Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Weekly Column
    • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
    • Depleted Uranium
    • Direct Action
    • Lake Superior Barrels
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
    • Workshops
  • Donate

January 30, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Reactors Bankrupting their Owners

On January 22, FirstEnergy Corporation announced that its faulty and nearly-self-destructed Davis-Besse power reactor east of Toledo, Ohio, will be closed well before its license expires. But the shutdown is not because the reactor represents reckless endangerment of public health and safety. FirseEnergy was fine with that. No, the old rattle trap can’t cover its costs any more, not with the electricity market dominated by cheaper natural gas, and renewable wind and solar.

Davis-Besse’s early shutdown date has not been announced, but CFO James Pearson of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., the corporate division in charge of the wreck, said the reactor will close if lawmakers don’t approve a taxpayer bailout.

FirstEnergy said the financial sky was falling in March 2017 too. Its chief nuclear officer Sam Belcher [his real name] told the Toldeo Blade then — as the firm was preparing to float the bailout measure (SB 128) through the Ohio legislature — “The situation is urgent. In the absence of something happening, [taxpayer-funded welfare for the private, investor-owned company] we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.” So far, state lawmakers have refused to save the decrepit reactor using state property taxes. Lawmakers cite old-fashioned free market competition, and the failure of previous subsidies to save the mature, well-established reactor industry.

Serious accidents in 1977, 1985, 1998, and 2002 at David-Besse have endangered the reactor’s neighbors. The most hair-raising scare was the discovery in 2002 that corrosion had eaten through more than 6-inches of the reactor head’s carbon steel. The corrosion went undetected by federal and company inspectors for decades. Having gouged a hole in the reactor cover the size of a football, the corrosion left only 3⁄8 inch of steel holding back the high-pressure coolant. A break would have caused a massive loss-of-coolant accident and out-of-control overheating, resulting in catastrophic uranium fuel melting (known as a “meltdown”) and massive radiation releases.

Repairs took two years and cost $600 million, during which the Department of Justice penalized FirstEnergy over operating and reporting violations. FirstEnergy paid $28 million in fines. Yet the NRC allowed the company to restart David-Besse in 2004, and then to run the rust bucket for 40 reckless years, even after the company tacked on another $600 million in repairs in 2014.

Reactors Shuttered by Bankruptcy or Accident Risk from Calif. to New Jersey

With combined debt estimated at $3.5 billion and losses mounting daily, CFO Pearson said FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. will file for bankruptcy. Not just Davis-Besse, but the firm’s Perry reactor northwest of Cleveland, and Beaver Valley reactors 1 & 2, northwest of Pittsburg, will also likely be closed.

Elsewhere in nuclear reactor phase outs, California utility regulators decided January 11 not to save Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) from the free market, but to close the company’s two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon when their licenses expire in 2025. The San Francisco Chronicle noted that PG&E opened the complex in 1985 in the face of massive protests over the risk of disaster posed by extremely close earthquake faults, one only 650 yards away. Even after Fukushima, state and federal regulators shrugged “earthquake schmirthquake,” and forced the public to play Russian roulette with the old jalopy. (A record-breaking 9.0 magnitude earthquake off the northeast coast of Japan in March 2011 caused the world’s worst nuclear power disaster at Fukushima, a triple reactor meltdown that is still a geyser of radioactive gases and gusher radioactive water seven years on.) Unlike the bribe-happy legislatures in New York and Illinois, proponents of nuclear power have been unable to convince California state law makers to fund a bail out of PG&E.

In 2013, Southern Calif. Edison, owners of the San Onofre reactors north of San Diego, abruptly decided to close them. Reactors 2 and 3 have been churning out high-level radioactive waste since 1983 and 1984 respectively. The hulks ran into trouble when massive repairs and upgrades failed inspections. In May 2013, US Sen. Barbara Boxer said the reactors were “unsafe and posed a danger to the 8 million people living within 50 miles” and called for a criminal investigation into Edison’s installation of faulty replacement steam generators.

Other decrepit reactors that have closed or are closing soon including: Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, closed at the end of 2016; Oyster Creek* in New Jersey set to close in 2019; Pilgrim* in Massachusetts closing in 2019 or sooner; FitzPatrick* near Oswego, NY and FE Ginna in Ontario, NY (which were set to close in 2017, before state legislators agreed to a bail out); Clinton and Quad Cities* reactors in Illinois, which would have shut down in June 2017 except for another state taxpayer bailout. In 2016, two unfinished Bellefonte reactors in northern Alabama were cancelled. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s initial 1970 order for the two units dragged on for decades, costing electric customers $6 billion, before the agency declared them a lost cause.

