<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Nuclear Facts</title>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/</link>
<description>A contemporary and relevant information resource on problems within the UK nuclear industry</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2006</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:46:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.2</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>CoRWM nears the end of the beginning – hunt for a dump site begins!</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p> CoRWM’s draft recommendations are expected to emerge at its next plenary session to be held in Brighton on 25th – 27th April 2006. [1] There will then be a period of further public consultation before the final report is delivered to Government in July.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/corwm_nears_the.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/corwm_nears_the.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Finland – not an example for the UK to follow</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In the game of nuclear spin, Finland is a very important component. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/finland_not_an.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/finland_not_an.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Chernobyl - the legacy</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon has published its report on the cancer burden in Europe from Chernobyl. [1] The Agency predicts the number of cancer deaths will be between 6,700 and 38,000, probably around 16,000. This is four times the prediction made last September by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), and WHO - the Chernobyl Forum – which predicted 4,000 cancer deaths in total. A report published by Greenpeace International, on the other hand, predicts 93,000 cancer deaths, [2] and another report for the European Greens predicts between 30,000 and 60,000. [3]<br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/chernobyl_the_l.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/chernobyl_the_l.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>NII risks second failure at THORP plant– BNG prosecution looming</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>One year after a series of alarming errors resulted in 18,000 litres of highly radioactive dissolved spent fuel leaking in the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Greenpeace has published a report which exposes how the current plan to reopen THORP is an 'engineering 'bodge' which risks compromising safety. [1] The publication comes as it was revealed that the plant's operators will be prosecuted over the accident. <br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/nii_risks_secon.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/nii_risks_secon.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>British Energy Waste Row</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has attempted to stifle a mounting row over the cost of nuclear waste liabilities at British Energy, weeks after it was unable to explain its accounting policies. In claiming to have used the correct figures all along, the DTI failed to explain why it had taken three weeks to answer a query raised by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and why its top official was unable to give the Commons an immediate response. The issue is important because the government wants to sell its stake in BE.<br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/british_energy_3.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/british_energy_3.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Environmental Audit Committee – sheds light on sustainable energy future</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has concluded that new nuclear stations will be of little or no short-term use in filling an anticipated electricity 'generation gap' in Britain, and crucial questions of security, cost and effectiveness remain unanswered. The committee raise concerns over the risk of terrorist attacks, but also focus on the full costs of nuclear generation, such as the disposal of waste and decommissioning. [1] It says the economic viability of new nuclear plants has not been proved. [2]<br />
 <br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/environmental_a.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/environmental_a.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Scotland holds the line?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>JACK McConnell issued a defiant warning that he would decide on new nuclear power stations for Scotland, and he would not be swayed by Westminster or by lobbying from his own Labour movement. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/scotland_holds.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/scotland_holds.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Watchdog says UKAEA misleads public on health risk of Dounreay particles</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has accused the owners of Dounreay of misleading the public over the threat posed to public health by radioactive leaks from the plant. SEPA said the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was guilty of publishing false and conflicting information regarding thousands of plutonium and uranium particles washed up on beaches close to the Caithness plant. </p>

<p> <br />
 <br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/watchdog_says_u.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/watchdog_says_u.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Former Ministers call for IAEA reform</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Ten former European Environment Ministers, including Michael Meacher, have called on Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Mohamed ElBaradei to reform the Agency’s mandate and withdraw its promotion of nuclear technology.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/former_minister.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/former_minister.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Energy Review - utilities respond</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The last week of the Energy Review consultation period saw the publication of a string of responses from nuclear utilities, which might give some clues as to how likely reactors are to find private finance. Submissions will eventually be available on the DTI website, unless a request for confidentiality has been made, but only those submitted in January and February are currently available. [1]</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/energy_review_u.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/energy_review_u.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Pre-Licensing of new reactor designs</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance (WANA), Greenpeace and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities are calling for full public involvement in the process of assessing the safety of new nuclear power station designs. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/prelicensing_of.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/prelicensing_of.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Scientists say ‘no thanks’ to new reactors</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Plans to resurrect nuclear power have been dealt a damaging blow by 40 of Britain’s leading energy and climate scientists. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/scientists_say.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/scientists_say.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Investing in nuclear power is the worst thing we can do</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Claims that more nuclear plants are needed to protect the Earth’s climate don’t withstand analysis, according to renowned international energy expert, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/investing_in_nu.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/investing_in_nu.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Decommissioning problems continue to pile up</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The NDA has issued an assessment of options for restarting or not restarting the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield, in the run-up to the first anniversary of the discovery of a major leak of highly radioactive liquid which closed the plant on 21st April 2005. [1] Options considered include ‘virtual reprocessing’, which would involve sending UK plutonium and waste to overseas customers rather than reprocessing the actual overseas spent nuclear waste fuel. Another option is to send the overseas spent nuclear fuel elsewhere – probably France - for reprocessing. But the report concludes that a restart, subject to approval by the safety inspectors of the NII, is the strongly-favoured option. The NDA is refusing to release the costs of the THORP accident and prolonged closure.</p>

<p><br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/decommissioning.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/decommissioning.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nuclear power - creating opportunities for terrorism</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Building new nuclear reactors will present a major threat to our national and international security and increase the risk of nuclear terrorism, according to evidence presented to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee by the Oxford Research Group. Nuclear power should, therefore, not be part of the UK's energy supply. [1]</p>]]></description>
<link>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/nuclear_power_c_1.html</link>
<guid>http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclearfacts/archives/2006/04/nuclear_power_c_1.html</guid>
<category>Nuclear Facts</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>