nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

An overdose of non-corporate nuclear-related news this week

Some bits of good news – Inside Germany’s ‘Schools Without Racism’  Letting a River Act Like a River

The Dartford Warbler’s Quiet Comeback
TOP STORIES
.‘Serious incident’ at Europe’s largest nuclear plant – work to stop ‘accident’ ongoing. 
The Karaganov Fallacy – Nuclear strike against Europe IS NOT the right answer for Russia.
Ukraine’s military has a real Nazi problem.
The atomic clock is ticking
 – ALSO AThttps://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/06/3-a-the-atomic-clock-is-ticking/

ClimateWildfires devastating richer areas but fewer hectares burned globally – study.

Noel’s notes. The costs of nuclear wastes from “in service” nuclear submarines. 

Why does Substack, like everyone else, want me to put an App on my phone?

AUSTRALIA

More Australian nuclear-related news at https://antinuclear.net/2026/06/05/australian-nuclear-news-week-to-6th-june/

NUCLEAR-RELATED ITEMS

ECONOMICS. Rolls-Royce under fire for outsourcing parts of UK nuclear project toSouth Korea. – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/06/3-b-1-rolls-royce-under-fire-for-outsourcing-parts-of-uk-nuclear-project-to-south-korea/ Expert Warns of ‘Rubber Stamp’ Approvals as Ontario Expands Nuclear Spending.Canadian nuclear company Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000)bribery system to win over municipalities  
EMPLOYMENT. Police at Hinkley Point C as thousands of workers locked out. Up to 2,000 workers temporarily kicked off Hinkley Point C site after protest
ENERGY. Nuclear Power Returns to the Forefront of Quebec’s Energy Debate . Nuclear energy is too slow and too expensive for the energy transition – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/02/2-b1-nuclear-energy-is-too-slow-and-too-expensive-for-the-energy-transition/
ENVIRONMENT. Race for rare earths sparks concern about environmental damage – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/05/1-b1-race-for-rare-earths-sparks-concern-about-environmental-damage/
ETHICS and RELIGION. “Our Hands Are Dirty”: Jeffrey Wernick on America’s Founding Principles, Foreign Entanglements and the Moral Cost of Empire. 
EVENTS. 10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – Australians deserve the truth about AUKUSPUBLIC INQUIRY. Global Appeal To Endorse Palestinian Right Of Return Of Refugees. 
LEGAL. Why Trump should be indicted. Species at risk score a reprieve. 
MEDIA. CBS’s Purge of 60 Minutes Sends a Chilling Message to Legacy Journalists Everywhere. ‘What’s happening is horrifying’: the rebel film-maker challenging AI’s march into Hollywood.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9DAv0D7tnY 15TH INTERNATIONALURANIUM FILM FESTIVAL RIO DE JANEIRO AWARDS. Balancing Act at the New York Times: Nicholas Kristof Wrote About Israel’s Sexual Torture of Prisoners, the Next Day Isabel Kershner Penned More Unverified Rape Allegations Against Hamas. Blood Libels and Sexual Violence: Israel, Palestinian Prisoners and The New York Times 
PLUTONIUM. Nuclear Startups Are in “Advanced Negotiations” to Buy Cold War Plutonium. 

POLITICS.

POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.

PUBLIC OPINION. Around the world, global solidarity and cooperation are remarkably popular. The World Has Rendered Its Verdict on American Power. 
SAFETY Military action near nuclear plants puts external power needs in spotlight. Net zero fusion project could trigger nuclear disaster, 
SECRETS and LIES. The Guardian view on NHS records: patients are not raw material for Palantir big tech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/04/the-guardian-view-on-nhs-records-patients-are-not-raw-material-for-big-techhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H7VOoFwDtU The Disappearing Aid Check: The Future of US–Israel Defense Support. Israeli Authorities Refuse To Return Massive Trove Of Oct 7 Video. What Are They Hiding? Israeli claims about an Iran ‘threat’ were always a lie – Now we have proof.
TECHNOLOGY. A safer nuclear fuel is gaining steam — but cost remains a hurdle. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Heralds a Post-human Era of Economic, Social and even Moral Upheavals. Cory Doctorow: Hell is other people – so billionaires are using AI to replace them. Donald Trump Is Going Nuclear. 
URANIUM North Korea unveils a new plant to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Canada’s nuclear ambitions need fuel security, not just new reactors. 
WASTES. Step forward in £4.6 billion Sellafield nuclear decommissioning programme. N-Fuel Removal from Fukushima No. 2 Reactor Pool Begins. Cigéo: years of authorizations for burying 83,000 m³ of nuclear waste-_ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/03/1-b1-cigeo-years-of-authorizations-for-burying-83000-m%c2%b3-of-nuclear-waste/ 

WAR and CONFLICT.

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES .

June 7, 2026 Posted by | Weekly Newsletter | Leave a comment

Jared Kushner’s Controversial Island Resort Reveals Scheme To Expand Israel’s Sphere Of Influence

Revelations over the Kushner-backed plan to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island sparked outrage across Albania.

“This would be a new city with around 10,000 rooms, and it will completely destroy that wild region.”

The corruption investigation launched by SPAK against the development project on Sazan Island is not the first of its kind to target Kushner-backed investments.

In discussing the investment strategy of Affinity Partners, Kushner minced no words, making it clear how nations that aligned themselves with Israel would receive the benefits of investments from his firm. Kushner expounded on how that dynamic could be used to expand the sphere of Zionist influence,

The proposed Sazan Island Resort highlights how Affinity Partners uses private investment to push the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

blueapples, Jun 05, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/jared-kushners-controversial-island?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=200576181&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Transforming the Gaza Strip into oceanside luxury properties built atop a mass grave isn’t the only real estate development project proposed by Jared Kushner that has embroiled him in controversy. Across the Mediterranean Sea, Albanian authorities have opened an anti-corruption investigation into a company led by Kushner that hopes to transform an island off of the country’s coast into a luxury resort. While Kushner contends that his vision for the island is rooted in transforming it into a paradisaical resort, that picturesque image hides how the project serves as a vehicle for him to advance his ulterior political motives. The probe into his latest development project is the second major anti-corruption investigation in as many years that has exposed a strategy executed by Kushner to use the massive amount of private investment capital at his disposal to advance the interests of the State of Israel and expand the Zionist World Order he continues to fight in the vanguard of.

The Kushner-backed development project came under intense public scrutiny following an interview given by his wife, First Daughter Ivanka Trump. During the interview, Trump painted a romanticized picture of how she and her husband came to find an uninhabited island “in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea” in 2021 as if such a hidden jewel remained undiscovered within the cradle of western civilization for millennia. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it,” she said. “We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.” In reality, the island that Kushner has earmarked for his latest real estate development project is nowhere near the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. Instead, Sazan Island lies just off of the coast of the Balkan nation of Albania in the Adriatic Sea.

Like its location, the picture painted by Kushner and his wife of the mysterious paradise they stumbled upon could not be further from the truth either. Sazan is the largest island in Albania and serves as the westernmost point of the country. The island also serves as a point of demarcation between the Adriatic and Ionian seas. That location made Sazan a crucial military post during the Second World War when it was controlled by the Kingdom of Italy before being ceded back to Albania in 1947. Following the war, Albania came under despotic communist rule by the iron fist of Prime Minister Enver Hoxha, who ruled the country from 1944 until his death in 1985. After Sazan was returned to Albania in 1947, the Hoxha regime declared Sazan a military exclusion zone to construct a strategic naval base on the island free of any civilian presence. Although Sazan saw little development under the yoke of communism, the Albanian government managed to build approximately 3,600 nuclear bunkers on the island during the Cold War in the years following its split from the Soviet sphere of influence in 1960, infrastructure that Affinity Partners would stand to inherit under the Kushner-backed investment strategy into developing the island into a luxury resort.

Although Albania officially abandoned communism in March 1992 shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, access to Sazan continued to be restricted from the public until July 2015. Decades of isolation from the public largely preserved the island’s unique ecology, which led to the Albanian government designating the island as part of the country’s first and largest national marine park in 2010. The Karaburun-Sazan Marine Park spans across Sazan Island and onto the Karaburun Peninsula on Albania’s Adriatic coast, harboring marine habitats that are home to several endangered species, including Mediterranean monk seals, one of the world’s most endangered marine mammals. Bottlenose dolphins, loggerhead sea turtles, and flamingos are other examples of the fauna within the Karaburun-Sazan Marine Park that the Albanian government has sought to preserve by extending environmental protections to the island.

The island’s emergence as a tourist destination since first being opened to the public in 2015 has made its unique environment politically contentious. Those tensions became considerably amplified in 2024 when Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC was awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian Strategic Investment Committee chaired by Prime Minister Edi Rama in order to develop the Sazan Island Resort. Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC is an extension of Affinity Partners, the American investment firm based out of Miami, Florida, created by Jared Kushner in 2021. Kushner’s firm promised to commit €1.4 billion to the development of the island, which planned to include a marina, hotels, private villas, restaurants, recreation facilities, and the crown jewel of a luxury resort managed by Swiss hospitality company Aman Resorts. In addition to the development of tourist destinations, Kushner’s firm has also committed funds to the restoration of Cold War-era military structures including the thousands of nuclear bunkers across the island.

