nuclear-news

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

US nuclear giant Westinghouse pulls out of race to build Britain’s first mini-nukes

There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.

There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.

Westinghouse has not submitted its final bid for the UK’s SMR design competition

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/26/us-company-pulls-out-race-build-britains-first-mini-nuke/

US nuclear giant Westinghouse has pulled out of the UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) design competition.

The four companies remaining in the contest were given a deadline of mid-April to make their final bids, but The Telegraph understands that Westinghouse did not submit one following a negotiation process.

It means only three finalists – Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi and Holtec – remain in the running.

Great British Nuclear (GBN), the quango responsible for the SMR programme, was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each.

Westinghouse did not deny it had withdrawn on Friday but declined to give its reasons.

One industry source suggested the company had baulked at the commercial offer made by the Government.

GBN previously advertised contracts worth £20bn in total for SMR “technology partners”, a figure that is understood to be based on the assumption two winners would be chosen.

However, The Telegraph revealed in February that the Government was considering awarding a contract to only one company as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, looks to make savings in her cross-departmental spending review.

The Chancellor is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed “fiscal rules” for borrowing.

SMR supporters claim they could be a breakthrough in nuclear power because they would be made predominantly in factories and then assembled on site, cutting building times from around a decade to a few years. In theory this could cut costs – as would-be builders of SMRS have repeatedly promised..

Many politicians have snapped up that bait. When he opened the latest stage of the SMR competition, Mr Miliband said: “Small modular reactors will support our mission to become a clean energy superpower.”

However, the nuclear industry has a mixed record on bringing in key projects on time and on budget.

The biggest current example is the UK’s Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset which EDF originally said would cost under £20bn and be operating by now. Current costs estimates are for a final price approaching £50bn and a start-up after 2030.

There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.

A spokesman from the UK Energy Department said: “Great British Nuclear is driving forward its SMR competition for UK deployment. It has now received final tenders, which it will evaluate ahead of taking final decisions this spring.”

On Friday, a GBN spokesman declined to comment on Westinghouse’s position as did Westinghouse itself. 

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Kiev and its backers reject key aspects of Trump’s peace plan – Reuters

25 Apr 25, https://www.rt.com/news/616288-reuters-trump-peace-plan/

The counteroffer is “on the table” of the American president, Vladimir Zelensky has stated

Kiev and its European backers have turned down President Donald Trump’s reported peace plan for the Ukraine conflict in several significant respects, according to a report by Reuters, citing the full texts of the US proposal and the response.

Washington tabled a proposed deal to end hostilities between Kiev and Moscow during a meeting in Paris on Thursday last week. A follow-up meeting took place in London on Wednesday, at which Ukrainian officials and their NATO European counterparts drafted counterproposal.

The London talks were downgraded at the last minute after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky publicly rejected key American suggestions. He declared on Thursday that the European-backed “strategy” was now “on President Trump’s table.”

Having examined the drafts “in full and explicit detail” on Friday, Reuters identified four critical areas of disagreement.

The US is proposing Washington’s formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea — the former Ukrainian region that voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed armed coup in Kiev — and a cessation of hostilities along the current frontline.

Kiev and its European backers are only willing to discuss territorial issues after a ceasefire has been established.

The US document offers a “robust security guarantee” for Ukraine from willing nations, according to Reuters. The Euro-proposal rival proposal insists that no restrictions be placed on Ukraine’s military, including the deployment of foreign troops on its territory, and calls for the US to provide NATO-like protection to Ukraine.

Russia demands Ukraine remains neutral and insists that it will not accept any NATO troop presence, or troops from bloc members as part of a coalition, in the country.

Reuters reported that the US is advocating for the removal of restrictions imposed on Russia since 2014, while Kiev and the Europeans propose a “gradual easing of sanctions after a sustainable peace is achieved,” paired with a threat of snapback measures for non-compliance.

The US framework includes mentions of financial compensation for Ukraine, but lacks specifics. The Kiev-backed counterproposal identifies frozen Russian assets in Western countries as a source for such payments, according to Reuters. Russia has labeled the seizure of its funds illegal and views any use of these assets to support Ukraine as “theft.”

Members of the Trump administration have blasted Zelensky for attempting to negotiate a deal through the media rather than in confidential discussions. The US president has warned that he may withdraw from his mediation efforts altogether if either party stalls progress.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Campaigners tell Government to drop Bradwell nuclear site

27th April, By Sophie England, AI Champion for the South East, https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/25110689.campaigners-tell-government-drop-bradwell-nuclear-site/

A campaign group has told the Government to “drop the Bradwell site” for the development of nuclear energy.

The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has urged the Government to end all interest in the Bradwell site for future nuclear power station development.

In their response to the Government’s National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy, BANNG stated: “In the specific case of Bradwell, the site should be removed from further consideration on the grounds that it is unsuitable and unacceptable.”

The Bradwell site was considered “potentially suitable” for nuclear power by Chinese company CGN from 2015.

However, a pre-application for development in 2020 was met with strong opposition from the Blackwater communities and councils.

This led to CGN pausing its investigations and leaving the site.

It has now been confirmed by the Government and industry that they no longer expect planning applications to be submitted.

BANNG claims this confirms the end of the CGN Bradwell project.

Despite this, the site is still considered to have potential for energy transmission and nuclear infrastructure.

However, BANNG argues that the site does not have widespread public support, with “overwhelming opposition from local councils, stakeholders, community groups led by BANNG over many years”.

BANNG also points out the site’s vulnerability due to its exposed and low-lying coastal location.

They argue that this makes it susceptible to “accidental or malevolent interference and to the increasing impacts of climate change, sea level rise, inundation and storm surges capable of ultimately overwhelming the power station and its long-term highly active waste stores.”

BANNG also criticises the idea of using the site for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), stating that these are “not small and do not yet exist”.

