1. First, you need mildly-enriched uranium.
There are 92 naturally occurring elements but only one, uranium, has become the key to the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle. Natural uranium consists of three isotopes: uranium-238, uranium-235, and uranium-234. Uranium isotopes are radioactive. When uranium is mined from the earth it contains only about 0.7% uranium-235. Industrial processes enrich uranium by concentrating the amount of U-235 to 3% or more for use as reactor fuel. Uranium with more than 20% U-235 is called highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

An atom can be pictured as a small universe with a nucleus at its centre and electrons orbiting around it. The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. Each electron has a negative charge and each proton a positive charge; since there are an equal number of protons and electrons the atom the atom is neutral. Atoms of the same element have the same number of protons (the atomic number). However, the same element can have atoms with varying numbers of neutrons in their nucleus giving atomic species of different atomic weights known as nuclides. Thus for the key element uranium, the nucleus of uranium-235 has 143 neutrons and 92 protons and uranium-238 has 146 neutrons and 92 protons.

The nuclei of radioactive elements are unstable, meaning they are transformed into other elements, typically by emitting particles (and sometimes by absorbing particles). This process, known as radioactive decay, generally results in the emission of alpha or beta particles from the nucleus. It is often also accompanied by emission of gamma radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation, like X-rays. As radioactive atoms decay, alpha, beta and gamma rays are emitted. Alpha rays are heavy positively charged particles travelling at high speed (several kilometres a second). These rays emanate from heavy elements such as uranium, plutonium and americium. Beta rays are negatively charged electrons seven thousand times lighter than alpha particles. Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation which emanates from most though not all radionuclides.

These three kinds of radiation have very different properties in some respects but are all ionizing radiation–each is energetic enough to break chemical bonds, thereby possessing the ability to damage or destroy living cells. Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years; that is, half the atoms in any sample will decay in that amount of time. Uranium-238 decays by alpha emission into thorium-234, which itself decays by beta emission to protactinium-234, which decays by beta emission to uranium-234, and so on. The various decay products, (sometimes referred to as “progeny” or “daughters”) form a series starting at uranium-238. After several more alpha and beta decays, the series ends with the stable isotope lead-206. (Source: Institute for Environment and Energy Studies)
Both radioactive U-235 and stable U-238 are found in naturally occuring uranium deposits. In order to be used in a reactor, the uranium must be enriched, increasing the percentage of radioactive U-235 in the sample. For typical civilian power plants the uranium must be enriched so that it contains 3% – 5% of uranium-235.
After mining the uranium mineral is refined to uranium oxide, called yellowcake. This natural uranium is processed and then enriched. Numerous technologies have been developed to enrich uranium, such as gaseous-diffusion, centrifuges, and electromagnetic separation. All of these technologies require a large initial investment and large amounts of energy to operate.
Yellowcake has two forms of uranium: uranium-235 and uranium-238. Uranium-235 fissions (splits) readily. Its concentration in yellowcake is only 0.7%. For the common reactor (light-water) yellowcake is enriched to 3 % uranium-235. To make bomb-grade fuel yellowcake is enriched to 90 %. Before enrichment, yellowcake is converted to a volatile material called ‘hex’ (uranium hexafluoride).

In the diffusion process hex vapour passes through thousands of membranes along a two kilometre tunnel. In the other process the vapour passes through hundreds of small ultra-high-speed centrifuges. Centrifuge plants are compact and so readily concealed. They allow a country possessing a plant to switch quickly from the production of reactor-grade to bomb-grade fuel. (Source: The Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service Inc.)

Reprocessing is probably the dirtiest operation in the nuclear fuel cycle. Reprocessing is also the option that generates the largest amount of radioactive waste. The most dangerous of this waste is called high-level waste — a liquid waste stream carrying chemicals used in reprocessing along with many radioactive isotopes from the spent fuel or other material. This high-level waste would be added to over 30 million gallons of liquid waste from past reprocessing already stored in underground tanks at SRS. Some of these tanks have leaked, and storage of the waste in this form poses risks of fire or explosion resulting from chemical reactions inside the tanks. Moreover, in January 1998, SRS officials acknowledged — after over a decade of warnings and a half billion dollars in expenses — that one of the techniques intended to help remove waste from the tanks is unsafe. A replacement technology may not be ready until 2005.

Reprocessing is a chemical reaction, which separates plutonium and uranium from fuel which has been irradiated in reactors. The plutonium is important for weapons production, while the uranium is basically a byproduct that can be recycled as fuel. Because reprocessing is also part of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, reprocessing is a key link between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons production. Thus, the existence of a reprocessing plant is what gives a country the ability to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Therefore, any country that has operating reprocessing plants can be classified as a potential nuclear-weapons power (Makkhijani, Hu, and Yih, 1995, p 47-48).

Reprocessing is also extremely costly. The overall costs of spent fuel management and disposal ranges from approximately $130 billion to $240 billion for commercial reprocessing (Makhijani and Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception: US nuclear mythology from electricity “too cheap to meter” to “inherently safe” reactors, 1999, p. 9). The countries that have commercial reprocessing plants include UK, France, USA, Russian Federation, Japan, and India. All five of the reprocessing programs are governmentally owned or subsidized. ( Makhijani and Saleska, p. 122). The countries with military plutonium separation sites include USA, Russian Federation, UK, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan.

The yellowcake is broken into small pieces and put into long metal rods. The rods are collected into bundles.

2. The energy released from these bundles during fission is used to heat water, turning it into steam.

3. At this point, nuclear power plants function much the same as traditional fossil fuel plants. The force of the steam moves a turbine that, in turn, powers a generator that creates electricity. All nuclear reactors rely on steam in this manner. There are different major types of reactors that create this steam in slightly different ways, such as: Boiling Water Reactors, Pressurized Water Reactors, CANDU reactors (Canada Deuterium Uranium, a type of pressurized heavy water reactor), and LMFBR’s (Liquid-Metal Fast-Breeder Reactor). For more information about the different types of reactors please visit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/reactor.html or http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm
The rate of fission is determined by the number of neutrons bombarding the uranium sample. In order to adjust the rate at which the steam is produced, control rods (which absorb neutrons) are placed within the bundles. More energy will be created the further the control rods are raised out of the bundles, since fewer “bombarding” neutrons will be absorbed. If the operator wishes to slow or stop fission, the control rods will be fully submerged in the bundles.
The Side Effects of Nuclear Power

1. Uranium Mining. Natural uranium has to be mined from the earth like any other natural element. Yet, unlike other natural elements, uranium is radioactive. As a result, every aspect of uranium production, from mining to transportation, has damaging environmental and health effects.
Uranium mining has scarred the landscape and affected areas in 16 countries with millions of tons of dangerous dirt called tailings. Uranium is the principal fuel for nuclear reactors and the main raw material for nuclear weapons. Traditionally, uranium has been extracted from underground and open pit mines. Over half of the world’s production of uranium from mines is in Canada and Australia. Uranium is also mined in Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Russia, USA, Kazakhstan, South Africa Czech Republic, France, China, Ukraine, Gabon, Spain, and India.
Uranium mining on indigenous and tribal peoples’ lands has devastated local communities and environments in North America, Australia, Africa, and Asia. Uranium ore, mined from large open pits and underground mines, is processed so it can be used as fuel in nuclear reactors. For every ton of uranium oxide produced, thousands of tons of wastes, or tailings, are left behind. Often the tailings are simply dumped on the land near the mine and left to the effects of the elements. Wind carries radon gas and radioactive dust from these tailings for many miles. Contaminated rainwater enters the soil, the watershed and, eventually, the food chain, endangering health. Indigenous peoples’ lands have also been used to dump radioactive wastes and to test (explode) nuclear bombs both above-ground and below-ground, resulting in massive radioactive contamination.

In Northern Saskatchewan, Canada, where the world’s largest and most concentrated known uranium reserves are located, routine releases and accidental spills of contaminated water from mining and milling operations have poisoned major fisheries and threatened the health and livelihood of indigenous communities.

In Niger and Namibia, uranium tailings are simply dumped on the desert sand, contaminating the air, food and drinking water of nomadic tribes.

In the Southwestern US, mining wastes abandoned on indigenous peoples’ land have damaged the health of their communities. It is little known that the second worst nuclear disaster in US history was the spilling of uranium mine tailings in the Rio Puerco River in New Mexico in the 1980s.

Dineh (Navajo) and other uranium miners in the US have contracted cancers at a much higher rate than the general population (including a lung cancer incidence forty times greater than normally expected). They were not told about the dangers of radioactivity.

Tibetan people have been, without their knowledge, radiation-tolerance test victims at sites of Chinese-operated uranium mines and waste dumps. (Source: Plutonium Free Future)
To learn more about uranium mining, please visit RCW’s uranium factsheet.
2. Nuclear/radioactive waste consists of the broken down uranium fuel used during fission, as well as all the machinery used in the process and the nuclear plant itself. Since so much high intensity energy is released during fission, everything that has come into contact with that energy becomes embedded with radioactive elements. The break down of uranium creates elements such as cesium, strontium, and plutonium. Though not useful to the production of more nuclear energy, these elements are highly radioactive.

The Plutonium Free Future project assessed that by the year 2000, the nuclear industry had “created 201,000 tons of highly radioactive irradiated (used) fuel rods. The plutonium in the waste will remain radioactive for up to 240,000 years (12,000 generations) or more.”

This means that any living thing coming into contact with plutonium waste during this long period of time will be exposed to potentially harmful radiation, so, “for that entire time it must be isolated from all living organisms and from the water, land and air upon which they depend.” However, there is no long-term solution for its disposal or storage. Short-term solutions do not address the grave health and environmental effects of nuclear waste that last for hundreds of thousands of years.”

Toxic and nonradiological hazards, such as acids, solvents, nitrates, oils, heavy metals, fluorides, explosives, mercury, beryllium, and asbestos, are also products of the nuclear weapon legacy that have negatively affected public health and the environment.
For more information about the types of nuclear waste, please visit http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm or http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm
Nuclear waste is particularly devastating since there is no long-term solution for its disposal or storage. Short-term solutions do not address the grave health and environmental effects of nuclear waste that last for for hundreds of thousands of years. Generally, nuclear waste is dumped in low-population areas of the world ranging from Australia to Kentucky. To see a map of U.S. states that have agreed to be nuclear waste disposal sites see: http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/rulemaking.htm
2. Nuclear Weapons Development. There are correlations between nuclear energy technology and nuclear weapons technology. Not all states developing nuclear energy technology have the intention to use that technology for weapons. Yet, once the technology and machinery for creating nuclear energy are gained, it is possible to begin developing weapons technology. Uranium for civilian use needs to be enriched to >5%. Military use uranium needs to be enriched to >90%. (http://www.ieer.org/) While this discrepancy is great, a person or State with the technology to enrich uranium for energy has the potential to move towards weapons development.
Another relationship between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is the ability to “recycle” spent atomic fuel, in the form of plutonium, into weapons technology. Uranium can produce plutonium during fission.
During the operation of a reactor, some uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239. Periodically spent-fuel is removed from reactors and after storing for a year or more it can be treated in a reprocessing plant to recover the plutonium, the essential ingredient of the nuclear bomb. Only 8 kilograms of plutonium (the size of a large orange) is needed for an explosion.
While other dangerous elements also occur, plutonium is important in that it can be used in nuclear weapons. “If the nuclear power reactor continues operating for a total of 30 years, it will have produced enough plutonium for at least 1200 bombs,” http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/PLUTBOMB.htm For more information on “recycling” atomic fuel, please see http://www.nirs.org/factsheets
3. Dangers of Nuclear Reactors. As if the problems and dangers posed by nuclear waste weren’t enough, the very existence of nuclear reactors creates a serious threat to our environment and our health. As stated in A Race Against Time, the 1978 Report on Nuclear Power by the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, “when we talk about the safety of a nuclear reactor, we are referring essentially to how effectively the fantastic amount of radioactivity contained in the reactor core can be prevented from escaping into the ground and atmosphere in the event of major malfunctions” (http://www.ccnr.org/). Yet, as we have already seen in the past few decades, major and minor malfunctions in nuclear reactors can have catastrophic consequences. Here are two examples of recent nuclear reactor malfunctions.
Chernobyl. On April 25th and 26th 1986, the world experienced the worst nuclear power accident in the history of atomic technology. During a routine test of Reactor Four, the reactor experienced two explosions within two minutes of each other as a result of mechanical flaws and operational failures. As a result, at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core was released into the atmosphere, first blanketing Northern Europe, then the rest of the world. The dire health and environmental consequences are still being revealed to this day. For more information about the Chernobyl accident please see: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/urgent-actions/chernobyl/
Three Mile Island. Due to mechanical and operational failures, this nuclear power plant on Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River experienced a partial meltdown on March 28, 1979. The extent of the damage and the amount of radioactivity released into the environment during that period is still disputed in the scientific community. Even so, the events at Three Mile Island illustrate how quickly a functioning nuclear reactor can deteriorate into a near meltdown. It also reveals the life threatening consequences of basic human error on the part of even the best-trained nuclear technicians. For more information about the chronology and aftermath of Three Mile Island, please see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/tmi.htm, or http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/sfeature/index.html

For more information on the dangers of nuclear reactors, please visit http://www.ccnr.org/#accident

For more information on the ramifications of nuclear energy, please visit: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja00abrahamson
The Politics of Nuclear Energy
Background

1. Atoms for Peace. Dwight Eisenhower’s landmark speech made to the United Nations General Assembly on December 8th, 1953. Addressing the world’s widespread fear and discontent over recently developed atomic technology and weapons, this speech proposed that a nuclear regulatory agency be created. This lead to the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Eisenhower sought to transform nuclear technology into a peaceful and humanitarian pursuit by focusing on nuclear energy development. His promotion of nuclear energy leads to its proliferation through the U.S. and the world. For the full text of “Atoms for Peace” please visit: http://www.iaea.org/About/history_speech.html For more about the lasting legacy of “Atoms for Peace” please visit: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/Lavoy.asp or http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd03weiss
2. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Developed as a means to curb and control the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials, this treaty entered-into-force in 1970. While imposing restrictions on nuclear weapons development, Article IV of the NPT establishes access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as an “inalienable right. ” Please see the full text of Article IV and further discussion of Article IV and its legacy.

3. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This Treaty, negotiated by the Conference on Disarmament and presented to the UN General Assembly in September 1996, is the first treaty to ban all nuclear explosions. The CTBT took an important leap forward in disarmament legislation by including nuclear test explosions in the ban. What is particularly interesting about the CTBT is that it can only enter into force once all 44 states with nuclear energy reactors sign and ratify the treaty regardless of whether they have, or are pursuing, nuclear weapons. This requirement, established in Annex II of the CTBT, was an unprecedented acknowledgement of the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy capabilities. As of yet, this Treaty has not been ratified by all Annex II states. For the full text, analysis, and updates on the CTBT, please visit the CTBT homepage at http://www.ctbto.org/. Please also visit http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/ctbt/bkgrd.html or http://www.acronym.org.uk/ctbt/index.htm for more quick facts and analysis about the CTBT.

Current Controversies over Nuclear Energy

1. International Atomic Energy Agency Summary. December of 2003 marked the 50th anniversary of the IAEA, the agency created in the spirit of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech. The agency, originally created to control nuclear weapons and pacify the world’s fear of nuclear technology, gave a biting criticism of the current state of affairs 50 years after its hopeful beginnings. Please see Mohamed ElBaradei’s, the head of the IAEA, commentary on the 50th anniversary.

2. Who has what? Countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have brought the connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons into the international spotlight. As the media coverage grows around these stories, it is important to remember the cold hard facts about the types of nuclear technology each country actually possesses. Please visit the IAEA’s site for a profile of each country, or Reaching Critical Will’s own annual shadow report for more comprehensive information.

3. Iraq. After the first Gulf War, IAEA inspectors discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iraq, which Iraq had maintained was intended strictly for peaceful nuclear purposes. The IAEA, operating under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (a weak verification regime mandatory under the NPT), had failed to effectively detect Iraq’s clandestine program. This IAEA failure led to the development of the Model Additional Protocol, a much more stringent and intrusive inspections regime. More and more States are beginning to support the idea of the Model Additional Protocol as a precondition to the NPT Article IV entitlement.

Doubts over Iraq’s nuclear weapons program during the second Bush administration lead to further IAEA inspections. While the United Nations and many States around the world wanted to continue inspections, the second Bush administration felt that inspections would not be able to provide conclusive answers. As a result, the U.S. decided to initiate the current war without approval from the U.N. For more detailed information, please visit http://www.armscontrol.org/country/iraq/

4. North Korea. The events surrounding North Korea’s attempts at developing nuclear weaponry from nuclear energy capabilities illustrates the dangers of nuclear energy proliferation. One particularly interesting aspect of the U.S.’s reactions to North Korea’s nuclear developments is in how markedly different it is from its reaction to allegations about Iraq’s nuclear development.

For more information about North Korea’s nuclear programme, please see RCW’s North Korea Report.
5. Iran. Recently, the dangers and complexity of the nuclear energy question have played out in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As reported by the BBC, ” for several years the US, now joined by Europe, has raised fears that Iran’s supposedly peaceful nuclear programme might be a front to try to develop secret nuclear weapons. Iran has always protested its innocence and insisted – unlike nations like Pakistan and India who built and tested nuclear weapons illicitly – that it has taken its international obligations over nuclear power seriously. But in September, the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, declared Iran was in non compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and gave Iran until its next meeting at the end of November to show it was prepared to co-operate more fully.”

Under the NPT, all countries are allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses, under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They are also allowed to enrich uranium to the level needed to make fuel for nuclear power, again under the IAEA’s monitoring. However, the same technology can be used to enrich uranium further in order to make nuclear weapons. Whether or not Iran is secretly developing or intending to develop nuclear weapons, by hiding its uranium enrichment programme for 18 years from the IAEA Iran has violated the NPT and alarmed the international community.

For more information on this subject, please see our report, Nuclear Iran?
Resources
Nuclear energy has been the center of international, environmental, and political attention since its invention. It can be overwhelming to understand the multitude of news and technology stories surrounding this issue. Below are some useful websites to keep track of upcoming and current nuclear energy issues. All of these websites are constantly updated. We suggest you use them to search by particular country (i.e. Iran) or to search for more general articles about nuclear energy developments.
Websites:

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy: News, updates, and analysis of the UN and other international diplomatic bodies dealing with nuclear issues.
Arms Control Association: Comprehensive and up-to-date nuclear news, profiles of important nuclear States, useful articles and factsheets.
Associated Press: Constantly updated news from the AP wire.
BBC: Daily news updates, important editorials.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Online version of the print publication with news, updates, and an archive of articles about atomic science and nuclear issues.
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility: In depth information and factsheets about nuclear technology and the Canadian nuclear industry.
Friends of the Earth International: Federation of autonomous environmental organizations that conduct research, educate, and advocate global environmental issues.
Greenpeace International: News reports and activist alerts on ending the threat of nuclear energy

Greenpeace International “No More Chernobyls Page”: Sign the Greenpeace Chernobyl Petition
HowStuffWorks.com: Search this website for an explanation of how virtually all things nuclear work

IAEA Homepage: Updates and news on major nuclear issues, also includes background and historical information
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research: Useful factsheets, publications, and tutorials on the science of nuclear energy.
Nucler Age Peace Foundation: Nuclear factsheets, some news updates, and action bulletins
Nuclear Files.org – Nuclear Energy: Publications and analyses
Nuclear Information and Resource Service: Lots of useful factsheets, news updates, and action bulletins

Nuclear Threat Initiative: Daily news updates, comprehensive discussion of nuclear topics, country profiles

Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Text and background of the CTBT and important updates.
The Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service Inc. (SEA-US): Promotes and publishes information on safe and sustainable energy production, a nuclear free world, and anti-uranium mining issues.
World Nuclear Association: Weekly summaries of international news relevant to the nuclear energy industry.
Publications and Articles:
RCW’s “Indigenous Fact Sheet”: perspectives on nuclear energy and weapons of indigenous communities around the world.
NGOs set the record straight on nuclear energy in the new Truth Commission report.
How safe is nuclear energy? The Global Resource Action Center on the Environment discusses nuclear energy in the United States, and also explores other, sustainable sources of energy for the world’s people.
Michael Spies, “Another turn of the centrifuge,” DisarmamentActivist.org, 24 August 2006.
Jackie Cabasso, “From the Other Side of the Glass: Some Responses to the State of the Union Address,” DisarmamentActivist.org, 2 February 2006.
International Atomic Energy Agency, “Nuclear Plant Safety: No Room for Complacency,” Staff Report, 2 December 2005.
Internation Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, “Rethinking Nuclear Energy and Democracy after September 11, 2001,” IPPNW Global Health Watch Report, 2004.
S. Julio Friedman and Thomas Homer-Dixon, “Out of the Energy Box,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004.
Friends of the Earth, “Power Politics: Linking Congress, Campaign Contributions and Energy Policy,” 4 November 2003.
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, “Nuclear Energy and the Non Proliferation Treaty: An Authorized Albatross?” April 1998.
In the News

Chris Wattie, “Tories ‘not afraid’ of nuclear, Lunn says,” National Post, 24 January 2007.
Joan Russow, “Alberta oil sands and nuclear energy surge: outrageous proposals,” New York City Independent Media Center, 22 January 2007.
Canadian Press, “Tories want to go nuclear with new green clean energy plan,” CJOB, 18 January 2007.
Joan Russow, “Alberta Oil Sands and nuclear power surge: outrageous proposals,” Peace, Earth & Justice News, 18 January 2007.
Michele Boyd, “The Costs of Having and Not Having Nuclear Energy,” Washingtonpost.com, 18 January 2007.
Shaima Mahmoud, “Nuclear energy in Yemen: A conceivable dream?,” Yemen Times, 18 January 2007.
Euroresidents, “Zapatero has ruled out renewing the programme for the expansion of nuclear energy,” News from Spain, 18 January 2007.
Randolph T. Holhut, “Nuclear Power Is Not Clean, Green or Cheap,” OpEdNews.com, 17 January 2007.
Xinhua, “IAEA suspends technical nuclear aids to Iran,” CCTV.com, 17 January 2007.
Energy News Editor, “Russia, India look to nuclear deal,” EarthTimes.com, 17 January 2007.
Angus Reid Global Monitor, “Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy,” Angus Reid Global Monitor, 12 January 2007.
David McHugh, “Germany’s plan to phase out nuclear power facing renewed criticism,” Sign On San Diego, 11 January 2007.
Aude Lagorce, “E.U. touts nuclear, renewable energy,” MarketWatch, 11 January 2007.
Dorothy Kosich, “S&P finds that U.S. utilities are pursuing domestic nuclear energy projects,” Mineweb.com, 11 January 2007.
andhracafe, “US, Japan to collaborate on nuclear plants,” andhracafe.com, 11 January 2007.
AFP, “New study doubts zircon ceramics for long-term nuclear waste,” Spacewar.com, 10 January 2007.
AFP, “Merkel stands by nuclear phase-out, as minister urges policy re-think,” Spacewar.com, 10 January 2007.

BBC, “Nuclear power plants get go-ahead,” BBC Online, 11 July 2006.
“Gov’t to allot $8.7 mln for environmental safety of nuclear plant,” RIA Novosti, 13 December 2005.

“KEPCO to Build N. Power Plant in Indonesia,” The Korea Times, 13 December 2005.
Irwin Stelzer, “We’d rather keep the lights on than be green,” The Sunday Times, 11 December 2005.

Karen Howlett, “Report touts nuclear power,” Globe and Mail, 10 December 2005.
Steve Erwin, “Report urges $70 billion for new nuclear and other power in Ontario,” CBC News, 9 December 2005.

“Kelly keeps the heat on the NRC over Indian Point,” Hudson Valley News, 9 December 2005.

Julie Wernau, “NRC Extends Millstone License: Nuclear power plants allowed to operate another 20 years,” The Day, 9 December 2005.
“Ukraine’s Yushchenko Mulls Chernobyl Dump for World’s Nuclear Waste,” Mosnews.com, 9 December 2005.

“Sydney nuclear reactor consultation nears end,” ABC News Online, 8 December 2005.

Australian Associated Press, “Doctors warn against nuclear industry,” Sydney Morning Herald, 7 December 2005.

Australian Associated Press, “Senate approves NT nuclear waste dump,” The Age, 8 December 2005.

BBC News, “Nuclear reactor towers downsized,” BBC Online, 7 December 2005.

Associated Press, “Fuel Unloaded From Chernobyl Reactor,” New York Times, 6 December 2005.

Datamonitor Commentwire, “Nuclear power: a return to planning?” Energy Business Review, 6 December 2005.
Patrick Hosking, “Ministers insist new nuclear power stations would not require public subsidy,” New Statesman, 5 December 2005.
Reuters, “September 11 Panel Leaders Say US Still at Risk,” New York Times, 4 December 2005.
“Who puts up the cash?” The Observer, 4 December 2005.

Wang Ying, “Nuclear talks delayed over disagreements,” China Daily, 2 December 2005.
Canadian Press, “More nuclear and less coal energy in Ont.,” CTV Toronto, 2 December 2005.
John Knox, “Political argument turns nuclear,” BBC Online, 2 December 2005.
Susan Morse, “Nuclear plant named ‘egregious polluter’,” The Hampton Union, 2 December 2005.
Susan Smallheer, “Yankee hot water uptick will face legal battle,” Rutland Herald, 2 December 2005.
Winny Wang, “China to build first inland nuke power station,” Shanghai Daily.com, 2 December 2005.
Reuters, “Japan’s 54th nuclear power generator set to start,” Reuters AlertNet, 2 December 2005.
“Complacency In Nuclear Industry Must Be Avoided, Warns UN Official,” UN News Centre, 2 December 2005.
Andy Lenderman, “Board blasts nuclear security office,” The New Mexican, 2 December 2005.
Eli Kintisch, “DOE Pushing Spent Fuel Reprocessing,” Science, Vol. 310. no. 5753, 2 December 2005.
Itai Mushekwe, “Mugabe courts foreigners on nuclear project,” Zimbabwe Independent, 2 December 2005.
Jim Fitzgerald, “Newest test well at nuclear site shows much higher contamination,” New York Newsday, 1 December 2005.
Greenpeace International, “Europe’s secret nuclear waste dumping in Russia revealed,” Greenpeace News, 1 December 2005.
Andy Lenderman, “Group faults lab on plutonium records,” The New Mexican, 1 December 2005.

Keay Davidson, “LIVERMORE Nuclear lab gets OK to double plutonium / U.S. Energy Dept. approves storage of 300 bombs’ worth,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1 December 2005.

Johnny Gunn, “New EPA Rules Regarding Nuclear Waste Challenged By Major Scientific Concern,” The Nevada Observor, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1 December 2005.

Canadian Press, “Ontario nuclear expansion imminent: Sources,” The Toronto Star, 1 December 2005.

Kristi Ceccarossi, “Watershed group weighs in on plant’s water discharge,” Brattleboro Reformer, 1 December 2005.

Associated Press, “Report Finds Hanford Costs May Skyrocket,” New York Times, 1 December 2005.

Ollie Stone-Lee, “New drive for energy tax relief,” BBC Online, 1 December 2005.

David Siddall, “Last-minute protests fail to deter PM choosing nuclear,” The Whitehaven News, 1 December 2005.

AFP, “Greenpeace activists arrested for blocking French nuclear shipment,” Yahoo! News, 1 December 2005.

Martin Mittelstaedt, “Lights out for glow-in-the-dark sign factory,” Globe and Mail, 1 December 2005.
Josef Hebert, “DOE to Allow More Plutonium at Calif. Lab,” Guardian Unlimited, 30 November 2005.

Kathy Newman, “Medical experts challenge nuclear myths,” Green Left Weekly, 30 November 2005.
Sue Sturgis, “Nuclear power’s dirty secret,” Independent Weekly, 30 November 2005.
Sue Sturgis, “Atomic alternatives,” Independent Weekly, 30 November 2005.
ENS, “Greenpeace Protesters Try to Thwart Blair Pro-Nuclear Speech,” Envrionment News Service, 30 November 2005.
BBC News, “Nuclear protest hits Blair speech,” BBC Online, 29 November 2005.
BBC News, “The nuclear debate,” BBC Online, 29 November 2005.
Andy Rosen, “Studies differ on radiation levels found near VY,” Battleboro Reformer, 29 November 2005.
Reuters, “Australia Urged to Reconsider Nuclear Alternative,” New York Times, 29 November 2005.
Reuters, “Britain Puts Nuclear Power Back on Agenda,” New York Times, 29 November 2005.
SchNEWS, “OVER-REACTING,” SchNEWS.org.uk, 25 November 2005.
AFP, “Fire shuts down Brazilian nuclear plant,” Yahoo! News, 25 November 2005.
Cynthia McKinney, “Nuclear plants safe? Claim is unsound,” Atlantic Journal Constitution, 24 November 2005.
John M.R. Bull, “Veteran recounts dumping of radioactive waste off U.S. shore,” The Wichita Eagle, 20 November 2005.