nuclear-news

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

Nuclear waste exposure in childhood associated with higher cancer incidence

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Jul 17 2025, https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250717/Nuclear-waste-exposure-in-childhood-associated-with-higher-cancer-incidence.aspx

Living near Coldwater Creek-a Missouri River tributary north of St. Louis that was polluted by nuclear waste from the development of the first atomic bomb-in childhood in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s was associated with an elevated risk of cancer, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers say the findings corroborate health concerns long held by community members.

The study will be published July 16 in JAMA Network Open. It coincides with Congress having passed an expanded version of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) as part of the Trump tax bill, through which Americans, including Coldwater Creek residents, can receive compensation for medical bills associated with radiation exposure.

Most studies of radiation exposure have focused on bomb survivors who have had very high levels of exposure; far less is known about the health impacts of lower levels of radiation exposure. 

For this study, the researchers used a subsample of 4,209 participants from the St. Louis Baby Tooth – Later Life Health Study (SLBT), a cohort composed of many individuals who lived near Coldwater Creek as children and who donated their baby teeth beginning in 1958 to measure exposure to radiation from atmospheric nuclear testing. The participants, who lived in the Greater St. Louis area between 1958 and 1972, self-reported incidences of cancer, allowing the researchers to calculate cancer risk in accordance with childhood residence proximity to Coldwater Creek.

The findings showed a dose-response effect-those living nearest to the creek had a higher risk for most cancers than those living farther away. There were 1,009 individuals (24% of the study population) who reported having cancer. Of those, the proportion was higher for those living near the creek-30% lived less than one kilometer away, 28% between one and five kilometers away, 25% between five and 20 kilometers away, and 24% 20 kilometers or more away). 

The researchers estimated that those living more than 20 kilometers away from the creek had a 24% risk of any type of cancer. Compared to this group, among those who lived less than one kilometer away from the creek, the risk of developing any type of cancer was 44% higher; solid cancers (cancers that form a mass, as opposed to blood cancers), 52% higher; radiosensitive cancers (thyroid, breast, leukemia, and basal cell), 85% higher; and non-radiosensitive cancers (all except thyroid, breast, leukemia, and basal cell), 41% higher. The risk went down among those who lived between one and 5 kilometers away from the creek, and then down a little more among those who lived 5-20 kilometers away, but was still slightly higher than those living more than 20 kilometers away.

“Our research indicates that the communities around North St. Louis appear to have had excess cancer from exposure to the contaminated Coldwater Creek,” said corresponding author Marc Weisskopf, Cecil K. and Philip Drinker Professor of Environmental Epidemiology and Physiology.

These findings may have broader implications-as countries think about increasing nuclear power and developing more nuclear weapons, the waste from these entities could have huge impacts on people’s health, even at these lower levels of exposure.”

Marc Weisskopf, Cecil K. and Philip Drinker Professor, Environmental Epidemiology and Physiology,  Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Other Harvard Chan School authors included Michael Leung, Ian Tang, Joyce Lin, Lorelei Mucci, Justin Farmer, and Kaleigh McAlaine.

Source:

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Journal reference:

Leung, M., et al. (2025) Cancer Incidence and Childhood Residence Near the Coldwater Creek Radioactive Waste Site. JAMA Network Open. doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.21926.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | health, Reference | Leave a comment

Trump’s Weapons Magic Show is Smoke & Mirrors Masterclass

Simplicius, Jul 15, 2025

Trump finally ‘wowed’ the world today with his grand announcement on punitive measures against Russia.

As usual, the announcement struck a dull and lackluster chord for most, with Russian markets jubilantly jumping by nearly 3% in response. But let’s dig in to see whether there is actually more meat on the bone of Trump’s scary threats than people give credit for.

Firstly, the timing: Axios now reports that Putin allegedly told Trump he plans to ‘intensify’ the Russian summer offensive in the next 60 days, with the goal—according to some sources—purportedly being to capture the remainder of nominal Russian territory, i.e. Donetsk, Lugansk, and Zaporozhye oblasts

Axios: According to Trump, Putin allegedly told him about plans to intensify the offensive in Ukraine in the next 60 days.

