A War Built on Lies, Sold by Lobbyists, with Innocent Children as its Price
23 March 2026 David Tyler, Australian Independent Media
On 27 February 2026, the night before the bombs fell, Oman’s foreign minister, Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, announced that a breakthrough had been reached. After months of back-channel diplomacy, Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium, to full IAEA verification, and to irreversibly downgrade its existing stock to the lowest possible level. Peace, he said, was “within reach”. Technical talks were scheduled to continue in Vienna the following week.
Fourteen hours later, at 7:00 AM Tehran time on 28 February, the first wave of missiles arrived. China had been working to improve Iran’s situational awareness. It did not matter. The attack came without warning. Reports from Arab media, undenied by Tehran, claimed that Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, had been arrested and executed as a Mossad agent.
Within twelve hours, the United States and Israel had conducted more than 900 strikes. Two hundred Israeli aircraft, the largest combat sortie in its history, dropped over 1,200 bombs on 500 sites across western and central Iran. US Tomahawk missiles, launched from destroyers in the Arabian Sea, hit leadership compounds, missile factories, naval installations, and the National Security Council offices where Ali Khamenei was meeting his senior advisers. They knew he was there. Netanyahu had personally briefed Trump on the location days earlier. Khamenei was above ground, in daylight, when the strike came. He was dead before midday.
Forty-eight hours later, US forces had flown more than 1,700 sorties and struck over 1,250 targets across 29 of Iran’s 31 provinces. The first six days of Operation Epic Fury cost the United States more than $11 billion.
In that same period, Amnesty International confirmed that a US Tomahawk missile struck a girls’ primary school in Minab. Debris bearing the inscription “Made in USA” and the name “Globe Motors, Ohio” was recovered at the site. At least 170 people were killed. Most were children aged seven to twelve.
Then Donald Trump, in the second year of his second term, appeared on Truth Social to claim the war was about freedom.
The Lobbyists and the Lie
The question corporate media has avoided is simple. Who wanted this war, and how did they get it?
The Washington Post reports that Trump acted after sustained lobbying from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged him to strike. Netanyahu’s government pressed the case repeatedly. Their interests converged. Israel sought to restore deterrence and reshape a regional order drifting beyond its control. Saudi Arabia saw an opportunity to weaken a rival it had failed to contain by other means. Together, they found a willing president.
The deeper breach was internal. Pentagon briefers told congressional staff on 1 March that Iran was not preparing to attack US forces or bases unless Israel struck first. The intelligence did not support the war. It was set aside. This was not a failure of information. It was a decision to ignore it.
US intelligence had already assessed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and would not have the capacity to build one before the end of the decade, even if it chose to do so. The IAEA had affirmed it. At the same time, Badr Al Busaidi was moving between delegations, and Iran’s chief negotiator was describing the talks as the most substantive in years. A framework for Vienna was in place. Technical teams were on standby.
Inside the administration, advisers discussed the advantages of letting Israel strike first to create a cleaner pretext for US entry after Iranian retaliation. That is not strategy. It is sequencing. Diplomacy was not the alternative to war. It was its cover.
Behind the push stood the familiar architecture of American intervention. Senator Lindsey Graham. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The American Enterprise Institute. Donor networks that have spent decades advocating regime change in Iran. They did not invent the policy. They sustained it, funded it, and waited for a president prepared to act on it.
Trump supplied the rest. On different days he has offered regime change, nuclear prevention, Iranian freedom, mineral security, and the Venezuela model as justification. None align. That is because the rationale followed the decision, not the other way around.
Congress, meanwhile, has largely abdicated its role. War powers have withered into ritual complaint. Democratic leadership has offered little more than procedural discomfort. The constitutional check on executive war-making is now
political theatre, observed and ignored.
Illegal, Immoral and Known to Be Both
The legal position is clear. The UN Charter permits the use of force only with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack. Neither condition applied. Iran had not attacked the United States or Israel. The Security Council had authorised nothing. The strikes began during active negotiations.
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism, called it what it is: a crime of aggression. Oona Hathaway described it as “blatantly illegal”. The European Council on Foreign Relations reported broad consensus among legal scholars that no valid justification exists. This was not a contested case. It was an unambiguous one.
Within the United States, dissent has come from the margins of power. Rashida Tlaib. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders. They are not describing a grey area. They are describing what the law already recognises.
What the Bombs Actually Did……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The Catastrophe in Progress
………………………….This is not a regional disruption. It is a global economic shock. Energy prices feed directly into inflation, into transport, into food. The cost of this war will not be confined to the battlefield. It will be paid at petrol stations, in grocery aisles, and in central bank decisions across the world.
………..Senator Thom Tillis has asked the only question that matters. What are we trying to accomplish?
There is no coherent answer because coherence was never the point. This is the Venezuela model applied to a country four times larger, with a military doctrine built to resist precisely this kind of intervention, and a political system shaped by decades of confrontation with the United States. The architects of this war designed Iraq. The pattern is familiar. The outcome will be too. https://theaimn.net/a-war-built-on-lies-sold-by-lobbyists-with-innocent-children-as-its-price/
A Sunken Nuclear Submarine Is Leaking Radiation Into the Ocean. How Worried Should We Be?
Repairs or just outright cleanup would be expensive, extremely difficult, slow, and, of course, quite dangerous.
By Luis Prada, March 25, 2026, https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-sunken-nuclear-submarine-is-leaking-radiation-into-the-ocean-how-worried-should-we-be/
According to new research published in PNAS, a Cold War-era nuclear submarine sitting at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea is still leaking radioactive material. It’s happening slowly, if unevenly, and it’s contained just enough to avoid becoming a full-scale environmental disaster… for now.
The K-278 Komsomolets sank in 1989 after an onboard fire, taking with it a nuclear reactor and two nuclear torpedoes. It now sits more than 1,600 meters below the surface, in a part of the ocean that is freezing and almost entirely out of reach.