According to Kushner, he had been encouraged to look to Albania for investment opportunities at the behest of Richard Grenell, who has served in the role of Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions since the position was established by the Trump administration in January 2025. During the first Trump administration, Grenell made headlines as he was named the first openly gay cabinet-level official in U.S. history after being appointed as the acting Director of National Intelligence in 2020. Grenell also served as the Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations from October 2019 until the end of the first Trump administration, through which he cultivated his connections to Albanian government officials involved in the diplomatic process to normalize relations between the two countries. Grenell’s encouragement to seek investment opportunities in Albania led to Kushner meeting with Prime Minister Edi Rama aboard the same yacht his wife stated he first discovered the island aboard in 2021. That yacht was owned by Nat Rothschild, the 5th Baron Rothschild of the infamous banking dynasty, who arranged the meeting between Kushner and the prime minister, which led to Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC being awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian government to begin developing the Sazan Island Resort in late 2024.

Revelations over the Kushner-backed plan to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island sparked outrage across Albania. In late May, protests began to erupt at the proposed site of the development in the southern Albanian city of Zvernec on the coast of the Adriatic Sea, where protesters took to the large barbed-wire fences erected around the project. Those protesters were met by a private security detail assigned to the site of the development, an exchange that quickly turned violent as security guards began dragging protesters away from the area. Following the protests, Albanian officials revoked the licenses of two of the private security companies. Additionally, 15 protesters were charged in connection with the demonstration.

Demonstrations against the Kushner-backed development project continued as thousands of Albanians took to the streets of the nation’s capital, Tirana, voicing their fervent opposition to endangering the protected flora and fauna within the island. Joni Vorpsi, an ecologist with the PPNEA-BirdLife Albania organization, warned of the dangers the project presented to the region, stating, “This would be a new city with around 10,000 rooms, and it will completely destroy that wild region.” Vorspi also succinctly summarized the goal of the protests when he declared, “We want all construction to halt and heavy machines ‌out ⁠of the protected area.” Environmental protesters have announced a demonstration in Vlora, the third-most populous city in the country, which encompasses the Karaburun Peninsula and Sazan Island, planned for Saturday, June 6th, 2026

Although protesters have largely taken to the streets across Albania in defense of protecting the ecology of Sazan Island, consideration over the dangers the development of the luxury resort poses to the wildlife of the region isn’t the most serious issue raised about the project concerning Kushner. In the wake of those protests, Albanian anti-corruption officials announced a probe into the project negotiated between Kushner and Prime Minister Rama. On June 1st, 2026, the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (”SPAK”) of Albania confirmed that it had opened a formal investigation into the project. The decision by the country’s anti-corruption organization followed the publication of a report by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network based out of Tirana, which revealed that Albanians involved in Kushner’s project to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island include a businessman with links to the Italian mafia, a disgraced former judge, the daughter of an attorney accused of committing forgery, a company whose owner was mysteriously murdered, and one of the country’s largest oligarchs.

The corruption investigation launched by SPAK against the development project on Sazan Island is not the first of its kind to target Kushner-backed investments. In December 2025, just weeks before Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC was awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian government, Affinity Partners announced that it had withdrawn itself from a $500 million construction project it planned in Serbia. Affinity Partners had planned to build a Trump Tower complex encompassing a hotel and luxury apartments in central Belgrade on the site of a former Yugoslavian Army headquarters that was destroyed during a NATO bombing raid in 1999 during the Kosovo War. Affinity Partners agreed to a 99-year lease on the site of the proposed Trump Tower complex with the Serbian government before withdrawing from the plan for its construction. The project was derailed following the indictment of Serbian Culture Minister Nikola Selakovic and three other officials on charges of abuse of office and falsification of documents filed by the country’s Public Prosecution Office for Organized Crime (”TOK”). In the indictment, the TOK alleged that Selakovic illegally removed the building’s cultural heritage status in order to greenlight the Affinity Partners project to build the Trump Tower complex in Belgrade. Selakovic’s trial on the charges filed by the TOK began in February 2026. While the charges brought against Selakovic gave his trial the ignominious distinction of being the first to be held against a sitting minister of the Serbian government since the overthrow of the regime of former president Slobodan Milošević, current Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic threatened to pardon him and his co-defendants in the event that they are convicted

In discussing his plans for the Sazan Island Resort during an interview with the FII Institute, Kushner ostensibly gave insight into the political calculus behind his corruption-laden projects in Albania and Serbia. According to Kushner, the motives driving the development projects led by him through Affinity Partners are not just driven by the aim of expanding his own real estate empire inextricably tied to that of his father-in-law, President Donald J. Trump. Those motives are also inextricably tied to Trump’s political empire.

During the interview, Kushner remarked on how investment into countries like Serbia and Albania through Affinity Partners was part of a comprehensive strategy to expand the sphere of influence of the State of Israel. In discussing the investment strategy of Affinity Partners, Kushner minced no words, making it clear how nations that aligned themselves with Israel would receive the benefits of investments from his firm. Kushner expounded on how that dynamic could be used to expand the sphere of Zionist influence, remarking, “We’re looking at opportunities to invest in countries who have joined the Abraham Accords, but we’re also looking at opportunities to invest in countries that might join the Abraham Accords and to create economic packages to incentivize them.” Kushner elaborated how partners of his had also suggested exploring the opportunities of investing in countries including Morocco and Syria in an effort to persuade their governments to join the Abraham Accords as the next stage of his strategy to leverage investment capital to expand the Israeli sphere of influence.

Neither Albania nor Serbia is currently signatory to the Abraham Accords. The potential of joining those agreements does not simply offer the prospect of the investment of financial capital into the countries but political capital as well. Albania has long sought admission into the European Union (”EU”). The country formally applied for membership in the EU in 2009. It was given official candidate status in 2014 and has rapidly accelerated its pace for accession since. EU officials and Prime Minister Edi Rama have set their sights on concluding negotiations for Albania to join the EU by the end of 2027, with an ambitious target date for becoming its newest member-state set for 2030. Serbia similarly filed its formal application to join the EU in 2009 and began membership negotiations in 2014. However, unlike Albania, negotiations between Serbia and the EU have reached impasses over proposed political, judicial, and foreign policy reforms. In the case of each country, the possibility of entering into the Abraham Accords provides them with political capital that can be leveraged to advance their respective accessions to the EU. That dynamic highlights how Jared Kushner’s development projects through Affinity Partners not only serve as a gateway for foreign investment to advance his political ambition to expand the Zionist sphere of influence; they also further the political ambitions of the nations he brings into the fold, a reciprocally beneficial arrangement in which Israel is the ultimate beneficiary.

Following the collapse of Affinity Partners’ plan to build a sprawling Trump Tower complex in Belgrade, the project of developing the Sazan Island Resort in Albania stands as the centerpiece of Kushner’s strategy to use private investment capital to surreptitiously advance Zionist foreign policy ambitions outside of the public sphere. Just as concerns over dangers to the island’s ecosystem veil the malignant corruption behind the project from becoming the focus of the discourse over it, Kushner’s declared motive of investing in nations in the hopes of accelerating their development hides behind a similar facade that shields the political ambitions driving his strategy.

June 7, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on NHS records: patients are not raw material for Palantir big tech

Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public data

Editorial, 5 June 26 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/04/the-guardian-view-on-nhs-records-patients-are-not-raw-material-for-big-tech

Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public dataFri 5 Jun 2026 03.54 AESTShare

Alarm bells ought to have rung when it emerged last month that Palantir engineers could gain “unlimited access” to identifiable NHS patient data. Such sensitive medical information was only supposed to be available either to someone involved in a patient’s care or with the patient’s informed consent. NHS England’s new position appears to have changed that, extending access to private companies because it may make data processing easier. Convenience is not a basis for undermining medical confidentiality.

Nicola Byrne, the government’s national data guardian, clearly thought the NHS had broken its promise that its £330m deal with Palantir would see “identifiable patient information … limited to NHS staff with a legitimate need”. Patients tell doctors things they may tell no one else. If they think that sensitive details can be disclosed to US tech corporations, trust will suffer – and patients will say less when the truth matters most.

This risk helps explain why MPs on parliament’s science, innovation and technology committee warned this week that Palantir had become an “unacceptable point of weakness”. The business model is simple. Britain supplies the raw material: NHS patient data. Silicon Valley monetises it. The problem is that the benefits – better models, new products – accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders.

The MPs also argued that Palantir is not just another software firm. In the US it has worked with the military and immigration authorities on controversial programmes. Its co-founder, Peter Thiel, the committee noted, has disparaged the idea of a national health service. The report recommends that ministers should activate the February 2027 break clause in its £330m NHS Palantir contract – ending its relationship with the company and moving to either an in-house or UK-owned provider. The government should heed this advice.

The committee ought to be thanked for making it clear that this is no one-off scandal, but part of a wider pattern. Public bodies, it warns, have become dependent on a few powerful technology companies which the state lacks the capacity to challenge or replace. Officials often struggle to understand the systems they buy. Allowing critical public infrastructure to rest on foreign-owned platforms undermines state autonomy. Accountability is blurred when decisions on data access and procurement are buried in technical briefings and dense contracts.