Xcel Energy’s single unit Monticello* reactor on the Mississippi River in Minnesota can’t be far behind in this string of closures, especially considering its age and nasty accident record.

* These reactors are clones of the General Electric “Mark I” designed and built by the same engineers that put together the three earthquake-and-tsunami smashed and melted Fukushima-Daiichi reactors in Japan. –John LaForge

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

January 12, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radiation Exposures, Voluntary and Otherwise

The Nuclear Fix: A Guide to Nuclear Activities in the Third World, by Thijs de la Court, Deborah Pick, & Daniel Nordquist, page 8, World Information Service on Energy (WISE), The Netherlands, 1982
The Nuclear Fix: A Guide to Nuclear Activities in the Third World, by Thijs de la Court, Deborah Pick, & Daniel Nordquist, page 8, World Information Service on Energy (WISE), The Netherlands, 1982
By John LaForge

There is no safe exposure to ionizing radiation — the alpha, beta, and gamma and X-rays given off by radioactive materials used in medicine, the military, industry, and nuclear power. The US National Academy of Sciences’ 7th book-length study on the biological effects of ionizing radiation, BEIR-VII, declared that any exposure, regardless of how small, may cause the induction of cancer, birth abnormalities, and/or other diseases. And every US government agency that regulates industrial releases or the medical uses of radiation makes the same warning, based on BEIR-VII.

Today the nuclear military-industrial-medical complex is merely required to keep radiation exposures “As Low As Reasonably Achievable.” I didn’t make that up. This uber-vague, tragi-comic standard is not a medical or scientific concept. It is however the formal admission that radiation’s producers cannot keep worker or public exposures to a level that is safe — that is to zero.

Exposure standards have been established at the convenience of the vast radiation complex, not by medical doctors or health physicists. During the Cold War arms race, the late Dr. Rosalie Bertell reported in her groundbreaking book No Immediate Danger, “[T]he people with the highest vested interest are the ones that are making the nuclear bombs. And it turns out they have complete control over setting the permissible [radiation exposure] levels. If you were to fix radiation limits at levels that were really protective of human health, you couldn’t get anybody to make bombs.” These corrupt old limits are still mostly in effect today.

What the government has declared an “allowable” dose of ionizing radiation has steadily and dramatically decreased over the years — as science has come to better understand the toxic, cancer-causing, mutagenic, and teratogenic properties of even low doses.

In the 1920s, the government set the allowable radiation dose for nuclear industry workers at 75 “rem” per year. In 1936 the limit was reduced to 50 rem-per-year; then 20-to-25 in 1948; 15 in 1954, and finally down to five rem-per-year in 1958. This legal dose limit for radiation industry workers is still in effect — in spite of the fact that the International Commission on Radiation Protection recommended in 1990 that these doses be dramatically reduced (again), from 5-rem, to 2-rem-per-year.

The US just halted its hapless, industry-opposed, 27-year effort to adopt this precautionary standard. (See last week’s column.) Amazingly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) admitted in the Federal Register that implementing the improvement would be too costly, bowing to industry’s lobby efforts rather than adopt a public health standard the rest of the world embraced decades ago.

The general public is officially allowed to be exposed to one-50th of a nuclear industry workers’ radiation dose per year, or 0.1 rem (100 millirem) over a 70-year lifespan. According to research by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, this allowable, 100 millirem public dose, set by the NRC, imposes a “one of 286” cancer fatality risk standard. That is, fatal cancer given “accidentally” to one out of every 286 people is considered “acceptable,” “permissible” and “allowable” by the federal government. You could call this a license to kill. BEIR-VII found that “radiation at this level to women results in one fatal cancer in every 201 women” — acknowledging that a given radiation dose is far more dangerous for women than for men, and, by extension, that women’s lives mean less to Uncle Sam than men’s.