A research team led by Justin Gwynn at Norway’s radiation safety authority analyzed years of data, including a 2019 survey using a remotely operated vehicle. The team found that the wreck is leaking radioactive isotopes, including cesium and strontium, through cracks in its deteriorating hull.
The leaks aren’t constant. They come in waves, with visible plumes drifting out from various spots, like the reactor compartment or a ventilation pipe. Radiation levels take a big jump closer to the submarine, with levels reaching hundreds of thousands of times above normal background radiation levels.
At Least the Nuclear Submarine’s Nuclear Torpedoes Are Still Intact
Terrifying, and here’s where it gets strange: measurements taken from just a few feet away dramatically drop off. Researchers believe this is caused by the ocean diluting the problem. That may be why the surrounding ecosystem isn’t showing any obvious signs of collapse, given all of the toxic radiation. There’s still plenty of marine life clinging to the wreck, including sponges, corals, and anemones. They have slightly elevated radiation levels but no visible signs of deformation or damage, though genetic damage wouldn’t be surprising.
Sediment samples collected nearby show minimal contamination. Things wouldn’t be looking so rosy if the nuclear torpedoes inside it weren’t intact, which they very much are and have been since the 1990s.
So far, there are no signs of imminent disaster. Everything is stable and holding steady… for now.
This won’t always be the case, and it is really more a matter not of if but of when. The reactor is still corroding, and the structure is still weakening. Repairs or just outright cleanup will be expensive, extremely difficult, slow, and, of course, quite dangerous. The risk is contained, but that doesn’t mean it’s going away anytime soon.
US moves to approve more than $16 billion in air defense sales to Middle East
The United States is moving to bolster air defenses across the Middle East, notifying Congress of more than $16.5 billion in potential weapons sales aimed primarily at countering missile and drone threats.
The packages include systems for the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, and range from advanced radar and air defense sensors to counter-drone technology and aircraft munitions, according to several statements released Thursday by the U.S. Department of State.
The notifications come as missile and drone attacks have intensified across the Middle East during the war with Iran, putting pressure on air defense systems used to protect U.S. forces and regional allies.
The State Department said the secretary of state determined that an emergency justified the immediate sale, allowing the administration to bypass the typical congressional review process under the Arms Export Control Act.
Among the proposed sales is a long-range radar for the UAE that is designed to integrate with its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, for $4.5 billion.
The UAE package also includes a $2.1 billion fixed-site system designed to counter small drones, as well as $1.22 billion in air-to-air missiles and a $644 million set of F-16 munitions and upgrades to support its fighter aircraft.
Separately, Kuwait would receive $8 billion in lower tier air and missile defense radars designed to detect shorter-range threats, while Jordan’s $70.5 million package focuses on aircraft repair and parts to maintain its existing fleet.
Together, the sales point to a broader effort to build layered air defenses that are capable of detecting and intercepting threats at different ranges.
The demand comes as U.S. air defense systems are being used at a rate analysts worry exceeds the pace at which stockpiles can be replenished.
Ontario’s nuclear push risks another costly policy failure.
Nuclear power is neither nimble nor affordable and it’s about time the Ontario government stopped posturing otherwise.
Policy Options, Samuel Buckstein , March 20, 2026
Nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence worldwide and Ontario is no exception. The province has a long history with this awesome and terrifying energy technology, and it is once again turning to nuclear power in response to concerns over national sovereignty, economic growth, electrification and decarbonization.
Looking back over Ontario’s troubled history with nuclear energy, it is concerning to see the Ford government stumbling back to the bar for another round of nuclear cool-aid. Yet Ontario’s plan shows little evidence of having done its homework. Contrary to the government’s claims, it is fiscally irresponsible, incapable of delivering the energy the province needs in the time required, and compromises Ontario’s energy security.
When it should be investing in much cheaper and more easily deployed renewables, the province is recklessly doubling down on nuclear despite the evidence against it.
A legacy mired in debt
To understand Ontario’s nuclear trajectory, it is helpful to reflect on its origins. When civilian nuclear power was commercialized after the Second World War, its advocates promised it would be “too cheap to meter.” Buoyed by encouragement and financing from both provincial and federal governments, Ontario Hydro duly invested in a fleet of 20 CANDU reactors at three nuclear power stations over the course of 30 years.
By the turn of the millennium, Ontario Hydro’s nuclear obsession had saddled it with $38.1 billion in debt — $20.9 billion of it stranded (unsupported by assets). This burden was so immense that it toppled the once proud flagship Crown corporation. Ontarians continue to pay for this nuclear hangover today. As of March 2023, ratepayers were still on the hook for $13.8 billion.
Even as late as 1989, with Ontario Hydro already buckling under its crushing debt, the utility was forecasting the need for 10 to 15 new reactors by 2014. Reality proved otherwise, with peak electricity demand in 2014 lower than it had been 25 years earlier.
After a generation of staggering cost overruns and catastrophic international incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power fell out of favour in much of the developed world. Cheaper, more flexible and faster-to-deploy alternatives took its place, first gas and then renewables…………………………………
Lessons from the U.K. and Ukraine
However, Ontario should learn from the United Kingdom, not authoritarian China. The experience of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant to be built in the U.K. in more than 20 years, should be a cautionary tale.
At least five years behind schedule and two times over budget, Hinkley Point C will likely be the most expensive nuclear power plant yet. The electricity generated by this colossal waste of rate-payer dollars will cost between two to four times more than renewable energy, which can be brought online in half the time. This is what the provincial government has in store for Ontario.
The scale of Ontario’s plan is immense. In addition to the CANDU refurbishments at Darlington and Bruce, Ontario has announced the refurbishment of Pickering B, one of the oldest and most urban nuclear power stations in the world.