This is especially concerning when assessing the government’s claim that a new £1.8bn digital ID system would make “public services quicker, easier and more secure to access”. Given the chequered history of big government IT projects, it is unsurprising that the committee is sceptical of its successful launch. Its report, correctly, views mandatory adoption as wrongheaded. The public sector holds citizens’ data on trust, MPs say, “and should therefore hold itself to a higher standard”. With patient data, that seems not to be the case.

Ministers have offered various reasons for digital ID: stopping illegal working, easing access to vehicle records and even checking bin collection days. None has stuck. The deeper problem is that digital transformation is treated as an exercise in efficiency, not one requiring public consent and parliamentary scrutiny. Infrastructure built around a person’s identity must not expand by bureaucratic drift. The committee’s call for separate parliamentary votes on each use of digital ID is the democratic lock missing from the NHS’s Palantir deal.

June 7, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Starve, Strangle, Invade: How Washington’s Siege of Cuba Is Pushing a Nation to the Brink

What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

June 3, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/starve-strangle-invade-how-washingtons-siege-of-cuba-is-pushing-a-nation-to-the-brink/

Medea Benjamin warns that a decades-long economic war against Cuba has escalated into what she calls a “medieval siege,” as fuel shortages cripple hospitals, food systems and daily life while U.S. officials openly discuss military options.

For more than six decades, Washington has tried to force Cuba to its knees. Today, according to peace activist Medea Benjamin, that campaign has reached a new and dangerous stage. Fuel shipments have been blocked, foreign companies threatened, humanitarian aid obstructed and military rhetoric intensified, creating what Benjamin describes as a modern-day siege designed to break the Cuban economy and the Cuban people alike.

In this wide-ranging conversation with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Benjamin argues that the crisis unfolding on the island is not the result of natural disaster or governmental incompetence, but of deliberate U.S. policy. She details how shortages of fuel have crippled transportation, disrupted hospitals, spoiled food supplies and contributed to worsening public health conditions. The goal, she says, remains largely unchanged from the earliest days of the Cold War: create enough hardship that Cubans turn against their government.

But the discussion goes beyond Cuba. Benjamin places the escalating pressure on Havana within a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy — one that relies on sanctions, coercion and military power to maintain global influence even as that influence declines. From Venezuela and Iran to Palestine and beyond, she argues that economic warfare has become a preferred tool of empire, inflicting immense humanitarian costs while remaining largely invisible to the American public.

At a moment when reports of possible military action against Cuba are once again circulating, Benjamin issues a stark warning: what is happening in Cuba today is not simply a foreign policy dispute. It is a test of whether the United States will continue down a path of punishment, intervention and regime change, or whether ordinary people can build enough pressure to choose diplomacy, solidarity and peace instead.

For more than sixty years, the United States has sought to isolate, punish and ultimately reshape Cuba through economic warfare. Yet according to longtime peace activist and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, what is happening today goes far beyond the familiar story of sanctions and diplomatic hostility. Speaking with Margaret Flowers on Clearing the FOG, Benjamin described a rapidly escalating campaign that she says has pushed Cuba into a humanitarian emergency while raising fears that Washington could be laying the groundwork for direct military intervention.

Benjamin did not mince words when describing current U.S. policy.

“I struggle to find the correct adjective,” she said. “It is so horrific that there’s almost no words.” What began decades ago as an attempt to create economic pressure on Cuba has, in her view, evolved into something far more extreme: a policy designed to systematically cut off every possible source of fuel, trade, investment and survival.

The consequences are visible throughout Cuban society.

According to Benjamin, the island is facing severe fuel shortages that have crippled transportation, disrupted industrial production and created rolling blackouts that affect nearly every aspect of daily life. Hospitals struggle to maintain services. Refrigerators stop working, causing food to spoil. Public transportation becomes unreliable or nonexistent. Families living in apartment buildings face interruptions in water supplies because pumps cannot operate consistently without electricity.

Perhaps most alarming, Benjamin pointed to rising infant mortality rates as evidence of a public health crisis that she believes is directly connected to the tightening blockade. Cuba once boasted one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Western Hemisphere, often outperforming wealthier nations including the United States. That achievement, she warned, is now being undermined by shortages of medicine, medical equipment and basic necessities.

What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

At the center of the crisis is oil.

Benjamin explained that the Trump administration has effectively declared that “not one drop of oil” should reach Cuba. Since January, she said, only a single Russian tanker has successfully delivered oil to the island, while other shipments have reportedly been pressured, delayed or canceled. Countries that might normally assist Cuba have faced threats of sanctions, tariffs or other forms of retaliation from Washington.

The blockade’s reach extends beyond governments. New sanctions target foreign companies operating in key Cuban sectors such as energy and mining. Benjamin cited the example of a Canadian company that had worked in Cuba for decades but is now severing ties under mounting U.S. pressure. The strategy, she argued, is designed not merely to isolate Cuba economically but to make normal commerce virtually impossible.

China has attempted to provide assistance, sending rice and helping construct solar energy projects, while solidarity groups continue delivering humanitarian aid. But Benjamin stressed that food aid alone cannot solve the crisis. Without sufficient fuel, transportation networks collapse, power grids remain unstable and basic economic activity becomes impossible.

The contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy became especially clear when Flowers asked about Washington’s proposal to provide roughly $100 million in assistance to Cuba through selected organizations.

Benjamin called the offer deeply hypocritical.

The economic damage caused by sanctions, she argued, amounts to billions of dollars annually. Offering a fraction of that amount while continuing the policies responsible for the suffering is akin to creating a crisis and then presenting oneself as the rescuer. She noted that Cuban officials estimated the proposed aid represented only a tiny portion of what sanctions cost the country.

While humanitarian groups continue delivering food and medicine under limited exemptions to U.S. sanctions, Benjamin warned that aid alone cannot address the scale of the crisis. Organizations including CODEPINK, Global Exchange, Global Health Partners and others have mobilized delegations and donations, but they are attempting to fill a gap created by a policy that deliberately restricts Cuba’s access to international trade and finance.

More troubling still is the growing discussion of military action.

Benjamin pointed to reports that U.S. military assets have been repositioned in the Caribbean and that officials connected to Southern Command have indicated preparations exist for a possible operation against Cuba. While she acknowledged uncertainty about whether Washington intends a full-scale invasion, targeted regime-change operation or continued economic strangulation, she argued that the rhetoric itself creates instability and fear.

She believes advocates of regime change are hoping that worsening conditions will eventually provoke unrest and political upheaval on the island.

The recent U.S. indictment of Raul Castro, now 94 years old, further fuels those concerns. Benjamin argued that reviving a decades-old case involving the “Brothers to the Rescue” aircraft serves less as a legal action than as a political pretext. She compared it to earlier efforts to criminalize leaders in other targeted countries before pursuing broader interventionist objectives.

The larger issue, however, extends far beyond Cuba.

Throughout the interview, Benjamin repeatedly returned to a theme that has defined much of her activism: the connection between U.S. foreign policy and domestic inequality.

America’s military spending, she argued, continues to grow even as political leaders claim there is insufficient money for healthcare, affordable housing, education and other public needs. She pointed to a Pentagon budget that now exceeds one trillion dollars annually and questioned why basic social investments remain politically impossible while military expenditures expand almost without debate.

Benjamin also linked foreign intervention to migration, surveillance, policing and the erosion of civil liberties at home. The consequences of empire, she suggested, do not remain overseas. They eventually return to shape life inside the United States itself.

Yet despite her grim assessment of current events, Benjamin ended on a note of cautious optimism.

She argued that the global balance of power is shifting. Countries across the Global South are developing alternatives to U.S. dominance through new economic partnerships and institutions. China, BRICS nations and other emerging centers of influence are creating a world that is increasingly multipolar, reducing Washington’s ability to dictate outcomes unilaterally.

At home, Benjamin believes ordinary people must build new forms of solidarity and political engagement. She highlighted the “Summer of Peace and Love” initiative, which seeks to create community spaces for organizing, education, mutual aid and antiwar activism. Drawing inspiration from movements such as Occupy Wall Street, she argued that people need opportunities not only to protest existing systems but to model alternatives rooted in cooperation and democracy.

As the interview concluded, Benjamin delivered a straightforward message: Americans who oppose military escalation should pressure Congress to support measures that would block any invasion of Cuba and reject another chapter of interventionist foreign policy.

Whether one agrees with her analysis or not, the warning she offers is unmistakable. Cuba is not simply facing another round of sanctions. According to Benjamin, the island is confronting a coordinated campaign of economic suffocation whose human costs are already being measured in shortages, blackouts, deteriorating health conditions and growing uncertainty about what comes next. In a world already scarred by war and confrontation, she argues that the last thing the Caribbean needs is another conflict manufactured in Washington.

June 7, 2026 Posted by | politics international, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Startups Are in “Advanced Negotiations” to Buy Cold War Plutonium

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

By Haley Zaremba – Jun 03, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Startups-Are-in-Advanced-Negotiations-to-Buy-Cold-War-Plutonium.html

  • The Trump administration is in “advanced negotiations” with nuclear startups, including Oklo, to convert more than 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium into commercial reactor fuel — the first time the U.S. government would make such material available to private companies.
  • The move is framed as a fix for a critical nuclear fuel supply chain bottleneck, with Russia controlling roughly half of global uranium conversion capacity and squeezing Western reactor development.
  • Nonproliferation experts are raising safety and security concerns, warning that moving weapons-grade material out of tightly controlled government facilities significantly reduces oversight.