Trump shared details of the conversation with the Russian leader with his French counterpart Macron, adding: “He wants to take everything.”

It was after this conversation, according to the publication, that Trump criticized Putin and promised to increase arms supplies to Ukraine.

If there’s any hint of truth to such reports, then Trump’s “50-day notice” would seem to line up with Putin’s timeline, given that the conversation happened days ago, and thus Putin’s “60-day plan” would fall almost precisely on Trump’s deadline.

The basic interpretation of that could be that Trump is giving Russia two months to capture whatever territory it claims belongs to it, then “the hammer” will come down.

Now on the weapons side, as always, is where the biggest cloud of ambiguity lies. No one seems to know precisely what weapons and from what package will be sent, but according to CNN, it all sounds like more of the same, but just ‘repackaged’ with a new price tag.

Reports indicate the same air-to-air missiles, howitzer and GMLRS rounds will be sent as before, but simply that now NATO countries will foot the bill. Prior to that, under Biden’s PDA, the US was sending weapons directly to Ukraine from its own stockpiles, and then replenishing those stockpiles with new orders to the MIC, from taxpayer funds. Now, it will come from European taxpayer funds—a win for the US, we must admit.

But the biggest focal point were the Patriot ‘systems’. Again, the cloud of confusion—no one quite knows what the numbers represent: Patriot launchers, batteries, battalions, etc. Trump once mentioned the word ‘batteries’, but the numbers being discussed do not appear to realistically jibe. For instance, he mentioned sending “17” to Ukraine, but the US itself only has something like a total 50-70 active batteries, and obviously sending a third of its entire Patriot stock is unlikely.

When you really read between the lines, what Trump appeared to intimate was that the eventual goal is to scrounge up a larger amount of ‘systems’ for Ukraine, but “initially” only a tiny fraction will be sent. This is one of the few commenters who grasped the nuances of the mealy-mouthed ‘announcement’:

Recall that Rubio just recently implied the US has no more Patriots to give, a video I posted several updates ago. He called on Europe to give their Patriots instead, but quelle surprise, in a new FT article German Defense Minister Pistorius admitted that Germany will not be sending any Patriots nor Taurus missiles:

You can see in the above [on original], he goes on to say that Germany could purchase two systems from the US for Ukraine, instead. This is a kind of puerile shell game which is really meant to bolster the PR narrative that Ukraine is being ‘supported’ in order to keep hopes alive, so that the AFU doesn’t collapse from demoralization.

German Defense Minister Pistorius to Reuters:

Decision on two Patriots for Ukraine will be taken within days or weeks, but actual delivery of first system will take months.

In short: it’s a lot of hoopla to kick the can down the road again, repackaging the same policy with new fanfare.

The sanctions threat was likewise fraught with double-meaning. Trump called them ‘tariffs on Russia’, but in reality they are merely tariffs on US’ own allies:

Russia exports virtually nothing to the US which can be ‘tariffed’. The threat here is meaningless as these other heavyweights will not put up with Trump’s threat, forcing him to back away at the last moment as usual, then claiming “victory” after securing some other secondary fig leaf ‘deal’.

In conclusion: the entire charade appears to be a sneaky but brilliant act of jugglery by Trump, wherein he once again gives the appearance of major ‘action’ against Russia to silence critics and placate neocons, while in actuality doing little to further Ukraine’s war efforts, apart from plugging the previous status quo back onto life support. The act is meant to play both sides, relieving pressure on himself, while not overly risking his relationship with Putin in the hopes he can still clinch his big Nobel-earning armistice.

Notably, top-shelf items like JASSM missiles were all absent from the discussion, contrary to high-octane predictions from the peanut gallery the day before. Likewise, in the earlier-mentioned FT article, Pistorius once again categorically rejected—for the umpteenth time—the sending of Taurus missiles to Ukraine:

So, what are we left with? Essentially, the resumption of Biden’s PDA status quo with an ambiguous new promise of “a few” Patriot launchers, which is more a preliminary call to look for some potential stock among allies.

