Swarming jellyfish overrun French nuclear plant on same date two years in a row

The jellyfish invasion is the latest in a series of climate change-driven incidents that have affected a record number of French nuclear reactors over the summer.
August 11, 2026 By Nicolas Camut,
https://www.politico.eu/article/swarming-jellyfish-overrun-french-nuclear-plant-on-same-date-two-years-in-a-row/
Aug. 11 is quickly becoming jellyfish invasion day at the Gravelines nuclear power plant in northern France.
Despite spending hundreds of thousands of euros to protect the plant from a jellyfish swarm like the one that saw reactors shuttered on Aug. 11, 2025, French utility provider EDF on Tuesday was again forced to bring the parts of the facility offline due to the presence of “several dozen tons” of jellyfish blocking pumping systems.
“On-site teams are fully mobilized to ensure the safety of the facilities and to reconnect the reactors to the national power grid,” EDF said in a statement.
Three fishing vessels are now “constantly patrolling off the coast of the plant” to conduct “preventive fishing operations […] 24/7,” the company added.
Tuesday’s jellyfish invasion is the latest in a series of climate change-driven incidents that have affected French nuclear energy during a particularly infernal summer.
Nuclear power plants are typically built by rivers or on coastlines so they can use nearby water sources to cool their reactors. But a record number in France this summer have been forced to temporarily shut down due to heatwaves and droughts affecting their water supply.
Rising sea temperatures have made jellyfish swarms more common along the French coast in recent years, and those swarms can affect a plant’s ability to bring in seawater — which is what happened at Gravelines. Following last year’s incident at the plant along the North Sea, EDF installed cameras and deployed fishing boats to monitor the situation.
While the vessels “prevented a massive influx of jellyfish” on Saturday and Sunday, they were eventually overwhelmed as the swarm grew from “about 100 kilograms” to “several dozen tons,” the French state-owned utility giant said.
Opponents of nuclear energy were quick to jump on the incident.
“This only highlights that nuclear power plants are ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of climate change,” the French branch of Greenpeace said in statement.
Gaza’s Board of Pieces

Israel will never permit reconstruction in Gaza. It will never restore health facilities or water treatment plants. It will never turn over authority to an International Stabilization Force (ISF), one which only exists on paper. It will never permit the creation of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza or agree to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.
Trump promises a Gaza Riviera that will function as a “special economic zone” — a territory operating outside of state law governed entirely by private investors, such as the Peter Thiel-backed charter city in Honduras. But Trump’s Gaza Riviera is nothing more than a pathetic temporary camp along the ceasefire line near Rafah. It consists of “portable cabins” under Palestinian administration and a tiny international security force, according to The Guardian
August 11, 2026 Chris Hedges ScheerPost
There is no ceasefire in Gaza. There is no functioning “Board of Peace.” There is no roadmap to ending the genocide or mechanism to creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has refused to implement or abide by any of the conditions of Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” since its inception. It won’t begin to honor them now.
There is only genocide. It changes shape and intensity. But it does not change its essence.
Trump’s plan is a mirage, a conjuring trick, a fleeting vanity project. In October 2025, Trump gathered world leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to announce his peace deal, which he said “took 3,000 years” to achieve, before disappearing offstage. The peace plan, like the smoke-and-mirrors act that defines the Trump era, has been relegated to a dark memory hole, as our P.T. Barnum commander in chief trots out another bloody spectacle: war on Iran.
Trump announced a “historic” agreement on July 30 that entailed “the complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza.” He called the 15-point plan, credited to the Board of Peace, which has no Palestinian representatives and installed Trump as its chair for life, “a monumental step toward lasting peace and security.”
But Hamas swiftly qualified the demand by saying that handing over its heavy weapons was only contingent on Israel ending “all forms of” its “aggression” and withdrawing its occupying forces from Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu blithely dismissed Trump’s proposal. Israel, he said, will not withdraw its forces until Hamas is “genuinely” disarmed.
Read this to mean never.
The peace plan — which was endorsed by the United Nations in a stunning disregard for Palestinian sovereignty and international law — was never more than a publicity stunt. It exists to provide Israel with the diplomatic cover to bring the genocide to its intended conclusion — the “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians from Gaza — a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.
Since the “ceasefire” went into effect on Oct. 10, 2025, two months before the Trump “peace plan” was formalised, Israel has killed 1,258 Palestinians in Gaza.
Ceasefires with these body counts are not ceasefires.
Once Gaza is emptied, the West Bank will be next.
Of the myriads of peace plans over the decades, this one is the least serious.
Aside from a demand that Hamas release the hostages within 72-hours after the ceasefire began — which took place — it lacks specifics and imposed timetables. It is filled with caveats that allow Israel to abrogate the agreement.
That is the point.
“It is not designed to be a viable path to peace, which most Israeli leaders understand,” I wrote when the plan was announced. “Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper, Israel Hayom, established by the late casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to serve as a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and champion messianic Zionism, instructed its readers not to be concerned about the Trump plan because it is only ‘rhetoric’”
Israel, I noted, in one example from the proposal, will “not return to areas that have been withdrawn from, as long as Hamas fully implements the agreement.”
“Who decides if Hamas has “fully implemented” the agreement?” I asked. “Israel. Does anyone believe in Israel’s good faith? Can Israel be trusted as an objective arbitrator of the agreement? If Hamas — demonized as a terrorist group — objects, will anyone listen?”
“How is it possible that a peace proposal ignores the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion, which reiterated that Israel’s occupation is illegal and must end?” I continued. “How can it fail to mention the Palestinian’s right to self-determination?”
“Who gave the U.S. the authority to send to Gaza an “International Stabilization Force,” a polite term for foreign occupation?” I wrote. “Why is Israel, which has destroyed Gaza, not required to pay reparations?”
Ninety-two percent of Gaza’s residential buildings have been damaged or destroyed and around 81 percent of all structures are damaged, according to UN estimates. The Strip has been reduced to 61 million tons of rubble, including nine million tons of hazardous waste that includes asbestos, industrial waste, and heavy metals, in addition to unexploded ordinance and an estimated 10,000 decaying corpses. Israel has demolished some 1,500 buildings since the ceasefire went into effect.
How can anyone believe that Israel, intent on leveling Gaza, will reverse itself to allow Palestinians to rebuild what it spent so much time, money and blood to destroy?
Retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, echoed this sentiment on Sunday on Israel’s 103FM radio station.
“Israel has no interest in Gaza being rebuilt, it is better for us that it be destroyed for generations to come,” Eiland said.
“The greater the despair in Gaza and the greater the destruction, and the greater the monument to what they did on October 7, years to come, that is good,” he added.
Israel will never permit reconstruction in Gaza. It will never restore health facilities or water treatment plants. It will never turn over authority to an International Stabilization Force (ISF), one which only exists on paper. It will never permit the creation of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza or agree to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.
Trump promises a Gaza Riviera that will function as a “special economic zone” — a territory operating outside of state law governed entirely by private investors, such as the Peter Thiel-backed charter city in Honduras. But Trump’s Gaza Riviera is nothing more than a pathetic temporary camp along the ceasefire line near Rafah. It consists of “portable cabins” under Palestinian administration and a tiny international security force, according to The Guardian…………………………………………………………………………………
Palestinians, 90 percent of whom have been displaced, continue to live in tent cities amid rubble and open pools of raw sewage. They lack toilets or electricity. There is an 80 percent unemployment rate. Tens of thousands of children suffer acute malnutrition in Gaza. A child, on average, is killed every day.
Tacitus understood. They made a desert and call it peace.