As nuclear energy regains favor around the globe, competition for nuclear fuel is heating up. In an era of multiple and compounding energy crises driven by conflict, climate, and the power-hungry artificial intelligence boom, nuclear has resurfaced as a highly strategic option for building up energy security and independence for many nations around the world. But nuclear fuels supply chains are highly concentrated, and many of them are controlled by Russia, presenting critical geopolitical tradeoffs.

Today, there are only five plants in the world that operate large-scale uranium conversion, and half of that capacity is in the hands of the Kremlin, resulting in a critical resource bottleneck and geopolitical pain points. Accordingly, “U.S. nuclear energy faces fuel supply chain vulnerabilities, with tight uranium supplies, geopolitical risks, and rising costs threatening both existing reactors costs and advanced reactor development,” according to a January report from Stanford Energy.

It is therefore in the United States’ strategic interest to build up alternative nuclear fuel supply chains, preferably home- and friend-shored ones. But it’s a little late for the United States to get a foothold in alternative uranium markets, as Russia and China, which never saw a decline in their respective nuclear sectors, have already been cornering them for years.

“Russian and Chinese players have been very keen to secure access to resources in central Asia and Africa, creating a very aggressive competitive environment,” Benjamin Godwin at Prism Strategic Intelligence told the Financial Times last year.

The United States is taking steps to build up its own uranium supply chains, as the country is home to plentiful natural reserves of the 92nd element. But the country is also home to another vast reserve of nuclear fuel that is far more readily accessible — decades of stockpiled nuclear waste. Research into recycling spent nuclear fuel indicates that resource utilization could be boosted by a jaw-dropping 95 percent.

“Used nuclear fuel is an incredible untapped resource in the United States,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish told World Nuclear News back in February. “The Trump Administration is taking a common-sense approach to making sure we’re using our resources in the most efficient ways possible to secure American energy independence and fuel our economic growth.”

And now the Trump administration is looking to a new, and significantly more controversial, source of recycled nuclear fuel — cold-war era nuclear warheads. The government wants to convert weapons-grade plutonium into viable nuclear fuel as part of the Trump administration’s aim to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.

The United States is sitting on more than 50 tons of plutonium left behind by nuclear weapons programs. The Department of Energy had previously planned to dilute and bury the hazardous material, but the Trump administration wants to give it new life in nuclear reactors and has entered into “advanced negotiations” with a handful of nuclear startups to begin the process of selling the plutonium for use as nuclear fuel.

“A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, the chief executive of Oklo, one of the companies in conversation with the Trump administration about acquiring plutonium to power its next-gen small nuclear reactors. “This will help us get more nuclear power online faster.”

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

June 7, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

CBS’s Purge of 60 Minutes Sends a Chilling Message to Legacy Journalists Everywhere

June 3, 2026 SCHEERPOST, Joshua Scheer

For decades, 60 Minutes stood as one of the last surviving institutions of broadcast journalism willing to challenge power, confront corruption and occasionally remind Americans what reporting looks like when it serves the public rather than corporate interests. Now, according to reports from both The New York Times and The Guardian, one of the program’s most recognizable faces has been shown the door after openly accusing CBS leadership of dismantling the very newsroom he spent decades helping build.

Scott Pelley’s firing is more than a personnel dispute. It is a warning flare over the future of corporate media.

The veteran correspondent reportedly blasted CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss during a tense staff meeting, accusing her of “murdering 60 Minutes” after the network abruptly removed key producers and correspondents from the program. Pelley’s criticism came amid growing turmoil at CBS News following a dramatic restructuring led by ownership and management figures who promised to modernize the network for the digital era.

But modernization is often the language institutions use when they are really talking about control.

The most striking allegation is not that Pelley lost his job after challenging management. It is Pelley’s claim that senior executives pressured him to inject bias into reporting and that “the collapse of values at the top has become untenable.” If true, the issue extends far beyond one journalist’s employment status. It becomes a question of whether one of America’s most influential news organizations is abandoning the editorial independence that made it relevant in the first place.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

Below [on original] is the termination letter CBS executives sent to Scott Pelley—a document that offers a revealing glimpse into the growing battle over editorial independence, newsroom dissent and the future of one of America’s most respected news programs…………………………………………………………..

For years, media executives have lectured the public about the importance of defending democratic norms, protecting institutions and standing up to political pressure. Yet when journalists inside their own organizations raise concerns about editorial interference, many of those same institutions suddenly discover the virtues of obedience.

Pelley is not some fringe figure. He reported from Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. He spent decades in dangerous environments documenting war, power and political deception. Whether readers agree with every story he produced is beside the point. His reputation was built through reporting, not branding.

Meanwhile, CBS appears to be replacing newsroom veterans with a leadership structure increasingly shaped by media personalities, digital strategists and executives whose expertise lies less in investigative journalism than in managing narratives and audience engagement.

That may be good for quarterly earnings.

It may be good for shareholders.

But it is rarely good for journalism. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/cbss-purge-of-60-minutes-sends-a-chilling-message-to-legacy-journalists-everywhere/

June 7, 2026 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

The U.S. ally getting nuclear submarines with no AUKUS deal

How South Korea’s plan for nuclear-powered submarines compares to AUKUS

ABC News, By Doug Dingwall, 6 June 26

The South Korean city of Gyeongju is famous for its uncanny, grass-covered burial mounds bearing the tombs of ancient kings.

It will also go down in history as the place where the United States finally agreed to South Korea’s long-held aspirations to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting last year.

Months later, South Korea’s government has announced its plan to build the submarines by the mid-2030s, but it did not reveal how many, nor the expected cost.

As with the AUKUS agreement, the United States will help a close ally gain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

But beyond that, South Korea and Australia are taking different paths to building their new vessels, and they’re acquiring them for different reasons.

So what is Seoul’s plan, and how does it compare to Australia’s AUKUS submarine endeavour?

Unknown unknowns

South Korea’s ambitions for nuclear-powered submarines go back 20 years, but it had been unable to secure approval from the US, which was concerned about nuclear proliferation.

However, US President Donald Trump broke with previous administrations and in October agreed to South Korea having nuclear-powered submarines, framing it as a win for American industry.

“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ USA,” he posted on Truth Social.

Plans have changed since then, with South Korea’s Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back announcing the submarines will be developed and built by his country.

The submarines would use low-enriched uranium fuel and the first would be launched in about a decade, he said.

Other than that, experts say the details are scant, maybe intentionally so.

“Most importantly, they haven’t put a dollar figure on it,” said Euan Graham, senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

In contrast, the AUKUS submarine program comes with a $368 billion price tag, one that Dr Graham expects won’t reflect the final cost.

“That ambiguity [in the South Korean plan] is, in a funny way, more honest because they don’t know what they don’t know,”

he said.

Observers agree the cost is one of the major risks in Seoul’s plan to build nuclear-powered submarines.

The vessels are expensive, not only to build, but also to operate, maintain and support over their entire life cycle, said Jihoon Yu, research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

“South Korea will need to balance this program with other defence priorities, including air and missile defence, conventional submarines, unmanned systems, cyber capabilities, and space-based surveillance,” Dr Yu said.

Why nuclear-powered submarines?

Unlike AUKUS, South Korea’s plan is not about replacing a fleet of aging submarines.

Dr Yu said it was already modernising its diesel-electric submarines, including the KSS-II and KSS-III class, which were expected to remain operational for decades.

Instead, South Korea wants nuclear-powered submarines because it believes they are better suited for deterring the changing threat posed by North Korea.

That’s because nuclear-powered submarines can stay underwater longer, experts said.

“North Korea has invested heavily in submarine-launched ballistic missile capabilities, and tracking those platforms requires prolonged underwater endurance and sustained speed,” said Seong-Hyon Lee, associate in research at Harvard University’s Asia Center………………………..

Dr Yu said nuclear-powered submarines could also cover vast distances, and this would let South Korea contribute more to security beyond its immediate coastal waters.

“Nuclear-powered submarines could contribute to sea lane protection, regional maritime stability and broader allied deterrence missions,” he said.

That might appeal to the Trump administration, which wants US allies to take on more responsibility for their defence and security, including in the Asia-Pacific region.

Will South Korea’s plan rely less on the US?

Australia’s pathway to nuclear-powered submarines relies deeply on the US and the United Kingdom for technology and training.

“AUKUS is not just a submarine acquisition program; it is also a long-term strategic, industrial and technological integration project among three countries,” Dr Yu said.

“South Korea would likely seek a more domestically driven model, although it would still need close cooperation with the United States, especially on nuclear fuel,, safeguards, regulatory arrangements and political approval.”…………………………………………………………………….

 know-how in building diesel-electric submarines, and in civilian nuclear technology, will only take South Korea so far.

It would have to solve questions such as reactor miniaturisation, acoustic quieting, shock resistance and integrating complex propulsion systems, Dr Lee said.

“These are highly demanding technical areas where even established naval powers have faced considerable hurdles.”

Mr Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung agreed last year the US would work with Seoul on the project, including on “avenues to source fuel”.

