The media, scientific consensus, and toxic nuclear waste

Not to be outdone by more modern means of propaganda, Nuclear Waste Services has continued the tradition of only providing the audience with the information that suits their argument.

The only way to reduce waste is to reduce the activities that cause it.

There is no other logical way.

News media tends to use ‘scientific consensus’ as if it is the end point of the discussion.

The implication that ‘this is the only way’ serves to quash dissenting voices and validate the overall message of the article.

When government agencies are hard to trust, who do we look to? Scientists. But what job is the concept of scientific consensus doing in the marketing of the GDF?

A Quiet Resistance, 8 May 2025

‘Scientific consensus’ carries a lot of weight in news media discussing the proposed Geological Disposal Facilities (GDFs) (nuclear waste dumps) in West Cumbria.

This consensus is also being used as a persuasion tool in the official literature handed out to communities by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).

Since most of us aren’t scientists in either the nuclear industry or geodisposal, we have to turn to those who are if we’re to understand what’s going to happen to our community. Alongside the regular newsletters and other marketing from NWS, we usually access those people through articles in the news and on the internet.

But it’s important to keep asking questions about what we’re reading.

‘Scientific consensus’ doesn’t mean the science is settled; articles can contain facts and still be biased.

Biases in news media

The news media are paid for by advertisers. If they publish articles that make arguments against their advertisers’ interests, they lose advertising money. Their advertisers’ interests may not be clear. For example, they may be companies that have money invested in hedge funds, which in turn invest in nuclear power.

News media also come up against political pressure, as The Guardian found out a few years ago, to its long-term detriment.

There’s also the question of audience. News media write to a specific audience, one already sold on the ideas they are promoting, or at the very least, suggestible. Most people are aware of ‘climate change’. If someone authoritative tells them it’s important for us to have a GDF because nuclear energy will help us ‘beat climate change’, they are likely to accept that, unless they have some wider knowledge.

Bias can be edited into an article by keeping the facts, but leaving out certain contexts. They can also cherry pick facts, so that the only ones they use are those which suit their argument.

Biases and misinformation across the internet

Misinformation across the web is an endemic problem now, brought on by too little regulatory oversight, too late. A bitter combination of an advertising free-for-all, empty content for the sake of it, and algorithmic twists that feed on themselves has come together to make an internet that doesn’t run the kind of useful searches it did just 12 years ago.

On top of this, a type of information warfare has been raging, hidden in plain sight from the eyes of everyday people, and the proliferation of GenAI has made the situation much worse. Social media, news media, every place we get our information from has been seeded with doubt.

All of this means that when we read information anywhere, from both respectable and dubious sources, we have to take time to process what we’ve read before we lead with our emotions.

Bias and messaging in public information

Not to be outdone by more modern means of propaganda, Nuclear Waste Services has continued the tradition of only providing the audience with the information that suits their argument.

In the case of the Community Partnership newsletter this month, this includes a soothing word salad introduction from the outgoing Community Partnership Chair explaining that he has resigned, and our local Town Council has withdrawn from the group. There are then several pages on how the Community Investment Fund money has been spent recently.

From that messaging, it is clear they’re seeking to reassure the community – talk quietly, you don’t want them to startle – and remind us that we’re getting plenty of money for the deal.

So, what’s the problem with the scientific consensus on the idea of a geological disposal facility (GDF), more prosaically known as a nuclear waste dump?

What is ‘scientific consensus’?

Scientific consensus refers to an agreement amongst scientists in a specific, very narrow field of study.

In the consideration of a GDF, that field would be geology, and most likely a particular area of geology, such as geodisposal.

Why do we need ‘scientific consensus’?

For most of us, despite our education and our wide understanding of the world, we don’t have intensive scientific training. Even if we do, it may not be in the narrow field in question.

Ethan Siegel at Forbes.com explained this really clearly:

… Unlike in most cases, unless you are a scientist working in the particular field in question, you are probably not even capable of discerning between a conclusion that’s scientifically valid and viable and one that isn’t. Even if you’re a scientist in a somewhat related field! Why? This is mostly due to the fact that a non-expert cannot tell the difference between a robust scientific idea and a caricature of that idea.

Why should we believe ‘scientific consensus’?

Although a consensus is an impossible number to quantify, the argument for a consensus is that a lot of related research is borne out by the agreement, so if it isn’t correct – e.g. if a GDF isn’t a safe and complete solution for nuclear waste – then a lot of other research is also wrong.

That sounds reassuring, but there’s more to it.

What do we have to consider behind the messaging of ‘scientific consensus’?

News media tends to use ‘scientific consensus’ as if it is the end point of the discussion.

The implication that ‘this is the only way’ serves to quash dissenting voices and validate the overall message of the article.

This is also how Nuclear Waste Services is using ‘scientific consensus’. The inference is that there is only one solution, and a GDF is it.

But scientific consensus is not the end position of the science. It’s the starting position from which further investigation can arise.

While that future studying may not set out to prove early scientific reasoning wrong, it should seek to improve or refine our understanding of the science.

And the main problem with scientific investigation?

Take a look at this quote. It’s from the article Development in Progress, from the Consilience Project.

It is also important to consider how existing biases and values ‘prime’ us towards certain starting points when we seek to understand the world through science. Before we formulate questions of design experiments, we often have preconceived notions as to what we imagine as likely to be important to the question at hand.

You’ve got to ask what their starting point is, before you can evaluate the idea.

Or, to put it another way: if you ask a geodisposal specialist what the best way is to deal with a higher activity nuclear waste problem, they’re going to tell you to bury it underground.

What’s the motivation for a GDF? Why the bias? Where’s the starting point of the plan?

Waste is a massive issue for modern Western societies. Everything we do, everything we buy creates waste. The only way to reduce waste is to reduce the activities that cause it.

There is no other logical way.

Government and the nuclear industry are motivated towards using a geological disposal facility to store higher activity nuclear waste because:

There’s almost seventy years’ worth of higher activity nuclear waste to store
Nuclear appears to offer a solution to the legal requirements of Net Zero.

The more we use nuclear technology, the more toxic waste we will produce. It’s inevitable without social, political, and industrial change.

The nuclear industry

The nuclear industry’s back is against the wall. It urgently has to put the accruing waste somewhere permanently safe.

Nuclear waste is produced in solid, aqueous, and gaseous forms. If the industry reduces some of the gaseous waste, that means that it increases it in another form, e.g. aqueous. There is no escaping the waste issue without stopping the industry.