Sovereignty concerns
Ontario has also contracted with GE Vernova Hitachi to build up to four small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington site. It is unclear why the government has committed to building four SMRs before even the first is constructed. The greater concern with this arrangement is GE Vernova Hitachi is a U.S.-controlled company and the fuel supply chain is in the U.S. and France, not Canada…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
No price tag and no certainty it will pay
Despite these red flags, Ontario’s nuclear ambitions do not stop there. The government is also considering building two new large nuclear power stations at the Bruce site and at a new location near Port Hope. This despite the fact that, like the U.K., the domestic nuclear supply chain has all but vanished. This is precisely the kind of multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade infrastructure lock-in that bankrupted Ontario Hydro.
The government has been silent on how much this plan will cost. No one can predict whether demand will materialize to justify this massive supply expansion, or what electricity prices will be when these reactors finally come online. Committing to decades of investment in such an uncertain environment is sheer folly.
To top it all off, nuclear power is not even operationally flexible. Generation cannot be adjusted rapidly enough to follow demand, and the reactors can only be quickly turned off, but not back on again (it took Ontario more than a day to restore power after the 2003 Great Northeastern Blackout due to neutron poisoning in the reactors).
Renewable options
It does not have to be this way. Much has changed since the last wave of nuclear infatuation. Renewables are now the cheapest source of energy on a levelized basis. While renewables may be intermittent, they are reasonably predictable, and for the first time since the inception of the electricity industry, generation no longer needs to coincide perfectly with consumption. Rapidly falling battery costs have made energy storage a commercially viable reality…………………………………………………………. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/03/ontario-nuclear-energy-costs-risks-renewables/
Fife Council approve Babcock plan for nuclear waste storage building
24th March, By Ally McRoberts, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25961651.fife-council-approve-babcock-plan-waste-storage-building/
A TEMPORARY storage facility will be built for waste that’s taken out of old nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard.
Fife Council have given the green light to Babcock for a new warehouse between docks two and three for “decommissioning operations”.
The large industrial building – an ‘intermediate waste storage facility’ – will be 27 metres long and up to 20 metres in height with roller doors and security fencing.
Work is currently taking place at the dockyard to cut up and dismantle HMS Swiftsure, one of seven old nuclear subs that have been laid up in Rosyth for decades.
The demonstrator project is attempting a world first by removing the most radioactive parts left in the vessel, the reactor and steam generators.
The new building “will be utilised for cutting processes to aid submarine dismantling” and will go next to a larger steel shed that was approved in 2024 for the project.
A council report said: “The applicant has indicated that the waste to be temporarily stored would not be considered hazardous under the Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 and that the site is currently subject to a permit issued by SEPA covering the related decommissioning activity.
“The site is also subject to regular inspections by the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and is one of their registered sites.
“Ultimately, the decommissioning activities are controlled by SEPA, the Health and Safety Executive and ONR and fall under their own consenting and control regimes, with mechanisms for changes to existing permits to be reviewed and approved by these bodies.”
There were no objections and the report said SEPA had confirmed that “no reprocessing of radioactive waste or materials takes place at Rosyth”.
The seven decommissioned nuclear subs at the yard are Swiftsure, Revenge, Renown, Repulse, Resolution, Dreadnought and Churchill.
Dismantling takes place in three stages with low level radioactive waste taken out first.
Next is the removal of the reactor pressure vessel, which is classed as intermediate level radioactive waste.
The final stage, once all radioactive material has gone, is [?] recycling.
So far the programme has invested more than £200 million in Rosyth Dockyard.
The Inheritance of Fear: From the Cold War to Trump’s World
24 March 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-inheritance-of-fear-from-the-cold-war-to-trumps-world/
Even as children, we knew something was wrong. The adults spoke in hushed tones. The news carried a sense of urgency. At school, the playground chatter wasn’t about games – it was about war. The kind that could end everything.
By my final year, the fear had become personal. Among the boys, we spoke about conscription – about being called up to fight in the Vietnam War. It wasn’t abstract anymore. It was waiting for us.
That was the world we inherited.
And now, it seems, the next generation is inheriting something disturbingly familiar.
Recent polling shows that fear of a major global conflict is no longer a fringe concern. In the United States, nearly half of respondents – 46% – believe a world war is likely within the next five years, with similar fear echoed across Britain, Canada and France. Across Europe, between 41% and 55% of people think another world war is likely within a decade.
Among younger people, the anxiety runs deeper still. A global Red Cross survey found that almost half of millennials believe a third world war is likely in their lifetime. And here in Australia, new research suggests that young adults are among the most anxious about national security threats, with many expecting conflict within years rather than decades.
This is not abstract fear.
It is generational.
But there is a difference between then and now.
The Cold War was terrifying, but it was also structured. Two superpowers, locked in a tense but calculated standoff. There were rules – dangerous ones, but rules nonetheless.
Today, the fear feels less ordered. Less predictable. More dependent on personalities than systems.
And that is where Donald Trump enters the picture.
To his supporters, he is decisive – a leader unafraid to act. But to many others, particularly younger people watching from a distance, he represents something far more unsettling: volatility. A willingness to escalate, to threaten, to test boundaries not as a last resort, but as a demonstration of strength.
In some international polling, even allied populations now cite the United States itself – under Trump’s leadership – as a potential source of global instability.
That perception matters.
Because fear is not driven solely by events, but by expectations – by what people believe might happen next.
And for a generation raised on a constant stream of crisis – pandemics, climate change, economic instability, and now rising global tensions – the idea that a single leader’s impulses could tip the balance is deeply unsettling.
Unlike our childhood, there is no buffer. No evening news that ends at six o’clock. No space between events and reaction. Every threat is immediate. Every escalation is live-streamed. Every rumour amplified.
There is no off switch.
And so the fear settles in – not always as panic, but as something quieter and more corrosive. A sense that the future is unstable. That the world is being shaped not by steady hands, but by unpredictable ones.
We have seen this kind of fear before.
We lived through it.
But today’s version carries an added uncertainty – not just about what might happen, but about who might make it happen.
For younger generations, that may be the most unsettling thought of all.
IAEA Database: About 55% of Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Thefts Since 1993 Occurred During Transport
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, 23 March 2026, Vienna, Austria
More than half of all thefts of nuclear and other radioactive material reported to the Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) since 1993 occurred during authorized transport, with the share rising to nearly 70% in the past decade. The new data released today by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) underlines the need for continued vigilance in transport security.
Of the 4626 reported incidents in the ITDB from 1993 to 2025, 730 were thefts of radioactive material, including attempted thefts. Almost 55% of those thefts occurred during transport, and in more than 59% of those transport-related cases – about 400 incidents – the stolen radioactive material has not been recovered.
Nuclear and other radioactive material remains vulnerable to security threats during transport, and data from the ITDB underscores the continued need to strengthen security,” said Elena Buglova, Director of the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Security. “The IAEA assists countries, upon request, in enhancing their national nuclear security regimes to ensure that such materials are securely managed and fully protected against criminal or intentional unauthorized acts during their transport.”
The ITDB is the IAEA’s information system on incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities and events involving nuclear and other radioactive material out of regulatory control. While most incidents are not linked to trafficking or malicious intent, their occurrence reflects persistent challenges in transport security, regulatory control, disposal practices and detection.
In 2025, 236 incidents were reported by 34 of the 145 ITDB participating States. This number is higher than in 2024 – 147 incidents – however, the increase is attributed to retrospective reporting.
All types of nuclear material – including uranium, plutonium and thorium
– as well as naturally occurring and artificially produced radioisotopes, and radioactively contaminated material found in scrap metal are included in the ITDB’s scope. Incidents at metal recycling sites involving manufactured goods contaminated with radioactive material continue to be reported to ITDB, indicating an ongoing challenge for some countries in securing disused radioactive sources and detecting their unauthorized disposal.
The release of the ITDB factsheet coincides with this week’s International Conference on the Safe and Secure Transport of Nuclear and Radioactive Material. The IAEA estimates that millions of shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material are transported annually for peaceful applications in energy, medicine, education, agriculture and industry.
The conference provides the international transport community with a platform to discuss opportunities, challenges and key enablers for the safe and secure transport of nuclear and other radioactive material. The conference will cover legal and regulatory aspects, transport package design, operations, commercial and supply chain considerations, and innovative technologies that have the potential to impact transport safety and security.
About the ITDB
The ITDB fosters global information exchange about incidents that involve nuclear and other radioactive material falling out of regulatory control because they were lost, stolen, improperly disposed of or otherwise neglected
. The database also includes reports about material returning under regulatory control through various means, for example, through the detection of orphan radioactive sources in metal recycling facilities. The ITDB data is voluntarily reported, and only participating States can fully access it,
while international organizations, such as the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Customs Organization (WCO), have limited access.
The ITDB covers incidents involving nuclear material, radioisotopes and radioactively contaminated material. By reporting lost or stolen material to the ITDB, countries increase the chances of its recovery and reduce the opportunities for it to be used in criminal activities
. States can also report scams or hoaxes where the material is purported to be nuclear or otherwise radioactive.
States wishing to join the ITDB need to submit the request to the IAEA through the official channels (i.e. Permanent Mission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or a national competent authority for nuclear security matters).
Switzerland Just Exposed Project Ranger’s Weakness
(Project Ranger, a 1,000-acre hypersonic manufacturing campus in Sandoval County, designed to support high-cadence production of hypersonic strike systems. )
Elaine Cimino, 23 Mar 26
Switzerland’s halt on weapons-related exports to the United States is not symbolic. It is a disruption—and it lands directly on projects like Project Ranger.
This facility is being built on the assumption that a complex, global weapons supply chain will function without interruption. That assumption is now broken.
Advanced weapons manufacturing depends on precision components, machine systems, and specialized inputs that cannot be swapped out overnight. When a country like Switzerland shuts off supply, timelines don’t “adjust”—they fail. Production stalls. Certification resets. Entire sequences of manufacturing have to be reworked.
That means one thing for Rio Rancho:
Project Ranger will not meet its LEDA job timelines as promised as long as the supply chain is disruptied.
LEDA agreements are performance-based. Jobs are supposed to materialize on a defined schedule. That schedule is now tied to a disrupted international supply chain. No amount of local approval, zoning, or political messaging can override that reality.
If the components aren’t there, the jobs aren’t there.
And when the jobs don’t show up on time, the public is left holding the bag.
Because the costs are already locked in.
Rio Rancho has approved development while operating with a water deficit. Return flow credits are not being met. Infrastructure is being expanded. Rates are rising. Nearly 40% of residents are low- or fixed-income—and they are being forced to subsidize a project whose economic return is now uncertain.
Water rates were locked designed for developers and project Ranger build out on the residents dollars.
At the same time, the broader economy is unstable. If the economy contracts—and all indicators say that risk is real—projects dependent on fragile, globalized supply chains are the first to break. Delays compound. Costs escalate. Public subsidies become sunk losses.
This is the predictable outcome of building a local economy around a volatile defense supply system.
And yet, construction continues. Question for how long—Until they stopped cold.
Steel is going up. Concrete is being poured. Commitments are being made in real time, while the underlying conditions that justified those commitments are collapsing. Now from the governor to the Castelion excuses to city dodging questions. Don’t count on the fascist tech bros to let their bomb factory to got to rust.
Switzerland didn’t just halt exports.
It exposed the truth: Project Ranger is not in control of its own timeline.And Rio Rancho is not in control of the consequences. The public pays
Nuclear plant told to improve after ‘near misses
Tom BurgessNorth East and Cumbria,
BBC 24th March 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24l9epwkdo
A nuclear power plant has been ordered to improve safety measures after an increase in “near misses”, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has said.
The decision was made after visits to the Hartlepool site, operated by EDF, identified areas where safety improvements were required after an increase in the number of reported “serious incidents”.
The ONR said the plant remained safe to continue to operate and the events were “not associated with radiological or nuclear risk”.
EDF said it had agreed an improvement plan with the regulator last year and was making progress.
ONR said moving the plant into “significantly-enhanced regulatory attention level” related to efforts it was making to bring about improvements in conventional health and safety and performance.
Dan Hasted, ONR’s director of regulation for operating facilities, said safety improvements were required but the decision to put the plant into the new category was not a punitive measure.
He said: “In the conventional health and safety area there has been an increase in the number of serious events or near misses that Hartlepool is legally required to report to the ONR.
“It’s important to note these have not been associated with radiological or nuclear risk.”
Hasted said it was important to look at the root causes to ensure they do not “transfer across to nuclear safety”.
Vital to Teesside
The Hartlepool site operates two gas-cooled reactors and has generated electricity for 43 years.
EDF said the regulator would be inspecting the site more regularly.
A spokesperson said the station was a vital part of the Teesside community.
They said: “Last year we agreed an improvement plan with the regulator.
“We have been making progress against that plan, but understand the ONR feels that some more focused attention is required to support that.
“We are committed to working with the regulator to ensure it is content that improvements required are being implemented.”
Sizewell C Inquiry
House of Commons 23rd March 2026,
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9713/sizewell-c/
Sizewell C is a planned large-scale nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Funded by the government in partnership with the energy provider EDF, as well as private finance, the project is projected to cost £40.5bn to £47.7bn. When constructed, it will have a generating capacity of 3.2GW, meaning it will be able to generate around 7% of the UK’s current electricity demand.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) previously reported on the government’s deal with EDF to construct a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, the site with Sizewell C will be based on. The PAC were concerned that that government’s negotiations were not championing the interests of consumers, who might be locked into an expensive deal for decades, and warned that the poorest would likely be the hardest hit. In its response, the Government accepted all of the PAC’s recommendations and stated the actions it planned to take in response.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish its report on Sizewell C in spring 2026. Following the NAO’s investigation, which is likely to examine the government’s current spend, as well as the potential risks to achieving value for taxpayer’s money, the PAC will hear from senior officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Sizewell C on the reports key findings.
If you have evidence on these issues, please submit here by 23.59 on Monday 18 May 2026.
Please note that the Committee’s inquiry cannot assist with individual cases. If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to read the information on Parliament’s website about who you can contact with different issues.
Renewables are taking the wind out of new nuclear’s sails.
THERE’S been a lot of talk about and PR for new
nuclear in Scotland – but awkward facts intrude. Greenland, the
planet’s thermostat, lost 105 billion tonnes of ice last year, with sea
ice the lowest in the 47-year satellite record. The climate crisis is here
and the choices we make now will determine the success or failure of our
climate actions.
Cost is important, but time is the critical variable –
and time is running out. Global data reveals construction of a new nuclear
station takes 17 or more years. Nuclear power construction has an average
time over-run of 64%.
In comparison, utility-scale wind and solar take on
average only two to five years from planning phase to operation, and
rooftop solar PV projects are down to six months.
At a time when so much
looks grim, the renewable revolution holds out real hope. In 2025, more
power was generated worldwide from renewable energy than from coal and 91%
of new renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. The UN confirms that
renewables have increased their lead over fossil and nuclear in terms of
cost.
The result is, wind and solar worldwide now generate 70% more
electricity than nuclear. With each year nuclear adding only as much net
global power capacity as renewables add every two days, nuclear is facing
the same challenges as fossil fuel: uncompetitive costs, stranded assets, a
polluting legacy and severe competition from renewables.
Can new nuclear
generate power in time? In 2025, world net nuclear capacity increased by
4.4 GW, not much more than the UK’s Hinkley Point C project, and 180
times less than new solar and wind capacity. The International Energy
Agency (IEA) predicts 4600 GW new renewable capacity by 2030, meeting 90%
of global electricity demand growth.
Over the past decade we’ve seen
renewable electricity generation increase to triple that of nuclear. By the
end of this decade renewables will out-generate nuclear by up to seven
times. It is entirely possible to mitigate climate impact and sustain a
reliable power system by expanding renewable energy in all sectors, rapid
growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, storage technology
roll-out, increased international interconnections, and using power far
more effectively and efficiently via energy efficiency and management.
The compelling economics of renewables unmask those of fossil and nuclear. With
all key international and national energy organisations and institutes
agreeing that renewables will be doing the heavy lifting for the energy
transition, the future backbone of the global power supply system will be
renewable, sustainable and cost-effective. Scotland has very great
renewables potential and should play to its strengths. New nuclear is
already too late and too costly for the climate and energy crises.
The National 23rd March 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/comment/25958295.renewables-taking-wind-new-nuclears-sails/
A Remotely-Piloted Weapon That Targets Civilians in War Zones
By Thalif Deen, https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/03/a-remotely-piloted-weapon-that-targets-civilians-in-war-zones/?utm_source=email_marketing&utm_admin=146128&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=A_RemotelyPiloted_Weapon_That_Targets_Civilians_in_War_Zones_Africas_Minerals_Boon_Cautious_Optimism
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 18 2026 (IPS) – As the world continues to be weighed down in political and military turmoil, drones are being increasingly used as weapons of war in a rash of ongoing conflicts—including Ukraine vs Russia, Israel vs Palestine, US vs Iran and Israel vs Lebanon, plus in civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Sudan and Haiti.
Described as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), drones have fundamentally transformed modern warfare, “offering a low-cost, high-impact form of air power, challenging traditional military doctrines and giving rise to new tactics and ethical debates”.
Once limited to major military powers like the U.S. and Israel, drones are now being used by numerous state and non-state actors, including militant groups and even organized crime cartels.
The use of drones, particularly in targeted killings and with increasing autonomy, has raised significant international debate regarding accountability, civilian casualties, and compliance with international humanitarian law
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said last week he was “appalled by the devastating impact on civilians of increasing drone attacks”, amid reports that more than 200 civilians have been killed by drones since 4 March alone in the Kordofan region, and in White Nile state.
“It is deeply troubling that despite multiple reminders, warnings and appeals, parties to the conflict in Sudan continue to use increasingly powerful drones to deploy explosive weapons with wide-area impacts in populated areas,” said Türk.
“I renew my call on them to abide fully with international humanitarian law in their use of these weapons, particularly the clear prohibition on directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects and infrastructure, and against any form of indiscriminate attacks.”
Many homes, schools, markets and health facilities were damaged or destroyed in the attacks, compounding the impacts on civilians and local communities, he said.
Meanwhile drones are also being used in the politically-troubled Haiti and also in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda despite a peace agreement brokered by the US last year.
According to a report in Cable News Network (CNN) March 17, the war in Iran is continuing to disrupt travel across the Gulf after Iranian drone strikes triggered two major air incidents in recent days. Flights at Dubai International Airport were briefly suspended on Monday after a drone struck a nearby fuel tank, igniting a large fire.
The shutdown forced cancellations and diversions as aviation authorities closed the airport. Part of the UAE’s airspace was also closed for a few hours overnight after the country said it was responding to incoming missiles and drone strikes from Iran.
Meanwhile, the prices of many global airfares that bypass the Middle East are rising, as the conflict drives up oil prices and airlines warn of higher fuel costs ahead, said CNN.
Focusing on a military perspective, Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher, Arms Transfers Programme, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS more and more states, (and also non-state armed- rebel – groups) acquire drones of all sizes.
“Some of the numbers are quite amazing – Ukraine getting not a few 1,000, but far over 10,000 drones from various suppliers, and Russia, Ukraine and Iran each use drones by the 100s almost every day in the current conflicts.”
And different from some 10 years ago, when most of the drones where for reconnaissance roles, he pointed out, today many drones are armed and many more are ‘one-way attack drones’ (also called suicide or kamikaze drones). The latter are becoming a cheap alternative for long-range missiles against ground targets.
In the SIPRI arms transfers database (https://armstransfers.sipri.org), he said, “we record transfers of all armed drones, and reconnaissance drones with a weight of at least 150kg (we had to put a weight limit to be able to keep monitoring drone transfers with the resources and sources we have)”.
“And we clearly see in recent years that a) the total numbers of drones transferred between states has grown, b) several non-state actors (e.g. Houthis and Hezbollah) have also been supplied with drones, c) the number of states and non-state actors that have acquired drone has grown – most states in the world have now acquired drones, many of them from foreign suppliers, d) the number of producers and suppliers has grown – the simpler drones are offered by dozens if not 100s of large and very small companies and that number is growing, and e) drones, and especially armed drones.”
That is the picture for flying drones, Wezeman said.
But also, sea drones (surface or submarine) are starting to become popular – even if not yet transferred in any significant number. And land drones are also starting to become popular, he declared.
At a press conference March 10, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher said: “I’m really worried about drones in particular. I think the world has decided that it’s far more interested in spending enormous amounts of money developing these increasingly deadly weapons than it is on saving lives, and it seems to have decided that it hasn’t got time to work on ensuring that the rules that govern these weapons, these lethal autonomous weapons, keep up with the pace of technology.”
So you’ve got this dangerous alliance between very innovative technology and huge amounts of money and people’s desire to kill more people – and that’s a toxic combination, he said.
“And last year, 90 per cent of all deaths caused by drones were civilians, many of them humanitarians. And we’re seeing that across the crises on which we work – whether it’s Gaza, Sudan or in Ukraine, we’re seeing these bad practices move between crises”.
In the DRC last week, a senior official of the UN children’s agency UNICEF and two civilians were killed in drone strikes.
Amplifying further Wezeman said all these drones and one-way attack drones have become more capable, especially in range (the simple Shahed, one-way attack drones used by Iran and sold to Russia have a range of up to 1500 to 2000km), changing them from tactical battlefield weapons to more strategic weapons.
Development is very rapidly continuing for all type of drones, including making them more autonomous and intelligent to be capable of independent targeting and other decision-making. AI plays a growing role in this process. This process leads to questions about control, but right now it seems the process is moving faster than the discussion on controlling the autonomous aspects (see also our programme on emerging technologies.
Will they replace systems with a human on board or in the loop? The development goes certainly that way and for missiles and one-way attack drones that has already started. For the larger, more capable and more complex systems such as combat aircraft, warships and larger combat vehicles that is still a future – but not a distant dream as development of for example drone combat aircraft is already moving into prototypes in the USA, China, Australia and Europe.
There still is an element of doubt however – drones need navigation that now is largely based on GPS-type systems, something that is not free from the risks of being jammed or stopped.
The simpler drones, with their simple technology, cheap and easy to produce are also not as effective as hoped. Most of them are rather easy prey for air-defence systems (or jamming) – while Russia, Iran and Ukraine send every day dozens or 100s to attack their opponents, most do no reach their target but are shot down or lost due to jamming or other causes, declared Wezeman.
Meanwhile Human Rights Watch said last week its latest research on “how Haitian security forces and private contractors working with them have conducted extensive and apparently unlawful lethal drone strikes in densely populated areas killing and injuring residents who were not members of criminal groups, including children”.
“We call on Haitian authorities to urgently rein in the security forces and private contractors working for them before more children die”, said HRW.
According to data from multiple sources reviewed by Human Rights Watch, at least 1,243 people were killed by drone strikes in 141 operations between March 1, 2025, and January 21, 2026, including at least 43 adults who were reportedly not members of criminal groups, and 17 children. The data also shows that the drone strikes injured 738 people, at least 49 of whom were reportedly not members of criminal groups.
“Dozens of ordinary people, including many children, have been killed and injured in these lethal drone operations,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Haitian authorities should urgently rein in the security forces and private contractors working for them before more children die.”
The United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti has attributed the drone attacks in Haiti to a specialized “Task Force” established by Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé that is operated with support from the private military company Vectus Global.
The US ambassador to Haiti has confirmed that the US State Department issued a license to Vectus Global to export defense services to Haiti.
Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, was a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group and UN correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly, London.
Fears huge nuclear dump buried under concrete dome could be unleashed into the sea
Rory McKeown March 25, 2026,
https://metro.co.uk/2026/03/25/climate-change-unleash-huge-nuclear-dump-buried-concrete-dome-sea-27664599/
A Pacific Island is sitting atop a nuclear time bomb that could pollute the oceans for centuries.
Scientists have discovered that a concrete structure built to contain radioactive waste from Cold War-era testing is showing signs of deterioration.
The site, known as Runit Dome, sits on Runit Island in the Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands.
Although Runit itself is uninhabitable, the atoll is home to around 300.
The dome sits close to the ocean’s edge and rising sea levels and shifting groundwater bring seawater into close contact.
It dates back to a period of intensive nuclear testing. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests across Enewetak Atoll and Bikini Atoll, displacing more than 300 Marshallese people.
One test in particular, an 18-kiloton explosion known as “Cactus”, destroyed part of Runit Island and sent a mushroom cloud approximately six kilometres into the sky.
The Crater created by the Cactus explosion on May 5, 1958. It was later used as a burial pit to inter 84, 000 cubic meters of radioactive soil (Picture: US Defense Special Weapons Agency/Cover Media)
In the late 1970s, the 10 metre deep crater left by the blast was used to store more than 120,000 tonnes of radioactive soil and debris collected from across the atoll.
The site was then sealed with an 18-inch (46cm) concrete cap, forming what is now known as the Runit Dome.
More than five decades later, the structure is showing visible signs of ageing. Cracks have appeared across its surface, and groundwater is able to flow beneath it.
Researchers say this water moves in and out with the tides, potentially carrying radioactive material into the surrounding lagoon. Studies have also indicated that the dome is not watertight.
Ivana Nikolic-Hughes, of Columbia University and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, observed cracks during a visit in 2018 while measuring radiation levels.
‘These results provide further demonstration of the continuing impact of radioactive fallout on the Marshall Islands and will inform future work to understand how the presence of this isotope might affect current inhabitants and potential resettlement,’ she writes.
American officials have said the structure is not at immediate risk of collapse.
But experts have warned that some of the radioactive elements involved pose extremely long-term risks. Plutonium-239, used in nuclear weapons, remains hazardous for more than 24,000 years.
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said no concrete structure could be expected to last even a fraction of that time.
He noted that cracks have already appeared within decades, highlighting the challenge of containing radioactive material over such long timescales.
‘There are already cracks in it in less than 50 years,’ he told Australian broadcaster ABC.
Scientists say the dome illustrates a broader problem. Certain places we regard as being safe spaces to dump toxic waste, may become less so due to climate change. If sea levels rise and rain increases, water and food supplies change.
Trump’s battle plan for Iran
Bruce Gagnon, Mar 26, 2026, https://brucegagnon177089.substack.com/p/trumps-battle-plan-for-iran?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3720343&post_id=192096004&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Europe key to US ops in Iran
Another very interesting piece from the WSJ. These details have been available through OSINT sources but it’s a good roundup showing how key Europe is to US operations against Iran:
- The central command center for US operations against Iran is within Ramstein Air Base in Germany (unsurprising)
- US drone operations are conducted from there as well
- Ramstein is increasingly being used as a hub by the Americans. Military transport aircraft, in particular, land there and took off for the Middle East, including several Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (77.5 tons of load) and Lockheed C-130 aircraft (20 tons).
- American media reported that F-16 fighter jets had been transferred from US Spangdahlem AFB, Germany to the Middle East. According to the trade magazine Air and Space Forces, they are to be used in Iran to combat air defenses. BBC reported that the base is now operating “around the clock.”
- American aircraft stationed in Spain have been relocated to France and Germany after the Spanish government denied the use of the Morón and Rota air bases for attacks on Iran
- Bomber aircraft sorties out of bases in the UK like RAF Fairford
- Refueling operations are based out of Aviano Air Base in Italy and Tubé Air Base in France
- Lajes Air Base in the Azores (Portugal) is serving as a major logistical hub, with dozens of aircraft stationed there at various times during the conflict
- RC-135 Rivet Joint spy planes are operating out of Souda Bay in Crete
- Unspecified “logistics and intelligence assets” are being hosted by Romania
- The piece paints an amusing picture of European attitudes towards this. Keir Starmer’s justification for overcoming his reticence to allow the US to base out of British facilities in the initial wave of strikes is that bomber operations are now “defensive” in nature.
- Merz has said publicly that this “isn’t [Germany’s] war,” but he has no choice but to allow US operations out of German air bases due to pre-existing legal agreements.
- Meloni has spun Italian involvement as minor because only refueling missions are flown out of Aviano. Similarly, French defense minister Vautrin said, “a refueling aircraft is a gas station, not a fighter jet.”
- These technicalities may work on the European public, but it’s difficult to imagine they’ll work on the Iranians.
Let’s focus not on what Trump says, but on what he does.
These are the U.S. military units recently deployed to the Middle East against Iran.
- 160th SOAR (Night Hunters): An elite helicopter unit that secretly inserts and extracts special forces, often at night, using skilled pilots and modified aircraft.
- 75th Airborne Brigade: A light infantry force for rapid raids, airfield seizures, and close-quarters combat missions against high-value targets.
- Delta Force (1st SFOD-D): A top-tier counterterrorism and hostage rescue unit focused on high-risk, precision missions targeting high-value individuals.
- 1st Special Forces Group (1st SFG): Operates primarily in the Asia-Pacific; trains allied forces, conducts unconventional warfare, and supports insurgencies or partner militaries.
- 5th Special Forces Group (5th SFG): Focused on the Middle East; It specializes in counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, and advising local forces.
- US Navy SEALs: Special operations focused on the sea—raids, reconnaissance, direct action, and covert missions from the sea, air, or land.
- But for what mission?
- Islands within or near the Strait of Hormuz—Small but strategically important islands used by Iran to control shipping lanes. US special forces could quickly seize them to reopen the strait.
- An island outside—Iran’s main oil export terminal. Seizing or destroying it would cripple Iranian oil revenues.
- Iranian nuclear facilities or other high-value sites—Potential raids to destroy stockpiles of enriched uranium or related infrastructure.
The war against Iran: Lessons still unlearned
By William Briggs | 26 March 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-war-against-iran-lessons-still-unlearned,20853
The dreams of the U.S. President, that it would all be over in days – that the Iranian people would rise against their tyrannical regime – is now a nightmare that Trump has visited upon the world.
The global economy is on the brink of disaster as oil dries up. America and Israel have further isolated themselves from world public opinion and, apart from an ever- shrinking clique of semi-vassal states like Australia, Trump appears to be alone and increasingly dangerous.
The war offers a great many lessons, but while life and history can be great teachers, there seem to be precious few pupils ready to learn those lessons. This applies equally to apologists for U.S. power, to governments of all stripes and to many of those who inhabit the Left and lay claim to Marxist credentials.
The war was never about “liberating” the Iranian people from the right-wing theocracy. It was about securing a compliant regime that would ensure the flow of oil and to make sure that the USA, as a fading imperial power, maintained global hegemony — both politically and economically.
The slogan that accompanied the wars of aggression against Iraq, that tore Libya apart and which laid waste to so much of the Middle East was simply, No Blood for Oil! The years have slipped by, and yet the same foul motivation for despoiling the globe and destroying a people remains.
Our mainstream media know this to be true, even as the “story” turns its focus to the retaliation by Iran and to the oil pressure that the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz entails. The same media focuses on potential oil shortages, and rightly so, but seems less keen to link that invasion to the fact that people are paying stupid prices for petrol and diesel.
Fewer voices can be heard that would remind the people of how the war started and who is responsible. That has become largely the responsibility of the Left — the Marxists, the campaigners against war and imperialism.
This is as it should be, but something is very wrong. Marxism is quite clear that economics is the defining factor and that politics works with and responds to economic demands. The war, then, can only be understood from an economic perspective. But is it being understood in this way? Sadly, no.
Some see it as a political gamble by a beleaguered and dangerously unhinged U.S. President. Some portray it as a means, by Israel, of destroying any potential risk to its domination of the region. Some come a step closer by recognising the strategic desire to weaken China, as it is a principal customer for Iranian oil.
Any and all of these considerations are enough to allow blame to be sheeted home to the USA and Israel, but there is a deeper, more worrying aspect to this. The United States has been and remains the single biggest military force and greatest economic power that the world has seen. It is, as the Marxist Left will say, an imperialist power. It is also a declining power.
For decades, its main preoccupation has been how to hold back the rising tide of its one great rival. China’s rise, accompanied by a global capitalist economy that has run out of ideas and resilience, ensures that wars are either finishing, beginning, or in the planning stage. A failing economic structure is driving the world to the point of no return. The war against Iran is one battle in this endless spiral into decay. The USA, as the central power in the capitalist global economy, is more than willing to destroy entire nations in its quest to keep the sinking ship afloat.
No crime is too much. The U.S. bombing the girls’ school in Iran, the Israeli destruction of oil facilities on the edge of Tehran that have led to acid rain and an unimaginable civilian health disaster, sicken all reasonable people. But those who plan such actions are not among the reasonable.
These acts need to be condemned. Governments need to show at least a modicum of decency. Our Prime Minister needs to stop slinking in the shadows and act. He needs to denounce such actions. He needs to find the courage to say “No!” and to work to secure the natural resources needed to keep Australia functioning. This is unlikely. Our political structures are such that we remain totally subservient to the demands and interests of the USA..
Those whose anger compels them to take to the streets deserve better than the Babel that has become the protest movement. The most recent action in Melbourne, which was dominated by ever more shrill denunciations of Israel, while mention of the USA and its causal responsibility for the war was at best an afterthought. Protest has merit, it is necessary and has purpose. It also needs focus, if it is to have either merit or purpose.
Protest is also about winning the hearts and minds of people. Sound and fury might be a therapy for some, but numbers count and numbers must grow, people must be educated, encouraged to talk to others, to build a movement that can go beyond noise.
Part of that building process must include the raising of collective consciousness. It must be able to show and convince people that this or that crime of the USA, of Israel, of imperialism, is not isolated, or in any way an aberrant thing, but is a symptom of a deeper, structural crisis. It is not enough for the ideologues to make demands that cannot be achieved. The protest movement, the anti-war movement, should aim at providing a vehicle, a voice for those who want something better than news screens full of war stories and a Federal Government pathetically marching to the fifes and drums of a fading U.S. empire.
European Union leaders have been prepared to stand back a little; to say that the war is not their war. It is hard to imagine an Australian government being daring enough to question anything that comes from Washington. As the sun sinks on U.S. hegemony, Australia seems ready to go down with the American ship.
1 This Month
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (222)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 