NRC failed to fully disclose their knowledge of events relating to Fukushima Daiichi

Author: 25 Comments Share:

Following the March 11th Fukushima disaster, the NRC was overwhelmed by a constant ringing of phones, and ever escalating number of unread inbox messages.  By Sunday March 13th, Elliot Brenner, sent out an e-mail to upper level NRC counterparts clearly narrating the sequence of events.  “While we know more than what these (press releases) say, we’re sticking to this story for now.” writes Breener, during the weekend he labled “very hectic”.

Elliot Brenner has been director of public affairs at the NRC since April 2004. He does not have a background in the nuclear industry, but rather began his career with 20 years in journalism, covering everything from sports to presidential campaigns. He subsequently became a speech writer for Dick Cheney in his final year as Defense secretary.

During the first weeks following the disaster, the Japanese government officials secretly handed radiation reports and contamination levels of produce around the country to US ambassadors and staff in Tokyo, who transmitted the information discreetly back to the United States.  This was not made publicly known until late in 2011, and the United States never took an official stance on whether they approved of the Japanese handling of the nuclear disaster.

In many press releases in the first weeks immediately following the disaster, the NRC repeatedly assured citizens that the Japanese protective actions were appropriate, and similar to the same actions that the NRC would expect to undertake if under the same conditions.

The NRC was using their blog and the updates provided by the American Nuclear Society as the main modes of communication with the public.  Interestingly enough, the NRC did also use Twitter to gather information on the event, but declined from using the world-wide popular social networking site to share information with the public.  When asked by the Branch Chief of a standards and process oversight board whether the NRC was using Twitter to share or monitor information, NRC staffer Holly Harrington replied that it was being used for “just monitoring”.

David McIntyre also works in the NRC on public affairs, and spent much of his time creating carefully crafted e-mails that constantly downplayed the disaster, and any relationship that might be made to the safety status of US nuclear stations.    On March 14th, McIntyre received an email Molly McCrea, a reporter for CBS inquired about the status of a law that Senator Markey had authored that would distribute KI to those living within a certain distance from a nuclear power plant, and whether or not it was being followed.  She asked whether or not the pills had been distributed, and why the NRC had been reported to be discouraging the distribution.

McIntyre replied vaguely alluding to the fact that the NRC was not solely responsible, but that it was a “US Government decision, not just the NRC but HHS and others.”

It is true that the NRC has worked hard against the burden of purchasing, storing, and maintaining a fresh supply of KI for those populations closest to nuclear reactors.  In 2009, the NRC actually cancelled it’s policy on KI distribution, stating that it was unnecessary, as it did not protect against all radionuclides that could be potentially released, would cause undue stress on the community, and would delay critical response time by adding more duties to local, state, and federal staff.

The NRC was promptly overwhelmed by a public outcry, and partially reversed their decision on the matter, by admitting that KI would be an benefit to those potentially affected, but passing the responsibility for purchasing and stockpiling a supply on the States, who were unprepared and inadequately prepared or capable of handling such a responsibility.  So the supply of KI has dwindled to near minimal proportions in the United States, and in late 2011 it was revealed that most of the nations supply of KI was due to expire in the opening quarter of 2012, and no purchase orders had been scheduled.  This caused the NRC to deny some states requests for additional KI supply in the fall of 2011.

Following the Fukushima Disaster, the NRC had released various levels of question and answer presentations that had been either distributed to top-level personnel, regional spokespeople, or made publicly available.  On March 14th, Holly Harrington acknowledged that not all of the information was considered suitable to be published for the public.

It also appears that McIntrye used his own personal discretion on which information to release to specific reporters or news services.  On March 14th, he received an e-mail from Molly McCrea again, this time asking if the United States was possibly sending KI to Japan, or had sent KI to Japan to help out, if he could confirm, and if not who should she contact.

McIntyre replied “We have not been asked to provide KI”, and further explained, “We understand the Japanese authorities have included KI as part of their protective action guidelines, which would indicate they have some stockpiled.”  The reply email was sent on Tuesday March 15th, 2011 at 4:07:00 PM.

At 4:10:00 PM, only 3 minutes later, McIntyre rushed a quick note to Matthew Wald, a long-time reporter for the New York Times who has written on nuclear energy for years, with the subject line – “KI Info” stating, “Matt- I’m told we distributed approximately 11 million pills.  Dave”.

While it should be noted that there is nothing wrong by sharing the information with the New York Times reporter, the reasoning behind such a decision by Mr. McIntyre is in serious question.  It should also be noted, that during the period of March 14th through March 20th, Mr. Wald is attributed to at least 6 articles on the New York Times website, none of which include the information about the KI as relayed by McIntyre.

Did McIntyre assume that Wald would be personally interested in this information, or more appropriate to determine when and if to release it?  Were there any underlying reasons behind his failure to disclose the information to a reporter requesting it specifically?  The answers are not likely to become clear in the near future, if ever, and while the world struggles with the future fate of it’s electrical supply, many questions are also being raised about the adequacy of the nations nuclear regulators.
Pages From C141636-02X

Previous Article

The Hanford Story – Chapter 1 Overview –

Next Article

Scientists first study of tsunami impact around Fukushima Daiichi shows waves over 21 meters hit coast


  1. Huh. Makes me wonder which of the responses was truthful, and if truthful, what level of CYA was involved in the “11 million pills” assertion. McIntyre may have been hoping the NYT reporter would pass it on without clarification. Molly McCrae was obviously going to want a clarification on who the “11 million pills” went to. If it was going through the U.S. embassy to U.S. citizens and Japanese workers at military/diplomatic facilities, it wasn’t going to the Japanese citizens around Fukushima. Someone would be bound to ask it the news came through McCrae why the U.S. govt/NRC didn’t press harder for KI distribution to the Japanese. As well as extension of evacuation to 50 miles.

    Big ol’ can of worms.

  2. I am the person who had a key role the team at the American Nuclear Society for Fukushima news updates. I carried out this work role from March 11, 2011 to June 2011. I am a contractor to ANS.

    At no time did the NRC contact me regarding our updates which are archived at The claim that ANS had a special relationship with the NRC during the early days of the crisis is simply wrong.

    As a practical matter the Nuclear Energy Institute had round the clock updates of news from Japan with people working in shifts. World Nuclear News in London logged millions of page views as well. There are lots of places where open source material was available.

    1. Dan;

      Thanks for your comment, and also for your work during what must have been a difficult time.

      There are no claims of a “special relationship”, or that the NRC was feeding information to the ANS. I stated that the NRC used ANS updates as a primary suggested source for the public to read. It is not a discredit or claim against the quality of work, in fact it should be a honor,it was used in context to highlight where the information sources were coming from.

      There were many sources providing content as you asserted, and the NEI had access to the licensee REMP data, EPA Radnet data, etc. So while I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make, I do agree, there were many other sources of information.

      I hope you now agree with me that the focus of the article is not on the ANS, NEI, or reporters, and that they are not who are in question in the above article.


    “The National Academy of Sciences and several other federal government studies suggest that this extreme solar activity and emissions may result in complete blackouts for years in some areas of the nation. Moreover, there may also be disruption of power supply for years, or even decades, as geomagnetic currents attracted by the storm could debilitate the transformers.”

    So how do we keep all 400-1000 nuclear power plants and their associated spent fuel pools globally from melting down and blowing up, after the power has been out for days, weeks and/or months?
    The next climax of solar storms is going to happen in late 2012, according to this reporter.

    Some really neat video and close ups of the sun doing what it does…

    NASA has revised their prediction for solar maximum to now occur around mid-May of 2013. sources:

    Solar SuperStorm 1859 — It could happen again

    We better get ready, the perfect storm is coming soon.. We either have all nuclear plants turned off and all nuclear material cooled down to the point where there is no power needed to keep them cool, or we are all toast.

    Can you imagine 400 plus nuclear power plants and their spent fuel pools all melting down, melting through and/or blowing up as reactor #3 did?

    Fukushima Reactor 3 released 500 pounds of plutonium into the air, and tons of uranium when it exploded. No, it was NOT a hydrogen explosion, as explained by Gunderson and other experts.…

    Imagine 1000 times that much going into the air, globally, and then NEVER STOPPING, due to radiation releases from uncontrolled melting blobs of corium fissioning into the air forever.

  4. It is wrong, and irresponsible, to falsely claim that Fukushima Unit 3 released 500 tons of plutonium into the atmosphere.

    It is wrong technically because the plant had only six MOX fuel assemblies in the reactor core. Total fuel mass was less than 100 tons for all fuel assemblies.

    In short, there weren’t 500 tons of material to be released by any method and there certainly was no release of PU 239 from the plant.

    Additionally, all of the spent fuel assemblies for Unit 3 have been accounted for.

    The plutonium that was found around Fukushima was related to residuals from atmospheric testing of atomic weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. While Japan never acquired nor tested a weapon, it undoubtedly suffered, as did many other nations, from fallout from tests in China, Russia, and the U.S, as well as by France and the U.K.

    For additional details see this technical brief on the MOX fuel at Fukushima published by the American Nuclear Society last year.

    Unsubstantiated and alarmist claims by anti-nuclear activists are neither helpful nor responsible dialog in the public debate over nuclear energy.

    1. It is wrong, and irresponsible, to falsely claim that “The plutonium that was found around Fukushima was related to residuals from atmospheric testing of atomic weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.”

      These types of statements are examples of why nuclear energy cannot be safely operated anywhere, partly because to do so one has to take into account for so many assumptions and miscalculations of those so quick to make statements void of any intimate knowledge of the subject. The very quality of the nuclear engineer in today’s nuclear industry is compartmentalized and inadequate in comparison with the engineers of decades previous, Fukushima again illustrated the lack of ability to respond to events outside of normal operations even months after the onset of disaster. Ex; Not forseeing the contamination of foods until after distribution, lack of foresight of possible contamination of building materials until after construction, or the constant lack of forsight exhibited on-site such as lack of planning to abate the effects of winter weather and pipe freezing, not properly constructing storage tanks instead loosely holding them together with hand-tensioned bolts, etc.

      Again I would stress that no one on the comments board has been to Fukushima Daiichi to my knowledge, and even TEPCO is unable to guess where all of the fuel is. The only thing that can be proven persay, is that it’s not in the RPVs, yet the concern doesn’t seem to have any effect on the international nuclear industry. After decades of denying that an event involving multiple reactors would be plausible, let alone worth building into their modeling and plant behavior scenarios, the industry has ‘attempted’ to carry on with no real valid conclusions reached, and when compared to the number of questions still surrounding Fukushima, only a small handful of valid “preliminary findings”

      Why you don’t believe plutonium was displaced one can only guess, even the NRC claims that the plutonium found offsite actually came from inside the nuclear reactors, as opposed to the spent fuel pools.

      In fact much of the plutonium found around Fukushima was traced back to the reactors, and not from bomb testing. The most conclusive readings on-site were detected in the site field, and solid waste storage buildings, the levels exceeded the activity ratios for atmospheric nuclear testing, and were considered by TEPCO to have come from the disaster.

      Fuel particles up to a centimeter or more in size, have been found a mile or more from the spent fuel pools, plutonium was found in the soil.

      For every incessant and steadfast believer in nuclear energy, there is at least one former believer whose entire belief system of nuclear power has been devastated.

      There have been massive design issues with the Mark 1 nuclear reactor stretching back three decades, for which there can be no excuses made for their continued operation.

      Since 1975, everyone in the nuclear plant field, knew about this problem, designers, private groups that bought them, governments, and control organisms: that’s why they invested so much money on other projects and abandoned this one, and unfortunately, no one ever felt the need to speak or even solve the problem.

      The National Institute for Environmental Studies said its simulation of aerial flow, diffusion and deposition of the two isotopes released from the tsunami-hit plant showed their impact reached most of Japan’s eastern half, ranging from Iwate in the north to Tokyo and central prefecture (state) of Shizuoka. Both Iwate and Shizuoka are more than 180 miles (300 kilometers) away from the plant, yet no one wants to talk about the unprecedented spread of Cesium and it’s contamination of the Japanese homeland.

      1. Thank you for your well-linked comments UC, Thanks for the great reading materials.

        I’m amazed by the stark contrast in nature and quality of your comments compared to Mr Yurmans.

        Personally, I was rapidly tiring of perpetual links to ANS and djysrv

  5. To Dan Yurman: I would be hesitant to place total faith in anything published by the American Nuclear Society because they are not neutral or independent. Nor are they a watchdog mechanism for the safe operation of nuclear power.

    1. The American Nuclear Society is an independent scientific society. As such, it is correct to say that the organization is not a “watch dog.” However, the society works by insuring that its members represent themselves in papers like the MOX Fuel Review and not on behalf their respective employers.

      I realize that many antri-nucler activists have significant trust issues when it comes to any organization involved in the fields of nuclear science and engineering. There are boundary conditions for scientific societies and one of them is that they are not unbiased advocates for the nucleaer industry.

      You can learn more about ANS at its web site

      Full dsiclosure – I am a member of ANS.

  6. Dan Thanks for your professionalism!
    I’d like to ask what you think about the recent NRC FOIA releases where it seems that they were hiding much from the public? If more from the Nuclear Industry were being vocal and not just right now but from 3/11 all of US would be in a much safer situation that we are now!

    I believe that History will hold the Nuclear Professionals partially responible for the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster since more did not speak out and MAKE TEPCO and the Japanese Gov’t. provide FACTUAL DATA instead of “fluff”.

    1. See my blog post – “NRC Releases Early Fukushima Transcripts”

      My view is that an exercise in transparency about the nuclear crisis in Japan is a distraction from the agency’s regulatory oversight and safety mission in the U.S. Here are few highlights.

      The transcripts document two things that this blog, and others, reported months ago. First, the spent fuel pool at Fukushima Reactor #4 was never empty of water. Second, remote sensing platforms, both aerial and in low earth orbit, were able to establish the status of the pool and that it had water in it.

      The transcripts answer the questions about the spent fuel pool and basis for the 50-mile evacuation order. Nothing can be served by yet more finger pointing or more media driven congressional criticism. It’s time to move on. The NRC has some work on Fukushima related safety measures it needs to finish. That’s where it should put its energy.

      The Obama White House appears to have asked the right questions which given what we know about the safety of U.S. reactors, how would the NRC handle a crisis like the one in Japan if it happened here?

  7. RE: The answers are not likely to become clear in the near future, if ever, and while the world struggles with the future fate of it’s electrical supply, many questions are also being raised about the adequacy of the nations nuclear regulators.

    Right Now we are STRUGGLING with the GLOBAL radioactive pollution from Japans Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster

  8. Dan Yurman
    There definetly was plutonium released when reactor 3 exploded, but you wont hear about it and the fuel it used – because of how deadly it is…. MOX FUEL! never has a reactor used such a deadly fuel that has ran into problems,, we face a new dimension, the plutonium detected in europe was studied and found to have came from fukushima, without a doubt, this industry is dangerous and you are pulling a nice lil income from it so why would you want to admit these things that put the whole industry in danger? i hope the industry dies, it has to,, huge danger to man kind now these solar flares have been predicted, what happens when power grids are wiped out for weeks at a time? we will wait and see… i hope you have the backup power in place then,

  9. Reactor #3 did not explode. The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is intact and so is the primary containment structure. What “exploded” was a build up of un-vented hydrogen that destroyed the secondary containment structure. That building surrounds the primary containment and the RPV.

    The six MOX fuel assemblies inside unit 3 remain there. Any plutonium found in Europe most likely came from (a) atmospheric atomic testing in the 50s and 60s or (b) Chernobyl. BTW: Did you know the primary purpose of Chernobyl was to make plutonium for nuclear weapons?

    MOX fuel is no more “deadly” than regular uranium oxide fuel. It is used safely in more than 30 nuclear reactors world wide and is likely to be used in more of them as time goes on. Spent fuel is actually a valuable commodity as it can be recycled to make MOX. Also, for people concerned about surplus plutonium, it can be blended with the uranium from spent fuel to make MOX. This is a good illustration of turning swords into ploughshares.

    The US is building a factory in South Carolina to blend 34 metric tonnes of surplus weapons grade plutonium (purity of the metal) into the equivalent of 1,700 MOX fuel assemblies for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

    The whole industry is not in danger nor is MOX a danger.

    And yes, in the the US more than 30,000 people make good livings working at nuclear reactors that keep the lights on, power factories, and bring the benefits of carbon emission free electricity to their communities.

    Typically, a nuclear power plant employs about 800 people. These are steady jobs with good pay and benefits. To get one you need skills in mechanical, chemical, or electricial engineering. Many community colleges offer two year technical degrees that can get you in the door. A college graduate with a four year degree in nuclear engineering can earn $60K the first year on the job.

    You are entitled to your opinion about nuclear energy. Just be sure you understand the facts as well.

  10. As much as I appreciate Mr Yurman’s willingness to throw himself from “the frying pan to the fire”, I think he clearly illustrates why so many people do not trust the Japanese government, or the nuclear industry.

    While Yurman wants to mock and downplay, many experts still believe that the 50 mile guidance was and still is necessary.

    The pro-nukes are just pissed that Jazcko came out looking like a knight in shining armor, the fake commissioners whiny claims were refuted, the 50 mile evacuation was not just 1 “rogue commissioner”, and despite all the continual whiny statements coming from the Industry, ANS and NEI, it will have a HUGE impact on the nuclear energy.

    Their inability to see the limitations of nuclear power, their inability to control nuclear power, and their inability to stop proliferation.

    The bare facts is Yurman has not been to Fukushima, and cannot make any claims, without deferring his judgement to a company (TEPCO) that has knowingly falsified data for over 30 years.

    What about the video editing that TEPCO is so famous for? Japan’s own nuclear safety commission has admitted that their regulations were lax. What’s funny is that Japan was thought to have one of the most effective regulatory systems prior to 3/11. What does that say about the United States?

    Who honestly believes that if we looked hard enough like this author, we would not find startling comparisons like those in Japan?

    Mr Yurman, your inability to grasp a serious situation is , or at least know when to stop making such wildly inciteful statements, is the exact reason I predict nuclear energy will be obsolete in less than 10 years.

    Please stop promoting the “nuclear right” until you correct the nuclear wrong.

    1. The 50 mile evacuation order was wrong because the NRC incorrectly concluded that the spent fuel pool at Fukushima unit 4 was empty.

      Readers of this forum who are not familar with my blog will note that I have been a critic of failed practices within the nuclear industry. I urge caution tarrinmg people with a wide brush. It is an impediment to dialog. Here are some examples of my reviews. One of them is at the official blog of the American Nuclear Society.

      IAEA report leaves no doubt

      Japan stressed about future of its reactors

  11. The IAEA also approved the Oi stress tests in Japan, before the Japanese nuclear safety commission admitted that regulations were lax, and not set to realistic scenarios.

    It’s a shill game.

    1. It is not correct to claim the IAEA approved the stress tests before they were applied to Japan’s reactors. If you read my report in the URL cited above you’ll see the IAEA was as candid as they could be in saying the tests were inadequate especially in the areas of seismic movement and emergency response to station blackout.

      It is not s shill game.

  12. “It is not correct to claim the IAEA approved the stress tests before they were applied to Japan’s reactors”

    I cannot accept that argument Mr. Yurman as it does not match reality. You can claim that the IAEA was as candid as possible, but that does not pass the laughable test.

    It was from the beginning meant to be an attempt to effect public sentiment. If NISA had the ability to approve the restart without the IAEA, they would.

    The IAEA has no real authority in the matter, and therefore adding any statement would be inappropriate altogether, as they cannot enforce any action. But not only did they add a statement, and give a public nod of approval, they did it knowing full well that their report didn’t even identify all of the shortcomings in the Japanese safety culture.

    Quote from the IAEA Website –

    “We concluded that NISA’s instructions to power plants and its review process for the Comprehensive Safety Assessments are generally consistent with IAEA Safety Standards,” said team leader James Lyons, director of the IAEA’s Nuclear Installation Safety Division.

    and from the press

    “U.N. nuclear experts on Tuesday gave their backing to stress tests aimed at showing Japan’s nuclear plants can withstand the sort of disasters that devastated the Fukushima plant last year, potentially bolstering a government campaign to restart idled reactors and avoid a summer power crunch.”