There’s a lot of money in nuclear.

The UK Government

The government has to enable the production of electricity, but having effectively phased out coal-fired power stations, it has brought in gas-fuelled hydrogen plants which are arguably just as greenhouse-gas-intensive as coal. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, it still causes huge emissions, and it still presents supply problems.

For the government, nuclear represents a lower carbon option, with political expediencies, such as being free of Russian fossil fuel pressures (Russian uranium is still unsanctioned and likely part of the ‘diversified’ fuel mixes used in the UK).

There is also a disturbing link between civil nuclear skills and military nuclear skills which doesn’t get much media time:

Other countries tend to be more open about it, with the interdependence acknowledged at presidential level in the US for instance. French president Emmanuel Macron summarises: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.

This is largely why nuclear-armed France is pressing the European Union to support nuclear power. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has phased out the nuclear technologies it once lead the world in. This is why other nuclear-armed states are so disproportionately fixated by nuclear power.

In 2022, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) published a Radioactivity Waste Inventory with a timeline for the phasing out of nuclear power by 2136. But in early 2025, the Labour government announced it was keen to rapidly start up the building of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) across the UK. Going forward from this year, nuclear waste will continue to be produced in the UK beyond the 100-year lifetime of the current GDF project. Waste is inevitable.

Waste isn’t the only issue for nuclear power, either. There is the question of what happens to nuclear power plants in the face of climate catastrophe. Fukushima wasn’t an anomaly, and it wasn’t avoidable. It could be seen as a foreshadowing of future possibilities.

Back to scientific consensus

So, when Nuclear Waste Services and other media proponents talk about scientific consensus being in agreement that a GDF is the best solution available for toxic nuclear waste, what they mean is:

there is an inexorable accumulation of nuclear waste, both historical and into the future

there are going to be more GDFs in the future

they aren’t looking for other methods of storage

they absolutely will not consider a non-nuclear future

and they don’t want to argue about it.

And, for some reason, despite a GDF apparently being the safest possible housing for nuclear waste – and despite there being many geologically suitable locations – they don’t want to locate it under Westminster.

Ultimately, despite the focus given to the science, this isn’t about the science.

It’s about burying a waste product that they have no other solution for. Sweeping it under the carpet. And calling it common sense!

Common sense as a message, in an area of study called Semiotics, is a problematic idea. Although it is dressed up as the common, standard, everyday way of thinking, it is often used in marketing and media to promote the ideas of those in power.

As the future beckons, common sense should be saying no to nuclear. Just like with plastic, nuclear has no end and no sure way of getting rid of its byproducts.

For communities that ‘host’ a nuclear waste dump, the GDF solution represents a forever risk with inter-generational risks and costs along the way.

Somehow, West Cumbria always seems to be saddled with nuclear detritus.

The potential collateral damage, seen already across the United States and South America, is similar to that experienced around mining and climate solution industries.

It starts with

environmental destruction,

contamination of water sources and land,

loss of biodiversity,

loss of human rights,

loss of health, and

upheaval of established communities.

These may be experienced just in the construction of a GDF.

Who knows where it ends?

Further information on the proposed GDFs in West Cumbria:

South Copeland Against GDF

Radiation-Free Lakeland

Radiation-Free Lakeland Substack

Nuclear-Free Local Authorities

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, spinbuster, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Europe self destructing in efforts to continue Ukraine’s self destruction

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 19 May 25
Every day the war in Ukraine continues, Ukraine loses more territory to Russia. So far about 45,000 square miles have been lost in the Donbas and environs containing mainly Russia speaking and cultured Ukrainians.

Ukraine had 2 opportunities to lose nary a square mile.

Their first one was by not seeking to join NATO, then not attacking Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas who sought freedom from their Kyiv government tyranny that killed thousands. That provoked the Russian invasion of February 24, 2022.

The second was by Ukraine not pulling out of the Istanbul Agreement 2 months into the war. It would have brought peace without Ukraine losing any territory, albeit they’d have to reject NATO membership and grant self-governance and peace to Donbas Ukrainians while still under Ukraine sovereignty.

Three years on, Ukraine faces imminent defeat, gaining nothing while losing a fifth of its land and over a million casualties. President Zelensky, likely coerced by the ultra-nationalists with the real power in Kyiv, refuses to stop the bleeding. He’s furthering Ukraine’s self destruction in a lost cause.

Tragically, he’s being goaded to fight on by much of Europe including France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Baltics. Sadly and tragically, they are all suffering economically by their refusal to drop their rampant Russophobia. Sanctioning Russia has done nothing but escalate their energy costs.

Europe’s sanctions have failed spectacularly. Russia simple moved on from supplying Europe with cheap energy to much of the nonaligned world, including China and India. Result? Last year Russia’s GDP expanded 4.1% while the EU ticked up a scant 1%.

Trump’s only sensible foreign policy is seeking to end Ukraine’s self destruction by brokering a peace deal in the first peace conference in three years. Trump is signaling he’s near ending the US weapons gravy train that has squandered over $175 billion in weapons that have merely ensured those 45,000 lost square miles of territory and a million casualties.

Europe wants nothing to do with ending the war against their bete noir Russia. The EU Commission, its executive arm, is seeking to replace the possible US withdrawal by pledging $900 billion in new defense spending in a program dubbed ‘Rearm Europe’. A better sobriquet would be ‘Weaken Russia’.

European leaders keeping the Ukraine war going are merely weakening their own economies. Their populations are not on board allowing nationalist movements such as AfD (Alternative for Germany) to gain traction threatening pro war ruling parties.

Leaders like UK’s Starmer, France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz appear oblivious the Ukraine war is hopeless, Their proposed $900 billion or even $9 trillion will make no difference when Ukraine runs out of conscripted solders to continue their lost cause. Russia garners around 50,000 military volunteers each month while Ukraine lassos draft dodgers like stray dogs.

All three could boost their sagging economies as well as end the death and destruction by partnering with Trump to reach a quick settlement at the current Istanbul peace conference. After that they’d be wise to drop their delusional Russophobia and welcome the cheaper energy and other goodies they could acquire from a resource rich trading partner they’ve spent decades isolating.

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons woes: Understaffed nuke agency hit by DOGE and safety worries

The consequences of DOGE’s disruptions at the National Nuclear Security Administration could be far-reaching, experts say.