In their consultation response, BANNG urges the Government “to provide a more balanced, less hysterical, account of the virtues and failings of nuclear energy”.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Kursk Region fully liberated from Ukrainians – Putin

Rt.com, 26 Apr, 2025 

Kiev’s gamble to invade Russia has ended up in an unmitigated disaster, the president has said.

The Russian military has completely liberated the border Kursk Region from Ukrainian forces, President Vladimir Putin has said after being briefed on the battlefield situation by General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov.

In a video address shared by the Kremlin on Saturday, Putin thanked Russian service members “who took part in defeating the neo-Nazi groups” that invaded the region last summer.

“The Kiev regime’s adventure has completely failed, and the huge losses suffered by the enemy, including among the most combat-ready, trained and equipped, including by Western models of equipment… will certainly be reflected along the entire line of combat contact,” he said.

According to Putin, the Russian success sets the stage for further advances in other areas of the front, bringing final victory in the conflict closer……………….

…………….Ukraine launched its incursion into Kursk Region last August, initially gaining some ground and capturing numerous settlements before their advance was checked by Russian forces.

Putin has characterized the incursion as an attempt by Kiev to divert attention from Moscow’s offensive in Donbass, adding that this ploy has failed. Ukrainian officials described the operation as a way to gain leverage in potential peace talks with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/616355-kursk-region-fully-liberated/

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Smash it, then claim it

  by beyondnuclearinternational

Trump is trying to rebuild the Iran nuclear deal he destroyed, then declare personal triumph, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

There is deep irony in the current efforts by the Trump administration to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, given it was the previous Trump administration that broke a fully functioning agreement already in place to ensure Iran did not develop nuclear weapons. 

The JCPOA — or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — also known colloquially as the Iran nuclear deal — was agreed in Vienna in June 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. It involved significant monitoring and verification of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities to ensure it remained within the confines of commercial grade. It also lifted UN Security Council sanctions on Iran as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to its nuclear program.

But under the first Donald Trump presidency, the White House effectively tore up the agreement, rendering it worthless when the US withdrew in May 2018. In his classically hyperbolic style, Trump labeled the JCPOA “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

In recent weeks, the new Trump administration has been feverishly negotiating, most recently in Oman, to establish an Iran nuclear deal that could turn out to be remarkably similar to the JCPOA. But this, of course, is the Trump modus operandi: Destroy something perfectly effective, then rebuild it almost in the exact image and declare it his own invention. 

So far, the administration has wavered between demanding that Tehran dismantle its entire nuclear program, backtracking to allow Iran to enrich uranium to within commercial grade, then reversing again, with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff telling Iran it must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment” before the US would sign a deal.

Whether any of this will work remains uncertain, but it certainly wasn’t helped by the recent ravings of New Jersey Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat and former Bernie Sanders supporter whose politics  — and especially rhetoric — on Israel and immigration, have become indistinguishable from many of the more extreme Republicans.  

Of the current Iran talks, Fetterman pronounced: “The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,” referring to the Israeli Defence Forces. …………………………………..

what would the health and environmental impacts be of a major bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Such an act could release clouds of radioactive dust into the atmosphere, contaminating land and water downwind. Contamination of surface and ground water would result in prolonged harmful consequences through ingestion by exposed populations.

Protracted exposure to enriched uranium dust by inhalation and ingestion can cause bone toxicity and reproductive toxicity and lead to renal failure. Uranium is also neurotoxic to the brain.

Tehran had been keeping its uranium enrichment well within the 3.67% limit, even after Trump withdrew the US from JCPOA. But in 2021, an act of sabotage against Natanz, Iran’s largest uranium enrichment facility, which Iran blamed on Israel, blacked out the plant and damaged centrifuges. The attack prompted Iran, unfettered by the shattered nuclear deal, to begin enriching its uranium to as high as 60% U-235 — some sources assert it has even reached 85% — either way a level that is considered weapons usable. Uranium enriched to 90% is considered weapons grade.

Iran’s nuclear facilities have been targeted on several occasions. In 2010, a powerful computer worm known as Stuxnet, designed by US and Israeli intelligence, was used to disable a key part of the Iranian nuclear program. Last year, a strike by the Israeli Air Force hit Iran’s Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center for uranium conversion and fuel production.

As negotiations began with Iran this spring, Trump also used threatening rhetoric at first, warning in late March that if the country did not dismantle its nuclear program, “there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” He made similar threats during the last gasps of his first presidency, when he weighed an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear center but never followed through.

If Iran does indeed agree to end all its nuclear activities, the question remains about what to do with its stockpile of already enriched uranium. One idea apparently mooted by the White House is to allow Russia to store it, with a clause that would let Russia return the stockpile to Iran should the US breach any deal made in the coming weeks.

What all of this points to, of course, is the blurry line between commercial and military nuclear programs. Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, can claim to be abiding by the terms laid out in Article IV which gives countries who agree not to develop nuclear weapons “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The trouble is, no one believes them, exposing the weakness in — and wrongheadedness of — the treaty clause that leaves the back door perpetually open to the production of nuclear weapons.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. Views are her own. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/04/27/smash-it-then-claim-it/

April 28, 2025 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Utahns must think carefully about becoming the nation’s nuclear hub

the risk of investing millions of taxpayer dollars in technology that’s yet to be implemented on a large scale. The investment required to develop nuclear power plants is massive. The state has lauded microreactors and SMRs as the stuff of the future.

We call on all Utahns to evaluate nuclear energy’s cost, timeline and environmental impacts

April 26, 2025, By Danielle Endres, Madi Sudweeks,
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/04/26/utah-risks-of-nuclear-energy-hub/

Danielle Endres, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Utah whose research focuses on energy democracy. Madi Sudweeks is a lifelong Utahn and a graduate student studying nuclear energy and environmental justice. The views expressed in this op-ed are their own and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Utah.