    “The government hopes the stress tests will help persuade a wary public that it is safe to restart some of the reactors and avoid an economically crippling power crunch during the peak summer season.”

    Even the World Nuclear News jumped in –

    “A ten-strong mission from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited Japan in late January to review the methodology of the stress tests carried out at Kansai’s Ohi nuclear power plant. The team concluded that Japan’s stress tests are generally consistent with IAEA safety standards, but made a range of recommendations to NISA to ensure thorough and lasting improvements in safety are made.”

    From the Voice of America

    “The United Nations’ nuclear agency has approved the Japanese government’s plan to assess the safety of its nuclear power plants.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday turned over the results of its week-long fact-finding visit to officials with Japan’s nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. The 10-member IAEA team discussed the government’s plan to conduct stress tests on its nuclear plants, and toured the Ohi plant in Fukui prefecture.

    “In our review of the process that they did, we were able to see the review that NISA performed on the Ohi comprehensive safety assessment. And we were satisfied with the work they had done as part of their primary assessment.”

    I’ll end with a quote from Matthew 18, though I doubt you will agree it applies here, many others would disagree.

    “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

    If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

    And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. “

  13. Quoting fire and brimstone does not make your point. As far as I’m,concerned one you engage in anti-social responses to my efforts to engage you in dialog, that ends participation from my end.

  14. “uc” is exactly right.

    The nuclear industry is built on a foundation of lies at the cost of human health, and the parroting of nuclear lies is frankly disgusting and unconcionable.

    Here is the truth:

    (1) MOX is not safe and it is wrong and irresponsible to say otherwise.

    (2) PLUTONIUM is not safe. It is deadly.

    (3) The IAEA, NRC, and TEPCO are nuclear promoters, and there are clear examples of them putting their financial bottom-line before safety and human health.

    Just a few examples (there are more):

    (a) TEPCO knew their nuclear power plants were not seismically qualified, and promised to update them….and never did.

    (b) The NRC hasn’t implemented fire-safety improvements at nuclear power plants, nor have they implemented the safety recommendations of the Fukushima Task Force.

    (c) The NRC has known for years about the excessive wear-and-tear of tubes in generators such as the ones in San Onofre.

    (d) The nuclear industry relies on OLD diesel generators to supply electricity to a nuclear power plant in an emergency! This is insane.

    Two of the generators at Fukushima didn’t work; a generator at North Anna didn’t work, and there are more examples of diesel generators not working when desperately needed.

    Diesel generators also don’t work in water (flood); they break down easily; they’re not meant for long-term use; they’re meant for a slow start-up but in an emergency they are cranked up quickly…

    If the nuclear industry is going to rely on diesel generators to keep a nuclear plant from MELTING DOWN, the least they could do is buy NEW ones to replace the OLD ones.

    Or better yet….Can’t the industry, with all of their billions in profits and trillions in government aid, invest-in a better back-up-plan than OLD diesel generators?

    (e) Whenever there’s a nuclear accident, they raise the levels of radiation that a human is allowed to breathe and consume…arbitrarily.

    Regarding the evacuation zone, the 50-mile evacuation zone should have been a 200-mile evacuation zone, at least. Every day a new report comes out expanding the zone where toxic levels of radiation are found in Japan.

    In fact, Japan is so contaminated with nuclear pollution that they’re growing their rice in Australia.

    Thankfully Australia is still relatively nuclear-free, but the list of places in the world that are contaminated with nuclear pollution and uninhabitable is huge and growing.

    Here is some reading for Mr. Yurman that I doubt you’ll see on the “official blog” of the ANS:






    Although the nuclear industry tried to debunk this report, their debunk was debunked and this report stands.


    1. Nice reply to a fact filled comment!

      The more fact and link filled comments we have the better we all can become informed!

  15. I believe that the reason that all nuclear operators wanted to secure extensions to their operation licenses after 3/11/11, is that once one or more reactors begin the reactor closure process they will find or “suddenly” discover many “NEW” problems with them that will require even the NRC to reconsider how they inspect all reactors because of leakage and or aging, which the public has been told was no problem!

Leave a Reply

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/lhixson/public_html/wp-content/plugins/most-shared-posts/msp-fetch.php on line 179