Davis Winkie and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY, 18 May 25

For decades, the NNSA has struggled with federal staffing shortages that have contributed to safety issues as well as delays and cost overruns on major projects.
Experts fear that the Trump administration’s moves to reduce the federal workforce may have destabilized the highly specialized federal workforce at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
USA TODAY reviewed decades of government watchdog reports, safety documents, and congressional testimony on U.S. nuclear weapons.

In 2021, after a pair of plutonium-handling gloves had broken for the third time at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, contaminating three workers, and after the second accidental flood, investigators from the National Nuclear Security Administration found a common thread in a plague of safety incidents: the contractor running the New Mexico lab lacked “sufficient staff.”

So did the NNSA.

The agency, whose fewer than 1,900 federal employees oversee the more than 60,000 contractors who build and maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, has struggled to fill crucial safety roles. Only 21% of the agency’s facility representative positions – the government’s eyes and ears in contractor-run buildings – at Los Alamos were filled with qualified personnel as of May 2022.

Now, President Donald Trump’s administration has thrown the NNSA into chaos, threatening hard-won staffing progress amid a trillion-dollar nuclear weapons upgrade. Desperately needed nuclear experts are wary of joining thanks to chaotic job cuts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, experts say.

The disruption of NNSA’s chronically understaffed safety workforce is “a recipe for disaster,” said Joyce Connery, former head of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Los Alamos is not the only facility with staffing shortages in crucial safety roles.

As of May 2022, less than one-third of facility representative roles at NNSA’s Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas were held by fully qualified employees, according to a USA TODAY review of nuclear safety records.

At Pantex, where technicians assemble and disassemble nuclear weapons, only a quarter of safety system oversight positions had fully qualified hires, and only 57% of those safety positions had qualified employees at Y-12.

Nuclear weapons workers don’t grow on trees, nor do the federal experts who oversee them. Many of the jobs require advanced degrees, and new hires often need years of on-the-job training. Security clearance requirements limit the most sensitive jobs to U.S. citizens.

America’s nuclear talent crisis isn’t new, but its consequences have grown as tens of billions of dollars pour into the NNSA annually in a broader $1.7 trillion plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons.

Congress ordered the cramped, aging plutonium facility at Los Alamos – called PF-4 – to begin mass production of plutonium pits, a critical component at the heart of nuclear warheads, for the first time in more than a decade.

Enter Elon Musk and DOGE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What’s at stake

The struggle for staff has been NNSA’s Achilles heel for decades – and the stakes have only grown.

But despite efforts to develop talent, watchdogs said in February of this year the NNSA was “understaffed” and struggling to execute key oversight requirements.

Then came DOGE…………………………………………………………………………………….

Connery fears the strain and staffing problems could combine to disastrous effect.

“When you take an inexperienced or an understaffed workforce and you combine it with old facilities and a push to get things done – that is a recipe for disaster,” Connery said. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/18/nuclear-weapons-woes-nuke-agency-hit-by-doge-and-safety-worries/83621978007/

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, safety, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US nuclear sector intensifies lobbying in bid to prevent subsidy cuts.

The US nuclear industry is intensifying its lobbying blitz to save the
Inflation Reduction Act tax credits it says are vital for meeting
artificial intelligence-fuelled energy demand. On Monday lawmakers from the
House ways and means committee, which is responsible for writing tax law,
released draft legislation that would phase out nuclear energy subsidies
starting in 2029, in a move that caught the sector by surprise. Lobbyists
are now racing to persuade lawmakers to rescind or moderate cuts to nuclear
industry subsidies, which until recently had more bipartisan support than
other low-carbon energy technologies such as wind and solar.

FT 19th May 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/c243fd15-bef8-4c98-b06b-8b13ddd0a701

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Britain left out in the cold by Trump on Ukraine peace talks

How Starmer found himself on the road to nowhere

Ian Proud, May 20, 2025

Russia Ukraine peace talks are to restart immediately, but when Trump debriefed European leaders, Starmer was not on the call. Starmer has rendered himself completely irrelevant by sticking to the same tired approaches and blocking efforts at peace in Ukraine.

After Presidents Trump and Putin spoke for two hours today, 19 May, new impetus was injected in Russia-Ukraine negotiations towards a ceasefire. The Russian and Ukrainian delegations are now in contact and will start immediately preparations towards a second round of talks. After Vice President JD Vance’s meeting with Pope Leo, the Vatican is being touted as a possible venue. Clearly, direct engagement by the two Presidents is key to any progress being made to end the war. But when Trump phoned Zelensky and European leaders after the call, Prime Minister Keir Starmer was not included.

That may be because Trump has realised that Starmer has brought nothing new to the Ukraine peace process and, rather, is acting as a major brake on progress.

After a helpful, if tentative, first meeting for three years between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul on Friday 16 May, it was clear that neither side was in a hurry to schedule further talks. For his part, Zelensky had spent most of the day on 15 May trying his best to find a way out of sending a delegation to Istanbul and blaming Russia for it. Following the standard script, British and European leaders indulged him, blaming Russia whose bemused delegation waited patiently in Istanbul for someone to show up. It was only after direct intervention from President Erdogan and the USA, that Zelensky finally relented allowing for talks on Friday.

That first Istanbul meeting, however brief, and however accompanied by the normal Ukrainian briefing out that ‘Russia doesn’t want peace’, was nonetheless a vital first step forward. But, and as Vice President JD Vance said today, we had reached an impasse, and Trump appears determined to keep the pressure up to secure an elusive ceasefire.

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, UK, Ukraine | Leave a comment

First Nations warn of conflict if Ontario proceeds with Bill 5

‘They’re looking for a world of opposition from First Nations in Ontario that are not going to just sit idly by’: First Nations leadership publicly slams proposed bill that would cut ‘red tape’ for economic projects — and potentially erode treaty rights.

Bay Today.ca, James Hopkin, 19 May 25

First Nations leadership is calling on Premier Doug Ford and the Ontario government to put a stop to a newly proposed bill that chiefs say would bulldoze the inherent rights of the Anishinabek and their existing treaty relationships with the Crown.

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin (RHW) is publicly opposing Bill 5, which the political organization says will give extended powers to the province through the creation of “special economic zones” that would allow for the cabinet to exempt selected proponents and projects from requirements under any provincial law or regulation.

This includes bylaws of municipalities and local boards that would otherwise apply in that zone — all while repealing the Endangered Species Act.

RHW spokesperson and Anishinabek Nation Regional Chief Scott McLeod told SooToday that Ford framing Bill 5 as a way of cutting red tape for infrastructure and resource development projects is a “gross understatement,” and that Ontario is essentially gutting environmental checks and balances while undermining the treaty relationship with First Nations in Robinson Huron Treaty territory.