Utah’s Legislature has put hope in nuclear energy as a key component of our state’s future energy mix. At the start of the 2025 legislative session, Senate President Stuart Adams proclaimed that he wants Utah to be the “nation’s nuclear hub.” Governor Spencer Cox, likewise, included nuclear energy in Operation Gigawatt, an initiative aimed at doubling the state’s energy production over the next 10 years. With the passage of HB249, the state created the Nuclear Energy Consortium to advise nuclear energy development in Utah. Now we must consider whether nuclear energy is right for our state.

To ensure decisions about how we will power Utah’s future are as democratic as possible, all Utahns should be part of the deliberation. We call on Utahns, including our Legislature, governor and the Nuclear Energy Consortium, to evaluate nuclear energy’s cost, timeline and environmental impacts.

We have already seen how costly nuclear development can be here in Utah. In 2015, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) partnered with NuScale on a small modular reactor (SMR) project, planned to be at Idaho National Labs and provide power to several towns in Utah by 2030. The project was canceled in November 2023 after cost estimates increased from $3 billion to $9 billion.

This failed project reveals the risk of investing millions of taxpayer dollars in technology that’s yet to be implemented on a large scale. The investment required to develop nuclear power plants is massive. The state has lauded microreactors and SMRs as the stuff of the future. They claim new technology will make nuclear energy safer, easier to produce and cheaper. However, the electricity produced by UAMPS/NuScale project would have been more expensive than that produced by the most recent traditional nuclear power plant to come online in the U.S.

That project was not an exception. A 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists report shows that SMRs will be more expensive than traditional nuclear plants.

Developing nuclear power is costly and time-intensive. A 2014 study by Dr. Benjamin Sovacool and colleagues demonstrated that a sample of 175 nuclear reactors took on average 64% longer than projected. Dr. Arjun Makhijani argues that nuclear power is too slow and too costly to meaningfully reduce emissions, especially when renewables like solar and wind are ready now and cheaper than ever.

The state’s call to become a nuclear powerhouse is another iteration of the nuclear renaissance we saw in the early 2000s. However, calls for nuclear development in response to climate change then did not result in an increase in nuclear power. Nuclear consistently provides about 20% of electricity for the U.S. Skeptical public opinion, accidents at TMI and Chernobyl, cost, and long construction times have meant that only three new reactors have come online since the 1990s.

Now we’re seeing a new version of a call for a nuclear renaissance. In Utah, Adams said we need nuclear energy to meet the energy demand of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI requires massive amounts of power and water; experts expect power demand to skyrocket with the computing power needed for AI. Because tech companies have committed to reducing greenhouse gases, they are looking to nuclear power to supply the increased demand because, proponents argue, it can supply stable electricity that intermittent solar and wind energy cannot. However, there are other ways to provide baseload or surgable electricity, including battery storage and geothermal.

Whether or not nuclear energy ends up powering AI, we should be asking ourselves if it is worth the cost and if Utah, already threatened by drought, should be seeking out such a water and energy-intensive industry. Our communities and our environment will continue to pay the price with our tax dollars, our water and our power.

There is no one energy source that is inherently good. Each requires resources and has an impact on its surrounding communities and environments. If Utah is going to consider nuclear power, we call for state leaders and Utahns to engage in a nuanced and research-based analysis of its benefits and risks. Our own analysis makes us skeptical that it’s the right energy source for Utah. And we’re not alone — a former nuclear engineer also recently made the case against nuclear power for Utah.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

7 arrested during blockade of RAF Lakenheath, 26 April 2025

  • 7 activists arrested during blockade of RAF Lakenheath
  • 250 people gathered to blockade base in opposition to return of US nuclear weapons to Britain
  • Action occured on final day of two-week peace camp organised by Lakenheath Alliance for Peace

CND, 26 Apr 25

Seven people were arrested during a blockade that closed the main gate of RAF Lakenheath today, during peaceful protests in opposition to any return of US nuclear weapons to the Suffolk air base.

250 people from across the country – as well as international delegates – participated in the demonstration and blockade, which marked the final day of the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace peace camp. There has been acontinuous presence of campaigners outside the main gate of the base since 14 April, as well as events highlighting Lakenheath’s role in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, the role of the military in climate breakdown, and NATO’s nuclear network in Europe.

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

“Solidarity with the seven people who were arrested as part of this successful action which shut down the main entrance to RAF Lakenheath for over three hours. Rather than arresting people for peacefully protesting the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain and the base’s role in supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the police should be investigating the clear violations of international law being facilitated by both the British government and US bases in Britain. Nuclear weapons don’t make us safer, they make us a target. We’re going to keep on protesting at these bases to stop US nuclear dangers. We want an end to these US bases in Britain.”

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Remembering Chernobyl: Why not developing Wylfa B is a no-brainer.

26 Apr 2025, Robat Idris, https://nation.cymru/opinion/remembering-chernobyl-why-not-developing-wylfa-b-is-a-no-brainer/

26th April 2025 marks the 39th anniversary of the catastrophic nuclear explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine – which, at the time, was part of the Soviet Union.

It’s worth reminding people of the effects of that horrific event. Tens of thousands of children and adolescents developed thyroid cancer in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and children from affected areas have been welcomed here for respite holidays.

Genetic problems have been observed in the wildlife of the area. The area around the nuclear plant is still uninhabited.

Moreover, the rain that fell in Wales following the explosion caused radioactive pollution, even though we were 1,600 miles away. As a result, there was a serious impact on the agricultural industry, with upland lamb being banned from entering the food chain until tests showed that the level of Caesium-137 radiation had been adequately reduced.

Restrictions were placed on 9,800 farms, most of them in Wales and Cumbria. The final restrictions were not lifted until 2012 – 26 years after the explosion.

Why mention this now?

Because Chernobyl is in a country that is in the middle of war; a country that contains other nuclear reactors such as Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear complex in Europe. Because a shell built over the reactor at Chernobyl in order to prevent radiation from escaping was hit by a drone on the 14th of February this year. Because it is the first war that is being fought in a country where there are active nuclear reactors.

And because this nightmare could happen to us.