The use of radiation in medicine at least involves the patient’s informed consent regarding the risks. And industry workers can be said to voluntarily accept the risks of workplace radiation exposures. But the public’s involuntary and unbeknownst radiation exposures — via the government’s and industry’s deliberate (and often secret, or misreported, or unregulated, or covered-up) venting, leaking and haphazard dispersal of radioactive gases, liquids and solid wastes — are adding to cancer statistics that grow worse every year. Radioactive emissions from operating reactors, waste fuel pools, fuel and isotope fabrication facilities, unregulated landfills, waste transports, etc., are avoidable, because the industry can be retired, nuclear weapons abolished, and waste sites cleaned up. Call that a national security objective worthy of the military budget.

Filed Under: Radiation Exposure, Weekly Column

October 31, 2016 by Arianne Peterson Leave a Comment

US Uranium Weapons Have Been Used in Syria

This month, the Pentagon admitted it has used uranium weapons in attacks inside Syria — violating its public promise last year that it would not use DU there, and contradicting the claim that US bombing is done in defense of the Syrian people, according to the Int’l Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons.

Like the Pentagon’s past denials of the dangers of the chemical weapon Agent Orange, US military officials still claim publicly that its uranium weapons are not known to cause health problems. Made from waste uranium-238 — left from H-bomb and reactor fuel production — it is called “depleted” uranium (DU) but is only “depleted” of U-235. Ironically, the best evidence that it is dangerously toxic and radioactive — contrary to press pronouncements — comes from the Pentagon itself. A June 1995 report to Congress by the Army’s Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) concluded: “Depleted uranium is a radioactive waste and, as such, should be deposited in a licensed repository.”

Military studies done in 1979, ‘90, ‘93, ‘95 and ‘97, make clear that uranium weapons are chemically toxic, alpha-radiation-emitting poisons that are a danger to target populations and to invading/occupying US forces alike. In spite of this cautionary written record, the military has been shooting its radioactive waste all over the world: into population centers in Iraq in 1991 (380 tons), in Afghanistan in 2001 (amounts unknown); in Bosnia in 1994-‘95 (five tons); in Kosovo in 1999 (10 tons), in Iraq again in 2003 (170 tons); and now in Syria.

The AEPI report above also says that DU has the potential to generate “significant medical consequences” if it enters the body. The Army’s Office of the Surgeon General, in its Aug. 16, 1993 “Depleted Uranium Safety Training Manual,” says that the expected effects of DU exposure include a possible increase of cancer, and kidney damage. The manual also warns, “When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk … (lung or bone) and kidney damage.”

The Army’s Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command reported way back in 1979 that, “Not only the people in the immediate vicinity but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to air-borne uranium dust.” This uranium “dust” is generated when DU shells hit and burn through hard targets like tanks or armored vehicles. The uranium is spread for miles by the wind, contaminating everything is its path including food, water, soil, schools, hospitals, etc., and DU is radioactive forever, or ten times 4.5 billion years, whichever comes first.

In 1990, the Army’s Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command radiological task group said that DU is a “low level alpha radiation emitter … linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.” It added that “there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero.”

With evidence of its radio-toxicity so clear and redundant, any use of uranium weapons today appears to flaunt the military’s own Field Manual prohibition — absolute and universal — against the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

Historical Disregard Revisited

The military has a long history of deliberately exposing US citizens and others to deadly risks without their knowledge or consent, beginning with the open-air nuclear bomb tests it knew would contaminate vast areas. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chose not to evacuate or even warn downwind populations it knew would be hard-hit by radioactive fallout. (“Fallout risk near atom tests was known, documents show,” New York Times, March 15, 1995) These bomb tests exposed Nevada Test Site workers to levels of radiation that the AEC knew could cause harm, but the agency chose not to reduce workers’ exposures or to even inform them of the risks because doing so would have scandalized and halted the bombing tests. (“Records say workers faced high radiation: Suit contends US used no safeguards,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 14, 1989)

Likewise, the government refused to inform some 600,000 H-bomb factory workers that workplace radiation exposures posed serious health risks, although enough was known about radiation to warn them in 1948. (“N-plant workers not told of risks: Report says US arms program exposed many to radiation,” Associated Press, Dec. 19, 1989) Between 1944 and 1974, “medicalized” human radiation experiments were even conducted on unwitting US citizens, 16,000 of them (The Plutonium Files, by Eileen Welsome).

Today, the Pentagon extends this ghastly history into Syria where it is deliberately exposing human beings to weaponized radiation that it knows can cause cancer and other diseases. As if the undeclared, unconstitutional war in Syria weren’t unlawful enough, now add the crime of using poison in violation of military law and the Hague Regulations of War on Land.

It is so easy to prove that DU is poison, that a group of four non-lawyers, myself included, convinced a Minneapolis jury in 2004 that AlliantTechsystems’ manufacture of the shells is unlawful enough to excuse an otherwise illegal trespass; our minor offense was justified in order to prevent the greater harm of DU weapons production. Like torture, the use of such poison in war is always criminal, akin to gas war. This latest US government war crime must be condemned in the harshest terms.

For more information on DU weapons and the global effort to have them banned, see ICBUW.org.

This article was published by Counterpunch on October 28, 2016 and the Duluth Reader Weekly on October 27, 2016.

Filed Under: Depleted Uranium, Radioactive Waste, War, Weekly Column

September 2, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Poly-Met’s 500-Year Copper Nickle Pollution

The answer man Donald Trump said August 8 that halting all new federal regulations will create jobs. Notwithstanding the jobs created by implementing new regulations, Trump’s proposal has already been tried by the State of Minnesota, in a retroactive way, with consequences that are predictably toxic to water.

In 2015, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was forced to abandon its duty to protect state waters from mining runoff after the Legislature passed bills that “essentially exempted taconite mining” operations from complying with the 40-year-old sulfate standard for waters with wild rice — as Mordecai Specktor reports in the August 2016 issue of The Circle.

Paula Maccabee, advocacy director and chief counsel of the non-profit group Water Legacy, interviewed by Specktor, said the 2015 law that instructed the MPCA not to enforce the sulfate pollution standard “was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Water Legacy then petitioned the US Environmental Protection Agency over the State Legislature’s and the MPCA’s “failure to respect the [US] Clean Water act and to enforce laws limiting mine pollution.”

Maccabee tole me in an email Aug. 8 “We consider the EPA’s protocol and the EPA’s many letters and requests for information from Minnesota agencies to function as replies to WaterLegacy’s petition to remove Minnesota state agencies” from oversight of mining operations.”

EPA staff are still in the process of conducting an in-depth investigation, so they have neither reached conclusions regarding their potential findings nor communicated them either to WaterLegacy or to MPCA. … I expect that both WaterLegacy and the MPCA will be given an opportunity to comment when EPA has reached the point of preparing draft findings resulting from its investigation.

“I believe it is likely that the MN attorney general will respond to EPA’s questions by August 12, since the AG hasn’t requested an additional extension of time.

PolyMet’s early pollution projections admitted that acid mine drainage – which permanently destroys surface water systems — from its proposed sulfide mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness would be a serious problem for over 500 years. Consequently, PolyMet must be legally required to monitor for and clean up acid mine drainage for 500 years.

A 500-year cleanup mandate must also be applied to all future follow-on companies that will replace what’s now called “PolyMet.” Changing the name of mining companies is an age-old method of avoiding legal liability. PolyMet’s promises of clean copper-sulfide mining must be backed up with permanent guarantees for monitoring, and waste disposal, cleanup and reclamation no matter what subsequent PolyMet knockoff companies might be named.
Of course such a mandate has never been imposed on a mine project and would probably kill the proposal if imposed. This is why the embarrassing 500-year pollution warning has been buried by PolyMet and never appeared in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Nov. 6, 2015.
Instead, the company and DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr use the term “indefinitely.” How can PolyMet be forced to prevent pollution “indefinitely”?

This is because PolyMet’s promises are really hot air, and Minnesota’s reputation at a good environmental steward is actually a myth that has never applied to Minnesota mining practices.

• Why has there been no independent water modeling required in the environmental review process? Critics point out that all the data and analysis of how much polluted water could drain from the mine site and the tailings site has come from PolyMet.

• As Water Legacy notes, “Across the country, there is no example where a sulfide mine has been operated and closed without polluting surface and/or groundwater with acid mine drainage, sulfuric acid and/or toxic metals.” Why has PolyMet been allowed to submit a shabbily supported environmental review based on unsubstantiated claims and faulty data?

• The FEIS concludes that it’s “unlikely” acid mine drainage will move north into the pristine Boundary Waters Wilderness, but that if the permanent pollution does flow north (permanently), PolyMet will “fill cracks in the bedrock.” Why is the potential devastation of the Boundary Waters, an otherwise highly-protected national wilderness treasured because of its lack of pollution, allowed to be brushed off with such fatuous gibberish?

I’m sure I’m not the first person to howl at that concept of “filling cracks in the bedrock.” The idea sounds like bovine excrement, or like the unworkable “ice wall” being built in Japan to slow groundwater flowing through Fukushima’s three melted reactors.

Filed Under: Environment, Sulfide Mining, Uncategorized, Weekly Column

September 1, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

The Dangerous Nuclear Plant Rising on DC’s Doorstep

By JOHN LAFORGE / CounterPunch / SEPT. 1, 2016

Dominion Virginia Power, a section of the giant utility Dominion, is proceeding unlawfully with construction of its $19-billion-plus power reactor 80 miles from Washington, DC — called North Anna 3 — and must get formal approval from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) before it can continue, according to a petition filed August 30th by the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (VCCC; ), a nonprofit group based in Elliston, Va.

The group’s “Petition for a Declaratory Judgment” says in part: “At an estimated total cost of at least $19.2 billion, North Anna 3 would be the most expensive power [reactor] ever built in the United States and could raise customers’ rates by 26 % or more according to the Virginia Attorney General. While Dominion claims that North Anna 3 is needed for compliance with the federal Clean Power Plan, it would be far costlier than the low-carbon alternative of combined renewables, demand-side management, and efficiency … Dominion has not complied with Virginia law by failing to seek SCC approval before making expenditures on project development and beginning preliminary construction of North Anna 3.”

VCCC President Irene Leech said in a statement: “This is a huge raid on the pocketbooks of Virginia consumers and businesses. Dominion has spent approximately $600 million on project development and preliminary construction of North Anna 3, but has not yet sought or obtained Virginia State Corporation Commission approval for those expenditures. This is not a lawful or prudent way for Dominion to proceed when ratepayers are going to end up footing the bill. We’ve already seen ratepayers in this state stuck with a tab for over $300 million for the North Anna 3 project and there is no guarantee a reactor will ever be built or a single electron of power will be generated.”

In a formal declaration submitted in support of VCCC’s petition, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Peter Bradford, who also served as chairman of state utility regulatory agencies in both New York and Maine and now is an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School, wrote: “The economic impact of North Anna 3 on Virginia will be immense. Dominion’s construction cost estimate of $19.2 billion dollars (including financing costs) for the proposed 1470 megawatt power reactor would be a commitment of about $2,400 for every citizen of Virginia, or $9,600 per family of four, and — of course — the impact is even greater because it is confined to Dominion customers.”

“Abysmally wasteful and unnecessary”

On July 12, 2016, Dr. Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, also submitted formal comments on behalf of VCCC. Dr. Cooper calls the North Anna 3 project “abysmally wasteful and unnecessary,” concluding that it would cost twice as much as solar to generate the same amount of energy, [and] fatten profits for shareholders by inflating Virginia ratepayer bills by up to 36% (reflecting $6-12 billion in unnecessary costs).

Dr. Cooper’s analysis concluded: “North Anna 3 is unreasonable, unnecessary, inefficient and wasteful and should be removed from Dominion’s Integrated Resource Plan. Dominion is incorrect in asserting that North Anna 3 is needed to satisfy the requirements of the (EPA) Clean Power Plan. To the contrary, a combination of renewables, demand side management, and efficiency can not only provide equivalent capacity, but also the same level of excess capacity.”

Dominion’s corporate website says the company “is a safe, world-class nuclear operator, and as part of its strategy to ensure adequate, reliable electricity for the future, the company is taking steps toward constructing a third nuclear generating unit adjacent to its existing two nuclear units at its North Anna Power Station in Louisa Co., Va.”

On Aug. 23, 2011, the North Anna site was rocked by a 5.8-magnitude earthquake that shook Dominion’s old reactors 1 & 2 twice as hard as they were built to handle. This unanticipated “violation” was the first of its kind in the country’s 60-year-long history of nuclear power, and came six months after the catastrophic earthquake-tsunami-and-triple meltdown in Fukushima, Japan. The Virginia quake moved 25 of Dominion’s outdoor waste casks — that hold highly radioactive, extremely hot waste fuel and weigh 115 tons each — up to 4.5 inches.

Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but the $19 billion Unit 3 is being built above an earthquake fault.

For more info: VCCC: www.consumerfed.org/virginia-citizens-consumer-council

John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.

Filed Under: Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2022 · Nukewatch