“He’s undermining the reality that Ontario, under the jurisdiction of Canada, inherited the treaty of 1850 from the British Crown, which laid out our relationship as title owners to the land and our willingness to share those resources,” McLeod said during a telephone interview Wednesday.

“He simply is moving forward on this as if Ontario owns the resources outright, and has no obligations to the treaties that are within Ontario.”

The tabling of Bill 5, known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, has also triggered opposition from the Anishinabek Nation, a political advocate for 39 member First Nations representing approximately 70,000 citizens across the province.

The organization says the bill “reflects a dangerous and false narrative that presumes the Government of Ontario has unilateral authority to legislate over lands and resources without consultation or consent from the rightful Anishinabek title holders.”

“To allow lands of economic value that have been cited for development to be exempt from protective checks and balances, such as archaeological assessments and wildlife and ecosystem protections as proposed in this bill will cost First Nations and Ontarians profoundly, exposing and setting back species at risk protection and leading to the destruction of First Nation burial sites and artifacts,” Anishinabek Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige said in a release issued Tuesday. …………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/first-nations-warn-of-conflict-if-ontario-proceeds-with-bill-5-10673506?utm_source=Email_Share&utm_medium=Email_Share&utm_campaign=Email_Share

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Trump Admin Fast Tracks Anfield’s Velvet-Wood Uranium Project in Push for US Energy Independence

Giann Liguid, Investing News 15th May 2025

Anfield Energy’s Velvet-Wood uranium-vanadium project in Utah is the first US uranium asset to receive a fast-track designation.

The US Department of the Interior announced on Monday (May 12) that it will fast track environmental permitting for Anfield Energy’s (TSXV:AEC,OTCQB:ANLDF) Velvet-Wood uranium project in Utah

The decision slashes what would typically be a years-long review process down to just 14 days, and makes Velvet-Wood the first uranium project to be expedited under a January 20 statement from President Donald Trump. In it, he declares a national energy emergency and emphasizes the importance of restoring American energy independence.

This week’s decision signals what Anfield calls “a decisive shift in federal support for domestic nuclear fuel supply.”

The Velvet-Wood project, located in San Juan County, Utah, is expected to produce uranium used for both civilian nuclear energy and defense applications, as well as vanadium, a strategic metal used in batteries and high-strength alloys.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum characterized the move as part of an urgent federal response to what he said is “an alarming energy emergency” created by the “climate extremist policies” of the previous administration.

“President Trump and his administration are responding with speed and strength to solve this crisis,” he said. “The expedited mining project review represents exactly the kind of decisive action we need to secure our energy future.”

Anfield acquired Velvet-Wood, which is currently on care and maintenance, from Uranium One in 2015…………………….

The Trump administration’s decision to pause the implementation of its new reciprocal tariffs for 90 days provided utilities with the breathing room needed to resume contracting……………

These moves align with a broader US Department of Energy strategy that includes identifying 16 federal sites for co-locating data centers and new energy infrastructure. https://investingnews.com/trump-fast-tracks-velvet-wood/

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

UK’s Geological Disposal Facility Community Partnership operates under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services

An interesting article recently sent to the NFLAs prompted a reply by our
Secretary identifying the limitations placed upon members of the Geological
Disposal Facility Community Partnerships wishing to source independent
information or commission bespoke research.

Such Community Partnerships operate under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services.

The Author and Article: A Quiet Resistance is run by a
writer, author, and marketing copywriter, living with her small family near
Millom. Understanding how language is used to persuade, convince, and
influence the decisions of mass populations, she set out to unpack the
messaging around the unfolding climate catastrophe, to help others decode
truth from fiction for themselves, and to open up critical thinking
pathways through the consumerism.

A Quiet Resistance documents this journey of discovery. AQuietResistance.co.uk –
https://aquietresistance.co.uk/the-media-scientific-consensus-toxic-nuclear-waste
23 April 2025. The media, scientific consensus, and toxic nuclear waste

When government agencies are hard to trust, who do we look to? Scientists. But
what job is the concept of scientific consensus doing in the marketing of
the GDF? ‘Scientific consensus’ carries a lot of weight in news media
discussing the proposed Geological Disposal Facilities (GDFs) (nuclear
waste dumps) in West Cumbria.

This consensus is also being used as a
persuasion tool in the official literature handed out to communities by
Nuclear Waste Services (NWS). Since most of us aren’t scientists in either
the nuclear industry or geodisposal, we have to turn to those who are if
we’re to understand what’s going to happen to our community. Alongside the
regular newsletters and other marketing from NWS, we usually access those
people through articles in the news and on the internet. But it’s important
to keep asking questions about what we’re reading. ‘Scientific consensus’
doesn’t mean the science is settled; articles can contain facts and still
be biased.

NFLA 16th May 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/A431-NB317-The-media-scientific-consensus-and-toxic-nuclear-waste-May-2025.pdf

May 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety

Many in the industry expected President Trump to be an even bigger booster of nuclear power than his predecessor. They must now be confused by the mixed signals coming out of the new administration.

To really “unleash” nuclear power, far greater subsidies would be required.

But this is not looking too likely in the current frenetic cost-cutting environment.

The future of other incentives, such as the tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, also remains uncertain, causing consternation within the nuclear industry.

By Edwin Lyman | May 19, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/05/trumps-wins-on-nuclear-power-are-losses-for-taxpayers-and-public-safety/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Russian%20nuclear%20arsenal%20today&utm_campaign=20250519%20Monday%20Newsletter

The US nuclear power industry is justifiably apprehensive about its future under the second Trump administration. President Donald Trump’s predilection for taking a sledgehammer to both the federal budget and the administrative state would appear to be the exact opposite of what the industry crucially needs to move forward: a predictable, long-term expansion of the billions of dollars in public funding and tax benefits it received under Joe Biden, arguably the most pro-nuclear power president in decades.

With little attention to safety and security concerns, President Biden and Congress made available an array of grants, loans, and tax credits to both operating and proposed nuclear plants, hoping to make them more appealing to risk-averse private investors. Now, at least some of these programs, which stimulated the emergence of a vast bubble of nuclear startups funded by token amounts of venture capital, may be on the chopping block. But this would not be bad news for the industry in the long run. The Biden administration’s “all of the above” support for nuclear power was on shaky ground even before Trump took office, and it needed a critical evaluation and reset.

