believed to be the largest piece of Jewish-owned land outside of Israel. It sits just over the hill from the Santa Susana Field Lab.
Former Santa Susana Field Lab workers told NBC4 during our LA’s Nuclear Secret investigation that for years, barrels of radioactive waste were burned in a pit right above the Brandeis property, and the radioactive smoke often blew toward the camp.
Workers also told the I-Team how they were ordered to secretly release radioactive gases into the air from crippled nuclear reactors, often when the wind was blowing the gases toward Brandeis and Simi Valley. John Pace, who worked the controls of one of the reactors, told NBC4, “The truth needs to be told” about the secret releases of radiation.
Families Ask I-Team to Investigate Over a dozen former Brandeis senior staff, camp families and board members told the I-Team they tried for years to find out the truth about potential contamination at Brandeis, but were stonewalled by the Institute’s top leaders.
“This is about protecting the health of children,” said Erwin Sokol.
So they asked the I-Team to investigate. Contamination at Brandeis
The I-Team found reports, studies and tests that show campers and staff could have been exposed to radioactive materials and toxic chemicals from the Santa Susana lab that migrated onto the Brandeis property through groundwater, surface water and wind.
Buried away at a National Archives warehouse in Riverside County, the I-Team found a 1997 report done by a scientist, Joel Cehn, who has worked for by Brandeis for years to monitor contamination on its land.
In the report, Cehn writes that after reviewing studies of Brandeis, in his opinion, “Brandeis property is contaminated… with radiological and chemical contaminants. Contaminated groundwater is moving toward the center of the Brandeis property (from south to north).”
Cehn also says, “Surface water, when present, also moves toward the center of Brandeis… some of this water is contaminated with tritium, strontium-90 and dioxins. Soil on the Brandeis property is contaminated… During rainwater runoff events, this soil is carried… to central and northern areas of the Brandeis property. Vegetation on the Brandeis property is contaminated.”
A Cover-Up
“If I had seen this document, I would not have taken the job,” said Rabbi Lee Bycel, who became president of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute in 2000 and served until 2003………
Toxic Water……..
Toxic Soil Brandeis own internal 1997 report, written by their consultant Joel Cehn, said “soil on the Brandeis property is contaminated with tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, PCB, dioxins, toluene, and petroleum hydrocarbons.”…..
Brandeis Declines to Speak to NBC4 The I-Team requested an interview with the current owners of Brandeis, the American Jewish University, to discuss the contamination.…… Brandeis Withholds Key Documents……. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/I-Team-LAs-Nuclear-Secret-Camp-Cover-Up-344006382.html
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION to change reactor design rules: invites comments
Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , 12 Nov 15
Narrowly avoided accidental nuclear apocalypse in 1983 revealed
Top Secret Documents Reveal A NATO Training Exercise Nearly Started A Nuclear Apocalypse With Russia http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/12/top-secret-documents-reveal-a-nato-training-exercise-nearly-started-a-nuclear-apocalypse-with-russia-_n_8542766.html The Huffington Post UK | By Thomas Tamblyn
A recently declassified document has revealed that in 1983, the United States and Russia were almost plunged into nuclear war and here’s the real kicker: It would have been completely by accident
It is thought that the exercise could have, at some stages, brought the two countries closer to war than even the famous Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Codenamed Able Archer, the NYT reveals in its exposé of the training exercise that many NATO commanders were seemingly oblivious to the knife edge that they were creating.
Then US President Ronald Reagan rather eloquently described the situation as ‘Really scary’ after reading the briefing documents that summarised how perilously close the situation had become.
The document was finally declassified earlier this month, some 11-years after the request had been made by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Speaking to the NYT about the significance of the event archive director Thomas S. Blanton said: “Turns out, 1983 is a classic, like the Cuban missile crisis, where neither superpower intended to go nuclear, but the risk of inadvertence, miscalculation, misperception were just really high. Cuba led J.F.K. to the test ban. Nineteen eighty-three led Reagan to Reykjavik and almost to abolition.”
What might be the most terrifying piece of news is that before and during the exercise, the Soviets weren’t just using human judgement but were inputting some 40,000 scenarios into a supercomputer in an effort to try and assess how likely a nuclear strike actually was.
