<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>nuclearactive.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nuclearactive.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nuclearactive.com</link>
	<description>News and Facts: Nuclear Industry and Radioactive Science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:53:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>59th Carnival of Nuclear Blogs</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2011/59th-carnival-of-nuclear-blogs/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2011/59th-carnival-of-nuclear-blogs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=56</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Visit Yes Vermont Yankee, for the latest installment of the 59th Carnival of Nuclear&#160;Blogs.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Visit <strong>Yes Vermont Yankee</strong>, for the latest installment of the <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/07/59th-carnival-of-nuclear-energy-blogs.html">59th Carnival of Nuclear&nbsp;Blogs</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2011/59th-carnival-of-nuclear-blogs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Slow Economy Delays Nuclear Plans</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2010/slow-economy-delays-nuclear-plans/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2010/slow-economy-delays-nuclear-plans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nationally, power companies have seen plans for construction of new nuclear power facilities stalled, in response to a slow economy and lack of an appropriate stimulus. Two years ago, it seemed a done deal, that nuclear was on the comeback, yet today the lack of a national plan to respond to climate change, which includes [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><center><img src="http://nuclearactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/const.jpeg" alt="" title="Constellation Nuclear Power Group" width="460" height="307" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-53" /><br />
</center></p>
<p>Nationally, power companies have seen plans for construction of new nuclear power facilities stalled, in response to a slow economy and lack of an appropriate stimulus. Two years ago, it seemed a done deal, that nuclear was on the comeback, yet today the lack of a national plan to respond to climate change, which includes a carbon tax, and lower demand puts new construction on hold, much as we are seeing in other sectors, according to one Nuclear Energy Institute&nbsp;spokesperson.</p>
<blockquote><p><span class="caps">WASHINGTON</span> — Just a few years ago, the economic prognosis for new nuclear reactors looked bright. The prospect of growing electricity demand, probable caps on carbon-dioxide emissions and government loan guarantees prompted companies to tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they wanted to build 28 new reactors. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/energy-environment/11power.html?_r=1&#038;src=tptw">Read&nbsp;More</a>]</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2010/slow-economy-delays-nuclear-plans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wired: Thorium Reactors</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/wired-thorium-reactors/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/wired-thorium-reactors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reactor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thorium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wired.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please take a look at the recent article from Wired.com, on thorium&#160;reactors! [ Link&#160;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please take a look at the recent article from Wired.com, on thorium&nbsp;reactors!</p>
<p>[ <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/">Link</a>&nbsp;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/wired-thorium-reactors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuclear Plant Proposed for Ohio</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/nuclear-plant-proposed-for-ohio/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/nuclear-plant-proposed-for-ohio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new nuclear reactor facility has been proposed for Piketon, Ohio. The power reactor, presumed to be Areva&#8217;s 1600 MWe EPR, would be built on the very large site of the former uranium enrichment plant in Piketon, and would be owned and operated by&#160;Duke. The proposed site is the location of the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><center><img src="http://nuclearactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/piketon1.jpg" alt="piketon[1]" title="piketon[1]" width="480" height="300" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-43" /><br />
</center><br />
A new nuclear reactor facility has been proposed for Piketon, Ohio. The power reactor, presumed to be Areva&#8217;s 1600 MWe <span class="caps">EPR</span>, would be built on the very large site of the former uranium enrichment plant in Piketon, and would be owned and operated by&nbsp;Duke.</p>
<blockquote><p>The proposed site is the location of the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant, which operated from 1954 to 2001. The plant and its facilities were then kept in &#8216;cold standby&#8217; until 2005, when they entered &#8216;cold shutdown&#8217;, and decontamination and decommissioning began. In 2004, <span class="caps">US</span> enrichment company <span class="caps">USEC</span> selected the Portsmouth site as the home of its American Centrifuge enrichment plant, currently under construction and due to begin commercial operations in&nbsp;2010. </p>
<p>Ohio Governor Ted Strickland said: &#8220;The project will revitalize the region&#8217;s economy, further advance Ohio&#8217;s nuclear infrastructure, help address our energy needs and be part of Ohio’s solution to the challenge of climate&nbsp;change.&#8221; </p></blockquote>
<p>[<a href="http://www.yournuclearnews.com/new+nuclear+on+old+site+in+the+usa_34595.html">Read the article, here.</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/new-nuclear-plant-for-ohio-pondered/?hp">NYTimes</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/nuclear-plant-proposed-for-ohio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>mPower Reactor 125 MW Units Announced</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/mpower-reactor-125-mw-units-announced/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/mpower-reactor-125-mw-units-announced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mPower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reactor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rural]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Babcock &#38; Wilcox announced its intention to put smaller, rail-delivered 125 MW reactor modules, into production by 2018. These units are one-tenth the size of a typical nuclear plant, and this makes them suitable for rural and third-world applications. These reactors are rated for 60 years, with refueling every 5&#160;years. [Read the IEEE Spectrum article,&#160;here.]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Babcock <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Wilcox announced its intention to put smaller, rail-delivered 125 <span class="caps">MW</span> reactor modules, into production by 2018. These units are one-tenth the size of a typical nuclear plant, and this makes them suitable for rural and third-world applications. These reactors are rated for 60 years, with refueling every 5&nbsp;years.</p>
<p>[<a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/blog/energy/renewables/energywise/at-last-something-new-under-the-nuclear-sun">Read the <span class="caps">IEEE</span> Spectrum article,&nbsp;here.</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/mpower-reactor-125-mw-units-announced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quad Cities Excelon Nuclear Plant Upgrade</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/quad-cities-excelon-nuclear-plant-upgrade/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/quad-cities-excelon-nuclear-plant-upgrade/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Excelon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quad Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upgrade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Source: <a href="http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/06/15/successful-power-uprate-at-one-exelon-plant.aspx">NuclearStreet.com</a>]