Trump’s plan was not designed to end the conflict. It was not designed to provide an equitable settlement for the Palestinians. It was not designed to halt the ongoing mass slaughter. It was designed to allow Israel to complete its genocide and drive surviving Palestinians from their homeland — the culmination of the Zionist dream.
Trump, however obtuse, has at least figured this out. https://scheerpost.com/2026/08/11/gazas-board-of-pieces/
The pro-Israel lobby has swayed US presidents since Truman. It must end with Trump

Our new book, Israel’s Lobby, tracks the growth over decades of the most powerful foreign policy lobby in American history.
Today, the influence of the groups loosely known as the Israel lobby has only become more powerful. Truman’s bind – caught between his sense of the national interest and the domestic political price of defying a powerful lobby – was something that, in the decades to come, president after president would experience.
To fast forward: Donald Trump’s decision to go to war on Iran earlier this year came after a sustained campaign by Israel to convince the US to join the disastrous operation. It also came in defiance of several of his top advisers, as well as the 45% of Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of Israel.
Ian Lustick and Eli CliftonSun 2 Aug 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/aug/02/pro-israel-lobby-presidents
In 1948, with war raging in Palestine, Harry Truman found himself trapped.
On one side were Zionist lobbyists and the president’s domestic political advisers, who were urging him to support the establishment of a Jewish state in as much of Palestine as possible. On the other were his top foreign policy and national security officials, led by the secretary of state, George C Marshall. Their unanimous recommendation was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, which they believed would trigger war in the Middle East and endanger the future of US relations with the Arab and Muslim world.
With the exception perhaps of George Washington, no diplomatic or military leader in American history had a reputation for patriotic virtue and skilled devotion to duty comparable to that of Marshall. Truman was in awe of the secretary of state, who, as chief of staff of the US armed forces, had been hailed by Winston Churchill as “the true organizer of victory” in the second world war. After the war, it had been Marshall who launched the plan named after him to rebuild Europe.
In the mid-1940s, Marshall pushed quietly but steadily against the Zionist movement’s proposals to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. He was concerned that American support would open opportunities for the Soviet Union to exploit Arab anger, put Middle Eastern oil supplies at risk in the event of a war between the Soviet Union and the United States, and require the deployment of unavailable American troops to prevent bloodshed and instability in Palestine. These were, indeed, the strongly held views of virtually all of Truman’s most important military and foreign policy advisers.
Exploiting the fact that most voters were ignorant or uncaring on the issue, the [Israel] lobby used enormous resources … to punish or reward politicians
Truman was personally and deeply moved by the suffering of Jewish survivors of the Nazi “Final Solution”, but also irritated by and at times furious with the constant hectoring to which he was subjected by campaigners for recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine, including the World Zionist Organization and a host of other Jewish delegations, friends and politicians. Despite his personal exasperation, he could not ignore them. Coming in an election year that would pit him against Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, pressures from the Zionist lobby forced him into an excruciating and embarrassing position.
Read more: The pro-Israel lobby has swayed US presidents since Truman. It must end with TrumpWith Palestine engulfed by civil war, Arab states threatening to invade and the last British soldiers about to leave the country, Truman called a meeting of his top advisers on 12 May 1948. According to Marshall’s own account of the meeting, he warned Truman against adopting the policy strongly advanced by Clark Clifford, his main political adviser, to recognize the state of Israel before it was established.
Such a move, according to Marshall, would be a “transparent dodge to win a few votes”, he said, leaving the “great dignity of the office of the President … seriously diminished”. Marshall declared he would not personally be able to vote for Truman should he bow to political pressure on the issue. A shaken Truman closed the meeting by saying he agreed with Marshall.
However, within two days, exquisitely sensitive to the tenuousness of his hold on the presidency and the power of Zionist sympathizers to throw New York’s electoral votes to the Republicans, he ordered that the US recognize Israel.
Today, the influence of the groups loosely known as the Israel lobby has only become more powerful. Truman’s bind – caught between his sense of the national interest and the domestic political price of defying a powerful lobby – was something that, in the decades to come, president after president would experience.
To fast forward: Donald Trump’s decision to go to war on Iran earlier this year came after a sustained campaign by Israel to convince the US to join the disastrous operation. It also came in defiance of several of his top advisers, as well as the 45% of Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of Israel. That decision may be most quickly explained as yet another example of the erratic policymaking that define Trump’s two terms as president. But a closer examination of the experience of several of his predecessors reveals that this presidential decision is more the rule than the exception.
The fact is that from Truman to Trump, most American presidents have caved to the demands of Israel and its advocates. Driven by the fear of domestic political defeats, presidents have regularly rejected or abandoned foreign policies that both they and their most senior advisers believed were in the best interests of the US and at the expense of making meaningful progress in bringing a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our new book, Israel’s Lobby, tracks the growth over decades of the most powerful foreign policy lobby in American history. Composed of a panoply of organizations, groups and individuals who advocate American policies that explicitly favor the interests of Israel, the lobby was nurtured – and has been encouraged and guided – by Israeli governments. Exploiting the fact that most voters were ignorant or uncaring on the issue, the lobby used enormous resources and concentrated attention to punish or reward politicians at every level depending on their willingness to follow lobby instructions.
Over 20 years after the Truman episode, for example, President Gerald Ford launched what he referred to as a “reassessment” of US policy in the Middle East. The initiative had been advanced by Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, as a way to escape from two years of embarrassing failures to move toward a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Both Ford and Kissinger had become intensely dissatisfied with Israeli stonewalling.
The reassessment was conducted by the committee of “Wise Men” convened by Kissinger: former government officials who had served as pillars of the postwar US foreign policy establishment. The unanimous recommendation of the committee was pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in order to achieve a comprehensive peace, in cooperation with the Soviet Union.
Clear indications that Ford intended to accept this recommendation triggered a powerful mobilization by leading Israel lobby organizations, such as the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). The lobby’s decisive achievement was a letter drafted by Aipac and delivered to Ford demanding that the president “make it clear … that the United States, acting in its own national interests, stands firmly with Israel in the search for peace in future negotiations”, signed by 76 senators.
Ford was “mad as hell” at what he believed to be an Israeli campaign to use the lobby to obstruct diplomacy. But he was cowed. To protect his chances for election the following year, Ford rejected the unanimous recommendation from the “Wise Men”, returning instead to the step-by-step process that had so infuriated him, a process of essentially buying slices of the Sinai Peninsula – seized from Egypt in 1967 – from Israel with increasing amounts of aid and then returning them to Egypt. Ford and Kissinger also vastly increased the scale and scope of US support for Israel.
That included a sweeping new collection of US political, economic, military and diplomatic commitments made in a US-Israeli Memorandum of Agreement that, along with secret annexes, was signed on 1 September 1975. Aides to Kissinger described the guarantees and concessions made to Israel in these negotiations as “mind-boggling” and “simply incredible”. In his memoir, Ford wrote bitterly about the Aipac letter signed by three-quarters of the Senate that had ruined his diplomatic plans and cast a pall on his election campaign.
Indeed, Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter. The lobby hoped Carter, who won 71% of the Jewish vote, would abandon aspirations for a comprehensive Middle East peace, but he was quick to disappoint. The president set his sights on a peace treaty resolving the core issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict. With high poll numbers and an American public that seemed ready for a commonsense, problem-solving president, Carter voiced his belief in March 1977 in the need for a “Palestinian homeland” as a key feature of the Middle East peace he wished to achieve.