However, if made final, the draft White House executive orders meant to bolster nuclear power growth that were leaked earlier this month would be a huge lurch in the wrong direction. By focusing on the wrong issues—namely, by scapegoating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)’s oversight over the industry’s own inability to raise sufficient capital and competently manage large, complex projects—the orders would undermine the regulatory stability that investors demand, not to mention create the potential for significant safety and reliability problems down the road.

Trump’s mixed messages. Many in the industry expected President Trump to be an even bigger booster of nuclear power than his predecessor. They must now be confused by the mixed signals coming out of the new administration.

On the first day of his second term, Trump ordered an immediate pause and review of all appropriations provided through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The decision initially swept up grants and loans for nuclear power along with other low-carbon energy projects, including a $1.52 billion loan guarantee that the Biden administration had awarded to Holtec International to restart the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, as well as billions in grants for the two so-called “advanced demonstration power reactor projects” proposed for construction: the TerraPower Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming and the X-Energy Xe-100 high temperature gas-cooled reactor complex in Seadrift, Texas.

Despite giving lip service to the need to “unleash” nuclear power, the actions of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel industry executive, have not matched the rhetoric. As part of the Trump administration’s self-congratulatory celebration of its first 100 days, the Energy Department posted a list of “11 big wins for nuclear.” However, these were typically continuations of programs from previous administrations rather than radically new initiatives.

The first claimed “big win” was restarting the Palisades nuclear plant. It referred to a March announcement that the Energy Department’s Loan Projects Office was going to release additional installments of the Palisades loan guarantee. But this had already been approved under the Biden administration. Even so, the future of the nuclear-friendly office, which in the past had awarded $12 billion in loan guarantees to prop up the two new (and wildly over-budget) reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, remains in doubt under the new administration’s effort to shrink federal agencies. After reports of major staff cuts at the Loan Projects Office—or maybe rather “at the loan office”—surfaced in April, panicked nuclear advocates wrote to Secretary Wright in protest, and there are indications that the department may be moving to shrink the office even though some level of support for nuclear projects could remain.

The second so-called “win” on the Energy Department’s list—“unleashing American-made SMRs” (small modular reactors)—was simply a reissuance of a 2024 solicitation making available $900 million in repurposed funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The funding redirection seeks to support the development of light-water SMRs, minus the Biden administration’s requirements for advancing societal goals, such as community engagement, that could help facilitate siting unpopular facilities. But this amount of funding is inconsequential considering the billions of dollars that likely would be needed to build even a single SMR facility. The first light-water SMR to receive a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NuScale, was estimated to cost $9.3 billion for a plant with six modules of 77 megawatts of electric power each.

The third nuclear so-called “win” was the submission in March by X-Energy and Dow of a construction permit application to the NRC to build the Long Mott plant (four Xe-100 reactors) in Seadrift, Texas. This can only be considered a win for the Trump administration if one forgets that the application was filed at least a year later than originally anticipated.

The fourth so-called “win”—high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced reactor developers—would be better characterized as an admission of failure. HALEU is the fuel that most non-light-water reactors under development with Energy Department funding would use, which means it must be available if these reactors are ever going to operate. But because the United States has failed to date to enable industrial-scale enrichment of HALEU to support the new reactor projects, the Energy Department must instead draw from stockpiles of “unobligated” enriched uranium that is not constrained by peaceful-use agreements. These stockpiles were originally preserved for other uses, such as fueling operating reactors that produce tritium for the nuclear weapon stockpile. The decision to tap into this reserve is essentially a loan to the commercial sector, but it will likely have to be repaid in the future.

The remaining seven “big wins” are primarily incremental technical milestones in ongoing research programs: interesting, perhaps, but hardly major achievements.

What is missing from the Trump administration’s “nuclear wins” list, unfortunately, is any mention of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) study that was announced in the final days of the Biden administration by former National Nuclear Security Administrator Jill Hruby to assess the proliferation risks of HALEU. Hruby ordered the study in response to an article in Science magazine last year in which my colleagues and I raised concerns about the potential usability of HALEU for nuclear weapons. The study was suspended by the Trump administration, and its future remains uncertain.

The cost of “winning.” With the Trump administration determined to cut trillions of dollars from the federal budget, the mere survival of any program might be considered a “win” by the program’s supporters. But simply staying the course is not going to be nearly enough to see the nuclear projects already underway to completion, much less pay for all the new reactors that nuclear advocates hope will spring up to meet the huge increases in demand, such as from the deployment of data centers.

Since 2020, the costs of the Xe-100 Seadrift and Natrium projects have ballooned due to inflation and supply chain problems. In 2023, X-Energy revised the cost of its four-reactor Long Mott plant upward to $4.75 to $5.25 billion, and in 2024, Bill Gates, the founder of TerraPower, estimated the cost of the Natrium project as “close to ten billion” dollars. Yet, these estimates were made before factoring in the potential impacts of the Trump tariffs on commodity prices and the supply chain. In total, the cost of these two projects has more than doubled, even as the original authorized amount of $3.2 billion of government support has not changed.

If the pipeline for providing previously appropriated funding continues and Congress does not provide billions of additional dollars for these projects, the remaining cost burden will fall on the companies themselves. It is not at all clear if TerraPower is going to be willing to pony up.

Similarly, the tax credits provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for new nuclear plants (if they survive) are not likely to be enough to make them commercially viable. Even factoring in the tax credits, NuScale’s “Carbon Free Power Project” was still too expensive, and the project was cancelled in 2023.

To really “unleash” nuclear power, far greater subsidies would be required.

But this is not looking too likely in the current frenetic cost-cutting environment. In its proposed budget for the next fiscal year, the White House plans to cut funding for the Office of Nuclear Energy by $408 million (over a quarter of its current annual budget), which it says corresponds to “non-essential research on nuclear energy.” The future of other incentives, such as the tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, also remains uncertain, causing consternation within the nuclear industry.

Looking at the “nuclear loss” side of the ledger is the Trump administration’s assault on independent federal agencies, including the NRC. Only last year, there was bipartisan concern as to whether the NRC would have enough experienced personnel to efficiently handle a projected onslaught of new applications. Now, the succession of attacks on the NRC’s workforce—from DOGE’s fork-in-the-road e-mail offering voluntary departure to federal workers, to the end of remote work, to the termination of its collective bargaining agreement—will have predictably devastating effects on employee morale, retention, and recruitment. Moreover, Trump’s burdensome and confusing executive orders—including requirements that agency actions be reviewed in secret by White House political appointees, and all energy permitting regulations be periodically reissued or scrapped—are recipes for delays and chaos.