<blockquote>By Stephen Heiser - 

<img src="http://nuclearactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/QCExcelonPlant.jpg" alt="QCExcelonPlant" title="QCExcelonPlant" width="200" height="150" align="right" />An approximate 38-megawatt increase in output at an Exelon Nuclear plant last week launched a series of planned power uprates across the company’s nuclear fleet that will generate between 1,300 and 1,500 megawatts of additional generation capacity within eight years without turning a spade of earth, Exelon Nuclear President and Chief Nuclear Officer Charles (Chip) Pardee said today. 

The first of the new, carbon-free nuclear megawatts was officially confirmed last week following equipment upgrades at Exelon’s Quad Cities nuclear plant near Cordova, Ill. Other uprate projects are underway and Exelon plans to have the full measure of new megawatts on the grid by 2017. 

“With these uprates, we will be able to produce the equivalent output of a new advanced nuclear reactor, and we’ll bring it to market in a timeframe commensurate with the fastest new construction,” Pardee said. “These uprates are a critical component of Exelon 2020, the company’s plan to eliminate the equivalent of its 2001 carbon footprint by 2020.” 

Uprate projects improve the efficiency and increase electricity output of a nuclear generating unit through upgrades to plant equipment. The projects take advantage of new production and measurement technologies, new materials and learning from a half-century of nuclear power operations. 

The remainder of uprate megawatts will come from additional projects at nine Exelon plants beginning in 2010 and ending in 2017. 

At 1,500 nuclear-generated megawatts, the uprates would displace 8 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually that would otherwise come from burning fossil fuels. 