War target

With all the talk of preparing for war by political parties in Westminster, the British State’s obsession with nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous. Consider that Starmer wants to see nuclear plants all over the State! All would be a target in war. And all need to be protected by special police.

All of this is another reason for opposing nuclear, though there are enough already – the radioactive waste without a long-term solution; the fact that waste would be on site for over a century; the dangers of fire; the fact that it will not be possible to build enough nuclear to have an impact on climate change; the diversion of funds and resources from renewable energy; the environmental mess associated with uranium mining; the threat to the Welsh language by thousands of workers for a large station; the likelihood that relatively few workers would be needed for operating a Modular Reactor (SMR); the extreme cost.

No-brainer

Yet as reported in Nation Cymru, Llinos Medi, the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn at Westminster, has claimed in the House of Commons on 8 April 2025 that the development of a site at Wylfa is a ‘no-brainer’.

We respectfully ask her to reconsider this statement, and see why NOT building Wylfa B is a ‘no-brainer’. Here are, in short, 10 additional reasons.

The people of Anglesey need work – Llinos and PAWB at least agree on this! Nevertheless, since Tony Blair’s Energy Review in 2006, the main political emphasis of all levels of government has been on supporting Wylfa B. Where is the evidence that nuclear work is what the people want? The portraying of nuclear power over so many years as essential is economic recklessness.

In a world where there is uncertainty about the relationship with the United States, shouldn’t we be as wary of American investment in infrastructure as we are with investments from China?

As there are no licensed Modular Reactors (SMR’s), wouldn’t it be foolish for Ynys Môn to be a laboratory for this untested technology? And where are the reliable figures for how many permanent jobs would be needed?

The link between civil and military nuclear is undeniable, and is recognized by none other than Rolls-Royce, which is in the race to build SMR’s. As a representative of Plaid Cymru, a party that opposes nuclear weapons, this should be an essential consideration. Llinos, to her credit, is in the Welsh tradition of raising a voice against war, as she has done for Gaza.

A nuclear power station at Wylfa would create more dependence on the Westminster government, as huge public funding would be required, not only for construction, but for eventual decommissioning for tens of years.

On the other hand, sustainable energy could not only create jobs, but also generate income. The marine energy project, Morlais, shows what is possible.

Energy ownership

Energy ownership is crucial – the profit from nuclear would be exported. Similarly, sustainable energy must be in our hands, or we will export the profits that we generate. Green energy in the right place, not on hundreds of agricultural acres for the benefit of multinational companies.

It must be asked in whose interests the Starmer Government is working. Large American companies such as BlackRock are favored to invest in infrastructure. It intends to undermine the right of local communities to oppose major plans. What democracy is this?

Why do companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Google have investments in nuclear energy? The reason is data centers, which use electricity on an enormous scale, and moreover require a large amount of water to keep them from overheating. 21% of Ireland’s electricity goes to data centres (2023). Water demand is at its peak when the weather is hot and dry – which is exactly when water is scarce in reservoirs. A warning to Ynys Môn!

The growth agenda – represented in Ynys Môn by Wylfa B – runs counter to the needs of the planet, and the needs of Ynys Môn and Wales. Sooner or later, politicians will have to recognize how dire the situation is before it’s too late.

Prosperous future

The challenge for Llinos Medi is to find a way to make a reality of what we ALL would fully support – a prosperous future for Ynys Môn and its people – but without a nuclear power station. After almost two decades of supporting Wylfa B, our economic situation is desperate. The legacy she wishes the children of the island to inherit are good and sustainable jobs, with the ability to afford to live here instead of having to leave. That’s our hope too.

PAWB (People Against Wylfa B), as ever, is ready to offer constructive ideas, as it did with the ‘Maniffesto Môn’ written by the late Dr Carl Clowes back in 2012. How about it, Llinos?

April 28, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK to scrap plans for Ukraine troop deployment – The Times

RT.com 25 Apr 25

London and Paris had previously lead an effort to send a European contingent if a ceasefire is reached.

The UK has ditched plans to deploy a military contingent to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, The Times has reported, citing anonymous sources.

The defense chiefs from a number of European NATO states had in recent weeks been discussing sending military personnel to Ukraine, under a so-called “coalition of the willing.” Russia has strongly objected to the prospect of Western troops appearing in the neighboring country under any pretext.

In an article on Thursday, The Times quoted an unnamed source as saying that the “risks are too high and the forces inadequate for” a deployment that had been previously under consideration. According to the publication, “it was France who wanted a more muscular approach.”

Instead of coalition forces guarding key Ukrainian cities, ports, and nuclear power plants, the grouping now envisages more emphasis on Western military instructors training Ukrainian troops in the west of the country, who would “‘reassure’ by being there but aren’t a deterrence or protection force,” The Times reported, citing an anonymous source.

The softened vision for a Western military presence in Ukraine does, however, reportedly include the coalition’s aircraft patrolling Ukraine’s airspace and Türkiye providing maritime cover…………………………………..https://www.rt.com/news/616330-uk-scraps-ukraine-troop-deployment/

April 28, 2025 Posted by | UK, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US prepares $100bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia ahead of Trump visit

The mega deal comes as Washington continues to push for the normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel

APR 25, 2025, The Cradle,

Washington is preparing a major arms package for Saudi Arabia worth over $100 billion, according to six sources cited by Reuters.
The deal is expected to be announced during US President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to the kingdom in May.
This proposed package follows a failed attempt by the former US president Joe Biden government to broker a broader security agreement that included Saudi normalization with Israel in exchange for advanced US arms, assistance in developing a civilian nuclear program, and reduced Chinese influence in the region.
While it remains unclear whether Trump’s proposal includes similar conditions, the package is expected to feature a range of advanced weaponry.

This includes C-130 transport aircraft, missiles, and radars supplied by major US defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics.