Being serious about supporting safe and economical nuclear energy. What would a genuine “win” look like for the US nuclear energy industry and the public, then?

A good start would be a comprehensive and objective reassessment of the technical viability and realistic costs versus benefits of the Energy Department’s ambitious nuclear power and fuel cycle programs. The focus of these programs must be on their safety, security, proliferation, and waste management implications. While the leaked draft executive orders display a predictable hostility to science-based analysis and environmental protection, President Trump—as a self-proclaimed savvy businessman—may appreciate when taxpayers are getting a bad deal. After all, during his first administration, he terminated the $100 billion “mixed-oxide” (or MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility project in South Carolina. Trump terminated the MOX fuel program despite the entreaties of some of his most loyal supporters, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. Trump would be right to question, for example, whether a company founded by Bill Gates—one of the richest people in America—needs to continue receiving countless billions of dollars of federal subsidies.

A nuclear power program based less on hype and more on fiscal realities and genuine safety improvements could ultimately be a win not just for the corporate recipients of government largesse, but for the public at large.

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump should not threaten sanctions when he talks to Putin

It is clear to me that further US sanctions on Russia would kill stone dead any chance of a ceasefire in Ukraine at a time when Russia still has the upper hand.

Europe has neither the political capital nor the funds to maintain a losing war in Ukraine at enormous expense without massive domestic political blowback in their own countries.

Russia will keep fighting, Ukraine will lose all of the Donbass and Europe will pay the price

Ian Proud, May 18, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/trump-should-not-threaten-sanctions?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=163841246&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Trump should not threaten Putin with sanctions during their planned phone call on Monday 19 May. This would only lock in the fighting for the rest of the year and leave Europe on the hook for a massive bill and political disruption that it cannot afford.

In the run up to the Russia-Ukraine bilateral peace talks which finally took place in Istanbul last week, both the EU and the UK imposed new sanctions on Russia. On 9 May, as Russian commemorated victory Day, Britain imposed sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet and the EU followed suit with its 17^th package of Russia sanctions on 14 May, the day before the Istanbul talks were due to start. Both the UK and EU have threatened further sanctions should Russia not agree a full and unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine and, with Zelensky, have actively urged the US to follow suit, which it has not done, so far. However, the Americans have spoken increasingly about the possibility of massive new sanctions against Russia: this would be a huge mistake.

Sanctioning a country before peace talks have already started, or while they are still going on, is already a bad look. Very clearly, the Ukrainians, Europeans and British hope that new sanctions will apply such pressure on Russia that it agrees to terms that are more favourable to the Ukrainian side. I.e. that Ukraine does not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 commitment to adopt permanently neutral status. The western mainstream press has been carpet bombing their intellectually degraded readers with the latest press line that Ukraine should not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 text as a starting point for talks. This is unrealistic.

But, in any case, there’s a problem. For this strategy to be effective, the sanctions have to work.

As I’ve pointed out before, sanctions against Russian have had limited impact, not just since 2022, but since 2014. Nothing about the glidepath of sanctions since February 2014 suggests that new sanctions will work now.

This latest round of UK and EU sanctions aimed to apply more pressure on enforcement of the G7 oil price cap of $60 which was first imposed in December 2022. Since the war started, that policy has failed.

Between 2021 and 2024, total volumes of Russian oil exported fell by just 0.2 million barrels per day, or 2.6%. After a bumper year for tax receipts in 2022 caused by Russian tumbling rouble and skyrocketing energy prices, Russia pulled in current account surpluses of $49.4bn and $62.3bn in 2023 and 2024. This was on the back of still strong goods exports of $425bn and $433bn respectively.

There are several reasons why the oil price cap didn’t work, the biggest being that Russia diverted 3 million barrels per day, around 39.5% of total oil exports to India (1.9 mbd), Türkiye (0.6 mbd) and China (0.5 mbd). Türkiye and India boosted exports of refined fuels to Europe providing a backdoor route for Russian oil to Europe. The second reason the oil price cap didn’t work is the near ten month time lag between war starting and the limit being imposed, which gave Russia space to readjust before punitive measure had been imposed. During this period, oil prices also dropped sharply from the high of $120 in the summer of 2022, to around $80 when the measure was imposed: the G7 missed the boat to impose maximum damage; this reinforces the point I make all the time that coalitions cannot act with speed and decisiveness.

Today, the Russian Urals oil price is below the $60 G7 cap meaning that any registered shipping company can transport it without penalty, which renders the British and European sanctions as pointless in any case.

Let’s be clear, western nations imposing sanctions against Russia that don’t work is not a new phenomena. As I have pointed out many times before, the vast majority (92%) of people that the UK has imposed assets freezes and travel bans upon have never held assets in the UK nor travelled here. For companies, the figure is just 23. The same, I am sure, is true of EU and US sanctions, which cover largely the same cast list of characters and companies, as we all share and compare the same lists of possible designations. Financial sector sanctions prompted a massive readjustment of Russia’s financial sector. Energy and dual use sanctions drove self-sufficiency in technology production, through Rosnet, Gazprom and RosTec: i.e. these companies invested more in R&D on component production while sourcing components from alternative markets, in particular China.

At well over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far, Russia’s economy has proved remarkably robust and its key export sectors still find ways to deliver similar volumes across the world. At some point, I hope policy makers in London, Brussels and Washington will start to ask whether this policy is working. We long ago passed the point of diminishing marginal returns. I fear, however, they have their heads in the sand or, possibly another, darker, place.

So, coming back to Trump’s phone call with Putin on Monday 19 May you might ask yourself, ‘so what if he imposes a few more sanctions if they won’t work anyway?’

Putin would see the imposition of new US sanctions as a complete 180, destroying any emerging trust he had in Trump or any belief in America’s stated intentions to end the war in Ukraine.

It is clear to me that further US sanctions on Russia would kill stone dead any chance of a ceasefire in Ukraine at a time when Russia still has the upper hand. Russia has increased the pace of its advance since the Victory Day ceasefire and seems to be adding new blocks of red to the battle map each day. At the current rate of advance, even without a catastrophic Ukrainian collapse, it seems realistic to expect that Russia would paint out the remaining territory in Donetsk and Luhansk during the remainder of this year. In the process they would need to overcome the heavily fortified towns of Pokrovsk, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, in what would likely be brutal and attritional battles killing many thousands more on both sides.