The pro-Israel lobby immediately mobilized against Carter’s peace initiative. In a closely held 50-page memorandum for the president in early June, Carter’s senior adviser on domestic political affairs warned him that he would suffer serious consequences, including risks of failing to receive the renomination of his party, as a result of lobby opposition to his public consideration of a Palestinian homeland. Undeterred, Carter offered direct criticism of what he described in an Oval Office meeting as the prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s increasingly inflexible positions. His differences with Menachem Begin, who became Israel’s prime minister in May 1977, were even sharper. Meanwhile Carter began intensive communications with Egyptian, Syrian and Palestinian leaders.
In October 1977, the US secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, issued a joint communique with Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, committing the superpowers to achieving “as soon as possible a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict”. Though fully expecting opposition to the president’s Middle East policy, the administration was stunned by the nearly apoplectic reaction to the US-Soviet statement by both the Israeli government and the lobby. Profoundly concerned with the political damage, Carter requested a meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, in New York. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, who was present at the meeting, “Dayan in effect blackmailed the President by saying that unless he had assurances that we would oppose an independent West Bank and that we would give them economic and military aid, he would have to indicate our unwillingness in his public statements here in the United States … ‘I can go,’ said Dayan, ‘to the American Jews.’” Faced with this threat, Carter surrendered.
The next day, Vance and Dayan issued a joint statement summarizing a US-Israeli “working paper” prepared in the early hours of the morning. The statement affirmed negotiations would be dramatically scaled back and would not frame a Palestinian homeland as a central issue. The end result was a celebrated “separate peace” between Israel and Egypt that earned Carter, Begin and Sadat Nobel peace prizes, but also led to the isolation of Egypt in the Arab world and the assassination of Sadat. It also set the stage for Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and settlement projects that resulted in Israel’s de facto annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
It is likely, 13 years later, that President George HW Bush felt just as Carter must have felt when, faced with the Israel lobby’s ferocious opposition to his Arab-Israeli peace initiatives, he made public his frustration with its influence. In a failed effort to boost the prospects for the upcoming Madrid peace conference, Bush suspended US loan guarantees amounting to what Israel was spending on housing in occupied territories and faced ferocious opposition from the Israel lobby for doing so. In a press conference he described his exasperation.
“We’re up against very strong and effective, sometimes, groups that go up to [Capitol Hill]” Bush said. “I heard today there was something like a thousand lobbyists on the hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”
The lobby’s ability to thwart presidential peace initiatives was on particularly powerful display again during the Obama administration. No president before him had entered the White House with such detailed knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, such a record of personal engagement with both Jews and Palestinians, and such a sustained commitment to closer American relations with Arabs and Muslims. Fully embracing a “two-state solution” to the problem, he launched a high-profile peace initiative to be jumpstarted by a full-scale Israeli freeze on West Bank settlements.
But a storm of outrage in Israel and among leaders of Israel’s lobby in the United States, and the public feud that erupted between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, proved more costly to the former than the latter. Obama quickly reversed course, in effect replacing his peace process envoy George Mitchell, who was closely identified as friendly to the Palestinians, with Dennis Ross, a lobby insider, whose advice to ditch the effort altogether the president quickly implemented. Instead of pressing Israel to stop settlements, Obama made a personal call to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, threatening to pull $450m in American aid to the Palestinians if Abbas did not withdraw an anti-settlement resolution put forward at the UN security council. In Obama’s address to the United Nations, general assembly, in the first year of his second term, he shifted dramatically from language used in his previous UN speeches. Instead of criticizing Israeli settlements and pressing for a two-state solution, he identified himself with Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism, opposed any UN action contrary to Israel’s insistence on direct negotiations between the parties, and condemned challenges to the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.
The reason for Obama’s dramatic retreat is easily inferable from his memoir, A Promised Land, in which he complains about Aipac’s ability to cow American politicians into obeisance by invoking fears of being labelled antisemitic, and emphasized his own particular vulnerability to such threats as “a Black man with a Muslim name who lived in the same neighborhood as Louis Farrakhan”.
In the wake of the genocide, the politics of the issue in America have changed as numerous Americans react with passion to Israeli onslaughts
More recently, in Joe Biden, the Israel lobby found a president who genuinely believed the Jewish state deserved the “special relationship” with the US. The firmness of that commitment was put to the test by Israel’s response to the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Socialized into accepting the lobby’s mantra that any “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem would encourage Arab intransigence, and remembering the political punishment Obama received for showing “tough love” to the Israelis, Biden, quashed all recommendations from his top advisers to do something meaningful to stop the Israeli onslaught on Gazan Palestinians. When he did make limited complaints about excessive civilian casualties and implemented minor delays in American resupply of Israeli armaments, the Republican Jewish Coalition responded by slamming the administration for inserting daylight into the US-Israel relationship, while Aipac sent a detailed memorandum to members of Congress defending Israeli actions as limited, necessary and designed to reduce civilian casualties.
The experience of these administrations demonstrates the wisdom and extraordinary insight of America’s first president, George Washington. In his Farewell Address, Washington warned that the American system of government could all too easily be exploited by a group with a “passionate attachment” to a foreign country. In a system designed to rely on the mobilization of countervailing power to limit the effects of factions driven by self-interest or very particular points of view, Washington argued that since any faction committed to the interests of another country would not naturally find its influence checked by effective domestic opposition, it would therefore drive the United States into exaggerated and dangerous commitments abroad and implicate it in quarrels and wars contrary to the country’s interests.
In the wake of the genocide, the politics of the issue in America have changed as numerous Americans react with passion to Israeli onslaughts in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. Biden and Kamala Harris paid heavy costs for knuckling to Israel and its lobby. Nearly a third of voters who voted for Biden in 2020 and did not vote for Harris in 2024 said that ending Israel’s violence in Gaza was the top issue influencing their voting decisions. Across both parties, support for Israel has plummeted; 60% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, and a record number of Israel critics are winning congressional primaries.
But these losses have not deterred Israel or its lobby from working to reverse Trump’s 2024 campaign promises to avoid wars in the Middle East, to pursue even closer relations between the US and Israeli militaries, and to spend millions to thwart the rise of critics of the country.
To be sure, American supporters of Israel and its governments have every right to express their opinions and work to shape public policy, and the lobby is by no means the only vehicle for moneyed interests that warp American democracy. Moreover, American presidents have free will: the George W Bush administration was run by many who were in perfect ideological alignment with the Israeli right. An incompetent and gullible Trump is plainly responsible for yielding to Israeli pressure and dragging the US into the latest war.
But unless other groups are able to act freely with other interests in mind – and without the threat of antisemitism accusations – US policy in the Middle East will remain dangerously distorted. Both to secure and advance American interests abroad and to protect American freedoms at home, Americans must unite to prevent any foreign power from enjoying the influence over policy and public debate that Israel has exercised, both directly and through the faction operating on its behalf.
- Eli Clifton is a co-founder and senior adviser at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Ian Lustick is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania specializing in Arab-Israeli relations and US foreign policy
- This essay was adapted from the book Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power , out 11 August by Atria/One Signal Publishers
Heatwave leaves Britain with record bill to import power from Europe

Drought and heatwaves are forcing Britain to pay hundreds of millions of
pounds more for power. Britain has paid record sums to buy electricity from
Europe this summer as low river levels force nuclear power stations to
power down across the Continent.
Experts predict the UK will have to pay
high prices again this week as the fifth heatwave of the year hits. The Met
Office has issued an amber warning for extreme heat, with temperatures
expected to peak at around 37C in some southern regions. New government
figures show the UK paid £439m to import power from Europe in May – the
highest monthly total ever recorded outside of the Ukraine energy crisis
and a 54pc increase on the £285m cost of imports in April. The record bill
was linked to the first heatwave of the year, from May 22 to 31.