When asked what would happen after the 50 day mark if Putin refuses to back down, Trump told a reporter: “Don’t ask me that question.”

The bigger debate is whether Trump has now officially taken ownership of the war, despite his feeble attempts to impute his continued failings to Biden; many think so. But I still suspect Trump is trying his hardest to playact the stern and impatient taskmaster to signal ‘toughness’ against Putin for his deep state audience, all while actually trying to mitigate damage to US-Russian relations.

For instance, ‘senior officials’ told FT just two days ago that Trump still views Zelensky as the primary obstacle to peace:

That would likely make his ‘anger’ at Putin a put-on.

—

Intermezzo:

Ex-Russian prime minister Sergei Stepashin has a stark message for Germany, amidst all the militarization threats:

Moscow ‘knows location’ of German missile plants as Merz plans to hand Zelensky the bombs to hit ‘center of Russia’ — ex-PM Stepashin

Given that all the Trump-Ukraine weapons antics are merely an attempt to front-run and offlet some steam from the Russian summer offensives, let us now turn to frontline news:

Starting in western Zaporozhye Russian forces took over the remainder of Kamyanske:……………………………………………………………………………………….. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/trumps-weapons-magic-show-is-smoke?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=168312161&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

July 17, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Trump Announces Weapons Plan for Ukraine, Gives Russia 50-Day Deadline for Tariffs

Under the plan, the US will sell more weapons to NATO countries that will be transferred to Ukraine

by Dave DeCamp | Jul 14, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/07/14/trump-announces-weapons-plan-for-ukraine-gives-russia-50-day-deadline-for-tariffs/

President Trump on Monday met with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House and announced a plan to provide Ukraine with “billions of dollars” worth of US military equipment by selling US weapons to NATO countries that will be then transferred to the war-torn nation. The president also said that if a peace deal isn’t reached within 50 days, he will impose tariffs on Russia.

A source told Axios that the US is expected to sell $10 billion worth of military equipment to NATO countries in the first wave. Explaining the weapons plan to reporters, Rutte said the idea was to ensure that the US, which he described as the “police agent” of the world, is able to maintain its military stockpiles while also providing a “massive” amount of weapons to Ukraine.

“The US needs to make sure it can keep its hands on what the US needs to keep the whole world safe, because, in the end, you are the police agent of the whole world … but given that, the US has decided to indeed to massively supply Ukraine with what is necessary through NATO. Europeans [will be] 100% paying for that,” Rutte said.

Trump and Rutte said that they’d gotten commitments from European countries to purchase US weapons for Ukraine. “I will say that I spoke with Germany, spoke with most of the larger countries, and they are really enthusiastic about this, and they’re willing to go really far,” Trump said.

Trump and Rutte didn’t elaborate on the type of arms that would be sent, except to mention that more US-made Patriot air defense systems would be supplied to Ukraine. Sources told Axios that the weapons will also include long-range weapons that can strike deep inside Russia.

Regarding tariffs, Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Russia and “secondary tariffs” that would target Moscow’s trading partners, which include China and India. “We’re going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don’t have a deal in 50 days,” he said.

While announcing measures to continue the proxy war, Trump is still trying to distance himself from the conflict, calling it a “Biden war” and a “Democrat war.” The president insisted that he still wants to bring the conflict to an end and that he hopes the new military aid and tariff threat will do that. “This is not Trump’s war. We’re here to get it finished and stopped,” he said.

Trump also expressed frustration with Putin, saying that he has nice conversations with the leader, but that missiles keep targeting Ukrainian cities. “My conversations with him are very pleasant, and then the missiles go off at night,” he said.