Lockheed is reportedly involved in a potential $20 billion drone deal involving MQ-9B SeaGuardian-style aircraft – an agreement discussed since 2018.
Defense company executives are reportedly considering traveling to Saudi Arabia as part of the US delegation. The Pentagon emphasized that the US–Saudi defense relationship remains strong under Trump’s leadership.

The US has a longstanding history of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, highlighted by Trump’s 2017 proposal of $110 billion in weapons deals. However, only $14.5 billion of those sales had been initiated by 2018, and Congress raised concerns following the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. These concerns led to a 2021 congressional ban on offensive weapons sales under president Biden.

The Biden administration began softening its stance in 2022 due to shifting geopolitical dynamics, including the Ukraine war’s impact on oil markets. The ban on offensive weapons sales was lifted in 2024, as the US worked more closely with Riyadh after Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel.

Meanwhile, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman visited Tehran on April 17, meeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and conveying a message from King Salman.

The visit resulted from renewed nuclear talks between the US and Iran amid fears of regional escalation………………….https://thecradle.co/articles-id/30331

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Spain terminates multimillion deal with Israeli weapons maker

Coalition authorities in Madrid have stressed their commitment to ‘the Palestinian cause and peace in West Asia

APR 24, 2025,  The Cradle,https://thecradle.co/articles/spain-terminates-multimillion-deal-with-israeli-weapons-maker

The Spanish government ordered the immediate termination of a $7.5 million contract to buy ammunition from a company with direct ties to Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems on 24 April. 

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez canceled the deal after Sumar, a group of left-wing parties, threatened to leave the governing coalition.

“After exhausting all routes for negotiation, the prime minister, deputy prime minister, and ministries involved have decided to rescind this contract,” a government source told Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska formalized a contract with Israeli-owned company Guardian Homeland Security S.A. for over 15 million rounds of ammunition, causing a stir at the Moncloa Palace in light of Sanchez’s February 2024 pledge not to purchase weapons from Israel over the Gaza genocide.

Spanish media reports that authorities stressed the commitment of the progressive coalition government parties (PSOE and Sumar) “to the Palestinian cause and peace in the Middle East.” They also noted that since the US-backed ethnic cleansing campaign began in Gaza in October 2023, Spain has not purchased or sold weapons to Israeli firms, “nor will it do so in the future.”

However, despite the claims from Moncloa Palace, in February, the Progressive International (PI), the Palestinian Youth Movement, and the American Friends Service Committee revealed that over 60,000 weapon parts have been transported to Israel via Zaragoza airport in northern Spain since October 2023.

“The evidence indicates that these flights continue to this day,” investigators told elDiario.es, adding that the shipments include “parts and accessories for artillery, rifles, rocket/grenade launchers and machine guns” and “parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols.”

In December, The Intercept revealed that Washington sent over a thousand tons of ammunition to Israel on a ship that docked at a US naval base in Spain, despite Madrid’s embargo on vessels carrying military cargo bound for Israel.

“Shipments through American military bases in Spain of military materials, which may be used in the commission of international crimes, are harder to detect,” Spanish lawmaker Enrique Santiago told the New York-based outlet.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Spain, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As Israel Openly Declares Starvation as a Weapon, Media Still Hesitate to Blame It for Famine

this is a genocide, after all—even if the corporate media refuse to say the word—and starvation is part and parcel of that.

Belén Fernández, April 25, 2025, https://fair.org/home/as-israel-openly-declares-starvation-as-a-weapon-media-still-hesitate-to-blame-it-for-famine/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on March 2 that “Israel has decided to stop letting goods and supplies into Gaza,” where the ongoing Israeli genocide, with the loyal backing of the United States, has officially killed more than 51,000 Palestinians since October 2023. The announcement regarding the total halt of humanitarian aid amounted to yet another explicit declaration of the starvation policy that Israel is pursuing in the Gaza Strip, a territory that—thanks in large part to 17 consecutive years of Israeli blockade—has long been largely dependent on such aid for survival.

Of course, this was not the first time that senior Israeli officials had advertised their reliance on the war crime of forced starvation in the current genocidal assault on Gaza. On October 9, 2023, two days after the most recent launch of hostilities, then–Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” Two days after that, Foreign Minister Israel Katz boasted of cutting off “water, electricity and fuel” to the territory.

And just this month, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir proclaimed that there was “no reason for a gram of food or aid to enter Gaza.” Following an April 22 dinner held in his honor in Florida at US President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, Ben-Gvir reported that US Republicans had

expressed support for my very clear position on how to act in Gaza and that the food and aid depots should be bombed in order to create military and political pressure to bring our hostages home safely.

Never mind that the hostages would have been brought home safely as scheduled had Israel chosen to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas that was implemented in January, rather than definitively annihilating the agreement on March 18.

It is no doubt illustrative of Israel’s modus operandi that the March 2 decision to block the entry of all food and other items necessary for human existence took place in the middle of an ostensible ceasefire.

‘Starved, bombed, strangled’

While Ben-Gvir’s most recent comments have thus far eluded commentary in the US corporate media, the roundabout media approach to the whole starvation theme has been illuminating in its own right. It has not, obviously, been possible to avoid reporting on the subject altogether, as the United Nations and other organizations have pretty much been warning from the get-go of Israel’s actions causing widespread famine in Gaza.

In December 2023, for example, just two months after the onset of Israel’s blood-drenched campaign, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative, or IPC scale, determined that “over 90% of the population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.08 million people) was estimated to face high levels of acute food insecurity, classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse).” The assessment went on: “Among these, over 40% of the population (939,000 people) were in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) and over 15% (378,000 people) were in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5).”

A full year ago, in April 2024, even Samantha Power—then the administrator of the US Agency for International Development—conceded that it was “credible” that famine was already well underway in parts of the Gaza Strip. And the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs now warns that Gaza is “likely facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the 18 months since the escalation of hostilities in October 2023”—its population being “starved, bombed, strangled” and subjected to “deprivation by design.”