Telegraph 11th Aug 2026
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/08/11/drought-forces-britain-to-pay-more-for-power/
Pax Silica: The Philippines’ Role in Propping up U.S. Militarism and War
Pax Silica will not only exploit the Philippines’ natural resources and workforce, but it will also drag the country further into a role that serves ongoing U.S. military aggression and war. The Filipino people must reject Pax Silica and call on the Philippine government to end all agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines.
By Jhay de Jesus, World BEYOND War Asia Organizer, August 10, 2026Pax Silica will not only exploit the Philippines’ natural resources and workforce, but it will also drag the country further into a role that serves ongoing U.S. military aggression and war. The Filipino people must reject Pax Silica and call on the Philippine government to end all agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines.
By Jhay de Jesus, World BEYOND War Asia Organizer, August 10, 2026Pax Silica will not only exploit the Philippines’ natural resources and workforce, but it will also drag the country further into a role that serves ongoing U.S. military aggression and war. The Filipino people must reject Pax Silica and call on the Philippine government to end all agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines.
By Jhay de Jesus, World BEYOND War Asia Organizer, August 10, 2026Pax Silica will not only exploit the Philippines’ natural resources and workforce, but it will also drag the country further into a role that serves ongoing U.S. military aggression and war. The Filipino people must reject Pax Silica and call on the Philippine government to end all agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines.
By Jhay de Jesus, World BEYOND War Asia Organizer, August 10, 2026Pax Silica will not only exploit the Philippines’ natural resources and workforce, but it will also drag the country further into a role that serves ongoing U.S. military aggression and war. The Filipino people must reject Pax Silica and call on the Philippine government to end all agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines.
By Jhay de Jesus, World BEYOND War Asia Organizer, August 10, 2026
What is Pax Silica?
Pax Silica is a U.S.-led coalition launched in December 2025 as the U.S. Department of State’s flagship effort on artificial intelligence (AI) and supply chain security. This economic partnership between the U.S. and its allies will facilitate supply chains for mineral mining, semiconductor manufacturing, the creation of energy-intensive AI data centers, and surveillance technology infrastructure.
Currently, there are 24 member states to Pax Silica. Israel is among the founding members alongside the U.S., Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Taiwan is a non-signatory but has endorsed the declaration’s principles via the Joint Statement on the Pax Silica Declaration and U.S.-Taiwan Economic Security Cooperation.
The Philippines entered the coalition in April 2026. As part of its entry into the coalition, the Philippine government is leasing around 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares) of land in New Clark City, Tarlac, Central Luzon. As part of the broader Luzon Economic Corridor, this lease is intended to last up to 99 years. This Economic Security Zone will serve as a site for high-tech industries and supporting businesses, functioning as a supply chain hub for artificial intelligence (AI) technology.
The formal binding agreement is set to be signed in November 2026.
Issues Surrounding Pax Silica (How Will It Affect the Filipino People?)
Various sectors are raising critical concerns about this project. One major issue is the strain on electricity and water supplies. Because data centers run 24/7, they require vast amounts of power and water. An estimated 3,000 megawatts are needed to power the facilities, along with 60 to 130 million liters of water daily for their cooling systems—all while the country continues to face ongoing electricity and water crises.
Additionally, concerns regarding ancestral domains and agricultural land have surfaced. Local farmers are already experiencing problems of land grabbing and conversion from agricultural to commercial use. They also receive little to no support from the government. Indigenous communities in particular face land-grabbing of their ancestral domains by government and corporations. And now, these land categories are the site for Pax Silica infrastructure. Evictions of settlers already started as some families of farmers are offered small amounts to sell their lands to the government for this project.
Sovereignty also remains a central concern for the public. Historically, agreements between the Philippine and U.S. governments have been unequal. Starting with the Mutual Defense Treaty, these pacts have spawned further military cooperation, such as the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). These agreements opened more locations for permanent U.S. military presence in the country, which has been a source of human rights violations such as gender-based violence, further militarization of communities, and evictions.
While the Philippine government promises that Pax Silica will bring more jobs and economic growth, no consultations were conducted with affected communities and sectors. Furthermore, the government has provided no assurance that the formal binding agreement will be fair or capable of delivering on these promises.
On Peace and Security
Pax Silica will serve U.S. military interests by hosting infrastructure used to develop surveillance systems, military technology, and the global arms industry.
Amid ongoing conflicts involving the U.S. and Israel in regions like Palestine and Iran, infrastructure under Pax Silica will support the U.S. and Israel’s objective of maintaining constant surveillance on designated rival nations and enhancing their military advantage. These facilities also leave local communities vulnerable to attacks if rival countries launch a counter-offensive. Furthermore, the coalition serves the U.S. objective of isolating China as a source of critical minerals for semiconductors while securing the loyalty of allied nations.
Additionally, companies that have expressed interest in investing are known supporters of the U.S.-Israeli military actions in West Asia. Under Project Nimbus, for example, Google and Amazon provide cloud computing, AI, and infrastructure services to the Israeli government. These two giant corporations are said to have expressed their interest or the Philippine government is actively courting them as key locators.
Before Pax Silica, the Philippines also entered another U.S.-led military manufacturing partnership to explore building ammunition production in the country. Under the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience (PIPIR), the Philippines together with other countries like Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand agreed to explore building new ammunition production lines. It also includes military drones standardization and regional maintenance hubs.
Our Calls
Pax Silica, like other agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines, is unequal and primarily serves U.S. hegemony and war efforts. The Philippine government continues to surrender our land, natural and human resources, and sovereignty to U.S. interests. Pax Silica is a clear response to the ongoing U.S. rivalry with China, as echoed by Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro’s statement that sourcing from trusted suppliers and like-minded partners outside of China reduces the risk of compromised products, data breaches, and vulnerable supply chains.
We must learn from the experiences of communities hosting existing data centers and from our own history of “partnership” with the U.S.
We call on the Filipino people and the international community to reject Pax Silica. We urge the Philippine government to stop selling out our resources and sovereignty to the U.S. war machine.
We also call on the government to terminate all existing military agreements with the U.S.
Junk the Mutual Defense Treaty, Abrogate the Visiting Forces Agreement, and Scrap the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement! The Philippine government must adopt a position of neutrality in the region.
Stop Selling Out Philippine Resources, Defend Our Sovereignty!
REJECT PAX SILICA! Pax Non Bellum!
Nuclear and free market capitalism aren’t compatible

That was the deliberately provocative headline I used in 2023. Three years later, the financing structures actually being assembled for new reactors have made the underlying point harder to dismiss.
A gigawatt-scale reactor commits billions for years before it earns operating revenue. Every delay extends the period in which financing costs accumulate inside one enormous asset.
Hinkley Point C has demonstrated what carrying that exposure looks like.
Britain’s response at Sizewell C wasn’t to find private investors
suddenly willing to accept the same construction risk more cheaply. It was to redesign the financial structure so government, regulated customers and public backstops carry substantially more of it.
Michael Bernard 10th Aug 2026
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7492466736768765952/
Romania’s sole nuclear power plant prepares to shut down due to low Danube flow
Romania’s Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant has initiated the technical procedures preceding the controlled shutdown of its second nuclear reactor, the so-called Unit 2, due to the very low flow of the Danube. The river water was essential for the cooling of the pumps used by the plant.