Russia has made clear that it won’t back down on its core demands for a peace deal: Ukrainian neutrality and the recognition of the four oblasts Moscow annexed in 2022 as Russian territory, which would require a Ukrainian withdrawal from the territory it still controls in those areas.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to give up the territory and is unlikely to make concessions as long as the US and NATO continue to support his war effort. In the meantime, Russia continues to make gains on the battlefield and launch heavy missile and drone attacks across Ukraine.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Poisoned water and scarred hills

The price of the rare earth metals the world buys from China

By Laura Bicker and the Visual Journalism team: 08/07/2025, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-66cdf862-5e96-4e6e-90b8-a407b597c8d9

When you stand on the edge of Bayan Obo, all you see is an expanse of scarred grey earth carved into the grasslands of Inner Mongolia in northern China.

Dark dust clouds rise from deep craters where the earth’s crust has been sliced away over decades in search of a modern treasure.

You may not have heard of this town – but life as we know it could grind to a halt without Bayan Obo.

The town gets its name from the district it sits in, which is home to half of the world’s supply of a group of metals known as rare earths. They are key components in nearly everything that we switch on: smartphones, bluetooth speakers, computers, TV screens, even electric vehicles.

And one country, above all others, has leapt ahead in mining them and refining them: China.

This dominance gives Beijing huge leverage – both economically, and politically, such as when it negotiates with US President Donald Trump over tariffs. But China has paid a steep price for it.

To find out more, we travelled to the country’s two main rare earth mining hubs – Bayan Obo in the north and Ganzhou in the province of Jiangxi in the south.

We found man-made lakes full of radioactive sludge and heard claims of polluted water and contaminated soil, which, in the past, have been linked to clusters of cancer and birth defects. These journeys were challenging.

Beijing appears sensitive to criticism of its environmental record. We were pulled over by police, questioned by them and stuck in a three-hour standoff with an unidentified mining boss who refused to let us leave unless we deleted our footage.

Our calls for an interview or a statement have gone unanswered, but the government has published new regulations to try to strengthen its supervision of the industry.

Authorities have been making an effort to clean up these mining sites, scientists told the BBC. Still, China’s mining operations in the north just keep growing.

Machines are constantly on the hunt for rare earths called neodymium and dysprosium that go into making powerful magnets for a variety of modern technology, from electric vehicles to computer hard drives.

To find these rare earths, the machines strip away the topsoil layer-by-layer, kicking up harmful dust, some of which contains high levels of heavy metals and radioactive material.

Satellite images from the last few decades show how the Bayan Obo mine has spread.

The mine sits in the vast, aridness of Inner Mongolia, a nine-hour drive from the capital, Beijing.

There were once more than a thousand mining sites, some of them illegal, dotted throughout this one county. Companies got what they needed from one mine, and then moved to another.

Then in 2012, the Chinese government stepped in to regulate, dramatically reducing the number of mining licences they issued.

But significant damage had been done to the area already. Research going back decades has linked the rare earth mines to deforestation, soil erosion and chemical leaks into rivers and farmland.

Local farmer Huang Xiaocong, whose land is surrounded by four rare earth sites, believes landslides are still being triggered by improper mining practices.

He has also accused the state-owned company of grabbing land illegally. The firm refused to answer the BBC’s questions.

“This problem is way too big for me to solve. It’s something that has to be dealt with at the higher levels of government,” Mr Huang said.

“We ordinary people don’t have the answers… Farmers like us, we’re the vulnerable ones. To put it simply, we were born at a disadvantage. It’s pretty tragic.”

It is rare and often risky in China for villagers to take on huge companies – and even rarer for them to speak to international media. But Mr Huang is determined to be heard and has taken his case to the local Natural Resources Bureau.

Satellite images show the mining ponds surrounding Mr Huang’s village and land. Within a six kilometres wide square, at least four sites are visible.

During our interview with Mr Huang, we were surrounded by men wearing uniforms branded with what appeared to be the logo of the same rare earth company. At least 12 other men used their vehicles to block our car from leaving.

Eventually, someone who identified himself as a local manager of China Rare Earth Jiangxi Company arrived. He confronted Mr Huang and us, and wouldn’t let us leave for nearly three hours, despite our attempts to negotiate and our offers to hear his argument.