Disappearance of agency

None of these details have escaped the pages and websites of corporate media outlets, although the media’s frequent reliance on ambiguous wordiness tends to distract readers from what is actually going on—and who is responsible for it. Take, for instance,  the New York Times headline “Gaza Famine Warning Spurs Calls to Remove Restrictions on Food Shipments” (6/25/24), or the CBS video “Hunger Spreads Virtually Everywhere in Gaza Amid Israel/Hamas War” (12/5/24).  Even news outlets that intermittently undertake to spotlight the human plight of, inter alia, individual parents in Gaza losing their children to starvation remain susceptible to long-winded efforts to disperse blame. (As of April of last year, Save the Children confirmed that 27 children in northern Gaza had already died of starvation and disease.)

In an era in which news consumption often consists of skimming headlines, the phrasing of article titles is of utmost import. And yet many headlines manage to entirely excise the role of Israel in Gaza’s “hunger crisis”—as in CNN’s report (2/24): “‘We Are Dying Slowly:’ Palestinians Are Eating Grass and Drinking Polluted Water as Famine Looms Across Gaza.” Or take the Reuters headline (3/24/24): “Gaza’s Catastrophic Food Shortage Means Mass Death Is Imminent, Monitor Says.” Or this one from ABC News (11/15/24): “Famine ‘Occurring or Imminent’ in Parts of Northern Gaza, Experts Warn UN Security Council.”

It’s not that these headlines are devoid of sympathy for Palestinian suffering. The issue, rather, is the dilution—and even disappearance—of agency, such that the “catastrophic food shortage” is rendered as transpiring in a sort of vacuum and thereby letting the criminals perpetrating it off the hook. Imagine if a Hamas rocket from Gaza killed an infant in Israel and the media reported the event as follows: “Israeli Baby Perishes as Rocket Completes Airborne Trajectory.”

‘No shortage of aid’

Then there is the matter of the media’s incurable habit of ceding Israeli officials a platform to spout demonstrable lies, as in the April 17 NBC News headline “Aid Groups Describe Dire Conditions in Gaza as Israel Says There Is No Shortage of Aid.” The fact that Israel is permitted to make such claims is particularly perplexing, given Israeli officials’ own announcements that no aid whatsoever may enter the territory, while the “dire conditions” are made abundantly clear in the text of the article itself: “The Global Nutrition Cluster, a coalition of humanitarian groups, has warned that in March alone, 3,696 children were newly admitted for care for acute malnutrition” in Gaza.

Among numerous other damning statistics conveyed in the dispatch, we learn that all Gaza bakeries supported by the UN World Food Programme closed down on March 31, “after wheat flour ran out.” Meanwhile, the WFP calculated that Israel’s closure of border crossings into Gaza caused prices of basic goods “to soar between 150% and 700% compared with prewar levels, and by 29% to as much as 1,400% above prices during the ceasefire.”

Against such a backdrop, it’s fairly ludicrous to allow Israeli officials to “maintain there is ‘no shortage’ of aid in Gaza and accuse Hamas of withholding supplies.” If the press provides Israel with space to spout whatever nonsense it wants—reality be damned—where is the line ultimately drawn? If Israel decides Hamas is using wheat flour to build rockets, will that also be reported with a straight face?

Lest anyone think that thwarting the entry of food into the Gaza Strip is a new thing, recall that Israel’s blockade of Gaza long predated the present war—although the details of said blockade are generally glossed over in the media in favor of the myth that Israel unilaterally “withdrew” from the territory in 2005. In 2010, the BBC (6/21/10) listed some basic foodstuffs—pardon, potential “dual-use items”—that Israel had at different times in recent history blocked from entering Gaza, including pasta, coffee, tea, nuts and chocolate. In 2006, just a year after the so-called “withdrawal,” Israeli government adviser Dov Weissglas outlined the logic behind Israel’s restriction of food imports into Gaza: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Fast forward almost two decades, and it’s safe to say that the “idea” has evolved; this is a genocide, after all—even if the corporate media refuse to say the word—and starvation is part and parcel of that. But on account of Israel’s extra-special relationship with the United States, US media have institutionalized the practice of beating around the bush when it comes to documenting Israeli crimes. This is how we end up with the aforementioned long-winded headlines instead of, say, the far more straightforward “Israel is starving Gaza,” a Google search of which terms produces not a single corporate media dispatch, but does lead to a January 2024 report by that very name, courtesy of none other than the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

‘Starving as negotiation tactic’

That said, there have been a few surprises. The New York Times (3/13/25), for example, took a short break from its longstanding tradition of unabashed apologetics for Israeli atrocities in allowing the following sentence to appear in a March opinion article by Megan Stack: “Israeli officials are essentially starving Gaza as a negotiation tactic.” In the very least, this was a vast improvement, in terms of syntactic clarity and assignation of blame, over previous descriptions of Israeli behavior immortalized on the pages of the US newspaper of record—like that time the Israeli military slaughtered four kids playing by the sea in Gaza, and the Times editors (7/16/14) went with the headline “Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife.”

In the end, Israel’s starvation of the Gaza Strip is multifaceted. It’s not just about physically blocking the entry of food into the besieged enclave. It’s also about Israel’s near-total decimation of Gaza’s healthcare system: the bombardment of hospitals, the targeting of ambulances, the massacres of medical personnel (FAIR.org, 4/11/25). It’s about Israeli military attacks on humanitarian aid convoys and workers, including the April 2024 massacre of seven international employees of the food organization World Central Kitchen.

It’s about Israel razing agricultural areas, wiping out food production, devastating the fishing industry and depleting livestock. It’s about Israel bombing water infrastructure in Gaza. And it’s about Israeli troops slaughtering at least 112 desperate Palestinians queuing for flour on February 29, 2024 (FAIR.org, 3/22/24)—which was at least a quicker way of killing starving people than waiting for them to starve.