Romania Insider 11th Aug 2026,
https://www.romania-insider.com/cernavoda-full-shutdown-aug-11-2026
Cost creep or cost leap? The staggering price of nuclear

In the fourth and final part of our serialisation from LINDA PENTZ GUNTER’S book No to Nuclear, she asks how anyone can see nuclear as value for money given its constantly ballooning costs.
Cost creep is a universal affliction in the
nuclear power industry and sometimes it isn’t so much creep as leap. The
two-reactor nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C on the UK coast went
from an estimated $19bn to $26bn, then $35bn, $40bn and now $59bn! By the
time you read this, the number will likely be even higher. That makes the
plant — consisting of two evolutionary power reactors (EPRs) — the
second most expensive building in the world, after the Great Mosque of
Mecca, which cost more than $100bn. And the most expensive power plant
ever.
Morning Star 12th Aug 2026, https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/cost-creep-or-cost-leap-staggering-price-nuclear
Why no global negotiations to prevent disastrous war in space?

Alice Slater, Aug 11, 2026
Russia and China have been urging the US every year in the UN at least since 2014 to negotiate a treaty to prevent war and weapons in space when they first tabled a draft treaty which the US repeatedly refuses to discuss. In a Russian Chinese Proposal made on the 80th Anniversary of WWII at http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/6310, titled Joint statement by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on Global Strategic Stability they criticized the Golden Dome and urged negotiations on their draft treaty to ban weapons and war in space and pledged never to be the first nation to put weapons or make war in space. (They also asked that we negotiate against cyberwar!)
We should all read their statement and start urging that the western warmongers take up the proposal and see if if we can make some progress on global cooperation instead of living in a constant state of war and hostility. China and Russia have opened the door!! Please do not ignore them!! If they are insincere, we can find out in negotiations. After all, we went from 70,000 nuclear weapons on the planet to 11,000 with negotiations, inspections, verification. WHY ISN’T THE PEACE MOVEMENT DEMANDING THESE TALKS NOW?!?!? Of course the MICIMATT will not report on it. (The Military, Industrial, Congeessional, Intelligence, MEDIA, Academic Think Tank complex). They are too busy making a kiliing on killing.
NATO Will Not Accept Ukraine. “Promises Are Fairy Tales”
The Kiev regime is not expected to become a member of the Western alliance.
By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, Global Research, August 05, 2026
Apparently, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is increasingly being dismissed as unrealistic. Even the regime’s most hardline officials seem to have lost hope regarding Kiev’s accession to the Western military alliance, considering that such a move does not serve NATO’s current strategic interests.
In a recent statement, Valery Zaluzhny – Ukraine’s current ambassador to the UK, former head of the country’s armed forces, now widely considered Zelensky’s top rival – asserted that Kiev will never join the Atlantic defense bloc. According to him, promises of membership are merely “fairy tales” that do not reflect reality.
Zaluzhny stated that he is very familiar with NATO’s internal structures and understands how the bloc actually operates. According to him, promises regarding Ukraine’s entry into the bloc are nothing new. Over the course of 12 years working alongside alliance officials, Zaluzhny says he constantly heard such promises, yet saw no particular reason to believe they would materialize now.
While lamenting that the alliance will never truly accept Ukraine as a member, Zaluzhny criticizes the current situation of the Western bloc, asserting that NATO’s military doctrine is outdated, making the alliance strategically inferior to Russia. Zaluzhny believes it is urgent for NATO to undergo comprehensive military reform and revise its doctrine to align with contemporary realities. He believes Ukraine could contribute to this process but regrets that this will not be possible, given the alliance’s refusal to accept Ukraine as a member.
“I know NATO very well (…) or about 12 years, I personally worked to ensure that we adopted NATO standards, and every year I listened to fairy tales that we were about to join. Unfortunately, we will never join it (…) NATO will most likely remain in its current form and will spend another 12 years – just as Ukraine did – transitioning to the standards required to reach even half the level of the Russian Federation,” he said.
Zaluzhny, however, does not entirely rule out the possibility of Ukraine joining a Western military organization. While acknowledging NATO’s lack of interest in admitting Ukraine, he alleges that his country could eventually join a “European military security bloc.” This would only be possible, however, if EU nations and the UK agreed to move forward with creating a regional military alliance outside the NATO umbrella – something many analysts doubt will happen, given American influence over European decision-making.
In fact, there are some interesting points in Zaluzhny’s statement. He is correct in stating that Ukraine will never be accepted into NATO. The Kiev regime plays a very specific role in NATO’s war plans – precisely that of a proxy or external ally. NATO cannot include Ukraine as a member, as doing so would force the alliance to intervene directly in a war against Russia, which would obviously be a disaster, possibly even nuclear. In this sense, Ukraine’s role as a military proxy is only viable as long as the country remains outside the Western defense bloc.
He is also right to criticize NATO’s outdated strategy regarding Russia. In fact, NATO decision-makers have never moved beyond the military doctrines of the last century. This has been clearly reflected in the current disastrous anti-Russian military campaign, in which the Kiev regime, guided by NATO, is suffering substantial losses. ……………………………………………………………………………..https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-not-accept-ukraine-zaluzhny/5935931
The AI drone swarms coming soon to Europe’s battlefields

Flocks of autonomous attack drones are being tested by Nato and China, and seeing
action in Ukraine. New defences are needed to stop them. For many years,
the prospect of artificial intelligence-powered drone swarms has been a
nightmare looming on the fringes of modern warfare.
Now, as a strike test video released a few months ago by the German-American defence technology company Auterion illustrates, it is increasingly encroaching
onto the battlefield and worrying Europe’s defence planners and national
security officials. In the United States, military contractors have
demonstrated autonomous networks of more than a hundred drones and the
Pentagon is aiming to create a “swarm of swarms” capability with as
many as 500 units.
“This becomes, just by its pure scale, a new type of
weapon of mass destruction,” he said. “If you really come to a point
where you have 10,000 drones that operate fully autonomously — detecting
targets, tracking, executing — that is a whole new type of capability.”
If you’re already afraid, just wait until you hear about Manhattan Project 2.0.





The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location
Analysis, Kristen Thomason | August 10, 2026, https://baptistnews.com/article/if-youre-already-afraid-just-wait-until-you-hear-about-manhattan-project-2-0/
Summers spent at my grandparents’ house in Tennessee were hot and humid. With enough cousins piled into the porch swing, you could stir up a bit of a breeze. But when that was no longer effective, we would retreat to the air-conditioned splendor of the American Museum of Science and Energy in Oak Ridge and stroll through exhibits like “Wildcatting for Oil” and “Atoms for Autos.”
Among these varied installations, however, pride of place was given to documenting Oak Ridge’s role as the secret headquarters for the Manhattan Project and source of the Hiroshima bomb’s enriched uranium. Most of the 30,000 covert workers on that project only discovered the truth of what they had been helping to build on Aug. 6, 1945, when they awoke to the headline “Oak Ridge Attacks Japan.”
Eighty years later, on May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders to further the Department of Energy’s “Manhattan Project 2.0.” And just like the original, the second iteration of the Manhattan Project has plenty of secrets of its own.
The executive orders came at the behest of tech giants like Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft, who want cheap, abundant nuclear power to run their AI data centers. And according to the United Nations, these data centers will have doubled their voracious consumption of electricity and water by 2030.
Benefiting from a second Atomic Age
Nuclear industry executives who stand to benefit from a second atomic age had advance access and offered edits to the executive orders, which maximize risk-taking and profit-making over the safety of nuclear employees and the public. They stood behind Trump as he signed Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which paves the way for private companies to construct commercially owned and operated experimental nuclear reactors on Department of Defense properties and at the DOE’s national laboratories.
The original Manhattan Project granted the military sweeping authority to bypass regulations and red tape when developing the atom bomb. Likewise, situating these new reactors on federal land allows companies to skip environmental requirements and skirt the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent bipartisan body charged with granting licenses and regulating the safety of commercial nuclear reactors.
However, to achieve their goal of mass-producing portable nuclear reactors they can deploy via semi-truck to datacenters, hospitals and industrial facilities, they’ll eventually need to pass the NRC’s stringent public safety and environmental standards. That is why Trump next signed Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” to overhaul the “structure, personnel, regulations and basic operations” of the NRC.
In 1974, Congress, weary of the Atomic Energy Commission’s reckless experimentation with atomic power at the expense of public safety, divided it into the DOE, which promotes nuclear power, and the NRC, which regulates it. Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory were thus forced to abandon a plan to carve a second canal through Panama using 250 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. Executive Order 14300 is a return to the wild pre-1974 days.
The order first directs the NRC to rubber stamp approval for those reactors developed under the auspices of the DOE and DOD without any additional testing. It then reduces the responsibilities and size of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent group that once provided technical guidance about reactor safety to the NRC but now can only voice concerns when specifically asked. The president also replaced Democrat and NRC Chair Christopher Hanson and installed a steering board staffed by DOE officials to oversee the NRC reforms.
Next, Executive Order 14300 loosens radiation exposure restrictions for nuclear workers and the general public. To implement this order, on July 1, the NRC proposed a series of changes including limiting use of the linear no-threshold model, which affirms there is no threshold below which radiation is safe. The public has 45 days to comment on the changes.
Raising doubts about the dangers
The linear no-threshold model is the industry gold standard and guiding principle for radiation safety around the world. However, in a move akin to its approach to vaccines, the administration raises doubts about the science behind the model despite the myriad studies and decades’ worth of radiation data on nuclear workers that undergird it.
The 2023 International Nuclear Workers Study examined the dosimeters worn by 309,932 nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. and tracked their incidents of cancer for an average of 35 years. Scientists confirmed that the greater the exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear fission, even at low occupational levels, the greater the likelihood of death from a cancerous tumor, which often only appeared decades after exposure.
UNC Chapel Hill conducted a similar study focusing on the 22,000 workers hired at the ORNL from the early days of the Manhattan Project through the mid-1980s and found results similar to INWORKS for salaried workers and even higher rates of cancer for hourly workers. These men worked construction, laundered radioactive uniforms or, like my grandfather, laid railroad track to allow for the removal of “legacy waste” from the Manhattan Project without any protection or knowledge that they were being exposed.
Therefore, when it comes to ionizing radiation, which is invisible and difficult to measure accurately, the ethical approach is to keep the exposure level “as low as reasonably achievable,” or what is known as the ALARA standard. This might mean minimizing the time employees spend with radioactive materials, requiring protective gear or, in the case of the public, keeping radioactive emissions below legal limits.
However, protecting people doesn’t fit with the “move fast and break things” methods of tech moguls who want nuclear energy ASAP to power their AI databases. So, in its new proposed rules, the NRC is acknowledging linear no-threshold but dispensing with the ALARA standard in favor of a graded approach where safety is determined by situation with little accountability. Nuclear investors and Trump donors Peter Thiel and Mark Andreessen have been lobbying for the abolition of ALARA from the NRC, also a recommendation of Project 2025.
More DOE changes
The DOE began secretly eliminating ALARA from its own radiation protection framework in August 2025 without officially informing employees or the public until January 2026, although it did notify nuclear executives. To justify the end of ALARA, the DOE cited a report they themselves commissioned from the Idaho National Laboratory. That report said that to reduce “unnecessary economic burdens,” companies could now expose workers to five REM a year.
Roentgen Equivalent Man measures the biological effect and risk of radiation exposure to human tissue. According to the National Academies of Sciences, an exposure of five REM a year could cause cancer in one out of five career nuclear employees. The INL report proposes a future increase to 10 REM a year, which would raise the cancer rate to four out of five.
New DOE rules also double the radiation exposure level that would trigger an official investigation from two times to four times the legal limit. When Seth Cohen, the DOGE employee tasked with removing government “barriers” for nuclear companies, was asked if they should establish a fund for such workplace accidents, he said, “When SpaceX started building rockets, they sort of expected the first ones to blow up.” Andreessen called Cohen “An American hero” on X.
In addition, nuclear contractors for the DOE, including the start-up companies, now can ignore what’s known as Appendix A to Part 851 on Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas. As a result, precautions such as informing employees of possible hazards, procedures regarding possible carcinogens, requiring respiratory protection equipment or providing “comprehensive occupational medicine services” are no longer mandatory. This rule change does not apply to contractors working with other forms of energy.
Without occupational medical services to track and document radiation exposure and any subsequent disease, it will be difficult for employees to later obtain the care and compensation they’re owed in the event of an accident or overexposure. Such was the case for victims of the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island, who had no way to prove in a court of law that they had received excessive doses of radiation.
The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location.
Participants in the Reactor Pilot Program will be testing Small Modular Reactor prototypes and experimenting with new sources of fuel which, without the necessary regulations, have the potential to jeopardize public safety. The most expensive element to build in a nuclear power plant is the lead-and-concrete containment shield designed to keep radioactive vapors from escaping in the event of a nuclear meltdown. Shielding is what failed 40 years ago during the 1986 Chernobyl Unit 4 power plant disaster in Ukraine and what held when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island suffered a partial meltdown in 1979.
Supporters of SMR say their new high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel called TRISO is so safe that physical containment isn’t necessary. But X-energy, a nuclear reactor and fuel company funded by Amazon, released an accident analysis that said TRISO could exceed safe temperatures by several hundred degrees Celsius.
“The problem is that, with new reactors, they introduce new safety concerns and new technical issues,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Every design I have looked at has potential safety and security vulnerabilities, which are not being addressed to the extent that they need to be.” The DOE also has jettisoned the requirement to have a cognizant system engineer monitoring each of the reactor’s safety systems, calling it an “unnecessary burden.”
Yet, new types of fuel produce new types of nuclear waste. Every few years, a traditional nuclear power plant removes the highly radioactive spent fuel rods, which are now a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and leaves them to cool in pools of water before they’re sealed in concrete casks for what is supposed to be interim storage. Today, 100,000 metric tons of spent fuel are sitting in limbo because the federal government has failed to find a permanent storage solution for high-level nuclear waste.
Unbeknownst to most, fully one third of all Americans live within 50 miles of nuclear waste storage.
The waste problem
SMRs face the same long-term waste disposal conundrum, only they produce a more chemically and physically reactive waste and two to 30 times more of it than traditional reactors. This waste is not compatible with current nuclear waste disposal technologies, so engineers are experimenting with ways to manage the output and radiation. In response, the DOE replaced its former 59-page waste removal manual with 25 pages of bullet points.
Entirely missing from the abridged version are the sections on waste packaging and monitoring. Last July, Trump dismissed all but one member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent federal agency charged with reviewing the science behind the DOE actions regarding spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
Executive Order 14301 also orders the DOE to “reform its rules” regarding the National Environmental Policy Act by excluding SMRs from a full environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Previously, nuclear reactors had to address their potential impact on water, air and ecosystems at specific locations.
Now, in a possible violation of the Clean Water Act, the DOE says the release of radioactive water and steam into the environment should be “avoided” but is not strictly prohibited. Companies no longer “must” protect groundwater from radioactive contamination. “Avoiding” or “minimizing” is sufficient. Monitoring for contamination is optional.
But because cleaning up radioactive spills is expensive, the INL report also recommends abandoning the ALARA standard for the public. Both the NRC and the DOE are following this directive. However, the NRC has decided not to change the .1 REM public exposure limit, while the DOE is raising the limit from .1 REM to .5 REM.
This is in addition to the average .62 REM of “background radiation” Americans receive from sources like the sun and air travel. The DOE increase will be the equivalent of 50 X-rays a year per person, which will result in one in 57 people who live near a DOE nuclear facility developing a fatal cancer. Women and children, especially girls, will feel the effects even more severely.
When exposed to radiation within the current legal limit, women are 50% more likely to die of radiation-induced cancer than men, and girls are seven times as likely as men and twice as likely as boys of the same age to develop cancer. The DOE also has cut the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, the agency’s internal team of health experts who study radiation safety, so it’s unclear who would monitor for this potential danger.
And yet another danger
Executive Order 14302, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base”, further endangers the safety of nuclear workers and the wider public by providing the nuclear industry with Cold War-era plutonium-239 harvested from dismantled nuclear warheads. Because the U.S. doesn’t currently have enough uranium for Manhattan Project 2.0, Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies and Flibe Energy plan to convert plutonium into SMR fuel.
Plutonium is highly toxic if inhaled and requires special ventilation to handle. Other countries that have attempted to use plutonium have found converting it not worth the expense. It’s also highly sought after for bomb-making and requires heightened security measures. With a half-life of more than 24,000 years, managing plutonium is not a short-term commitment. And yet, because companies complained about the cost of security, the DOE jettisoned hundreds of pages of security regulations for reactors, including specifications for storage and requirements for firearms training and emergency drills.
Instead, Executive Order14302 encourages the reprocessing of nuclear waste, a practice discontinued during the Carter administration because it produces excess plutonium. In February, the Trump administration awarded $19 million to five companies that will experiment with nuclear fuel “recycling,” which is a misleading moniker. The reprocessing of spent fuel creates its own high-level radioactive waste, albeit with a half-life of a thousand years rather than tens of thousands of years.
Enabling these changes to the country’s nuclear regulations is Executive Order 14303 “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” which is less about rigorous science than it is about “doubt science,” the strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to raise doubts about the dangers of smoking and dodge regulation. MAGA officials and DOGE staffers are cherry-picking data that supports their agenda and discarding evidence that does not.
They are quite fond of citing fringe scientist Edward Calabrese, who, from his work with fruit flies, thinks a little radiation might be beneficial for people. My great, great, great grandfather said something similar while hawking “Dr. Kister’s Radium Charged Water” in the 1900s, until the government ordered him to cease and desist.
Who should we trust?
Industry executives promise their new SMR technology is safe, but Trump has disbanded the independent boards that might hold them accountable. Furthermore, given the disregard Amazon has shown to warehouse worker safety in the name of profit, why would anyone believe that Amazon-owned X-energy would be any more considerate to its nuclear employees or the general public?
The DOE also has a horrific history when it comes to protecting people and the environment from nuclear waste and ionizing radiation. In 2005, radioactive contaminants from deteriorating waste disposal facilities at the Oak Ridge nuclear plant infiltrated the Clinch River, a source of drinking water in East Tennessee.
Summer in Tennessee is demonstrably hotter than it was 40 years ago. Even folks who deny the reality of climate change can’t ignore that tomato planting time is earlier than ever. Some experts say nuclear energy must be a part of America’s renewable energy portfolio if we are to cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming. China, our stated AI nemesis in the Manhattan Project 2.0, also has developed SMR but is relying heavily on solar and wind farms to power its data centers.
The Biden administration also had a plan in place to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which called for adding staff to the NRC to speed up licensing, rather than repealing safety regulations. Following the lead of Canada and Finland, they sought to build trust with local communities through a multi-year consent-based process.
In contrast, Trump vows to quadruple the country’s nuclear capacity, enticing states to volunteer sites as “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.” Selected cities will enrich uranium, create fuel, generate nuclear power, reprocess spent fuel and store nuclear waste all in one location, although without the local buy-in, trust building or necessary geological prescreening present in the Biden plan.
Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee applied to make Oak Ridge one of these nuclear campuses, although with 230 nuclear lifecycle companies operating between Oak Ridge and Knoxville, plus ORNL and the secretive Y-12 National Security Complex, it’s practically one already.
One of the joys of those summer visits to Tennessee as a child was seeing my uncle who worked at Y-12 as a chemist. When asked about his latest classified projects, he would sigh, fold his hands across the bib of his overalls and say, “Well, if I told ya, I’d have to kill ya,” and we kids would laugh. But the serious, sobering truth is the total impact of the radiation from these facilities is itself a secret. It’s been called the “perfect crime” because low doses of ionizing radiation can inflict cell damage and cause cancer decades after exposure.
Remnants of the original Manhattan Project are still around in Oak Ridge, whispering about its secret past. The impact of ionizing radiation lingers like the abandoned guard towers at the edge of town. Residents of Oak Ridge and the surrounding rural towns have more incidents of cancer than the national average due to exposure from this radiation.
On July 4, four of the pilot program SMRs had achieved nuclear criticality. No doubt the relaxation of safety and environmental regulations helped make this possible. This achievement marks a significant milestone in the Manhattan Project 2.0’s quest for cheap electricity to power Silicon Valley’s data centers.
However, just like the original Manhattan Project, America won’t know the full cost for at least another generation. Thanks to Trump’s deregulation spree, that cost to the health and well-being of Americans could be high indeed.
Kristen Thomason is a freelance writer and journalist living outside Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. She has produced educational and promotional media for national and international religious organizations and public television. Kristen also worked with local churches in Metro D.C. and Toronto, Canada. With a master’s degree in communication and undergraduate degrees in media studies and classics, she is interested in the intersection of politics, religion, history and the arts.
Nuclear-related news for the past week

TOP STORIES.
This Hiroshima Day, we are closer than ever to nuclear war.
Climate Change Is Rewriting Europe’s Nuclear Cooling Assumptions.
Ukraine for Hire: How Kyiv Became the West’s Imperial Enforcer.
Gaza’s “Peace Plan” Is Written in Blood.
AUSTRALIA. AUKUS: Its single point of obsolescence.
Pat Conroy,Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry in denial about U.S. military bases (?targets) in Australia.
FROM THE ARCHIVES – Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was always intended as a step towards nuclear weapons, AND IT STILL IS
More at https://antinuclear.net/2026/08/07/australian-news-this-week/
ATROCITIES.
Israel’s Ghoulish Settlers Eye Up Gaza, As Netanyahu Kills Trump’s Board of Peace.
CLIMATE.
- No to Nuclear: why nuclear power and nuclear weapons are interlinked threats to humanity.
- Heatwaves expose nuclear power’s water risk.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ignores climate danger.
- EU considers emergency meeting as nuclear shutdown leaves Hungary facing energy crisis.
- Government ‘continues to ignore warnings’ as wildfire rages near Sizewell B – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?s=Government+%E2%80%98continues+to+ignore+warnings%E2%80%99
- Firefighters in ‘better position’ as they tackle Suffolk wildfire near Sizewell nuclear site, for third day. Suffolk nuclear power plant on alert over wildfire- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/08/04/4-suffolk-nuclear-power-plant-on-alert-over-wildfire/
- Climate change exacerbates nuclear risks in the Arctic. And we are not ready.
ECONOMICS. A stormy future? Financial impact of climate change-related disruptions on nuclear power plant owners.
EDUCATION. How Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & BAE Systems Are Propagandizing Children To Support War Through STEM.
EMPLOYMENT. Burnham is wrong – increased nuke spending will lose more jobs than create.
ENVIRONMENT Activities related to nuclear weapons and nuclear power have created a vast archipelago of contamination.
AI Wants Your Land, Water, Power
HISTORY. Walt Zlotow – Many top military leaders opposed atomic bombings.
LEGAL. Nuclear Watchdog Sues for Plutonium Pit Production “Special Study”.
MEDIA. Press Opinion Treats US Devastation of Cuba as Reason for More Devastation. The powerful impact of six haunting minutes.
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Stop Hinkley campaigners highlight storage of nuclear waste in West Somerset, Where has all the disarmament gone?
POLITICS.
Time to build a Scotland without nuclear weapons. Labour urged to end ‘dangerous’ nuclear weapons policy on Hiroshima Day. Brian Leishman MP blasts party’s own nuclear policy.
𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘: 𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔 𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗦𝗥𝗔𝗘𝗟? After 157 days of Iran war failure, Trump must quit war or quit presidency.
How can Ireland build a nuclear reactor when it can’t even manage a
children’s hospital? What links Palestine Action arrests with Burnham’s nuclear weapons splurge?
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- CIA Assessment Details Israel’s Race to Make the U.S.-Israel Alliance Irreversible.
- How Trump’s Saudi deal could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
- Diplomacy Without De-Escalation: The Manila Talks and Ukraine’s Escalation Strategy.
- Why the U.S. Military is ‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy’ (w/ Abby Martin) | The Chris Hedges Report
RADIATION. DR Congo’s cobalt boom carries an unwanted cargo: uranium– ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?s=DR+Congo%E2%80%99s+cobalt+boom
SECRETS and LIES. Why no Hollywood movie on Nagasaki A bombing?
Nuclear test veterans’ medical records were gathered by secret government lab.
Israeli spyware firms are fueling the global surveillance state.
Is It Just About AIPAC’s Money, or Does the US-Israel Rot Run Far Deeper?
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Secret ‘Project Mars’ roils Torrance County residents.
A Ton of Space Junk Is Reentering Earth’s Atmosphere More Often, and It’s Hard to Predict.
Alert: SpaceX rocket stage will slam into the Moon August 4-5. Can Earth’s people stop it?
TECHNOLOGY. Pentagon Plans AI Data Centers at Military Bases Across Multiple Branches. Cory Doctorow: The people who tell you ‘AI is changing everything’ are lying.
WASTES. Japan begins 22nd release of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into ocean.
WAR and CONFLICT.
- Huge Uptick In Israeli Airstrikes On Gaza Since Trump Hailed ‘Historic’ Hamas Deal.
- ‘Defend Israel or the Homeland’: Top US general issues stark warning to Pentagon brass.
- Stillborn Peace Plans: Israel, Hamas and the Question of Disarmament.
- The ‘Underground Nation’ returns: Switzerland’s new war-time shelter strategy.
- The War of Perception: The West’s infowarfare and cognitive warfare against Russia.
- Kamikaze Drone Slams Into Crowded Russian Black Sea Beach, Killing 3. Ukraine continues its use of mine terrorism against civilians.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. NATO is being installed into Ukraine’s military– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYawuRVSxdU
Nuclear disarmament has never been more urgent.
Hiroshima marks 81st atomic bomb anniversary as mayor deplores the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The Next Weapons Frontier: New Mexico’s Expanding Military Industrial Ecosystem. Common Sense & the Pentagon Budget.
Western countries see World War III coming



Voters in leading allied states broadly support higher defense spending, but balk when faced with policy trade-offs.
POLITICO POLL, February 13, 2026 By Tim Ross, https://www.politico.eu/article/world-war-iii-defense-spending-europe-poll/ [Excellent tables on original]
BRUSSELS — Western countries increasingly believe the world is heading toward a global war, according to results from The POLITICO Poll that detail mounting public alarm about the risk and cost of a new era of conflict.
Across all five countries polled — the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany — the vast majority of respondents think the world is becoming more dangerous. The outbreak of World War 3 is seen as more likely than not within the next five years by American, Canadian, French and British respondents.
The share of voters predicting a new global conflict has risen sharply since independent pollsters Public First asked the question in March 2025. “The changed attitudes of the Western public in under a year reflect a dramatic move to a more insecure world, where war is seen as likely and alliances are unstable,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First.
But The POLITICO Poll also revealed limited willingness among the Western public to make sacrifices to pay for more military spending. While there is widespread support for increasing defense budgets in principle across the U.K., France, Germany and Canada, that support fell sharply when people learned it might mean taking on more government debt, cutting other services or raising taxes.
“Our polling shows the growing concern about war does not give leaders license to spend heavily on defense,” said Wride. “If anything, voters are now less willing to make the trade-offs needed to improve military security. So European leaders are left in a bind — unable to rely on the U.S., unable to use that as a reason to invest domestically, and under higher pressure to urgently solve this for a world where conflict feels closer than before.”
The findings, based on surveys of more than 2,000 voters in each country between Feb. 6 and Feb. 9, lay bare the challenge facing NATO leaders as they try to strengthen security at a time when public finances are tight.
That struggle will shape discussions among politicians from across the world as they head to Germany for the annual Munich Security Conference starting Friday.
With no sign of an imminent end to Russia’s four-year all-out war against Ukraine, and the U.S. taking military action in Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Africa under President Donald Trump, many voters see a growing risk of global conflict.
The pattern is particularly stark in the United Kingdom, where 43 percent believe a new world war is “likely” or “very likely” to break out by 2031 — up from 30 percent in March 2025. Nearly half of Americans — 46 percent — think a new world war is “likely” or “very likely” by 2031 — up from 38 percent last year. Among the five countries, only people in Germany think on balance that a third global war is not likely in the next five years.
When it comes to individual nations engaging in military action, U.S. respondents were the most likely to think their own country will be at war within the next five years, followed by respondents in the U.K. and France.
This suggests NATO’s nuclear powers may be more braced for conflict than other nations, and that Trump’s “president of peace” image is not convincing voters at home.
At least one in three people in the U.S., U.K., France and Canada believe a nuclear weapon is likely or very likely to be used in a war in the next five years.
Russia is seen as the biggest threat to peace in Europe, while Canadians see Trump’s America as the greatest danger to security. In France, Germany and the U.K., the second-biggest threat is seen to be the U.S., which respondents cited far more often than China.
What will it cost?
A majority of voters in France, Germany, the U.K. and Canada said their country needs to spend more on defense, with that sentiment strongest in the U.K. and Canada.
But the question is how to pay for it. The POLITICO Poll found support for more defense spending fell when people were invited to consider whether that funding should come from cuts to other budgets, taking on more government borrowing, or raising taxes.
The French and German publics are now less likely to support higher defense budgets within the context of a spending trade-off than they were last year, according to the results.
In Germany, defense spending was one of the least popular uses of money, ahead of only overseas aid.
In 2025, 40 percent of the French public and 37 percent of the German public said they would support increased defense spending when the trade-offs were mentioned. This year, backing for that fell to only 28 percent in France and 24 percent in Germany.
Both countries are now more likely to oppose spending more on defense when they have to consider how to pay the bill.
The POLITICO Poll showed there is also significant public skepticism about creating an EU standing army under one central command, an idea that has been mentioned by the European Commission. The proposal received support from only 22 percent of people in Germany and 17 percent in France.
Mandatory military service was most popular in Germany and France, where around half of people support the idea.
This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted by Public First from Feb. 6 to 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography. The overall margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.
-
Archives
- August 2026 (153)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