Ironically it was the then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev who summed up the severity of the situation later in 1986:
“Never, perhaps, in the postwar decades has the situation in the world been as explosive and, hence, more difficult and unfavorable as in the first half of the 1980’s.”
Obama Administration enables nuclear industry to pitch itself as climate change solution
Politico blasted today’s summit: ”The nuclear crowd is certainly excited for the attention and the summit will also let them feel like part of Team Climate, given the industry’s sense of being the unloved stepchild of the whole enterprise.
Hopefully Politico is right and today’s event is really just another cheerleading event for a floundering industry that is grasping at any means to stay afloat and not a true commitment of the limited time and financial resources we have to a technology that cannot deliver carbon emission reductions in an expedient and affordable manner.
Who’s asking for (and getting) even more taxpayer bailouts? Hint: they’ve done it before http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2015/11/06/whos-asking-for-and-getting-even-more-taxpayer-bailouts-hint-theyve-done-it-before/ November 6th, 2015 Once again the nuclear power industry is the culprit and once again, the Obama Administration, like numerous previous Administrations, is the enabler — obliging an industry to the detriment of U.S. taxpayers by continuing to push an “all of the above” energy policy.
On the heels of the wise rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline today, another polluting player in the energy sector received some significant bolstering. This afternoon the “White House Summit on Nuclear Energy” was held for the flailing nuclear power industry, which has been rocked by several early closures of nuclear plants and major debacles at all the under-construction nuclear projects here in the U.S. (TVA’s Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee, Southern Company’s Vogtle 3 & 4 in Georgia and SCANA’s V.C. Summer 2 & 3 in South Carolina). The industry and its proponents, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and Third Way, which not surprisingly helped organize and participated in today’s pep rally, misleadingly claim that carbon emission reductions, such as required by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and being discussed at the upcoming U.N. climate conference in Paris, can only happen if nuclear power is expanded.
Trans Pacific Partnership will make Paris Climate Agreements irrelevant
The TPP, because of fast track, bypasses the normal legislative process of public discussion and consideration by congressional committees
The “deal is rife with polluter giveaways that would undermine decades of environmental progress, threaten our climate, and fail to adequately protect wildlife because big polluters helped write the deal.”
The agreement, in essence, becomes global law. Any agreements over carbon emissions by countries 
made through the United Nations are effectively rendered null and void by the TPP.
“Trade agreements are binding,” Flowers said. “They supersede any of the nonbinding agreements made by the United Nations Climate Change Conference that might come out of Paris.”
The Most Brazen Corporate Power Grab in American History http://www.globalresearch.ca/tpp-wto-nafta-the-most-brazen-corporate-power-grab-in-american-history/5487363 Nov 6, 2015 By Chris Hedges The release Thursday of the 5,544-page text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a trade and investment agreement involving 12 countries comprising nearly 40 percent of global output—confirms what even its most apocalyptic critics feared.
“The TPP, along with the WTO [World Trade Organization] and NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement], is the most brazen corporate power grab in American history,” Ralph Nader told me when I reached him by phone in Washington, D.C. “It allows corporations to bypass our three branches of government to impose enforceable sanctions by secret tribunals. These tribunals can declare our labor, consumer and environmental protections [to be] unlawful, non-tariff barriers subject to fines for noncompliance. The TPP establishes a transnational, autocratic system of enforceable governance in defiance of our domestic laws.” Continue reading
Not much real help to nuclear lobby from White House
Obama tweaks $12.5 billion in nuclear power loans, Washington ExaminerBy JOHN SICILIANO • 11/6/15 The Obama administration announced Friday that it will supplement its $12.5 billion loan guarantee program to build and license new nuclear reactors, but very little new money is being made available.
The announcement was made during a nuclear energy summit held at the White House Friday to discuss the role of nuclear power in producing zero-emission energy to combat climate change.
The Energy Department will be “supplementing its existing solicitation that makes up to $12.5 billion in loan guarantees available to support innovative nuclear energy projects,” according to a White House fact sheet.
That means the administration will allow nuclear plant developers to use government loans to cover the costs of more items related to power plant development, including licensing costs, compared with the previous policy that provided loan backing solely for the construction of the plant itself.
“The solicitation states that eligible projects can include construction of advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, uprates and upgrades at existing facilities, and front-end nuclear facilities,” the White House said.
Putting the costs of licensing a new plant in the new plan addresses the new, small modular power plants that the administration has attempted to jumpstart a market for, but with little success…….
The only problem: None are being built, and no licenses have been granted by the federal government to build one.
The administration said it has invested $452 million over six years to help reduce the engineering costs associated with certification and licensing activities for the reactors, and expects a design license won’t be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until just before President Obama leaves office.
The Energy Department, also, is establishing what it calls the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, which is sort of a one-stop shop for pushing new nuclear reactor designs toward commercialization, the White House said.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-tweaks-12.5-billion-in-nuclear-power-loans/article/2575815
The New START treaty – arms control pact between USA and Russia
Carroll: The enduring nuclear threat, By Vincent Carroll, Denver Post 7 Nov 15 “…Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose E. Gottemoeller was the chief negotiator for the New START treaty, an arms control pact with the Russians that went into effect in 2011. Her career in arms control and national security goes back many years and spans government, academia and think tanks.….
The New START treaty will take our nuclear weapons that are deployed down to 1,550 — and the same with the Russians — by February 2018. By contrast, when we signed the first START treaty in 1994, we and the Russians both had approximately 12,000 deployed nuclear warheads.
Even after the Ukraine crisis and their grab of Crimea, they continued to have a businesslike attitude toward the implementation of START. We conduct 18 inspections a year in Russia and they come here, too. Everything is reciprocal. And we exchange on a daily basis the status of our strategic nuclear forces. If the Russians take an ICBM out of its silo to a repair facility, they have to tell us that.
Q:Has the megatonnage come down proportionately with those reductions in warheads?
A: Absolutely. It’s been a real success story. So no matter what the ups and downs of our relationship, this process has been good for U.S. national security, and for predictability and mutual stability for these two great nuclear powers. And I would say especially now, when relations aren’t so hot, it’s good to have a clear idea of what’s going on with their nuclear forces.
The question is what to do about the future. Between 2010 and 2014 under President Obama we did a posture review, and in 2013 the president concluded we could go up to one-third lower in the New START, from 1,550 down even as low as 1,000 and still maintain our security. So in Berlin in June 2013, we put that offer on the table and said to the Russians, “Let’s work on the next nuclear disarmament negotiation.” But so far the Russians haven’t picked that offer up from the table, even though I think it would be good for them, too.
I think their reaction is wrapped up in a lot of things, such as Vladimir Putin’s sense that nuclear weapons mean a lot for Russian security at this moment to concerns, he says, in our national missile defense program. But it’s ridiculous to think that our limited missile defense system can somehow threaten the Russian strategic offensive deterrent.
Q:That system is for a smaller rogue regime?
A: It’s North Korea. And I’m glad we have it available as an insurance policy. ………
Q:Where do you see the major threats to proliferation?
A: The biggest new threat we face today is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. And not only nuclear weapons, but fissile material, highly enriched plutonium or uranium that could be used to craft a simple nuclear bomb. President Obama was really clear about this in his Prague speech back in 2009.
This threat is undeterrable. Even North Korea, as crazy as they are, knows they will be facing a very intense response if they attack us with a nuclear weapon. Countries hold off on that basis. That’s why the president said we need to push step by step for a world without nuclear weapons. The policy is to minimize the amount of highly enriched uranium and plutonium around the world, and to constantly press toward fewer weapons.
Q:Don’t terrorists need the assistance of a state to develop a nuclear weapon, at least in terms of getting the fuel?
A: The key factor is having enough fissile material, highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Then the designs for simple devices are on the Internet basically. So the concern is that they could get enough fissile material to make a bomb on their own or that they could steal a bomb or the material from somewhere.
In some cases, we do worry about state sponsorship. That’s one of the reasons we’re watching so closely North Korea, because they ship missile parts around the world and might get into this business as well……..http://www.denverpost.com/perspective/ci_29081465/carroll-enduring-nuclear-threat
USA making Plutonium-238 for Space Travel
Peak Plutonium-238? U.S. Starts Making Nuclear Fuel For Deep Space Missions, Forbes, William Pentland , 8 Nov 15 In the next two or three years, the U.S. Department of Energy will begin producing small quantities of a material known as plutonium-238 a trefurbished federal nuclear facilities at in Idaho and Tennessee.
When fully operational, the facilities will be able to produce a little more than three pounds of plutonium-238 every year, or about enough to fill a can of soda pop. It will be the first time plutonium-238 has been produced anywhere in the world in nearly 30 years.
Plutonium-238, a special radioactive material that does not occur in nature, emits a constant level of heat for decades as it decays. It is the primary fuel source used to power more than two-dozen U.S. space missions for spacecraft and planetary probes that cannot rely on solar energy.
Other than exploring deep space or powering decades-long experiments on the dark side of the moon, plutonium 238 is pretty much worthless. It is not suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Ditto nuclear reactors.
It was originally produced as a by-product of nuclear weapons. When the United States and Russia shuttered their nuclear weapons programs in the 1980s, the world stopped producing plutonium-238.
Not surprisingly, plutonium-238 is expensive to make – very expensive. One pound of plutonium 238 costs about $4 million to make. And that does not include the upfront investment needed to reestablish production of plutonium-238 in the United States, which is expected to cost as much as $150 million or more……
Nobody needs the U.S. space program, but at least in the United States almost everybody wants it just the same, including me. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/08/peak-plutonium-238-u-s-starts-making-nuclear-fuel-for-deep-space-missions/
Nuclear lobby convincing USA govt of its climate change credentials ?
One major consideration is convincing investors to back new nuclear…...
The Clean Air Task Force is working with other industry and environmental groups to launch the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, which aims to improve investing for advanced nuclear in the United States. A formal rollout is scheduled for later this month
White House summit boosts industry’s sagging spirits Jean Chemnick and Hannah Northey, E&E reportersE&E Daily: Friday, November 6, 2015 The nuclear industry hopes today’s White House summit is the start of a more proactive effort by the Obama administration to put reactors into the U.S. push to meet its international climate change targets.
The summit comes as the days tick down to the Nov. 30 start of the U.N. climate conference in Paris aimed at producing a post-2020 emissions agreement. President Obama has staked out a large role in helping to broker a Paris deal. Continue reading
Legal case over St Louis radioactive trash – 2700 cancer cases from nuclear radiation?
US Government Secretly Buried Nuclear Waste Near Playground — And Thousands Now Have Cancer http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/us-government-secretly-buried-nuclear-waste-near-playground-and-thousands-now-have-cancer/ by: Daniel Jennings November 4, 2015 A government contractor buried tens of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste in two sites around St. Louis that may have caused more than 2,700 cases of cancer, a lawsuit and CBS News are alleging.
“Within a six-house radius, I knew four people with brain cancer, one a child, one a young professor,” resident Jenelle Wright told CBS. “And I just thought, ‘This is really odd.’”
What is truly disturbing is that Wright and others only figured out that something was wrong when they got together on Facebook to plan a school reunion. When they started reconnecting, they noticed that a lot of people they knew had developed cancer.
“If we did not have social media, if Facebook did not exist, we would never have put these pieces together,” Wright said.
Nuclear Waste on Playgrounds
Wright and other residents of North County near St. Louis think the cause of cancer was the tens of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste dumped in the area decades ago by the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company. The company had been hired by the US government agency to process uranium for America’s nuclear weapons program. Then, “under the cover of national security secrecy, the government authorized the company to dump radioactive wastes quietly in the suburbs,” according to a 1990 New York Times article.
The waste was buried in two areas near Coldwater Creek, which runs through the area. One of the sites where the waste was dumped was located near a park where Wright and her friends played as kids. The park is now locked tight and engineers are trying to clean up the mess.
What you see is an environmental health disaster unfolding slowly over decades,” St. Louis County Health Director Dr. Faisal Khan told CBS News. “… The rates of appendix cancer, for instance, which is relatively rare — we see about 800 cases across the nation per year. To find seven or eight cases in one zip code or one small geographic area is rather unusual.”
The study on the soil could take years. That frustrates Mary Oscko, a resident who has stage 4 lung cancer.
“My husband and I had to sit down at night and discuss whether I want to be cremated or buried,” she toldCBS News. “I don’t want to be buried in North County, that’s the one thing I told him — I do not want to be buried where this soil is.”
During World War II Mallinckrodt processed uranium in St. Louis for the world’s first nuclear reactor and the Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb.
USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission considering 80 year licenses for nuclear reactors!
Debates may lie ahead on how aging risks should properly be measured, if a dispute involving Entergy Nuclear’s Palisades nuclear plant near South Haven, Mich., is a guide. Four citizen organizations — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future-Shoreline Chapter and the Nuclear Energy Information Service — oppose Entergy’s proposal for assessing the extent of neutron-caused embrittlement of the reactor, which could lead to critical failures…….
Aging has an economic side, too……..
Life span of U.S. reactors is an issue for the Clean Power Plan Peter Behr, E&E reporterEnergyWire: Friday, November 6, 2015 correction appended.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will update by year’s end proposed guidelines for assessing the safe life span for nuclear reactors — a central issue for the nuclear industry, the nation’s future electric power supply and the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.
The new guidance is linked to NRC’s current judgment that there are as yet no “aging” issues with reactors’ structures and components that would prevent current plants from being licensed out to 80 years of age.
NRC’s Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report will address four potential aging risks for reactors caused by decades of thermal shock, radiation and mechanical stress: metal embrittlement in pressure vessels, deterioration of cables, concrete and containment structures, and cracks in reactor components. The report will update inspection and assessment methods for aging issues…….. Continue reading
Time to anandon the fairy tale that nuclear power is affordable
It is past time for utility executives and their regulators to take a step back and reassess. An honest look at the real costs of nuclear power will show that the economics don’t add up. It is time to stop believing in impossible things
Nuclear Power Economics Requires Believing In ‘Impossible Things‘, Energy Collective, Dennis Wamsted, 6 Nov 15 It is increasingly clear that the economics of nuclear power don’t add up. Just in the past two and a half years, for example, seven plants at six sites have been shut down due to uneconomic performance or massive equipment repair costs—and other plants are on the chopping block.
Similarly, the two ballyhooed active construction projects, in Georgia and South Carolina, are seriously behind schedule and way over budget. Nonetheless, utility executives and regulators in a number of states still have not gotten the message, notably in Florida and Virginia where executives at Juno Beach-based Florida Power & Light and Richmond-based Dominion soldier on, pushing new reactor proposals whose economics, simply put, just don’t add up and could leave ratepayers holding the bag for billions of dollars in nuclear construction costs. Continue reading
Nuclear industry sulking because Obama is not doing enough for them
Obama’s Green Push Comes At Expense Of Nuclear Power, Daily Caller 6 Nov 15 The nuclear power industry supports President Barack Obama’s plan to force coal plants to close, but a pending Supreme Court case threatens to cause huge problems for nuclear plants.
Currently the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is embroiled in a Supreme Court battle over a program called demand response, which seeks to cut energy use by compensating retail customers who reduce consumption during peak power grid operation. FERC is forcing energy companies to participate, a move that opponents argue exceeds their legal mandate. According to Utility Dive, demand response keeps wholesale energy prices low, cutting into profits in the nuclear and coal industry……….
The court case puts the coal and nuclear power industries on the same side……..
In the wake of these closures, the industry has been lobbying the administration to increase government assistance to nuclear power, arguing the nuclear industry holds the key to cleaner air………http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/05/obamas-green-push-comes-at-expense-of-nuclear-power/
Virginia nuclear power plant owner Dominium seeks 80 year lifespan for reactors !!
Dominion plans to extend Surry nuclear reactors to 80-year lifespan BY JOHN RAMSEY Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 Nov 15 Dominion Virginia Power today will formally seek a second license extension for its Surry nuclear power plant, becoming the first utility in the U.S. to try to push the operating range for nuclear reactors to 80 years.
If successful, the utility’s pair of reactors in Surry County would be eligible to operate past 2050.
At a White House summit on nuclear energy this afternoon, Dominion executives will deliver a letter to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirming plans to apply for the extension.
The Surry plant, located on the south bank of the James River in southeastern Virginia, saw its first reactor open in December 1972 and its second in May 1973……
As of today, no nuclear plants in the country have been granted the second 20-year extension Dominion is seeking.
1 This Month
15 October. Joint Appeal for Nuclear Abolition Day -presentation to the UN on October 15 will be live on UNWebTV
Endorse the Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conference
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (139)
- 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)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