In his 2017 London Review of Books essay (6/15/17) on the use of famine as a weapon of war, Alex de Waal referenced the “physical debilitation of groups as a technique of genocide,” noting that “forced starvation was one of the instruments of the Holocaust.” It’s worth reflecting on the essay’s opening paragraph:

In its primary use, the verb “to starve” is transitive: It’s something people do to one another, like torture or murder. Mass starvation as a consequence of the weather has very nearly disappeared: Today’s famines are all caused by political decisions, yet journalists still use the phrase “man-made famine” as if such events were unusual.

As for the current case of the Gaza Strip, US establishment journalists appear to be doing their best to avoid the transitive nature of the verb in question—or any subject-verb-object construction that might too overtly expose Israeli savagery. And by treating famine in Gaza as a subject unto itself, rather than a “technique of genocide,” to borrow de Waal’s words, the media assist in obscuring the bigger picture about this very man-made famine—which is that Israel is not just starving Gaza. Israel is exterminating Gaza.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel, media, USA | Leave a comment

Plutonium’s Hidden Legacy at Piketon

Plutonium was here. It was processed, mishandled, released, and denied. It contaminated water, soil, fish, and workers. It spread to schools. And it killed.

Investigative Team April 24, 2025, https://appareport.com/2025/04/24/plutoniums-hidden-legacy-at-piketon/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=jetpack_social&fbclid=IwY2xjawJ5XrBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE3b0JDR3JZZ0xqRkNqVU1oAR5YM8gN60lbVkb21XEno8JBYLC_Rnqv7LD993TwfBersmNr-c-SsZuL1J_1mA_aem_sCNRay627WxIPPEuu7DVsA  [ample illustrations]

For decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) claimed that plutonium had no place at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS). But government documents, congressional testimony, and radiological data spanning more than 40 years tell a different story — one of systemic exposure, buried secrets, and radioactive contamination that continues to haunt the soil, water, and people of southern Ohio.

The truth has been revealed in pieces. Some of it was made public as early as the 1990s. Some surfaced only recently. Together, it paints an undeniable picture: plutonium was present at PORTS, it was mishandled, and it left a toxic legacy that federal agencies have failed to clean up — or fully acknowledge.

The Paper Trail: Plutonium Officially Confirmed

The denial cracked in 1999, when The Portsmouth Daily Times published a front-page bombshell: “Plutonium Confirmed in Piketon.” The article cited admissions by federal officials that plutonium-contaminated uranium had been shipped to the site from Paducah, Kentucky, as part of a Cold War-era uranium recycling program.

In a formal letter to DOE Secretary Bill Richardson, U.S. Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich confirmed that at least 570 tons of contaminated feed material had been sent to Piketon, beginning as early as 1983. DOE had known. The public had not.

The Incinerator and the Burned Truth

Records show the X-705A incinerator, which operated from the 1970s until 1986, was used to burn approximately 50,000 pounds of uranium-contaminated solid waste annually. But it didn’t stop there.

ccording to on-site Ohio EPA coordinator Maria Galanti, uranium-contaminated solvents — materials never meant for incineration — were also burned in the unit. The result? Soil surrounding the incinerator is now radioactive to a depth of at least 12 feet.

Until the late 1980s, operators even tilled radioactive oils into unlined soil, assuming it would degrade over time. It didn’t. And it won’t — the plutonium isotopes involved have half-lives exceeding 24,000 years.

Radiation in the Waterways — and the Food Chain

A 2006 Ohio EPA report confirmed what residents feared: plutonium had migrated offsite and into the public environment.

Testing in Little Beaver Creek, Big Beaver Creek, Big Run, and the Scioto River revealed the presence of:

  • Plutonium-238
  • Plutonium-239
  • Americium-241
  • Neptunium-237
  • Alongside technetium-99 and uranium isotopes

All these elements were detected well above background levels, confirming they originated from the plant, not nature.

The Hazard Index (HI) — a risk threshold used by federal agencies — was exceeded across all tested water bodies, with Big Run scoring more than 20 times the EPA’s risk cutoff.

Separate DOE assessments show Pu-238 in fish as a significant dietary exposure source, second only to Tc-99 in produce. Plutonium has entered the food chain.

Offsite Spread: Plutonium Detected Near Schools and Homes

Monitoring data confirmed the presence of plutonium-239/240, neptunium-237, and americium-241 at offsite stations including:

  • Station A41A near Zahn’s Corner Middle School
  • Station A6 in northwest Piketon
  • Station A23 near local residential zones

DOE contends that any plutonium found in air monitors comes from 1950s nuclear weapons testing fallout and not PORTS.

Workers Testify to Deception and Disease

At a 2000 Senate hearing, former worker Sam Ray described his fight with chondrosarcoma, a rare bone cancer he linked directly to his work at PORTS. He spoke of no health monitoring, no protective equipment, and no transparency.

Jeffrey Walburn, a plant whistleblower, testified to a 1994 chemical exposure that permanently damaged his lungs. He alleged a criminal cover-up by Lockheed Martin, including the alteration and destruction of radiation dose records.

He warned that widows of deceased workers may never receive compensation because exposure data had been falsified.

DOE’s Own Admissions: Plutonium in the Cascade System

According to a 2024 DOE report, plutonium-238 and plutonium-239 were present in enrichment equipment, having entered the cascade system through contaminated uranium hexafluoride cylinders. The isotopes were found in the X-326 Process Building and throughout the cascade.

DOE also confirmed that residual technetium-99 remained embedded in internal pipe surfaces, requiring special disposal decades after operations ended.

From Russian Warheads to Pike County: The Megatons to Megawatts Program

Between 1993 and 2013, the U.S. and Russia dismantled over 20,000 nuclear warheads under the Megatons to Megawatts Program — converting highly enriched uranium (HEU) into low-enriched uranium (LEU) for use in American power plants.

But that uranium didn’t just vanish. It came through U.S. enrichment sites — including the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon.

Contractor and DOE records confirm that Russian-origin uranium — some of it likely carrying residual contaminants from dismantled warheads — was introduced into the U.S. enrichment stream at PORTS.