“The most important unresolved issue concerns the nuclear-fuel framework under which any future submarine program would operate,” Dr Lee said.

South Korea has an agreement with the US that restricts its uranium enrichment.

“More broadly, the political, legal and technical details of any US-South Korea cooperation in this area have yet to be fully defined,” Dr Lee said.

Different plan, different problems

Experts say there’s a risk that South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarines program could be misunderstood in the region………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-06/how-south-korea-submarine-plan-compares-to-aukus/106764594

June 7, 2026 Posted by | South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Repetitive Folly: Israel’s Futile War in Lebanon Deepens

4 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/repetitive-folly-israels-futile-war-in-lebanon-deepens/

Call it a repeating script, a rusty template, or simply a creaky model to emulate time and again. The structural and homicidal destruction of Gaza undertaken by Israeli forces is now finding full expression in southern Lebanon, a cause of concern even for those in Washington. The war’s increasing savagery is a reminder of how hollow the exhortations by the Netanyahu government seem following the official cessation of hostilities against Hezbollah in November 2024.

Israel’s pre-emptive war on Iran, commencing on February 28 with the full and criminal connivance of the United States, took place alongside an incursion into southern Lebanon that has become a burgeoning invasion ostensibly to create a chunky buffer against Hezbollah’s attacks. Presumably, the wishful thinking here was to eliminate Iran as a threat, thereby removing Hezbollah’s most ardent patron and sponsor. At the time, coteries of commentators and Israeli leaders lavished praise on the country’s technical and military achievements, forgetting the central point that Hezbollah remains an idea as much as a physical movement, a deep well rather than defined, terminable cul-de-sac. Ideas, which can only really be battled by better ones, prove sleekly stubborn before tanks, missiles and jets.

From March, the southern part of Lebanon was subjected to infrastructural degradation, population displacement and the wholesale destruction of villages, all on the spurious premise that the security of Israeli settlements near the border will be somehow improved. In April, in the long cast shadow of the Iran War, another ceasefire was brokered between Israel and Lebanon, with another extension to the truce for another 45 days agreed to mid-May. This farcical theatre has taken place amidst ongoing IDF operations which have, as of June 1, displaced over a million Lebanese and seen more than 3,300 deaths. Israel has lost 24 soldiers and 4 civilians during that time.

With Iran resiliently stubborn in diplomacy, collaterally backed by its continued blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, and Hezbollah showing signs of renewed martial vigour, the two-pronged plan has been defanged. Hezbollah’s revivified hunger for battle has taken the form of lethal attacks on the IDF with drones resistant to electronic jamming. These explosive-laden fibre-optic First-Person View drones, connected to their operators with a bare yet lengthy optical wire, permit visibility and manoeuvrability for miles. Israeli soldiers, long seen as having immune breastplates against Hezbollah’s attacks, are now dying.

Former Israeli national security official Orna Mizrahi, who heads the Lebanon program at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Studies, accepts that “the drones made for some confusion, because it was a surprise. The IDF didn’t think that it would be such a dangerous weapon.In Israel, they looked at it as a toy.” Remarks from the IDF reported in the Times of Israel show that the military has been disabused of this notion. The FPV drones posed “a dynamic and evolving threat, characterized by inexpensive, readily made tools with a high rate of variability.”

The BBC reports the troubled account of a council chief from the northern Israeli town of Shomera, Sami Zanetti: “The problem is you don’t feel them coming.  You’re sitting there, and suddenly it arrives. And if you run away, it follows you.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acknowledging the dangers posed by these economical, effective packages of death, promises that a “special team” is labouring away to “solve this.”

Despite the increasingly attritive toll on its forces, the propaganda channels on Israeli triumphs continue to prove thick and hefty, attempting to justify a campaign described by Michael Koplow of the Israeli Policy Forum as “a political imperative in search of a strategy.” The May 31 seizure of the Beaufort Castle area and the Ali al-Taher Ridge was celebrated by the Israeli Alma Research and Education Center as one of “operational significance, as it constitutes a strategic zone in southern Lebanon and psychological significance for all parties involved in the conflict.” The “loss of control over the Beaufort area” was deemed “a direct operational setback for” Hezbollah.

These ground operations, false heralds of decisiveness, barely conceal the increasing desperation within the Netanyahu government, culminating in threats made on June 1 to attack the Lebanese capital. On June 2, the Israeli Minister of Defence, Israel Katz, told a gathering at the Defense Export Conference that the bombing of certain neighbourhoods of Beirut with alleged ties with Hezbollah was in the offing. “The proof of this policy in protecting the settlements [near the border] will be simple and will become clear in the coming days: if the shooting against the settlements ceases, or if it continues and we attack Dahiyé in Beirut, this equation will become a reality.”

Currently, another counterfeit, jejune ceasefire is in play, one that was only reached after a ranting call of colour and invective between US President Donald Trump and Netanyahu on June 1. (According to a US official quoted by Axios, Trump is said to have bellowed the following: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”) While Trump finds himself held in an Iranian lock, tightened by Tehran’s insistence on tying a halt of Israeli hostilities in Lebanon with a broader cessation of conflict, Israel has been ensnared by its own too-clever-by-half logic in Lebanon. The un-snaring will be sanguinary and ugly.

June 7, 2026 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

15TH INTERNATIONAL URANIUM FILM FESTIVAL RIO DE JANEIRO AWARDS

Uranium Film Festival, Jun 03, 2026

Films from Canada, Spain, Germany, Brazil and the USA won the top awards at the 15th International Uranium Film Festival of Rio de Janeiro. The awards ceremony took place on Saturday, May 30, 2026, at the Cinematheque of the renowned Museum of Modern Art (MAM Rio). Bye, Bye Rio, hello Las Vegas. For those who could not make it to the Rio de Janeiro International Uranium Film Festival in time this year, you may join us in Las Vegas, Nevada. The 3rd International Uranium Film Festival in Vegas will be held this fall at the University of Nevada Boyd School of Law in cooperation with Principal Man Ian Zabarte from the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians. The Shoshone are the most atomic bombed nation on earth. More than 900 atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions were conducted on their territory in Nevada by the US and 28 nuclear full-scale nuclear weapon detonations by the United Kingdom.

And these are the winners of the 15th International Uranium Film Festival of Rio de Janeiro, May 21 – 30, 2026.

EMERGING FILMMAKER AWARD

ALBRAUM 

Germany, 2026, Directed by Maja Hohenberg, Poetic Documentary, 20 min. (Photo: Maja Hohenberg)

BEST INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTARY FILM

BOMBSHELL

USA, 2025, Directed by Ben Loeterman & Gaia De Simoni, Documentary Feature, 80 min.

BEST EXPERIMENTAL DOCUMENTARY

OUT OF CONTROL. REPORTS ON THE ATOMIC BOMB

Spain, 2023, Directed by Beatriz Caravaggio, Experimental Documentary, 50 min.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE FILM

THE ATOMIC SCREEN 

Canada, 2025, Directed by Alain Vézina, Documentary, 52 min. 

NATIVE SPIRIT AWARD

THE MOTH

Canada, 2025, Directed by: Michelle Derosier and Zoe Gordon, Short Fiction, 20 min. (Photo: Zoe Gordon)

HONORABLE MENTIONS

HIBAKUSHA – WANDERING SOUL

Brazil, 2025, Director: Joel Yamaji, Short documentary, 20 min. (Photo: Joel Yamaji)

HOLLYWOOD BOMB – HOW PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND GENERAL GROVES DESTROYED THE FIRST NUCLEAR EPIC

USA, 2026, Director: Greg Mitchell, Short documentary, 15 min.

THE ALPACA CONNECTION 

USA, 2025, Director: Tom Brown, Comedy thriller short, 18 min.

TOO LATE TO LEARN

USA, 2026, Director: Thomas Kanady, Documentary, 68 min.

Statements of the Award Winners…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.filmfestivals.us/blog/uranium_film_festival/15th_international_uranium_film_festival_rio_de_janeiro_awards

June 7, 2026 Posted by | media, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

North Korea unveils a new plant to produce fuel for nuclear weapons

Daily Mail 4th June 2026, SEOUL, South Korea (AP) –

 North Korea on Thursday unveiled a new facility to produce nuclear bomb fuels, with leader Kim Jong Un announcing plans to bolster the country´s nuclear forces “at an exponential rate.”

Some experts still question whether North Korea has functioning nuclear missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland. But the nuclear plant’s disclosure implies that Kim is eager to cement his country’s status as a nuclear power and has no intentions of placing his bomb program on a negotiating table.