Moreover, dragging out the war for longer would simply add to Europe’s contingent liability to fund Ukraine’s war effort at a time when it is only ever going to lose. Ukraine is spending over 26% of GDP on defence in 2025 and 67.5% of its budget expenditure is on defence and security, leaving a budget black hotel of $42bn that has to be filled. America under Trump isn’t going to fill this hole. And, as Ukraine is cut off from international lending markets, that black hole is being filled by Europe.

There is no money for this.

Europe has neither the political capital nor the funds to maintain a losing war in Ukraine at enormous expense without massive domestic political blowback in their own countries.

Notwithstanding the possibly understandable fear among European leaders of failing and being seen to fail in Ukraine, keeping the war going is at best, a gesture in cynical self-preservation, pushing their eventual political demise further down the track.

Unfortunately, we have been here so many times before. Right back to the Minsk II agreement, Ukraine has been pushing for ever more sanctions against Russia that only ever served to ramp up resentment and exacerbate the conflict. European leaders have invested too much in Zelensky and his self-serving demands aimed primarily at staying in power. He is quickly becoming the gun that shoots European elites in the head.

If Trump really wants to be seen as a peacemaker, he should avoid doing what every other western leader before him including Sleepy Joe did and resist the temptation to impose more sanctions. Instead, he should continue to press the President Putin to continue to engage with bilateral peace talks that finally recommences in Istanbul last week. He must also tell the Eurocrats and Zelensky that they must make compromises rather than plugging the same old failed prescriptions.

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

Don’t vent tritium gas

May 18, 2025 by beyondnuclearinternational

Lab should explore credible alternatives say Nuclear Watch New Mexico and Tewa Women United

The Los Alamos National Laboratory plans to begin large releases of radioactive tritium gas any time after June 2, 2025. The only roadblock to the Lab’s plans is that it needs a “Temporary Authorization” from the New Mexico Environment Department to do so.

Reasons why the New Mexico Environment Department should deny LANL’s request are:

1. The state Environment Department has a duty to protect the New Mexican public. As it states, “Our mission is to protect and restore the environment and to foster a healthy and prosperous New Mexico for present and future generations.”

2. Why the rush? LANL explicitly admits there is no urgency. According to the Lab’s publicly-released “Questions and Answers” in response to “What is the urgency for this project?” “There is no urgency for this project beyond the broader mission goals to reduce onsite waste liabilities.”

3. In addition, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) admits that the end time frame for action is 2028, not 2025. Therefore, there is time for deliberate consideration.

4. Contrary to NMED’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for LANL, the Lab has not fulfilled its duty to inform the public via NMED of possible alternatives to its planned tritium releases. According to Tewa Women United, “LANL has told EPA there are 53 alternatives; that list of alternatives, initially requested in 2022, has not yet been disclosed. Tewa Women United has repeatedly asked LANL to provide the public with that list.”

5. Despite extensive prompting by the Environmental Protection Agency on possible better alternatives, the NNSA categorically rejected any modifications.

6. NNSA’s January 2025 draft LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement had no substantive discussion of the planned tritium releases, much less the required “hard look” at credible alternatives. Further, LANL and NNSA included these planned releases in the “No Action Alternative,” with the specious justification that “The Laboratory and NNSA have been integrating with the EPA and NMED to obtain approval to move forward with the plan to vent the Flanged Tritium Waste Containers currently located in TA-54.” Seeking approval makes them No Action? NNSA and LANL are legally required to consider public comments submitted for the LANL SWEIS. These planned tritium releases should not proceed until NNSA issues a Record of Decision on the final LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.

7. NNSA’s publicized maximum release of 30,000 curies is merely an administrative decision point at which LANL will stop the venting process to avoid exceeding the Clean Air Act’s 10 millirem public exposure limit for radioactive air emissions. It is not the potential total quantity of tritium that will have been released. LANL’s radioactive air emissions management plan sets an annual administrative limit of 8 millirem for the tritium releases, meaning venting will cease once this limit is reached but may resume in subsequent periods.

8. In addition, these planned releases are not necessarily a one-time event, as indicated above, contrary to what the LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement falsely states.

9. Nor are these planned releases strictly confined to just Area G, as claimed.

10. LANL declares “There are no cumulative impacts from this operation. All limits are conservative, and well within regulatory limits that are protective of the public.” However, one independent report calculates that the effective dose to infants could be three times higher than to adults (therefore likely violating the 10 millirem Clean Air Act standard for “any member of the public”) and all of LANL’s calculated doses would be higher in the event of low wind speeds and low humidity.” Another independent report noted how tritiated water can pervade every cell in the body while the planned LANL tritium releases are three times the amount of tritium that the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant would release to the ocean over 30 years.

11. LANL claims “This critical milestone [the planned tritium releases] furthers \ the cleanup of Area G.” But what so-called cleanup means to LANL is “cap and cover” of ~200,000 cubic yards of existing toxic and radioactive wastes at Area G, leaving them permanently buried in unlined pits and shafts as a permanent threat to groundwater. NMED knows this all too well given the draft order it issued to the Lab to excavate and treat all wastes at the smaller Area C waste dump, which LANL categorically opposes. NMED should carefully consider the extent to which approving these planned tritium releases is consistent with its desire for full comprehensive cleanup at the Lab, including Area G.

Recommendation: Given the self-admitted lack of urgency and remaining uncertainties in potential doses, times, locations and ultimate purpose of these planned tritium releases,NMED should deny LANL’s request for a “Temporary Authorization” to proceed until there has been an open and transparent analysis of alternatives and all possible public health impacts.

This fact sheet is available here. For more contact Nuclear Watch New Mexico and Tewa Women United.

And please sign the petition — Petition to Deny LANL’s Request to Release Radioactive Tritium into the Air.

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Treaty the planet’s best chance to get rid of its worst weapons

By Dave Sweeney | 19 May 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/treaty-the-planets-best-chance-to-get-rid-of-its-worst-weapons,19758

From Jakarta to the Vatican, Prime Minister Albanese’s journey underscores a global call to ban the world’s most destructive weapons, writes Dave Sweeney.

ON HIS FIRST overseas trip since his sweeping election victory, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made for two very different destinations.

The first stop was steamy Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, the world’s most populous island nation and home to the world’s largest Muslim population with around 240 million or 13 per cent of the globe’s believers.

After Indonesia, the PM switched time zones and belief systems and headed to the Vatican, the world’s smallest sovereign state in terms of area and population, and the (sacred) heartland of the Catholic faith.