Whether plutonium from these shipments contributed to PORTS contamination is still under question. What’s undeniable is this: the U.S. government sent Russian bomb-grade material through an Appalachian processing plant with a history of unsafe handling, minimal oversight, and deliberate secrecy.

They took Soviet nukes and ran them through Appalachian lungs. Without warning. Without consent.

While the legacy of plutonium contamination at PORTS stretches back to the Cold War, the threat isn’t just historical — it’s current, legal, and active.

Centrus Energy: HALEU, the NRC license, and legal plutonium storage at PORTS

In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted Centrus Energy Corp. a license to operate a first-of-its-kind High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) facility inside the old enrichment footprint at PORTS. HALEU is a higher-enriched form of uranium (5–20% U-235), specifically produced for next-generation small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

But buried in the licensing documents is something the public was never told:

The HALEU license explicitly authorizes Centrus to store an undisclosed amount of plutonium-bearing material at the site.

That’s not speculation — that’s federal licensing language. In plain English: Centrus is legally allowed to store plutonium compounds at a facility that already has a catastrophic contamination legacy.

A Legacy Buried in Contamination and Lies

Plutonium was here. It was processed, mishandled, released, and denied. It contaminated water, soil, fish, and workers. It spread to schools. And it killed.

Some of the evidence has been buried. Some altered. But most of it has been in plain sight — ignored by federal agencies and omitted from cleanup plans.

This is not an old story. This is an ongoing disaster.

The time for quiet compliance is over. The reckoning for Piketon — and for the people poisoned by its secrets — has come.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

Call it what it clearly is: Genocide

April 26, 2025, By Walt Zlotow, https://theaimn.net/call-it-what-it-clearly-is-genocide/

Some dare not call it genocide

Folks following the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, fully enabled by America, are of two views.

Those of us in the peace community instantly recognised that Israel’s response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack was a genocidal ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza.

We didn’t have to guess. Israeli leaders made clear through word and deed that return of Israeli hostages was secondary to their primary goal of killing and clearing out all 2,300,000 Palestinians so Gaza could be redeveloped to expand Greater Israel.

It was also clear that the US, under both Biden and Trump, were and are in complete accord with Israel’s grisly, murderous policy. Biden feigned sympathy for the tens of thousands of dead Palestinian innocents on his watch and the decimated 139 square miles of Gaza rubble. But he kept mum while delivering over $20 billion in weapons allowing Israel to rain down on Gaza over 50,000 tons of American bombs dropped from American planes.

Trump, no surprise, gloried in the worst genocide this century. He invited indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu to the Oval Office to discuss which African countries they could intimidate to take in the roughly 2.2 million remaining starving, sick, traumatized Palestinians. Trump is eager to kick start his biggest real estate project ever, expanding Greater Israel into Gaza once the Palestinians have been cleared out. That is grotesque, not something to champion.

Then there are those who refuse to believe or admit that genocide is occurring before their eyes and ears in real time.

Reasons likely many.

Some simply view it not as genocide but a war between Israel and Hamas.

Some argue that the Palestinian destruction, no matter how horrible, does not rise to genocide which they equate to the Nazi horrors of WWII.

Some are in complete sympathy with Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign, indeed, cheering it on. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s new Ambassador to Israel, claims there is no such thing as Palestine or even Palestinians, so let the ethnic cleansing proceed unabated to expand Greater Israel.

There is a near total blackout in mainstream media of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Whether conservative or progressive, the talking heads go mute when it comes to the informing the public of the most horrific US policy in their lifetime.

None in Congress dare cross the Israel lobby by calling it genocide. To do so risks having millions in lobby campaign funds dry up or worse, going to a pro lobby primary opponent. Some are horrified by the violence crushing the Palestinians but cannot embrace the moral imperative to call it out and demand its end.

To his credit, Sen. Bernie Sanders tried twice to pass Senate Joint Resolutions to cut off the flow of genocide weapons to Israel but only garnered 17 votes from the other 99 mostly genocide-supporting Senators. But tho Sanders calls Israel’s conduct “ethnic cleansing”, he refuses to call it what it truly is: genocide.

Representing Sanders’ Senate opposite is colleague John Fetterman, who supports Israel cutting off all food, medicine, and water to Gaza until the Israeli hostages are released. Horrifying.

Israel breaks the January ceasefire with daily bombings, killing dozens of Palestinian innocents while most Americans turn away.

Collectively, American genocide deniers enable President Trump to fund, supply, and cheer on arguably the most murderous, destructive and tragically bi-partisan foreign policy in American history.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

EDF’s new UK plants should be negotiated as one, French energy minister says.

EDF’s two UK nuclear construction projects at Hinkley Point and Sizewell
should be negotiated as a single financial venture, France’s energy
minister has urged, to prevent the French energy giant shouldering
significant cost overruns.

Marc Ferracci said he had held discussions on
the projects with Britain’s energy minister Ed Miliband on Thursday, on
the sidelines of an energy security summit in London. “France and EDF are
very committed to deliver the projects but we have to find a way to
accelerate them and we have to find a way to consolidate the financial
schemes of both projects,” Ferracci told the FT.

France has been lobbying
the UK government to help EDF with the finances of Hinkley Point C in
Somerset for more than a year. It argues that the French state-owned
electricity operator should not be left on the hook for cost overruns that
have taken the total bill to as high as £46bn. EDF — which has also
experienced long delays on other projects using the same reactor technology
in Finland and France — has warned that the first of two reactors at
Hinkley Point C could be delayed to as late as 2031, which would be six
years later than its original target.

The French company has a smaller
equity stake in the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, which it is also
developing. Ferracci denied that the French government was seeking to use
Sizewell as “leverage” to help bail it out of financial difficulties at
Hinkley.

 FT 25th April 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/0c50a553-3376-42d8-8ac5-c8aa84d2e78d

April 27, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »