40 years from Chernobyl disaster – What happened to the heroes – and villains – of Chernobyl
Ignatenko’s radiation sickness had made it difficult to be buried properly, so he, as well as the other 27 first responders, was buried barefoot under layers of concrete and zinc to protect the public from his still radioactive body.
Maria Protsenko was the final person to leave the city only once she was satisfied that everyone else was safe.
What happened to the heroes – and villains – of Chernobyl: 40 years after nuclear disaster, the fate of those involved, from fatal radiation sickness to years in a Soviet labour camp
By IMOGEN GARFINKEL – SENIOR FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER, 17 April 2026 – EXCELLENT PHOTOGRAPHS
April 26 will mark 40 years since the Chernobyl disaster, still recognised today as history’s most devastating nuclear accident.
In 1986, in the then Soviet-controlled country of Ukraine, reactor number four at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant suffered a calamitous explosion during a safety test gone fatefully wrong.
The engineers at the plant had wanted to assess what would happen during a power blackout, not realising the reactor was already extremely unstable.
6. Nikolai M. Fomin: Former chief engineer
Serving as the chief engineer of the Chernobyl plant, Fomin was convicted alongside Dyatlov and Bryukhanov to ten years in a labour camp.
After the accident, he fell ill with radiation sickness, which delayed the trial.
He was found guilty of ‘gross violation of safety regulations, creating conditions that led to an explosion’ in July 1987.
After a three-week trial, most of it closed, Fomin received his sentence alongside other officials in a 90-minute summation in an improvised courtroom in the Chernobyl House of Culture.
The New York Times described how he dressed like the others, in a jacket and open-necked shirt, occasionally took off his eyeglasses under the glare of television lights and mopped his brow with a handkerchief.
He accepted professional responsibility for the accident but denied criminal liability.
According to Newsweek, Fomin was released from labour camp early after a nervous breakdown and a suicide attempt.
The reduced power slowed turbines that transported water to the reactor, but with less water to cool the system, what was left quickly turned to steam – building up enormous amounts of pressure.
What followed was the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation, affecting more than 3.5 million people and contaminating nearly 50,000 square kilometres of land.
Some 30 people died during the blast and in the subsequent months, 350,000 were evacuated, 5,000 children and adolescents were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and poisonous radiation spread to lots of European countries – including many parts of the UK.
Investigations concluded that faulty protocols in the plant’s design and poorly trained personnel were responsible for the explosion, which blew the 1,000-ton steel lid off the reactor – the same weight as three 747 passenger planes.
In 2019, the disaster was dramatised in the critically acclaimed HBO and Sky mini-series, ‘Chernobyl’, which documented the mistakes that led up to the explosion and the massive cleanup efforts that followed.
From the scientists and engineers to the politicians and employees, ten key individuals played a crucial role in the unfolding tragedy and its aftermath.
Here’s a look at what became of the figures central to the Chernobyl disaster:
1. Anatoly Dyatlov: The Deputy Chief Engineer
As the deputy chief engineer of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant at the time of the explosion, Anatoly Dyatlov bore significant responsibility for the disaster.
He supervised the ruinous test at the No. 4 reactor at the plant, resulting in the explosion that ultimately smashed its steel and concrete roof and spewed tons of radioactive rubble half a mile into the air.
In preparation for the test, Dyatlov ordered the power to be reduced to 200 MW, which was lower than the 700 MW stipulated in the test plan – the reactor then stalled unexpectedly during preparations.
After the incident, he was handed the majority of the blame by the authorities, having violated basic safety precautions.
‘Anxious to complete a scientific experiment that had been ordered by Moscow, he bullied his subordinates into taking unnecessary risks,’ the Washington Post wrote in 1992.
‘His incompetence – combined with mistakes by other Chernobyl employees – led directly to the destruction of the reactor and the spewing of radioactive particles across a wide area of Europe.’
Although he was one of the few working at the reactor that night to have survived, he was later convicted of gross violation of safety regulations and sentenced to ten years in a Soviet labour camp.
He was released in 1990 as part of a general amnesty for Chernobyl officials, and began the work of trying to clear his name – telling the Post that he and other operators were made scapegoats for the designers of a dangerously unstable reactor.
In his view, blame for the incident rested entirely with the leaders of the Soviet scientific establishment and their political patrons.
His fate is unclear, but many speculate he succumbed to sickness due to exposure to radiation.
‘I found myself confronted with a lie, a huge lie that was repeated over and over again by the leaders of our state and simple technicians alike. These shameless lies shattered me,’ said Dyatlov.
‘I don’t have the slightest doubt that the designers of the reactor figured out the real cause of the accident right away but then did everything to push the guilt onto the operators.’
Despite his declining health due to radiation exposure, he remained unrepentant until his death in 1995.
The series creator of Chernobyl, Craig Mazin, maintains that Dyatlov in particular was a ‘real bully’, who later made statements that were not credible.
2. Viktor Bryukhanov: The Director
As the plant’s director, Bryukhanov faced similar charges to Dyatlov and was also sentenced to ten years in prison.
He was released early after five years due to health concerns, and lived out his days in obscurity, haunted by the events of April 26, 1986.
After prison, he eventually returned to government service in Ukraine to head the technical department in its Economic Development and Trade Ministry.
His death in 2021, aged 85, was announced by a spokesman for the now-closed power plant.
He had sustained several strokes since he retired in 2015 and was being treated for Parkinson’s disease.
Bryukhanov accepted professional responsibility for the disaster but rejected criminal liability, attributing the explosion to original technical flaws that had been designed by Moscow, the failure of higher-ups to provide the necessary equipment to measure radiation leaks, as well as bureaucratic red tape that divided responsibility between Communist Party apparatchiks and technocrats.
My father came home after 24 hours, and it looked like he had aged 15 years,’ Bryukhanov’s son, Oleg, said in an interview for ‘Under the Spell of Chernobyl’, a 2020 Flemish TV series.
The plant director insisted that he and other officials had been scapegoated as a result of ‘a tissue of lies that distracted us from the real causes of the accident’, during an interview with Russian magazine Profil in 2006.
‘You need to understand the real causes of the disaster in order to know in what direction you should develop alternative sources of energy,’ he said.
‘In this sense, Chernobyl has not taught anything to anyone.’
Bryukhanov waited until 4am – three and a half hours after the first explosions – to alert the authority nearest to the plant about the incident, according to historian Richard Rhodes in ‘Arsenals of Folly’, his 2007 book about the nuclear arms race.
Even then, he only reported roof fires, concealing the full extent of the disaster.
3. Leonid Toptunov: The Senior Reactor Controller
A young and inexperienced engineer on duty during the night of the explosion, Toptunov suffered severe radiation burns and succumbed to acute radiation syndrome within weeks.
He died aged 25 on May 14, 1986, and his family were later informed that his death was the only reason he was not prosecuted for the accident.
In 2008, Toptunov was posthumously awarded with the 3rd degree Order for Courage by Viktor Yushchenko, the then President of Ukraine.
Engineer Oleksiy Breus entered the control room of the No. 4 reactor hours after the accident, becoming a witness to the world’s worst nuclear disaster.
There, he spoke with Oleksandr Akimov, the shift leader at the reactor, and operator Toptunov – who were already irrevocably altered from the incident.
‘They were not looking good, to put it mildly,’ he told the BBC. ‘It was clear they felt sick. They were very pale. Toptunov had literally turned white.’
‘I saw other colleagues who worked that night. Their skin had a bright red colour. They later died in hospital in Moscow.’
He continued: ‘Radiation exposure, red skin, radiation burns and steam burns were what many people talked about but it was never shown like this. When I finished my shift, my skin was brown, as if I had a proper suntan all over my body. My body parts not covered by clothes – such as hands, face and neck – were red.’
4. Yuri A. Laushkin: Senior engineer and atomic energy inspector at reactor No. 4
Yuri A. Laushkin, a senior engineer and inspector at the reactor, was sentenced to two years in a labour camp for negligence and unfaithful execution of his duties.
He had pleaded not guilty.
According to Russian Life magazine, he died in prison.
The outlet claimed that Laushkin had carried out an inspection of the power station in 1983, and concluded that there were a number of problems with the reactor itself, that it was dangerous to work on, and soon a serious incident would occur.
5. Vasily Ignatenko: The firefighter
Vasily Ignatenko was one of the very first responders at the Chernobyl plant in Pripyat.
He was 25 years old when he tended to the blaze along with other firefighters at Chernobyl.
Ignatenko took to the building’s roof and attempted to extinguish the open-air graphite fires atop that gave him his lethal dose of radiation.
He died, along with 27 other firefighters, due to radiation exposure less than three weeks later – but his historic contributions helped stop the crisis from becoming even worse.
His wife, Lyudmila Ignatenko, detailed the build-up and the aftermath of her husband’s death, revealing that the morgue could not put a suit or shoes on the firefighter, according to The Collector.
Ignatenko’s radiation sickness had made it difficult to be buried properly, so he, as well as the other 27 first responders, was buried barefoot under layers of concrete and zinc to protect the public from his still radioactive body.
7. Boris V. Rogozhkin: Shift Director
Rogozhkin was shift chief at the reactor at the time of the explosion, and was sentenced to five years in a labour camp for violation of safety rules.
He also received a two-year sentence, to run concurrently, for negligence and unfaithful execution of duty.
He had pleaded not guilty.
8. Alexander P. Kovalenko: Chief of Reactor No. 4
Alexander P. Kovalenko, superintendent of the reactor, was sentenced to three years in a labour camp for violating safety regulations.
He pleaded not guilty at trial.
9. Boris Shcherbina: Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union
A Soviet politician tasked with overseeing the government’s response to the disaster, Shcherbina faced criticism for his handling of the crisis.
He had arrived 18 hours after the explosion to find that none of the local ministers wanted to be responsible for the consequences of declaring the reactor dead.
He refused to wear nuclear protection, and his first suggestion to contain the graphite fires was to pour water on them (which would have caused the fires to expand).
Buses had been waiting for 36 hours between Chernobyl and Pripyat, and still, citizens were not allowed to leave until the afternoon of April 27, when radiation levels had reached 180 to 300 milliroentgens per hour, according to The Collector.
Despite his initial denial of the severity of the situation, he later played a crucial role in the evacuation and containment efforts.
Shcherbina passed away in 1990, his legacy shaped by his actions during Chernobyl.
10. Maria Protsenko: Leading the evacuation after the Chernobyl disaster
Maria Protsenko was the city’s chief architect of Pripyat and a force to be reckoned with – she was known to carry a ruler with her as she assessed buildings, and would scold workers if they failed to be precise.
On the night of April 26, 1986, Protsenko was one of the first to urge immediate evacuation.
When Scherbina finally gave the order for residents to leave, Protsenko was put in charge of organising the evacuation.
She planned the escape of every person in every building and instructed waiting buses on where to take the citizens.
Protsenko was the final person to leave the city only once she was satisfied that everyone else was safe.
The entire town of Pripyat, which had a population of 49,360 and lay only three kilometres from the plant, was completely evacuated 36 hours after the accident.
During the subsequent weeks and months an additional 67,000 people were evacuated from their homes in contaminated areas and relocated on government order.
She is still alive today and continued to live in Ukraine until 2022, when she and her family fled the country to Germany following Russia’s invasion.
The Merchants of Death in Our Midst
This is the company that the Australian government, Coles, Rio Tinto, Westpac, and the Future Fund have chosen to do business with.
This is not an economic choice. It is a choice about what is right.
18 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-merchants-of-death-in-our-midst/
How Palantir Profits from Genocide – and Why Australia Must Walk Away
I. The Company That Kills Enemies
Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, does not hide what his company does. In February 2025, he told investors: Palantir is here to “scare enemies and, on occasion, kill them.” He added that he was “super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.”
This is not hyperbole. It is a confession.
Palantir’s technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track migrants for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and to select targets for drone strikes in Iran. The same systems that optimise workforce spend in Australian supermarkets are being used to select human targets for assassination.
Karp has acknowledged that he is directly involved in killing Palestinians in Gaza but insisted the dead were “mostly terrorists.” He does not provide evidence. He does not need to. The label is the weapon.
In March 2026, a UN report by Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese singled out Palantir as one of the companies “profiting from genocide” during Israel’s 21-month campaign in Gaza. The report, titled “From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide,” concluded that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many.”
This is the company that the Australian government, Coles, Rio Tinto, Westpac, and the Future Fund have chosen to do business with.
II. The Champions: Peter Thiel and Alex Karp
Peter Thiel is the billionaire co-founder of Palantir. He has funded right-wing political causes, including the campaign of Donald Trump. He has spoken of democracy as incompatible with freedom. He has said that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible.
Alex Karp is the CEO. He has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Frankfurt. He studied under Jürgen Habermas. He knows what he is doing. He has chosen.
Karp has co-authored a book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, in which he articulates his vision of American global dominance through AI-driven warfare. He calls for a new Manhattan Project focused on military AI. He openly celebrates the destruction his company enables.
In an interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Karp summed up his philosophy:
“I actually am a progressive. I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers – I’m trying to be nice here – out of our adversaries.”
Reality is anything but that simple. Palantir’s technology has reportedly been used to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza and beyond, including many who had nothing to do with Hamas.
These men are not evil because they are monsters. They are evil because they have chosen to be. They have chosen profit over people. They have chosen power over compassion. They have chosen control over love.
III. Palantir in Australia: The Red Carpet
Palantir has been embedded in Australian institutions for years. The company has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies. Its clients include:
- The Department of Defence
- The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
- The Australian Signals Directorate
- The Victorian Department of Justice
In November 2025, Palantir received a high-level Australian government security assessment – the “protected level” under the Information Security Registered Assessors Programme – enabling a broader range of government agencies to use its Foundry and AI platform.
In a Senate debate on March 10, 2026, a Senator Lambie warned that the government was “simply rolling out the red carpet to companies like Palantir, the company that has been linked, by the way, to the targeted killing of journalists and the illegal use of US citizens’ data.” The Senator noted that Palantir is “the leader in the development of agentic AI – artificial intelligence that thinks for itself and makes its own decisions.”
IV. The Coles Partnership: Ten Billion Rows of Data
In 2024, Palantir announced a three-year partnership with Coles Supermarkets. Coles will leverage Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) across its more than 840 supermarkets to better understand and address workforce-related spend. The system will identify opportunities over “10 billion rows of data.”
Coles is also rolling out ChatGPT to its corporate teams, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-5 model.
This is the same technology. The same algorithms. The same logic.
But what is being optimised? Profit. Not people. Not safety. Not justice.
The same technology that optimises workforce spend in Australian supermarkets is the same technology that selects targets in Gaza and Iran. The same algorithms that track workers track enemies. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.
Coles Chief Operating Officer Matt Swindells said the partnership would allow store managers to make “real-time decisions to optimise costs.” He did not mention that those same real-time decisions are being made in Gaza – to optimise kills.
V. The Future Fund: $103 Million in Blood Money
Australia’s Future Fund – the sovereign wealth fund designed to manage and grow public funds – has a $103 million stake in Palantir. That is bigger than the fund’s holdings in Australian companies like AGL, Seek, or data centre owner NEXTDC.
In Senate estimates, Greens Senator Barbara Pocock asked whether Palantir’s human rights record had been considered before the investments were made. The answer: no.
Will Hetherton, the chief corporate affairs officer of the Future Fund, told the committee that the fund doesn’t get involved in selecting individual stocks and that the shares are held through index funds. When asked whether the fund would commit to divesting and establishing “clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, from weapons and from human suffering,” Hetherton said the board would “continue to engage with our managers” but couldn’t commit to what Pocock was asking.
The fund’s justification is that it only excludes companies based on sanctions or treaties the Australian government has ratified – like cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines and tobacco. None of these apply to Palantir.
This is not a defence. It is a confession.
VI. The UK Precedent: “No Gaza Genocide Links in Our NHS”
In the United Kingdom, a coalition of organisations – including Amnesty International UK, Medact, and Healthcare Workers for a Free Palestine – is calling on NHS England to terminate its £330 million contract with Palantir.
Kerry Moscogiuri, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said:
“The NHS constitution states that it belongs to the people, underpinned by core values of compassionate care, dignity and humanity. Those principles must apply not only to doctors and nurses, but also to the companies the NHS chooses to contract with using taxpayers’ money. Any company contributing to human rights violations should have no place at the heart of our NHS. Our message is simple: no Gaza genocide links in our NHS.”
The groups are calling on the UK government to terminate the contract, responsibly divest public sector institutions from Palantir, and introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.
If the United Kingdom can demand this, why can’t Australia?
VII. The UN Report: Profiting from Genocide
The June 2025 UN report by Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is damning. It singles out Palantir alongside Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Volvo, and major banks for profiting from Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
The report concludes that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many.”
Albanese urges:
- Sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel
- Investigations by the International Criminal Court and national courts into corporate complicity in war crimes
- Accountability modelled on the IG Farben trials after World War Two
She warns that “passive suppliers become deliberate contributors to a system of displacement.”
The Australian government, Coles, and the Future Fund are not passive suppliers. They are deliberate contributors.
VIII. The Kill Chain in Gaza and Iran
The same systems tested in Gaza are now being deployed in Iran.
The Washington Post reported that the US military in Iran has “leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare.” Palantir’s Maven Smart System reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war’s first 24 hours alone.
The Asia Times reports that “similarities between Israel’s bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger,” with experts warning of a “lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran.”
An Israeli intelligence source described the AI system as transforming the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” where the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
This is the technology that Coles is using to “optimise” workforce spend.
IX. The Choice
This is not an economic choice. It is a choice about what is right.
The Australian government has a choice. It can continue to roll out the red carpet to Palantir, to accept the $50 million in contracts, to allow the Future Fund to hold $103 million in shares.
Or it can walk away.
Coles has a choice. It can continue to use Palantir’s AIP to optimise workforce spend – to identify opportunities over 10 billion rows of data.
Or it can walk away.
The Future Fund has a choice. It can continue to hold Palantir shares, to defend the investment with procedural excuses.
Or it can divest.
The UK is demanding that the NHS terminate its contract with Palantir. Amnesty International is leading the campaign. Medact and healthcare workers are standing up.
What is Australia doing? Rolling out the red carpet.
X. A Call to Action
The Australian government must:
- Terminate all contracts with Palantir.
- Introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.
- Investigate whether Palantir’s technology has been used to violate Australian privacy laws.
- Divest the Future Fund from Palantir.
Coles must:
Terminate its partnership with Palantir.- Pledge not to use AI systems linked to human rights violations.
- Be transparent about its use of AI in workforce management.
The Future Fund must:
- Divest from Palantir.
- Establish clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, weapons, and human suffering.
The Australian people must:
- Demand accountability.
- Ask their politicians: Why is our government doing business with a company that profits from genocide?
- Support campaigns for ethical technology procurement.
XI. A Final Word
Alex Karp said: “Our work in the region has never been more vital. And it will continue.”
It must not continue. Not in Gaza. Not in Iran. Not in Australia.
The same technology that kills children in Gaza is optimising shift rosters in Coles supermarkets. The same algorithms that track migrants for ICE are tracking Australian workers. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
And Palantir? It will be remembered as the company that chose profit over humanity.
Australia must choose differently.
Regulating the regulators: How the nuclear power industry steers the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
by Arnie Gundersen | Apr 17, 2026, https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/regulating-the-regulators-the-extraordinary-influence-of-the-nuclear-power-industry-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/
The Nuclear Energy Institute approves NRC commissioners, oversees its workers and, staff say, undermines its independence and public safety mandate
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mission statement provides a dual — and, critics say, contradictory — mandate that it “protects public health and safety” but also that it “advances the nation’s common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies…”
Given the history of nuclear accidents and lack of fully safe and permanent ways to address nuclear accidents and waste, critics see the mandate to protect public safety but also “advance” nuclear power as a conflict of interest. And given the nuclear industry’s heavy influence — some say control — over the nation’s regulatory agency, many both inside and outside the agency believe the industry has successfully turned the NRC into its advocate rather than its regulator.
Concerns about NRC objectivity
Concerns about the NRC’s objectivity and balance of support for public health versus industry support have taken on added urgency since President Trump last year signed an executive order calling for 10 new large nuclear reactors to be under construction by 2030 and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed reactor approvals. The first five or 10 new planned US nuclear reactors will “almost certainly” receive loans from the US Energy Department’s lending office, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told lawmakers Thursday.
The NRC employs several thousand technical staff. But it’s led by a commission of five people appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate. But the President and Senate see potential nominees only if they’ve already been approved by a well-funded industry group. That means the regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
The real control over nuclear power in Washington, D.C. lies in the nonprofit Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Every member of the NRC for the last decade has been screened by the NEI, which is the lobbying, campaign financing, and public relations organization for the nuclear industry.
The industry chooses its regulators
One does not become a Commissioner unless NEI finds that you are acceptable. Never has a member of a non-governmental organization or a safety critic been appointed to the Commission. Even nuclear proponents who’ve raised any questions about the nuclear industry, or worked for people who did, have been blocked.
While the NRC puts “public health and safety” first in its mission statement, the NEI’s charter says:
NEI is the unified voice of the commercial nuclear energy industry, influencing policies that affect its members, their customers, and the industry’s future. NEI represents the industry’s interests before Congress, the executive branch, state and local legislatures, federal regulators, international organizations, courts, and influential platforms where policy matters affecting the industry are discussed.
The NEI’s 2024 budget for direct lobbying was $1,570,000 while its total yearly operating budget was $57,500,000. According to IRS filings, its President & CEO earned a total compensation of $3,594,043,000 while its other 12 top executives together earned $7,222,173 with other staff salaries adding an additional $17,188,000, Propublica reported. That’s a lot of money to “represent the industry’s interest before Congress… and… federal regulators...”
“Regulatory Capture”
More significant to the public interest, however: Industry access to and even control of the NRC through informal channels euphemistically called “drop-in meetings” by NEI, nuclear reactor vendors, and plant owners has long been a concern of the NRC’s staff engineers.
In its 2022 audit prepared for the five Commissioners by the NRC’s Inspector General acknowledged that those concerns pose risks to the public:
Perceived Asymmetry of Access to NRC Management and Risk of Regulatory Capture Undermine NRC Transparency Goals
During our audit, the OIG identified chronic concerns, expressed by NRC staff and external stakeholders alike, about drop-in meetings and similar non-public informal interactions. One of these concerns was regulatory capture, which in relation to drop-in meetings is the concern that the NRC is serving to advance the interests of the very industry it regulates. Regulatory capture is often intangible and not measurable.
At a September 5, 2024 all-staff “Briefing on Human Capital” video call, with NRC leadership, eight top staff and two union leaders present, an intrepid staffer noted that the nuclear industry was unduly influencing regulatory policy:
Question: With NRC staff trust in the objectivity and integrity of NRC Commissioners and NRC executive leadership at an all-time low, with an annual exodus for sweetheart positions in the industry, what can be done to restore credibility and confidence that executive-level decision-making is not industry biased and actually serves the public interest?
Chairman Hanson: …everybody in this room, everybody up on this dais, are dedicated public servants, and I don’t question that at all…
Later in the same meeting, from an engineer:
Question: Okay. This question has a little bit of a background in it. The way outside stakeholders treat NRC staff is a factor in staff morale and workload, but it is often ignored. This has turned out to be a major issue with respect to advanced reactors where some company representatives and lobbying organizations have been downright abusive to agency workers. What’s worse, senior management is perceived as taking the side of the outside stakeholders and leaving the NRC project teams to take the brunt of the criticism. This is both demoralizing and time consuming for project staff. What can be done to limit repeated and unproductive industry interactions with project staff so that they can focus on doing the projects, rather than on handling difficult people of all the things that could help NRC meet tighter schedules?
Chairman Hanson: So thank you for the question. I wasn’t aware that this was an issue, so I appreciate the question just in kind of raising the awareness to me.
Think about that response. The Chairman of the US federal government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission claimed that he “wasn’t aware” that stakeholders’ heavy-handed interaction with staff — and NRC leaderships’ support of those stakeholders over its own staff — was an issue, even though it had already been reported in an Inspector General’s audit that any self-respecting chairman of a public regulatory agency with fiduciary duty to taxpayers would have been obligated to read — and to respond to.
Chairman Hanson’s 2024 claim — either reckless and irresponsible, or simply not credible — also flies in the face of comments by one of his predecessors, former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. Five years earlier, in 2019, Jaczko publicly stated,
“I saw things up close that I was not meant to see: an agency overwhelmed by the industry it was supposed to regulate and a political system determined to keep it that way… honesty and integrity mean nothing if you are perceived to be critical of nuclear power…”
Clearly, the NRC and its five Commissioners have failed to live up to the agency’s core mission to put the public first.
The NEI presents itself as an impartial source of nuclear science and wisdom. Yet it also funds “astroturf” advocacy groups, including Nuclear Matters and Third Way. Schedule I of NEI’s 2024 990 tax filing shows that NEI paid $2.3 million to Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Nuclear Matters, which on its website claims:
Nuclear Matters is a national coalition of grassroots advocates, working to inform the public and policymakers about the clear benefits of nuclear energy.
The 2024 IRS 990 tax filing for Nuclear Matters states that its operating income was $2,309,945, showing that 99.5% of its income came from the NEI. Its form 990 identified three executives whose combined total compensation was $2,206,460. That means 95% of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s donation to the nonprofit Nuclear Matters was compensation to just three people. That’s highly irregular in the world of nonprofits.
Moreover, you might think that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” should be funded by actual coalitions of grassroots advocates. But with 95% of its funding from NEI, Nuclear Matters is not.
Grassroots or astroturf?
You might also expect that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” would work with, find substantial support from, and list a significant nationwide coalition. However, Nuclear Matters’ “Advocacy Council” includes 21 people, virtually all of whom are current or former nuclear industry representatives, policymakers or regulators. And its 16 listed “partners” are pro-nuclear organizations, many of which have received industry funding.
Does that fit your definition of “grass roots”?
The NEI’s reach extends beyond the NRC and into the Department of Energy, which controls funding of future nuclear reactor designs through DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing. Membership in NEI is not limited to the owners of existing nuclear power plants, but also is open to newer companies seeking government funds to design the next generation of atomic power plants.
Reprocessing isn’t the solution
by Bart Ziegler, April 6, 2026, https://thecoastnews.com/opinion-reprocessing-san-onofres-nuclear-waste-a-risky-bet/
A decades-old conversation about what to do with the nuclear waste at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is now getting the attention it deserves.
Last December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to explore sending spent fuel from San Onofre to a national laboratory for reprocessing. Our organization raised concerns at the time. Now, the county’s own staff has reached the same conclusion.
In a March 9, 2026, report, the county found that commercial-scale reprocessing “has historically been cost-prohibitive and presents security concerns related to plutonium separation” and that “deployment timelines remain uncertain and federal policy does not prioritize reprocessing as a near-term solution.” The report concluded that pursuing a reprocessing initiative “may not be a cost-effective or strategically viable project at this time.”
This comes as pressure to embrace reprocessing intensifies. An energy think tank and Oklo — a recycling company that recently announced a $1.68 billion facility in Tennessee — are pressing Congress to rewrite foundational laws governing nuclear energy to promote commercial recycling.
The Department of Energy is soliciting states to host “nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses” encompassing enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste disposal. Of 24 states that expressed interest, officials say 12 to 15 have “very serious proposals.”
The urgency driving these efforts is real. The 3.6 million pounds of spent fuel at San Onofre sit 100 feet from the Pacific Ocean, near a military base, above the water table and near multiple active fault lines. But handing the waste over to loosely regulated startups with unproven technology and limited oversight is equally a recipe for disaster.
Reprocessing advocates call it “recycling,” which sounds beneficial or even harmless, but it carries its own risks. Reprocessing does not eliminate nuclear waste. It transforms solid spent fuel rods into more unstable forms, including liquid radioactive acid, which is harder to contain.
The only commercial reprocessing plant operated in the United States, in West Valley, New York, ran for six years before shutting down and accruing a cleanup bill that may ultimately cost taxpayers more than $5 billion.
The deeper problem is proliferation. Reprocessing separates plutonium — a key component of nuclear weapons — from spent fuel, creating material that is far easier to divert or steal. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter halted U.S. commercial reprocessing after India used plutonium from its civilian program to build a bomb in 1974.
The National Academies and Department of Energy laboratories have since concluded that newer reprocessing methods do not meaningfully reduce that risk.
This does not mean reprocessing research should be abandoned. But it does mean lawmakers should stop treating commercial reprocessing as an emergency off-ramp for San Onofre and other sites with stranded nuclear waste.
If federal policy is updated, it should prioritize approaches that avoid separated plutonium, favor low-enriched fuel strategies, minimize high-hazard secondary waste streams and meet rigorous safety requirements.
Reprocessing is not a substitute for the federal government’s obligation to deliver a permanent disposal solution, as required by federal law. Rep. Mike Levin, co-chair of the bipartisan Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus, warned that treating reprocessing as a near-term fix for San Onofre “distracts from the work that experts agree is unavoidable.”
Instead, if lawmakers are serious about a nuclear renaissance, they should advance bipartisan legislation already under discussion to establish an independent nuclear waste authority that prioritizes removing waste from high-risk, high-population sites like San Onofre.
Bart Ziegler is the president of the Del Mar-based Samuel Lawrence Foundation.
Israeli Journalist With Deep Ties to IDF Admits West Bank Violence ‘Looks Like… Ethnic Cleansing’
In conversations with Israeli settlers, Ben-Yishai often found that they believed they were entitled by God to take all land where Palestinians reside.
April 16, 2026 , Brad Reed for Common Dreams https://www.commondreams.org/news/west-bank-ethnic-cleansing
West Bank settler attacks on Palestinians are “rather sophisticated, organized, and funded systematic actions,” with the goal of “cleansing” the entire region, said journalist Ron Ben-Yishai.
An Israeli war correspondent who has been described as having deep ties to the Israel Defense Forces said that intensifying settler violence in the occupied West Bank appears to be “ethnic cleansing.”
In an column published by Ynet titled “This looks like blue and white ethnic cleansing,” journalist Ron Ben-Yishai wrote that, during a recent tour of the West Bank, he observed “a disturbing reality” of Israeli teenagers “who go on ‘intimidation tours’” in Palestinian villages, attacking Palestinians while members of the Israeli military frequently either stand by or actively join in the attacks.
“In some cases, these are reservists who also identify ideologically with the rioters, and therefore stand by and do not prevent them from going wild—and sometimes even help them,” explained Ben-Yishai. “Even in the regular IDF units stationed in the territories, there have been quite a few cases in which commanders and fighters have deviated from the norms and the IDF’s code of ethics for religious-nationalist reasons.”
In conversations with Israeli settlers, Ben-Yishai often found that they believed they were entitled by God to take all land where Palestinians reside.
“The confident reliance on God’s command as the answer to all moral and practical questions and concerns,” he wrote, “gave me a disturbing feeling that this was a type of Jewish terrorism motivated by religious and nationalist motives.”
Ben-Yishai also described ways in which Israeli settlers surround Palestinian communities “in order to prevent them from moving freely and strangle them economically.”
Taken as a whole, Ben-Yishai concluded that the Israel settler attacks on Palestinians are a “rather sophisticated, organized, and funded systematic actions—with the long-term strategic goal being to ‘cleanse’ most of” the West Bank and Gaza of Palestinian presence.
In a social media post, geopolitical analyst Shaiel Ben-Ephraim explained how significant it was for someone like Ben-Yishai, whom he said has “the deepest ties to the IDF of any reporter,” to describe West Bank settlers’ actions as ethnic cleansing.
“Observers have been saying for years that what is happening in the West Bank is ethnic cleansing,” he wrote. “But now voices from the heart of the Israeli consensus are admitting it as well.”
The Normalisation of Contradiction
18 April 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-normalisation-of-contradiction/
There are moments in politics when language is no longer used to describe reality, but to overwrite it. This week, Donald Trump declared that the United States has a “very good relationship” with Iran – a statement delivered without hesitation, and seemingly without consequence.
When Donald Trump says the United States has a “very good relationship with Iran,” it jars because it so obviously clashes with reality. This is not a relationship built on trust or cooperation, but one forged in four weeks of bombing, a powerful naval blockade, port disruptions, and the looming threat of further escalation.
Yet the statement is delivered as if none of that matters – as if confident repetition alone can transmute coercion into camaraderie. What is more troubling is not just the claim itself, but how easily it passes without serious challenge. It suggests we are getting used to a kind of political language where contradiction is no longer questioned, only absorbed.
The media bears significant responsibility for this normalisation.
Rather than rigorously interrogating the gap between Trump’s framing and the preceding violence – civilian impacts, destroyed infrastructure, and a fragile ceasefire – much of the coverage treats the remark as colourful Trumpian flair or a quirky negotiating tactic. Headlines emphasise “progress in talks” and “signals of peace,” often quoting the president at length while burying context about the blockade’s human and economic toll. Segments frame it as savvy deal-making: bombs as leverage, threats as prelude. Dissenting voices highlighting the Orwellian inversion are relegated to opinion pages or late-night panels, dismissed as partisan nitpicking.
This is how normalisation works. When outlets amplify the triumphant narrative without equal scrutiny of the underlying reality, they don’t just report the rhetoric – they launder it.
The bold assertion gains the sheen of accepted fact through repetition across screens and feeds. Viewers and readers, already fatigued by endless cycles of crisis, absorb the new framing: enmity yesterday becomes “very good relationship” today. The rubble fades into background noise; the blockade becomes a footnote. Media’s reflexive both-sides-ism and hunger for drama further dilute accountability, turning a profound shift in language into just another news cycle.
This complicity runs deeper than any single outlet. It reflects a broader ecosystem where access to power often trumps adversarial scrutiny, and where the spectacle of Trump’s confidence generates clicks more readily than uncomfortable questions about consistency or consequences. Over time, it conditions the public to expect – and tolerate – reality rewritten in real time.
The real danger lies in what comes next. When language overwrites reality so casually, and media helps smooth the transition, accountability dissolves. Wars can be recast as successful pressure campaigns before the dust settles. Alliances can be proclaimed “strong” amid fresh betrayals. And the public, lulled by polished delivery and unchallenged repetition, stops demanding proof. We become spectators to our own disorientation, wondering why the map no longer matches the terrain.
In such moments, a vigilant press is not optional – it is essential to tether politics back to something resembling truth. Without it, we risk surrendering not just language, but the shared reality democracy depends on.
Author’s Note: This piece was written in response to President Trump’s recent statement claiming the United States has a “very good relationship” with Iran, made at a time of active military pressure, including a U.S. naval blockade and ongoing tensions. Overnight developments – including Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open to commercial shipping for the remainder of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire – reflect the fluid nature of the situation. The core argument about political language and its normalisation remains unchanged.
Trump warns Iran of ‘nuclear holocaust’ hours after bragging about peace.
President Donald Trump warned Iran of a potential ‘nuclear holocaust’ while announcing a 10-day ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, claiming credit for brokering the peace deal.
Jeremiah Hassel Senior U.S. News Reporter and Callum Hoare, 16 Apr 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/trump-warns-iran-nuclear-holocaust-37029877
President Donald Trump has warned Iran of a “nuclear holocaust” unless it reaches an agreement with the US, just hours after bragging about peace.
Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.
Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.
“If that happens, oil goes way down, prices go way down, inflation goes way down, and much more importantly, you won’t have a nuclear holocaust,” Trump stated.
Israel and Lebanon have reportedly struck a ceasefire deal following weeks of reciprocal strikes and an Israeli bombing campaign that has claimed the lives of over 2,100 people in the Middle Eastern nation that shares a northern border with Israel.
Trump revealed the exact time the 10-day ceasefire would take effect, sharing a message hours earlier on Truth Social and taking credit for brokering the agreement.
“I just had excellent conversations with the Highly Respected President Joseph Aoun, of Lebanon, and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel,” Trump wrote. “These two Leaders have agreed that in order to achieve PEACE between their Countries, they will formally begin a 10 Day CEASEFIRE at 5 P.M. EST.
“On Tuesday, the two Countries met for the first time in 34 years here in Washington, D.C., with our Great Secretary of State, Marco Rubio,” he continued. “I have directed Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, together with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Razin’ Caine, to work with Israel and Lebanon to achieve a Lasting PEACE.
“It has been my Honor to solve 9 Wars across the World, and this will be my 10th, so let’s, GET IT DONE! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” he added.
A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon could have significant implications for any potential peace settlement between the US and Iran. Tehran made it clear during the initial, unsuccessful peace negotiations between the US and Iran in Pakistan that a ceasefire in Lebanon was a fundamental requirement, without which Iran would refuse any American demands.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, that Tehran is advocating for a permanent ceasefire “in all conflict zones.” He added that a ceasefire in Lebanon is “just as important” as in Iran.
Trump invites leaders of Israel, Lebanon to the White House for direct peace talks Trump issued invitations to the leaders of both Israel and Lebanon to participate in direct peace talks at the White House, sharing an additional message on his Truth Social platform. “In addition to the statement just issued, I will be inviting the Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, to the White House for the first meaningful talks between Israel and Lebanon since 1983, a very long time ago,” he posted. “Both sides want to see PEACE, and I believe that will happen, quickly! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Nevertheless, the last substantial negotiations between the two countries were in fact conducted in 1993, not 1983 as Trump claimed. It remains uncertain whether this was a typing mistake or an intentional reference to the period of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Aoun declines direct discussions with Netanyahu
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun rejected direct engagement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday. The alleged comments were delivered during a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Aoun asserting that Washington “understands Lebanon’s position.”
Aoun’s office verified that a conversation with Rubio had occurred, yet made no reference to any prospective talks with Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s office likewise stayed quiet on the issue. Lebanon and Israel held their first direct diplomatic talks in decades on Tuesday in Washington, following more than a month of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon has insisted that a ceasefire must be in place to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah before any direct negotiations can get under way, while pledging to commit to disarming the group. Washington has yet to publicly announce its support for a ceasefire as a prerequisite, while the Israeli government has characterised the talks as peace negotiations centred on the disarmament of Hezbollah.
Israel and Hezbollah continued to exchange fire across the border, with Hezbollah firing rockets and drones at towns in northern Israel. Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon intensified, particularly around the cities of Tyre, Nabatieh and the strategically significant town of Bint Jbeil, situated close to the Israeli border.
Israel and Lebanon have technically remained at war since Israel’s establishment in 1948, with Lebanon remaining deeply split over any form of diplomatic engagement with Israel.
Israeli forces have pushed further into southern Lebanon in an effort to establish what officials have described as a “security zone,” which Netanyahu has stated will extend at least 5 to 6 miles into Lebanese territory.
Horror as Russia ‘plans nuclear weapon in space’ that could cause global chaos
Gen Whiting believes the next major global conflict will “likely be a war that starts in space”. He said rival nations have watched how heavily the US and its allies rely on satellites and space technology for modern warfare
General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said America was ‘very concerned’ about Russian plans to put a nuclear weapon in space that would target satellites
Tim Hanlon News Reporter and Catherine Mackinlay, 16 Apr 2026
Russia is feared to be planning to put a nuclear weapon in space that is capable of sparking global chaos by targeting satellites.
A United States military chief has warned Moscow is considering using a nuclear anti-satellite weapon which could destroy thousands of satellites and cause communications disruption across the world, dubbing it a “Space Pearl Harbor”.
General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said America was “very concerned” about the Kremlin’s plans, which he said form part of a wider pattern of Russian aggression in space since the war in Ukraine began.
The four-star general warned Russia has already been carrying out “sustained satellite communication and GPS jamming” on such a scale that it is “putting civilian airliners at risk”.
Speaking on The Times podcast The General & The Journalist, Gen Whiting said: “Russia remains a sophisticated space power and they continue to invest in counter-space weapons. They are thinking about placing in orbit a nuclear anti-satellite weapon that would hold at risk everyone’s satellites in low Earth orbit, and that would be an outcome that we just couldn’t tolerate.”
He said Russia sees the US and NATO as too strong in conventional warfare and believes attacking space systems could “level the battlefield”.
Gen Whiting said: “From a Russian perspective, they look at the United States, they look at NATO and they see an overmatch there of conventional arms.
“And they believe that novel ways of trying to undermine the United States and NATO, such as by neutralising our space capabilities, helps them to level the battlefield. I won’t speak about our intelligence sources and methods, but obviously it’s a report that we’re very concerned about.”
A nuclear weapon in orbit would be a major breach of the Outer Space Treaty, which Russia has signed. The warning is the strongest public intervention yet from a senior US military officer on the threat posed by Moscow.
Russia’s alleged ambitions first emerged in February 2024 when Pentagon officials briefed members of Congress behind closed doors. Since then, the US House intelligence committee has been pressing the White House to declassify information about the project so politicians can discuss the scale of the threat.
Experts fear a nuclear blast in low Earth orbit could destroy up to 10,000 satellites – around 80% of all those currently in space. Military intelligence, communications, internet, mobile phone services and GPS could all be crippled.
Gen Whiting also warned Russia’s GPS jamming is already affecting civilian flights across eastern and southern Europe. He said: “When we put at risk civilian airliners full of citizens just trying to go on business or holiday, that’s incredibly problematic.”
He said both Russia and China are rapidly building space weapons, with Beijing developing jammers, directed energy weapons and anti-satellite rockets. The general urged Sir Keir Starmer’s government to spend far more on Britain’s space defences, with the UK spending less than 1% of its defence budget on space, compared with 4% in Germany and 3% in France.
Gen Whiting believes the next major global conflict will “likely be a war that starts in space”. He said rival nations have watched how heavily the US and its allies rely on satellites and space technology for modern warfare.
Despite the growing space arms race, he insisted a conflict in orbit is “not inevitable”. He added: “Our goal each and every day is to wake up and deter that from happening so that mankind can continue to take advantage of all the benefits of space.”
25 April – ‘No War on Iran’ – demonstration at Fairford base
Join CND, Stop the War, and Fairford Action for a demonstration against the use of UK bases in Trump’s disastrous war on Iran.
As the suffering in Iran and Lebanon continues, the spotlight is on Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to allow the US to use British bases, including Fairford, to launch attacks.
RAF Fairford, from which huge US bombers loaded with 2,000lb bombs have been carrying out twice-daily bombing raids on Iran, is central to the US illegal war. Despite government statements, it can give no guarantee that these raids have not resulted in war crimes.
Join us in calling for an end to the war in Iran, and for Starmer to stop Trump’s use of British bases. Given the fragility of the two-week ceasefire, this protest couldn’t be more critical.
Assemble 12 noon at Fairford. More details to be announced shortly.
Transport
London: book your ticket here
Birmingham: book your ticket here
Bristol: book your ticket here
Please let us know by contacting information@cnduk.org if you are arranging transport from your area
For any queries please contact enquiries@cnduk.org or phone the CND office on 020 7700 2393.
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power.
A new
metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore
wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral
energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less
than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions. A
peer-reviewed study using Denmark as a case study has found that renewable
energy portfolios outperform nuclear power on total system cost in the
modeled future integrated Danish energy system, once the expenses of grid
balancing, storage, and sector coupling are included in the comparison.
PV Magazine 17th April 2026, https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/17/new-metric-shows-renewables-are-53-cheaper-than-nuclear-power/
The new nuclear weapons are so much cheaper – they’re the enemy’s nuclear sites!
Noel Wauchope, 20 April 26, https://theaimn.net/the-new-nuclear-weapons-are-so-much-better-and-cheaper-theyre-the-enemys-nuclear-sites/#comment-24806
Yes, ain’t it grand! We, the God-fearing, God-loving West and Israel, don’t really need any longer to put our $billions of tax-payer money into those horribly expensive nuclear missiles, bombs, submarines. Good old new technology is proving us with much cheaper little drones
The beauty of it all is that our enemies, those bad people in Iran, Russia, China, have got readymade nuclear sites just sitting there, waiting to be gloriously exploded by our drones. If some sites, like nuclear reactors with strong containment covers are a bit too tough for drones, well non-nuclear missiles should do the job – still a lot cheaper than a nuclear weapon.
And of course, there’s an awful lot of other nuclear stuff that is just as vulnerable, even more vulnerable, than the actual nuclear reactor. Nuclear spent fuel pools are a beaut target, with their extremely high radiation levels, risk of cooling system failure, with ensuing fire. Nuclear canisters, even clad with concrete, are quite a good target, too. And so are the various forms of transport of nuclear materials. And that’s before we’ve even considered the nuclear submarines, (some in operation, many dead and awaiting burial) nuclear weapons sites, and the transport of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear facilities have strong safety protections, say the experts. But the trouble is, that was then, and this is now: in addition to material tools like drones and missiles, we have cyber digital tools – malaware and malicious computer code can be used to seriously disrupt, even destroy the other side’s nuclear systems – whether they be military, energy, or just research nuclear facilities.
So, it’s an exciting time for the war-makers.
Perhaps too exciting? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists discussed the Epic Fury threat by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, to obliterate Iran and its nuclear sites –
“signaling” near a live reactor is a high-stakes gamble with an unclear ultimate purpose. While the plant continues to feed the grid, a direct hit on its containment dome would trigger a radiological catastrophe far exceeding that of Chernobyl or Fukushima. With 70-80 tons of uranium dioxide in its core and a massive inventory of spent fuel lying in nearby cooling ponds, a breach would shroud the Persian Gulf with a lethal miasma of radioiodine and cesium-137. This wouldn’t just be a strike against a regime; it would be a death sentence for the region’s environment and its people.
And wait! What if the other side has the same idea ? And they do. In 2021, Hamas deliberately targeted Israel’s secretive Dimona nuclear reactor site. Iran has recently attacked Israeli areas close to that site. Russia drones have struck he Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant , and the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, though these strikes could have been unintentional.
I don’t want to bore you with the gloomy details – but these are some countries that have already developed sophisticated drones and missiles capable of devastating “our side’s” nuclear facilities – Iran, Russia, China, North Korea.
And the other subject of gloom is the diminished safety policies of the United States. Karl Grossman – Harvey Wasserman report – Trump’s “flood of executive orders on nuclear power have weakened or eliminated nuclear safety regulations—making nuclear power plants more dangerous than ever—and has expedited their being built” .
Bennet Ramberg in his 2024 book Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy outlined the dangers posed by nuclear sites.
The Trump administration has not merely weakened nuclear safety regulation, but virtually abdicated from it. Even the nuclear lobby itself has recognised this, and encouraged private industry to address safety questions.
BUT – Futurism points out -( https://futurism.com/science-energy/nuclear-startups-safety ) “new reporting by Politico‘s energy publication E&E News found that several baby nuclear companies are avoiding requests to join one of the industry’s main safety organizations. The regulatory body, called the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), was formed in the fallout of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. While not a government body, the INPO is a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, responsible for conducting plant inspections, sharing operational guidance between nuclear companies, and helping companies train nuclear personnel.
For a nuclear energy company, joining the INPO is completely voluntary, though every operator has — until now”
Nuclear experts are well aware of these new dangers. On April 13th on a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists panel eminent experts discussed them. Rachel Bronson, Lars van Dassen, Laura S. H. Holgate, all closely tied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA)went into the subject in some detail. They all looked to the IAEA as the one body that might lead the world out of this perilous nuclear vulnerability mire. But they expressed anxiety, in view of the fact that that the IAEA is underfunded and under-resourced.
I am sorry – experts. But I can’t get out of my mind the fact that the IAEA has a dual mission. Its job is to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities, and to promote the peaceful nuclear industry.
Even these three very earnest experts acknowledge that the “peaceful” and the “military” nuclear industries are now irrevocably entwined. So, apart from the weakness and lack of funding for the IAEA, it is hopelessly caught up in its own conflict of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQGbJKEbzy8&t=63s
Nuclear-Powered Rockets — NASA Plans First Launch in 2028
In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”
by Karl H Grossman, April 17, 2026, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/17/800021876/community/nuclear-powered-rockets-nasa-plans-for-launch-in-29/
NASA got through the Artemis II mission last week with a few minor “anomalies,” as NASA calls problems, but in 2028 it plans to launch a nuclear-powered rocket to Mars as an initial step to using nuclear-powered rockets in space.
An accident involving a nuclear-powered rocket could be no small anomaly.
The NASA plan was heralded in a section titled “America underway on nuclear power in space” in a NASA announcement on March 24th headed “NASA Unveils Initiatives to Achieve America’s National Space Policy.”
It said that “after decades of study and in response to the National Space Policy, NASA announced a major step forward in bringing nuclear power and propulsion from the lab to space. NASA will launch the Space Reactor‑1 Freedom, the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft, to Mars before the end of 2028, demonstrating advanced nuclear electric propulsion in deep space.”
Scientific American followed with an article the same day headlined: “NASA announces a nuclear-powered Mars mission by 2028.” The subhead: “The U.S. space agency will aim to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars—a first—in a bid to show that nuclear propulsion can be used to send missions into deep space.”
Pursuing use of nuclear propulsion in space has been a NASA aim for many years—indeed, going back to the 1960s.
This was highlighted by NBC News correspondent Tom Costello, who covers space issues, in 2023 going to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama where work has been done and remains underway on developing nuclear rockets.
Costello reported: “NASA looks at going to the moon…and to Mars. And to get to Mars, they’re going nuclear….While science and exploration are the driving motivators, there’s also a competitive factor, China. The Chinese government is very secretive, and a lot of their plans involve their military preparations. And so, there’s a reason for us to get there first. And NASA wants to get there faster…So to cut travel time, America is going back to the future.”
“This project was called NERVA,” Costello continued, citing NERVA (which stands for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), “the 1960s a government program that most Americans have never heard of to develop nuclear powered rockets. It turns out they made big progress back in the 60s, running expensive tests.”
In Huntsville, he said, “they’ve got an exact replica to scale of the Saturn V [rocket]…Future astronauts will need that kind of lift. But once they’re in space, they can use a much smaller engine, a nuclear engine, to go all the way to Mars and back…It’s happening now at the Marshall Space Flight Center…This is where they put [together] components of nuclear thermal rockets.”
Things did not go smoothly for NERVA.
“NASA: Lost its NERVA,” was the heading in an article in Ad Astra in 2005 by longtime space journalist Leonard David. He wrote about how, “For NASA, it has been a long time in coming—permission to use the ‘N’ word: for nuclear power in space. In many ways, it has been the political, financial and technological third rail of space exploration—too hot of an issue to handle easily—radioactive to boot.”
He wrote that NERVA’s “success was short-lived. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. President Richard Nixon nixed NASA and NERVA funding dramatically…Eventually, NERVA lost its funding and the project was scuttled in 1973.
It’s not just the U.S. that is intending to use nuclear-powered rockets in space. “Nuclear-powered rockets will win the new space race,” was the headline last year in The Washington Post. The sub-head: “Russia and China are working hard for a nuclear-powered advantage in space. The U.S. must up its game.
“Space nuclear propulsion and power are not hypotheticals,” said the article. “China is investing heavily in both terrestrial and space-based nuclear technologies, with plans to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars by 2033. Russia, too, has announced ambitious goals.”
The headline in a 2024 article in the South China Morning Post: “Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars.” Its subhead told of how a “1.5 megawatt-class…fission reactor passes initial ground tests as global race for space. The lithium-cooled system is designed to expand from a container-sized volume into a structure as large as a 20-story building in space.”
The article began by saying a “a collaboration of more than 10 research institutes and universities across China have made significant strides toward interplanetary travel with the development of a nuclear fission technology.”
The Russians are bullish on the speed a nuclear-powered rocket could, they believe, attain. “Mars in 30 days? Russia unveils prototype of plasma engine,” was the headline last year of an article put out by World Nuclear News.
It began: “A laboratory protype of a plasma electric rocket engine based on a magnetic plasma accelerator has been produced by Rosatom scientists, who say it could slash travel time to Mars to one or two months.” (Rosatom is the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.)
The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space was formed in 1992 at a gathering in Washington, D.C. and now has membership throughout the world. It has organized protests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to NASA launches of spacecraft using radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Using the heat of plutonium-238, the RTG’s generate electricity to run instruments, not to propel spacecraft.
The largest protest organized by the Global Network involved the Cassini space probe mission to Saturn in 1997 with 73 pounds of plutonium in three RTGs, the largest amount of plutonium ever on a spacecraft.
The most dangerous portion of that mission was when NASA had the Cassini probe perform a “slingshot maneuver,” sending it back towards Earth to use Earth’s gravity to increase its velocity. If, as NASA said in an Environmental Impact Statement for Cassini, there was an “inadvertent reentry” into the Earth’s atmosphere in that maneuver causing it to disintegrate and release its plutonium, an estimated “5 billion billion…of the world population…could receive 99 percent of the radiation exposure.”
NASA insisted at the time that beyond the orbit of Mars, it was necessary to use plutonium-powered RTGs. However, in 2011 NASA launched its Juno space probe to Jupiter which instead of RTGs used three solar arrays to generate onboard electricity. Juno orbited and studied Jupiter, where sunlight is a hundredth of what it is on Earth.
In the U.S., in 2021 a report titled “Space Nuclear Propulsion for Human Mars Exploration” was issued by a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine of the U.S.
The 104-page report also lays out “synergies” in space nuclear activities between the NASA and the U.S. military. It said: “The report stated: “Space nuclear propulsion and power systems have the potential to provide the United States with military advantages…NASA could benefit programmatically by working with a DoD [Department of Defense] program having national security objectives.”’
What might be an “anomaly” involving a nuclear-powered rocket.
“Is using nuclear materials for space travel dangerous, genius, or a little of both?” was the heading of a 2021 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
With the U.S. setting a goal of “a human mission to Mars,” said the articleby Susan D’Agostino, “the words ‘nuclear’ and ‘space’ are again popping up together….Nuclear propulsion systems for space exploration—should they materialize—are expected to offer significant advantages, including the possibility of sending spacecraft farther, in less time, and more efficiently than traditional chemical propulsion systems.”
“But,” the piece went on, “extreme physical conditions on the launchpad, in space, and during reentry raise questions about risk-mitigation measures, especially when nuclear materials are present. To realize the goal of nuclear-propelled, human mission to Mars, scientists must overcome significant challenges that include—but go beyond—the technical. That is, any discussion about such an uncommon journey must also consider relevant medical, environmental, economic, political, and ethical questions.”
The piece said that “attaching what amounts to a nuclear reactor to a human-occupied spaceship is not without risks.”
An article in 2023 by Bob McDonald of the Canadian Broadcasting System was headed: “Nuclear powered rockets could take us to Mars, but will the public accept them?”
“Nuclear rockets are not a new idea,” it noted. “Now, with the prospect of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s, the idea is being revived in an effort to shorten the roughly seven months it takes a conventional rocket to get to Mars. This might be a boon for future astronauts who face a seven-month, one-way journey using current technology.”
“The idea is to use a small fission reactor to heat up a liquid fuel to very high temperatures, turning it into a hot gas that would shoot out a rocket nozzle at high velocity, providing thrust,” it continued.
“The design of a nuclear rocket means they typically would produce less thrust than a chemical rocket, but nuclear engines could run continuously for weeks, constantly accelerating, ultimately reaching higher velocities in a tortoise-and-hare kind of way. Nuclear propulsion is expected to be twice as fuel-efficient as chemical rockets, largely because they can heat the gas they use for thrust to a higher temperature than chemical combustion, and hotter gas means more energy.”
“A quicker trip to Mars provides huge benefits. Astronauts would be exposed to less cosmic radiation during the journey. The psychological pressures of living in a confined space far from home would be reduced. Supplies and a rescue mission could be delivered more quickly. These rockets could also open up the outer solar system so trips to Jupiter and its large family of icy moons could eventually be within reach,” the piece went on.
“While the technology of nuclear propulsion is certainly feasible, it may not be readily embraced by the public. The accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have left many people skeptical about nuclear safety. And there will be risk,” said the piece.
“Technicians at the NASA Lewis Research Center in 1964 testing a nozzle design for a nuclear thermal rocket. A nuclear rocket wouldn’t be used to launch a spacecraft from the Earth’s surface — it would be designed to run in space only. It would have to launch into orbit on a large chemical rocket — so the public would have to accept the risk of launching a nuclear reactor on a standard rocket filled with explosive fuel.”
“And rockets have and will malfunction catastrophically, in what with black humor rocket scientists sometimes call RUD—’rapid unscheduled disassembly.’”
“No one wants to see nuclear debris raining down on the Florida coast or Disneyland, and that’s not the only possible scenario. An accident in orbit could potentially drop radioactive material into the atmosphere. These safety concerns need to be addressed before any nuclear rocket leaves the ground,” said the article.
Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network since its formation, cites in the past NASA “postponing a test of a nuclear-powered spacecraft just above the Earth. They weren’t allowed to test it on Earth because of its potential for spreading contamination widely, so they intended to test it over our heads. There were concerns about the technology failing, and it falling, burning up on re-entry. At the present time there is no schedule to do those tests, but I’m sure they’re pushing ahead to do them as quickly as possible.”
“Besides the problem of an accident,” said Gagnon, “the production process for nuclear space devices leads to radioactive contamination in the laboratories where they takes place and in air and water.”
In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”
If things go wrong, these “anomalies” could be major.
NASA’s March 24 announcement also said: “When SR-1 Freedom reaches Mars, it will deploy the Skyfall payload of Ingenuity‑class helicopters to continue exploring the Red Planet. SR-1 Freedom will establish flight heritage nuclear hardware, set regulatory and launch precedent, and activate the industrial base for future fission power systems across propulsion, surface, and long‑duration missions. NASA and its U.S. Department of Energy partner will unlock the capabilities required for sustained exploration beyond the Moon and eventual journeys to Mars and the outer solar system.”
Big Tech Is Rushing Into Nuclear Energy, and Bypassing Safety Oversight
By Haley Zaremba – Apr 16, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Big-Tech-Is-Rushing-Into-Nuclear-Energy-and-Bypassing-Safety-Oversight.html
- A growing number of nuclear startups are opting out of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the voluntary safety watchdog created after Three Mile Island — breaking a decades-long industry norm.
- The Trump administration is actively weakening existing nuclear safety regulations, including a May 2025 executive order directing the NRC to reconsider core radiation exposure standards, to accelerate domestic nuclear expansion.
- As the NRC has offloaded some regulatory responsibilities to the INPO, companies that decline membership now effectively operate outside both layers of oversight — raising serious public safety concerns.
While most countries manage their nuclear energy as a public sector, controlled and maintained by the state, the United States takes a uniquely American – which is to say, privatized – approach. As the tech sector becomes increasingly involved in nuclear energy and in the energy industry as a whole thanks to the insatiable energy needs of the AI boom, the nuclear energy landscape is changing. While there are some benefits to letting private interests compete in the nuclear energy sector in significant numbers, there are also considerable drawbacks, including the safety and oversight of these ventures. This is extremely concerning considering what can happen when nuclear energy goes wrong.
And the United States is no stranger to nuclear accidents. In 1979, a partial nuclear meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania released radioactive materials into the environment. While the accident was relatively minor, causing no detectable harm to the public or the plant’s workers, it was a wakeup call for the nation. In response, The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, or INPO, was created as a sort of watchdog organization to ensure safety compliance in nuclear plants across the United States.
But the appetite for such compliance has flagged considerably in the intervening years. While joining the INPO has always been voluntary, every single nuclear power plant operator has always joined. Until recently, that is. A study released earlier this month by Politico’s E&E News found that a growing number of nuclear startups are declining to join the INPO.
These companies are balking at the invasivement of the organization, and the economic costs of compliance – but those hurdles are the whole point. When it comes to nuclear safety, rigor is key. And investigations have found that the INPO actually saves money for nuclear plants in the long run by diagnosing potential issues early, and thereby avoiding snags and shutdowns.
But Silicon Valley apparently doesn’t see it that way. “These entities are businesses, and they’re trying to make money,” Scott Morris, an industry consultant and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) official, told E&E. “Any infrastructure that you put around that entity that is not directly contributing to its bottom line, it’s going to be questioned.”
But Big Tech is not solely to blame for a backslide in nuclear safety measures. In fact, their priorities are reflective of a larger sea change trickling down from the Oval Office. The Trump Administration is hell-bent on a domestic nuclear power revival, and is actively seeking to undermine existing safety regulations in order to fast-track the sector’s expansion
An executive order issued in May of last year mandates that the NRC “reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ standard,” among other requirements, in order to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.”
As a part of the reorganization of the NRC, the government has actually offloaded additional responsibilities to the INPO, making membership more important for public safety than ever before – and effectively making previous mandates under the NRC completely optional for nuclear energy startups that decline to join the INPO.
“The NRC has delegated some of its regulatory authority, so to speak, to INPO, specifically in the realm of operations and maintenance training programs,” Morris went on to explain. “The NRC and INPO are not duplicative; they’re complementary.”
While safety is the largest potential casualty of the privatization and Big Tech takeover of the domestic nuclear energy sector, it is not the only drawback. “If you don’t have a financial stake in the nuclear race,” Futurism recently wrote, “you might notice this arrangement comes with side effects like chronic understaffing and public subsidies of private profit.”
Critical Atlantic current significantly more likely to collapse than thought
The critical Atlantic current system appears significantly more likely to
collapse than previously thought after new research found that climate
models predicting the biggest slowdown are the most realistic.
Scientists called the new finding “very concerning” as a collapse would have
catastrophic consequences for Europe, Africa and the Americas. The Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) is a major part of the global
climate system and was already known to be at its weakest for 1,600 years
as a result of the climate crisis.
Scientists spotted warning signs of a
tipping point in 2021 and know that the Amoc has collapsed in the Earth’s
past. Climate scientists use dozens of different computer models to assess
the future climate. However, for the complex Amoc system, these produce
widely varying results, ranging from some that indicate no further slowdown
by 2100 to those suggesting a huge deceleration of about 65%, even when
carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are gradually cut to net zero.
The research combined real-world ocean observations with the models to
determine the most reliable, and this hugely reduced the spread of
uncertainty. They found an estimated slowdown of 42% to 58% in 2100, a
level almost certain to end in collapse.
Guardian 15th April 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/15/critical-atlantic-current-significantly-more-likely-to-collapse-than-thought
Trump prefers collapsing world economy to admitting defeat in his criminal Iran war
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/trump-prefers-collapsing-world-economy-to-admitting-defeat-in-his-criminal-iran-war/
That was some phony 2 week ceasefire President Trump agreed to with Iran. When Iran refused Trump’s impossible demands presented by amateur US diplomats Vance, Witkoff and Kushner, Trump essentially resumed the war with his imaginary blockade of all Iranian shipping delivering the world’s oil.
Trump still hasn’t ruled out resuming his murderous but ineffective bombing campaign or launching a possible ground invasion to extract Iran’s enriched uranium or snatch its oil infrastructure on Kharg Island. He’s sending 10,000 more ground troops to bolster the 50,000 waiting around to either to nothing, or face major destruction if dropped into Iran.
To show the extent of US war failure, 6,000 troops aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush and accompanying warships had to skip the short route through the Mediterranean to go around the much longer southern Africa route, due to the Houthis’ threat to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. As a result Trump won’t have his 60,000 troop force in place till early May.
Trump must know he has no path to anything remotely resembling victory. No regime change. No end to nuclear enrichment. No end to Iran’s missile stockpile. Most importantly, no reopening to the Strait of Hormuz and renewed flow of Middle East oil.
He’s also likely still controlled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who convinced Trump to launch the war on February 28 and has been sabotaging the ceasefire with his ghastly bombing of Lebanon. While Trump desperately wants out of the lost war, Netanyahu demands it continue till Iran is destroyed as an Israeli rival. Why Trump remains under Netanyahu’s control is both horrifying and may forever remain a mystery.
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
But Trump’s lifelong delusion of his invincibility in anything he does prevents him from facing the reality of the unfolding world catastrophe he initiated.
At present, Trump resuming murderous war and precipitating worldwide economic collapse appear more likely than seeking peace, albeit certifying US defeat. Unless Congress acts to defund Trump’s $200 billion request to continue this catastrophe, or the Cabinet, led by Veep Vance, removes Trump via the 25th Amendment, things will only get dramatically, possibly infinitely worse.
1 This Month
23 April – WEBINAR – Why new nuclear reactors are the wrong tools for decarbonization Thursday, April 23 • 1 AM – 2 AM AEST
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (241)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 