These two places are very different worlds, with very different worldviews, but both have an active desire to protect our shared world from its most avoidable existential threat: nuclear war.

Prime Minister Albanese also holds this view.

In December 2018, he championed Federal Labor’s support for the newly adopted UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), stating:

“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”

The TPNW, adopted by the UN in 2017 with more than 120 nations voting in favour, grew from an Australian initiative by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

ICAN was launched in Melbourne in 2007 and was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of the group’s work ‘to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and its ‘groundbreaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons’.

The TPNW entered into force in January 2021, an act which has finally and formally seen nuclear weapons be declared unlawful under international humanitarian law.

Supporters of the TPNW have described the Treaty as our planet’s best way to get rid of its worst weapons.

The fragile and fractured global situation starkly highlights the urgency of this task.

Two nuclear weapon states, Israel and Russia, are actively involved in hot wars.

Two more, India and Pakistan, are engaged in risky posturing that could dramatically escalate, while two others, China and the United States, are shaping up for a trade war with hints of worse to come.

Against this grim background, the TPNW is a star that provides some light and hope and a navigation point to help chart a safer and saner course for our shared future.

Nations are embracing this path with half of the world’s countries having signed, ratified or acceded to the Treaty, including Indonesia and the Vatican/Holy See.

When it ratified the TPNW last September, Indonesia – a leading player in the global Non-Aligned Movement – made clear that ‘the possession and use of nuclear weapons cannot be justified for any reason’

Speaking at the time, then Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi posed the fundamental question and delivered the humane answer:

Should fear of nuclear weapons be our guarantee for peace? Indonesia’s answer will forever be no.

Indonesia reaffirms its commitment to a nuclear weapon-free world.

The late Pope Francis was a strong supporter of the TPNW and gave expression to the principle of “blessed are the peacemakers” with the Vatican’s championing and early adoption of the Treaty. The Pope described the very existence of nuclear weapons as “an affront to heaven”. In his final Easter Sunday sermon, shortly before he died, he made a powerful call for peace and weapons abolition.

These calls for nuclear abolition and for ways of addressing conflict that do not risk all that ever was, is or could be on our shared planet are finding a resonance and echo in many other nations.

Labor’s National Platform is clear:

Labor acknowledges the growing danger that nuclear weapons pose to us all and the urgent need for progress on nuclear disarmament.

Labor will act with urgency and determination to rid the world of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Commits itself to redoubling efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons…

Labor in government will sign and ratify the Ban Treaty…

In this year that marks 80 years since the unveiling of the age of Armageddon with the first atom bomb test in New Mexico and the first atom bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is time to turn a political platform into a prescription for a habitable world.

It is time for Australia to follow the example of Indonesia, the Vatican and many other nations and to show that the pen is mightier than the sword by signing the TPNW.

As they say, Prime Minister, when in Rome…

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear veterans hand ‘evidence dossier’ to police

Annabel Tiffin, BBC North West Tonight, 18 May 25

A man who was exposed to nuclear tests in the 1950s is calling on police to investigate what he has described as a 74-year injustice.

John Morris, of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, was 18 when he was sent to Christmas Island in the Pacific, where bombs were detonated in a series of infamous tests, and has suffered a range of health problems since.

Now 87, he is part of a group of veterans who have lodged a criminal complaint about the Ministry of Defence (MoD) saying they are “devastated at the way veterans are being denied justice”.

They claim the department’s actions amount to potential misconduct in public office with a cover-up of radiation experiments – a claim the MoD refutes.

Mr Morris said the evidence the veterans have is a “ticking time bomb”.

He said he witnessed the testing of four hydrogen bombs as part of Britain’s effort to demonstrate its nuclear capabilities during the Cold War.

The veterans, alongside the Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, have now handed in a 500-page dossier of evidence, collated by the Mirror newspaper, to the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Morries was dressed in just shorts, a shirt and sunglasses even though he was positioned less than 20 miles (32km) away from the explosion, he told BBC North West Tonight.

He also worked in a laundry, washing contaminated clothing.

“I helped to produce an evil, evil weapon and trust me what I saw will live with me forever,” he said.

Mr Morris was one of about 22,000 military personnel exposed to the nuclear tests.

Many have since died and Mr Morris said many of his troop died from cancer.

He has also had cancer and lost a son at four months old, which he believes was down to his own exposure to radiation……………………….

Regarding their dossier for the police, Mr Morris said “time is of the essence” as many of the survivors are now in their 80s and taking the case to the police was a “last resort”, but he has grown frustrated with what he feels is a lack of accountability.

The veteran had a meeting with Sir Keir Starmer in 2021 when he was leader of the opposition but is now appealing to meet him as Prime Minister – to make good on what the group believe was a pledge made by the Labour Party.

“All I want is to sit down with Keir Starmer and to find a resolution which will suit the government and the veterans,” he said…..

‘Clear evidence’

Mayor Andy Burnham said: “In my view, there is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and following the 80th anniversary of VE day the investigation of it can wait no longer.”…………. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvme62jej8o

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment

Sellafield Plutonium treatment plant moves a step closer to completion

COMMENT. So now they think they can make more of the toxic stuff?

And provide more dirty dangerous jobs for the boys?

Sellafield Ltd and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 15 May 2025

The Sellafield Product and Residue Store Retreatment Plant (SRP) is one of our largest and most complex construction projects.

When finished it will play an essential role in managing the UK’s plutonium stockpile.

The project celebrated an important milestone this week as its roof was sealed with a final concrete pour, making the main building watertight and ready for internal fit-out.

Once operational, the plant will retreat and repackage existing material into more durable, long-term storage packages, ensuring they can be safely stored into the next century and beyond.

The project is being delivered under Sellafield’s Programme and Project Partners (PPP) infrastructure delivery model which brings together KBR, Amentum, Morgan Sindall Infrastructure, Altrad Babcock, and a wider supply chain, to deliver a 20-year pipeline of major infrastructure projects.

Completing the vast roof slab required 12 weeks of work and over 2,700 cubic metres of concrete to be poured and pumped to heights up to 30 metres.

The achievement moves the project closer to active commissioning and operations in support of the government’s plutonium disposition strategy announced earlier this year……… https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flagship-sellafield-project-seals-major-milestone

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | - plutonium | Leave a comment

This week’s antidotes to the corporate-nuclear-military-industrial-media-complex

Some bits of good news – The lengths to which health workers go to reach every child with vaccines. Clean energy just put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for first time.

In the Netherlands, Anyone Can Turn a Slice of Sidewalk Into a Garden