Exelon operates the largest fleet of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States and the third largest in the world. A series of plant upgrades and uprates over the past 10 years have already added approximately 1,100 new megawatts to Exelon Nuclear’s generation.</blockquote>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a lot of talk about the hypothetical &#8220;worst case&#8221; dangers of nuclear reactors, yet in reality, the proven record of nuclear power shows a much more environment-friendly footprint than burning coal or using fossil fuels. Aaron H., on the Skeptically Speaking website forum, points out a comparison of wind and solar capabilities to that of nuclear&nbsp;power:</p>
<blockquote><p>Maple Ridge in New York is one of Americas largest windfarms. It has 195 wind turbines, covers an area of more than 12,000 acres while generating a mere 300 megawatts at peak efficiency and on a calm day, it generates&nbsp;nothing.</p>
<p>For one of the “sunbelt” (e.g. Nevada and Arizona) states in the <span class="caps">US</span>, a 1000 megawatt solar facility will cover more than 14 square miles. For an “average” <span class="caps">US</span> state, this figure jumps to over 18 square&nbsp;miles.</p>
<p>By comparison, the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on the shores of Lake Huron, which is the largest operating nuclear facility in the world, occupies roughly 2 or 3 square miles (rough estimate) and has a maximum capacity of more than 6,200 megawatts. To match the capacity of the Bruce Station with solar power, you would need to clear 108 square miles of land and devote it all to solar panels. And this doesn’t even include space for batteries or capacitors you’d need for nighttime or cloudy day use. To replace all of Canada&#8217;s nuclear reactors with solar you would need almost 300 square miles of solar&nbsp;panels.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/quad-cities-excelon-nuclear-plant-upgrade/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sandia National Laboratory Tests</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/sandia-national-laboratory-tests/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/sandia-national-laboratory-tests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[radiation safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[containment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sandia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SNL video of an F-4 Phantom II (68,000 pounds) smashing into a section of reactor containment vessel at over 500 mph. The result is barely a scratch on the inside of the vessel. This is how modern nuclear reactors are built, with a six-foot wall of steel-reinforced concrete that can resist this kind of impact. [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="caps">SNL</span> video of an F-4 Phantom <span class="caps">II</span> (68,000 pounds) smashing into a section of reactor containment vessel at over 500 mph. The result is barely a scratch on the inside of the vessel. This is how modern nuclear reactors are built, with a six-foot wall of steel-reinforced concrete that can resist this kind of impact. Nuclear reactors are designed damn tough, to keep contamination inside in the worst case scenario. This is not how Chernobyl was designed, and this is why the results were disastrous. This is how Three-Mile Island reactor was designed, and that is why the nearby city was unaffected and the plant still operates today. Well-built reactors are safe to live by, and safer and cleaner than alternative fuel&nbsp;sources.</p>
<p><center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LWL1hwPQFoo&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LWL1hwPQFoo&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/sandia-national-laboratory-tests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comparing Contaminants</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/comparing-contaminants/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/comparing-contaminants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[radiation myths & misconceptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radiation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many people are eager to stop using fossil fuels, but they are very reluctant to accept that nuclear power can be a &#8220;greener&#8221; alternative. It&#8217;s true. Fossil fuels pump pollution and radiation into the atmosphere, but did you know that coal-fired plants release hundreds of times the radiation of a typical nuclear&#160;plant? Here&#8217;s a study [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people are eager to stop using fossil fuels, but they are very reluctant to accept that nuclear power can be a &#8220;greener&#8221; alternative. It&#8217;s true. Fossil fuels pump pollution and radiation into the atmosphere, but did you know that coal-fired plants release hundreds of times the radiation of a typical nuclear&nbsp;plant?</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a study by <span class="caps">ORNL</span> on coal plant radiation&nbsp;releases: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html">http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/comparing-contaminants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Japan Gets Set to Burn Plutonium</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/japan-gets-set-to-burn-plutonium/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/japan-gets-set-to-burn-plutonium/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonproliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plutonium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reactor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[From IEEE Spectrum, Energy&#160;Wise.] Two of the largest Japanese utilities, Kyushu Electric Power and Shikoku Electric Power, are preparing to fuel nuclear reactors with rods containing recycled plutonium starting this fall, John Boyd reports from Tokyo. In the middle of last month, two ships arrived from France with loads of mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) containing plutonium [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[From <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/japan-pushes-forward-on-plutonium-imports"><span class="caps">IEEE</span> Spectrum, Energy&nbsp;Wise</a>.]</p>
<blockquote><p>Two of the largest Japanese utilities, Kyushu Electric Power and Shikoku Electric Power, are preparing to fuel nuclear reactors with rods containing recycled plutonium starting this fall, John Boyd reports from Tokyo. In the middle of last month, two ships arrived from France with loads of mixed-oxide fuel (<span class="caps">MOX</span>) containing plutonium that originated in Japanese spent fuels, which Japan is contractually obligated to take back. The <span class="caps">MOX</span> consignment from France’s La Hague reprocessing complex weighed an estimated 1700&nbsp;kilograms.</p>
<p>The recycling of nuclear fuels has been intensely controversial for decades, mainly because of concerns that fuel containing plutonium could fall into the hands of terrorists. Well before Al Qaeda appeared on the scene and fanatics were killing themselves in bomb attacks, experts worried about the ease with which the plutonium in <span class="caps">MOX</span> could be separated from uranium, to provide the explosive material for an atomic bomb. [<a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/japan-pushes-forward-on-plutonium-imports">Would you like to know&nbsp;more?]</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/japan-gets-set-to-burn-plutonium/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LANL Ships RH-TRU Waste to WIPP</title>
		<link>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/lanl-ships-rh-tru-waste-to-wipp/</link>
		<comments>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/lanl-ships-rh-tru-waste-to-wipp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[June]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LANL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shipments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transuranic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nuclearactive.com/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In exciting news, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) announced this past week the first shipments of remote-handled transuranic waste to the WIPP facility in southern New&#160;Mexico. The Laboratory plans to prepare three to four shipments per week until all 16 canisters are&#160;gone. Thanks to shielding and design, a loaded RH-TRU shipping cask meets the same [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In exciting news, Los Alamos National Laboratory (<span class="caps">LANL</span>) announced this past week the first shipments of remote-handled transuranic waste to the <span class="caps">WIPP</span> facility in southern New&nbsp;Mexico.</p>
<blockquote><p>The Laboratory plans to prepare three to four shipments per week until all 16 canisters are&nbsp;gone.</p>
<p>Thanks to shielding and design, a loaded <span class="caps">RH</span>-<span class="caps">TRU</span> shipping cask meets the same Department of Transportation radiation safety requirements as a typical shipment to <span class="caps">WIPP</span>. Stringent handling procedures and satellite surveillance will keep the public&nbsp;safe.</p>
<p>The shipments will follow preapproved transportation routes. As with all shipments to <span class="caps">WIPP</span>, these operations will be coordinated with New Mexico law&nbsp;enforcement.</p>
<p><span class="caps">WIPP</span> has conducted more than 7,200 shipments of transuranic waste since opening in 1999, including more than 200 shipments of&nbsp;<span class="caps">RH</span>-<span class="caps">TRU</span>.</p></blockquote>
<p>[<a href="http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/16723">Read the rest of the story,&nbsp;here&#8230;]</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nuclearactive.com/2009/lanl-ships-rh-tru-waste-to-wipp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