After visiting the site on Wednesday, Kim said he and other top officials “confirmed the order of priority for implementing the ambitious future plan designed to beef up our state´s nuclear forces at an exponential rate,” according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

KCNA said the facility used “more sophisticated technology” but didn´t provide further details like its location. South Korea´s Joint Chiefs of Staff assessed the site as a uranium enrichment plant and said it was closely coordinating with the United States to monitor North Korean nuclear activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Experts say Kim wants an international recognition as a nuclear state so that he could demand the lifting of U.N. economic sanctions. They say Kim would ultimately push for arms reductions talks with the U.S. as a way to win concessions in return for a partial surrender of his nuclear capability……………………………………………………… https://www.dailymail.com/wires/ap/article-15872477/North-Korea-unveils-nuclear-plant.html

June 7, 2026 Posted by | North Korea, Uranium | Leave a comment

Arms control, risk reduction, and the art of the possible

Bulletin, By Jack Kennedy | May 13, 2026

The arms control community is facing a difficult moment. With the expiration of New START in February, there are no longer any treaty limits on the sizes of the major nuclear arsenals. Much ink has already been spilled on the question of what comes next (Diaz-Maurin 2026); many analysts are worried that without any legal check on vertical proliferation, there is a serious risk of a new arms race. These worries are likely well-founded; there are already prominent, influential voices calling for the United States to deploy more weapons out of a perceived need to shore up deterrence in the face of general geopolitical uncertainty, particularly as related to China’s nuclear buildup (Narang and Vaddi 2025; Kroenig 2022).

The prudent and responsible approach for the nuclear-armed states—particularly the United States, Russia, and China—to take now would be to embark on nuclear arms control talks immediately. Even in the absence of obvious political will from the others, the right course of action for any one of them would be to strongly broadcast their readiness to start such talks at any time, without imposing preconditions on the outcome.

However, there is little political will to do the prudent and responsible thing right now. Both the US and Russian governments have claimed to be open to some kind of new deal but have taken no actual steps in that direction (Pifer 2026). China has long declined to participate in talks with Washington and/or Moscow, pointing to its smaller arsenal—buildup notwithstanding—and no-first-use policy to justify not accepting reductions in or even limitations on its nuclear capabilities (Rust 2025).

While disappointing, this lack of political will should not come as a surprise. A look at the historical record indicates that arms control has only ever been achieved under specific conditions, namely either to restrain ongoing competition in armament or as a continuation of an existing framework of arms control.

With this in mind, the arms control community should be realistic about the dim prospects of any major achievement in that domain in the short term and focus on other policy areas that require more urgent attention, particularly risk-reduction measures.

The right time for arms control

Many voices are now calling for arms control to prevent a potential nuclear arms race. Normatively, this is a valuable goal. Descriptively, however, it misunderstands arms control’s historical function: Arms control does not prevent arms races, it brings them to a halt. To date, essentially all major arms control agreements came about either in response to an arms race already underway or as a continuation of existing arms control frameworks, often in the context of generally improving relations between the participating states………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Looking ahead

Over the past four to five decades, the world has become used to having nuclear arms control treaties and the limitations they impose on countries’ arsenals. By limiting vertical proliferation and its destabilizing effects, these tools have made everyone safer. However, in the process, it has been forgotten that the nuclear arms control regime—like the interwar naval arms control regime before it—was created as a reaction to a costly arms race, not because the United States and the Soviet Union simply had admirable foresight.

It would also be good if the governments of today had such foresight, and the project of convincing them to do so should not be abandoned totally. But it is likely to be a tall order. Arms control advocates could better spend their time on two other projects. One is forestalling an arms race by highlighting the danger and futility of arms competition. Those calling for a US nuclear buildup, for example, need to be challenged to provide a better answer to the arms racing eventuality than merely crossed fingers.

The other is risk reduction. There are various reasons to believe the world has entered a nuclear age more dangerous than those which have come before. There are smaller, more achievable forms of cooperation that nuclear-armed states can work on now to reduce that danger. Governments should initiate dialogue with their rivals as soon as possible.

Even below the level of government, scholars, analysts, policymakers, and citizens should prioritize risk reduction intellectually and politically. Figuring out ways to reduce risk in the new strategic environment—and gaining a better understanding of the nature of that strategic environment, which remains under-theorized—is, for now, likely a better use of time and effort than trying to reinvent arms control. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2026-05/arms-control-risk-reduction-and-the-art-of-the-possible/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The%20church%20steps%20into%20the%20AI%20debate&utm_campaign=20260604%20Thursday%20Newsletter

June 7, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power Returns to the Forefront of Quebec’s Energy Debate 

“It’s an industry that’s generally heavily subsidized by the government, because the private sector is less willing to take on these risks,” adds Jean-Pierre Finet. He points out that the majority of nuclear power plant construction projects, which typically span about a decade, exceed their scheduled timelines and budgets. “Public funds are used to mitigate the risks of these projects,” he notes, adding that customers are then called upon to absorb the excess costs.

Nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

French-language article, by Juliane C Lelarge, Le Devoir, June 3 2026

As Ottawa accelerates its nuclear development, Quebec evaluates various energy scenarios, and new Liberal leader Charles Milliard says he is open to the sector. Nuclear power is resurfacing in the public debate. Presented by its supporters as a carbon-free solution to meet growing electricity demand, nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

Why is there a resurgence of interest in nuclear power?

The electrification of society and the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels, particularly in transportation and buildings, are expected to lead to a marked increase in electricity demand over the coming years, explains Karim Zaghib, a professor of chemical engineering at Concordia University and former director of research at Hydro-Québec. He also highlights the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and data centers, which is likely to exacerbate this pressure.

Current geopolitical instability and aspirations for energy independence are also fueling a global resurgence in the nuclear industry. And the development of new technologies, such as small modular reactors, is reinforcing this trend, although some experts are calling for caution.

This interest was particularly evident in the preliminary drafts of the Integrated Energy Resources Management Plan (PGIRE), published in March, which explores a scenario involving a return to nuclear power, even though many industry stakeholders question the influences behind this inclusion.

“We know, for example, that in Quebec, the firm AtkinsRéalis [formerly known as SNC-Lavalun] is lobbying in this direction. There are also American corporations exerting pressure,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet, an analyst with the Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie.

Does nuclear energy have advantages?

Nuclear power is among the energy sources with the lowest CO2 emissions over its entire life cycle, on a par with wind and hydroelectric power. “Compared to wind power, it also has the advantage of being quieter and having no significant impact on the landscape or land use,” explains Karim Zaghib, who notes that Quebec’s geography—and its multitude of waterways—is well-suited to the installation of power plants.

According to Guy Marleau, a professor in the Department of Engineering Physics at Polytechnique Montréal, nuclear infrastructure also has a much longer lifespan: 60 years for a power plant, compared to an average of 12 years for a wind turbine. The electricity production of a nuclear power plant is also incomparable to that of renewable energy sources, he notes.

Karim Zaghib views nuclear power as a complement to wind and solar energy, and stresses the importance of diversifying energy sources to ensure the grid’s resilience. This is because nuclear power provides a more stable baseload energy supply, he explains.

In Jean-Pierre Finet’s view, however, nuclear power’s inflexibility is a disadvantage. “With hydroelectric power, we can adapt to demand. With nuclear, it’s like having the pedal to the metal all the time,” he explains, noting that energy produced during periods of low demand is sold at a low price, or even at a loss. “That’s why we buy a lot of low-cost energy from Ontario, which sometimes has no choice but to offload it.” Advances in energy storage also put the issue of renewable energy’s intermittency into perspective, he says.

“Nuclear power is sometimes seen as an alternative for more climate-skeptical stakeholders who reject renewables on principle,” notes Philippe Gauthier, an energy analyst at the Rivières Foundation, citing the energy strategy implemented by the Trump administration in the United States as an example.

What would reinvesting in the sector in Quebec entail?

“It would be extremely expensive,” Philippe Gauthier states right off the bat, noting that nuclear development is one of the most costly forms of energy production.

“It’s an industry that’s generally heavily subsidized by the government, because the private sector is less willing to take on these risks,” adds Jean-Pierre Finet. He points out that the majority of nuclear power plant construction projects, which typically span about a decade, exceed their scheduled timelines and budgets. “Public funds are used to mitigate the risks of these projects,” he notes, adding that customers are then called upon to absorb the excess costs.

Another challenge: Quebec’s nuclear expertise is disappearing. “To shut down the Gentilly plants, Hydro-Québec had to reach out to its retirees, who were the only ones left with that expertise,” recalls Philippe Gauthier. This lack of expertise makes the industry still very much an American one, asserts Jean-Pierre Finet, who rejects the argument for energy sovereignty. He points out that Canada’s largest federally-owned nuclear facilities, the Chalk River Laboratories, have been managed since 2025 by a private American consortium, some of whose largest companies are linked to the U.S. defense sector.

Is the issue of safety still relevant today?

“Today, safety is a given,” argues Karim Zaghib, noting that accidents are now very rare. The issue that remains a subject of debate is radioactive waste.  “With our current drilling capabilities, we’re able to bury it tens of kilometers underground,” says the researcher.

“The waste issue is far from resolved,” counters Jean-Pierre Finet. He cites as an example the discharge of toxic wastewater from the Chalk River facilities into the Ottawa River in 2024. The nuclear project, which in recent weeks received a federal grant of $2.2 billion, calls for the burial of large quantities of radioactive waste near the surface. This part of the project is the subject of litigation, including with the Anishinaabe community of Kebaowek, which won a victory on this matter on May 28 in the Federal Court of Appeal.

More broadly, experts criticize the nuclear industry for a real lack of transparency. “The current oversight process is practically nonexistent,” laments Philippe Gauthier, who believes the ties between the industry and regulatory bodies are too close. He cites as an example the case of the 62.8 tons of irradiated uranium fuel that was transported in secret on Quebec’s roads in the summer of 2025.

Several experts interviewed believe that the global trend toward a return to nuclear energy must also be analyzed in light of the phenomenon of nuclear rearmament. “The military industry needs the civilian industry to develop its expertise,” explains Philippe Gauthier. “We cannot ignore the fact that military applications are still part of the nuclear equation.”

Is the development of nuclear power part of a transition strategy?

“We must not confuse adding carbon-free generation with decarbonization,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet. “All we’ve done so far is add carbon-free generation without reducing the rest of our [fossil fuel] consumption, which doesn’t reduce GHG emissions. It’s mainly a pretext for further industrialization.”

According to him, the issue isn’t about increasing energy production, but about better managing its distribution and consumption, particularly through more efficient use and storage.

June 6, 2026 Posted by | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce under fire for outsourcing parts of UK nuclear project to South Korea

 Multibillion-pound contract to build three small modular
reactors was signed with government body in April. Rolls-Royce is facing
mounting criticism from politicians and industry figures for a decision to
outsource the core parts of a multibillion-pound UK government plan for
three small nuclear reactors to South Korea.

The announcement by the
British engineering giant, the lead investor in a consortium developing the
reactors, has raised questions about whether the government’s target of
70 per cent of the project being British-made will be met.

Rolls-Royce
SMR’s selection of South Korea’s Doosan Enerbility to finalise designs
for key components for the small nuclear reactors has triggered warnings
from industry representatives that the UK is squandering a chance to build
its own supply chain for the technology. Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chair of
parliament’s business and trade committee, said he would be writing to
ministers seeking clarification as to how Rolls-Royce’s announcement is
compatible with the 70 per cent target.

 FT 5th June 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/dcc90c25-43e7-4456-84bb-35458dc6726c?syn-25a6b1a6=1

June 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

The atomic clock is ticking.

Western countries build far more slowly, when they build at all. The Darlington SMR is one of only six in the entire Western Hemisphere to begin construction in the past 40 years. Of those, only two, located in the U.S., completed construction, both spectacularly late.

A nuclear project’s schedule and cost are inextricably linked: Any delay will eat into contingencies, and, if sustained, will blow budgets to smithereens. Moreover, delays compound the already daunting challenge of financing the project.

 even within the nuclear industry, many doubt SMRs can offer sufficient advantages to attract orders; the results of the first SMR in a G7 country could settle the matter.

Will Canada’s first new nuclear reactor in decades be built on time? Here’s how an Ontario utility’s promises stack up against the numbers

Matthew McClearn, The Globe and Mail, June 4, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nuclear-reactor-ontario-power-generation-utility/

The race to build Canada’s first new nuclear reactor in more than three decades has officially begun on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

In late April, the Ontario government announced that the foundation of the building that will house the reactor had been lifted to its final resting place, down a 35-metre-deep vertical shaft, by one of the world’s largest crawler cranes. The foundation weighed more than 950 tonnes – heavier than three Airbus A380s, the government said.

With that, a clock started ticking.

As far as Ontario Power Generation is concerned, the Darlington small modular reactor, or SMR, has been under construction for about a year now. But according to nuclear industry bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mycle Schneider Consulting, which compile data on nuclear projects globally, construction officially begins with the placing of concrete for the foundation of the reactor building.

OPG and its partners – including reactor developer GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, construction company Aecon Group Inc., and architect-engineer AtkinsRéalis Group Inc. – have just four years and seven months to complete construction and connect the reactor to the grid, as promised, by the end of 2030. Once built, the reactor could supply enough electricity to power 300,000 homes. It’s a crucial first step for Ontario’s energy plans, which envision building many more reactors in the coming years.

Nuclear plants join high-speed rail, large bridges and tunnels, hydroelectric dams (think Site C) and major IT initiatives (think the federal Phoenix payroll system) on the list of complex engineering works that are highly likely to suffer lengthy delays. They’re akin to the Olympics for project managers; by promising the SMR in less than five years, OPG has effectively promised a gold medal.

Don’t let the “small” moniker fool you: The Darlington SMR is no minor undertaking. Lately, as many as 1,500 workers have been on-site on a typical work day.

OPG’s lengthy task list includes building the first-ever BWRX-300 reactor, a robust containment building to house it, a control building which will include the main control room, and another structure to house the turbine generator. It must also complete support structures for the other three planned units. They include a water cooling system complete with underground tunnels, and a switchyard.

According to an analysis of data from Mycle Schneider Consulting by The Globe and Mail, few reactors have been built in less than five years in recent history.

The fortunes of corporate executives, politicians, suppliers and even the nuclear industry itself depend on whether OPG’s team can demonstrate they are as exceptional as their political masters claim.

Why would completing a reactor in five years be difficult?

Canada’s nuclear industry finished building its last nuclear power reactor more than three decades ago. The 25 Candu reactors that started construction between 1958 and 1985 took an average of slightly longer than seven years to bring into commercial operations. Many of those reactors have been refurbished, which has reinvigorated Ontario’s nuclear industry. Even so, many of the skills required to build a plant from scratch have atrophied.

The closest Canadian analogue to the Darlington SMR might be Douglas Point, the earliest attempt to construct a commercial nuclear power plant. When work began in 1960 in Tiverton, Ont., Canada had limited experience building nuclear plants. Just like Douglas Point, the Darlington SMR is essentially a prototype. Douglas Point’s 200-megawatt output placed it in the same class. It took 8½ years to build.

Canada’s fastest build was Pickering-3, running from late 1967 to early 1972. Those years spanned a period when Ontario hit its stride building multiple reactors, but shows tight timelines were achievable back then.

How long has it taken to build nuclear plants globally?

China dominates modern reactor construction: According to Mycle Schneider Consulting data, 44 of the 75 reactors that began construction worldwide since 2016 are there. Yet few Chinese reactors are delivered within five years.

Western countries build far more slowly, when they build at all. The Darlington SMR is one of only six in the entire Western Hemisphere to begin construction in the past 40 years. Of those, only two, located in the U.S., completed construction, both spectacularly late.

Boasting about modular construction techniques, American reactor developer Westinghouse promised it could build its AP1000 reactor in just 36 months. Four AP1000s eventually started construction in the U.S. in 2013. Two of them, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, took more than a decade each. The other two, V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3, in South Carolina, were abandoned after roughly four years; efforts to restart their construction are now under way.

The only reactor attempted in France so far this century, Flamanville-3, was planned to take a little more than four years. It took 17. The only two reactors started in the United Kingdom since 2016 were at the Hinkley Point station, Britain’s largest nuclear power site; they’re approaching 12 years and counting, still under construction.

Why are nuclear builds so frequently delayed?

Nuclear projects face delays for numerous reasons. But some cardinal sins occur regularly, such as proceeding without a complete set of detailed blueprints.

The two V.C. Summer units in South Carolina, for example, began construction when engineering designs were incomplete. Drawings often turned out to be not constructible, sending designs back to the drawing board. Those changes, in turn, led to more work for subcontractors, which provoked disputes over who’d pay the resulting costs. Any changes also had to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


A report by Jean-Martin Folz, former head of French automaker Peugeot, found that construction at France’s Flamanville-3 also began without a complete set of validated plans. The result was that the plant’s design continuously changed during construction, and lots of work had to be redone.
Quality control is another common stumbling block. At Flamanville-3, Mr. Folz catalogued a wide range of defects including poor welds and badly-manufactured forged components. Defects can lead to a cycle of delays, rework and disputes.

Once delays start piling up, it’s hard to recover. At Flamanville, Mr. Folz noted that Électricité de France tried to accelerate work schedules to get back on track. That only led to other problems, leading to further rework and delays, not to mention overloaded and demoralized crews.

After years of poor performance, the construction of the Vogtle units in Georgia was placed under new management. Don Grace was an engineer hired by the Georgia Public Service Commission to evaluate the project’s progress. During testimony in 2022, he explained that the new proponents “prematurely” started testing equipment at the plant, even as construction continued.

The problem? Mr. Grace said it resulted in too many workers toiling alongside one another on compressed timetables – a problem dubbed “stacking of crafts.” That was exacerbated by management’s tendency to defer planned work to achieve near-term milestones that provided “an inaccurate impression of having made significant progress.”

Mr. Grace put it this way: “The scope of work for a new nuclear plant is so large, and how the proper scoping and sequencing of all the activities comes together is highly important.”

What’s behind OPG’s confidence?

OPG believes the BWRX-300, while being first of its kind, is the simplest-ever boiling water reactor, a mature American-designed technology. There are more than 100 of them operating worldwide, so many of its basic principles have been demonstrated before.

OPG also counts on modular construction techniques to speed things up. The Darlington SMR’s base mat is a good example: It is comprised of 56 sections that were manufactured off-site. Upon delivery to Darlington, they were welded together in a special building with a retractable roof, then lifted into place by crane. In theory, this should be more efficient than assembling a warren of rebar, erecting forms and then pouring huge volumes of concrete.

“Many components will be pre-assembled offsite into larger modules and lifted into place – such as skid-mounted systems and pre-assembled piping – reducing onsite duration and risk,” wrote OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly in a written response to questions.

OPG is also taking an off-the-shelf approach wherever possible. For example, the plant’s turbine and generator are to be the same standard units already proven in natural gas plants.

And OPG is using what it calls an “integrated project delivery contract model,” which it says will encourage partners to collaborate, share risks and rewards, and maximize efficiency. Previous nuclear projects have demonstrated that how contracts are written, and how the various stakeholders work together, matters a great deal – especially when unforeseen challenges arise.

Of note, Mr. Kelly wrote that the plant’s design was completed in December.

What’s at stake?

Most immediately, the fate of the Darlington SMR. A nuclear project’s schedule and cost are inextricably linked: Any delay will eat into contingencies, and, if sustained, will blow budgets to smithereens. Moreover, delays compound the already daunting challenge of financing the project: Owners must wait that much longer to start earning revenue by generating electricity.

A nuclear project’s schedule and cost are inextricably linked: Any delay will eat into contingencies, and, if sustained, will blow budgets to smithereens. Moreover, delays compound the already daunting challenge of financing the project: Owners must wait that much longer to start earning revenue by generating electricity.

Though contracts haven’t been signed yet, Ontario has already committed to build three more BWRX-300s. Its existing nuclear plants all have four identical reactors, an approach that has demonstrated significant benefits. An $8-billion one-off lemon would be a costly miss.

The Darlington SMR is the signature project of Nicole Butcher, who assumed OPG’s top job in early 2025. Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce, who approved it, has bet heavily on OPG’s prowess, insisting the utility stands alone in building on-time and on-budget.

Mr. Lecce’s entire vision for Ontario’s electricity hinges on that statement being true. His plan involves a major expansion of nuclear power, in which the SMR would be followed by two much larger projects, the combined cost of which would likely be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Failure to deliver the comparatively modest Darlington SMR might compel a rethink.

Similarly, the federal government has invested considerable political and financial capital in SMRs. Yet of all the research clusters and demonstration units promised over the past decade, the Darlington SMR is just about the only one still standing. Ottawa has provided billions of dollars in financing, thus becoming a substantial minority owner in the project, and referred it to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new Major Projects Office.

Other utilities around the world have expressed interest in building their own BWRX-300s. More than 100 Canadian companies have signed agreements to provide components and services for the Darlington SMR; successful delivery could lead to contracts if global utilities feel bold enough to build their own.

SMRs represent a promising but untested approach to manufacturing reactors – one that emphasizes simplification and mass production. Whereas large reactors are purchased almost exclusively by resource-rich utilities, SMRs are marketed as being cheaper and quicker to build – and thus suitable for a broader range of customers. Yet even within the nuclear industry, many doubt SMRs can offer sufficient advantages to attract orders; the results of the first SMR in a G7 country could settle the matter.

And that’s why the Darlington SMR is one of the most important nuclear projects worldwide.

No pressure.

June 6, 2026 Posted by | Canada, technology | Leave a comment

‘What’s happening is horrifying’: the rebel film-maker challenging AI’s march into Hollywood

While pro-Silicon Valley documentaries got major distribution deals, Valerie Veatch had to struggle to get her film, about Big Tech’s dark past and future, into the world. She talked to Charlotte O’Sullivan about what some attendees called ‘the scariest movie playing at Sundance’

Charlotte O’Sullivan, Jun 6, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/valerie-veatch-interview-ghost-in-the-machine-documentary-ai-sundance-tech-bros?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=weekend-edition-gagged-facebook-s-whistleblower-james-mcavoy-q-a-nilufer-yanya&_bhlid=9a5a1970bb01aaa89602f0fb01add0f7ae856b22

Valerie Veatch doesn’t want to come across as “a crazy, bitter film-maker”. But she admits it’s “triggering” to talk about the challenges she faced when making Ghost in the Machine, her blisteringly enjoyable documentary about the dark past and present of AI, which hits UK cinemas today.

From the start, Ghost in the Machine was a hard sell. As Veatch says: “I couldn’t get funding from the usual places. People weren’t interested in a film that was tech-critical.” She wanted to talk about the “father of Silicon Valley”, Dr William Shockley, and his abiding interest in eugenics, to explore the sexism and racism that underpins “breathless, gushy” discussions about “superintelligence” and the “singularity” (the hypothetical moment when AI surpasses human intelligence). “I was so full of rage. This stuff is not inevitable.”

Veatch, who was born in Seattle but is now based in Kent, has made three critically acclaimed and zeitgeisty documentaries (including 2014’s Love Child and Me at the Zoo in 2012). For the new film, she talked to more than 30 US experts about the power dynamics behind the much-hyped, eye-wateringly lucrative AI revolution. She did the Zooms, and edited the Zooms, “compulsively, in the middle of the night, for a year; I did urgent listening and, somehow, I got a cut ready for Sundance”. Once Sundance 2026 accepted the film, Veatch got a grant, which paid for all the archival footage. And her dad and aunt came in as investors, she says proudly. “So this is an almost entirely homegrown film. I don’t think we could carry the message that we’re carrying if we were at all beholden to any large studio or distribution company.”

‘What is the difference between being in the pocket of Big Tech and being an independent voice? Well, a lot!’

Irreverence is Veatch’s thing and she cites the British director Adam Curtis as the biggest influence on her work (“I wanted to utilise the archive, the way he does … I wanted it to be surreal and sardonic”). Ghost in the Machine is crammed with jolting images: we see William Shockley, on TV, spewing his racist poison with the gentle patience of a man hawking encyclopaedias. Elsewhere, phrases chime in quietly chilling ways: the Victorian originator of eugenics, Francis Galton, wants to create a “galaxy of genius”. 

Also shown at Sundance this year, and distributed by the mainstream giant Focus Features in the US (and Universal Studios elsewhere), was The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist. Made by Daniel Roher and Charlie Tyrell, this documentary, as its title suggests, manifests a cautious lack of pessimism on the subject of AI. Framed as a personal journey (Roher, about to become a father, wants to know if he’s bringing his baby into a safe world), it suggests this technology will always be with us. This film, which premieres at Sheffield DocFest next Friday, 12 June, and then goes on general release in the UK on 19 June, had the cooperation of the tech bros and includes on-camera interviews with Google Deepmind’s CEO, Demis Hassabis, and OpenAI’s Sam Altman. In the words of Daniela Amodei, the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, “this train isn’t going to stop”. 

Veatch draws my attention to the fact that Sundance now receives funding from Google, adding: “Last year, so I’m told, audiences clapped when film-makers said their movies didn’t contain AI … this year was so different.” Even before the festival began, she sensed unease about her project. As it happened, Ghost in the Machine connected with audiences. In fact, it was a huge success, with word of mouth suggesting it was “the scariest movie playing at Sundance”. 

Still, Veatch gets infuriated when her film is compared to Roher’s. She says: “What is the difference, ultimately, between being in the pocket of Big Tech and being an independent voice? Well, a lot!”

Author and linguist Emily Bender (who appears in both Ghost in the Machine and The AI Doc) is on record as saying Veatch’s film is the better of the two. Bender says Roher “lets himself get buffeted by the imaginations of some of the most unhinged people in this space”, whereas Bender feels Veatch has “woven together an informed and engrossing essay”. Similarly, Timnit Gebru, a computer scientist and cofounder of Black in AI, who also shows up in both films, recently praised Ghost in the Machine while distancing herself from Roher’s movie. “She went on LinkedIn and said: “I reject [The AI Doc]. They used us like chocolate chips.’” Veatch nods grimly. “And they did. They sprinkled in diversity.”

‘This industry is rotten. I hate it! But this is why we need women film-makers’

Veatch insists this isn’t about individual movies getting it wrong. It’s about a trend to sideline or erase voices with a different point of view. A new British production called AI: Probably Nothing to Worry About, is showing at Tribeca this weekend. Veatch says she only heard about the movie through Bender, who was interviewed for it but didn’t make the final cut. The film-maker said something like: “Sorry we didn’t use your footage. In the end, we were just focusing on people who were in the room when big discoveries happened.” Veatch pulls a face. “In other words, ‘we focused on men’. This industry is rotten. I hate it! But this is why we need women film-makers.”

Veatch says repeatedly that she feels the need to be “aggressive” when talking about her film. That she’s willing to seem “negative”, because “what’s happening with AI is so urgent – the building of all these hyper-scale data centres is horrifying.” In the US, she says, “they’re trying to criminalise dissent”. (Wired recently reported that federal intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement are targeting “anti-technology extremists”). Veatch jiggles in her seat. “The film’s going to get a release on PBS and YouTube in September. And we’re about to get a huge grant, to make data centres the theme of our summer push, in the US. I’ve invited Erin Brockovich [the environmental activist, who has started a database to track data centres around America] to one of our events. I’m like: “I really hope she says yes. She’s an icon. You can’t criminalise Erin Brockovich!” 

Veatch says she’d “love to do something in the UK about data centres”, then pauses and, for the first and only time in the whole interview, sounds lost. She murmurs, “There are networks in the US. I don’t know anyone here …” Human contact means everything to Veatch. Concerned citizens of the UK, if you want to join forces with this formidable woman, drop her a line.

Ghost in the Machine is released in UK cinemas today, or can be rented through Kinema

The Nerve is a fearless, independent media title launched by five former Guardian / Observer journalists: investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, editors Sarah Donaldson, Jane Ferguson and Imogen Carter and creative director Lynsey Irvine. We cover culture, politics and tech,

June 6, 2026 Posted by | media, technology, UK | Leave a comment