Those living around the mines in Bayan Obo and Ganzhou appear to be victims of what used to be China’s “develop first and clean up later” approach to mining, says Professor Julie Klinger, author of Rare Earth Frontiers. That has changed now as they try harder to mitigate the damage, she adds, but the consequences are here to stay.

“I think it’s very difficult to know the true human and environmental cost of that sort of development model,” she told the BBC.

The worst health effects were found in and around the largest tailing pond south of Bayan Obo in the city of Baotou. In the decades leading up to 2010, villagers were diagnosed with bone and joint deformities caused by too much fluoride in the water and acute arsenic toxicity, according to Professor Klinger.

Most of them lived close to the Weikuang Dam, a man-made lake built to dump mining waste in the 1950s. Authorities have since moved villagers away from the site, but the 11km-long tailings pond is still full of grey clay sludge, including radioactive thorium.

Studies suggest this toxic mix could be slowly seeping into the groundwater and moving towards the Yellow River, China’s second-largest, and a key source of drinking water for the north of the country.

As the demand for pocket gadgets, electric vehicles, solar panels, MRI machines and jet engines surges, there is one worrying statistic to contend with – mining just one tonne of rare earth minerals creates some 2,000 tonnes of toxic waste.

China is now trying to rein in the environmental harm its rush for rare earths has caused, while expanding its mining operations abroad. Others, including the United States, are in a hurry to catch up with their own rare earth enterprises.

But scientists warn that no matter where these metals are mined, without the right solutions, landscapes and lives will be put at risk.

And yet, some farmers in Bayan Obo have adjusted to life in the the world’s rare earth capital.

The metals that have scarred their land and poisoned their water have also brought them jobs.

“With the rare earths, there’s money now,” one farmer told us. “The mines pay 5,000 or 6,000 yuan ($837; £615) a month.”

He says he lost money herding horses, among the traditional livelihoods in a region that has long been home to nomadic people. Horses still roam the pastures next to the mines, as diggers continue their search for more rare earths.

“Farming’s fine,” he told us as he planted green onions. “You just grow your crop and sell it – simple as that.”

July 17, 2025 Posted by | China, environment, RARE EARTHS | Leave a comment

Toxic radioactive legacy of rare earths processing plan.

Industrial health expert T Jayabalan told FMT that he lived in Bukit Merah for three years during the 1980s, “collecting data” on the residents there. According to him, Lai Kwan and Cheah were only two of the many people he studied before presenting his findings to Malaysian courts. “Birth defects still exist,” he said, “and the number of miscarriages is incredibly high. Even if a foetus survives, it can still be born with leukemia and brain damage.”

“I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes. I’ve seen the suffering of these people. The only good thing about Lynas is that it hasn’t happened yet.”

(includes VIDEO)  Inside the world of a radiation victim, Free Malaysia Today Patrick Lee,  November 24, 2011 VIDEO  Tan Chui Mui’s short documentary is also about a mother’s undying love. Cheah was born in 1983, a year after Lai Kwan worked as a bricklayer at the Mitsubishi rare earth plant in Bukit Merah, Perak.

Cheah has multiple congenital defects, including a hole in the heart. He is also mentally deficient and virtually blind. And Lai Kwan is beside her son nearly every hour of her life, as portrayed in a short film entitled “Lai Kwan’s Love”…..

she tells the camera that she had no idea that the rare earth plant where she worked was handling toxic materials.

“We were working at the factory’s extension site. We didn’t know what kind of factory it was. We simply worked there….

Lai Kwan said she had not received compensation for her son’s disability, and that two men attempted to pay her into keeping quiet over Cheah.

“They asked me not to say my son’s sickness is related to the rare earth plant. I said I didn’t want the money, whatever the amount was. If I take your money, I said, and your factory continues to operate here, more newborns will get sick. What good is the money then?”

The film is the second in a four-part series called “Survival Guide Untuk Kampong Radioaktif”, a project designed to show viewers the adverse effects of radiation.

The Asian Rare Earth plant in Bukit Merah was closed in 1992 following years of protests from local residents. The area is still going through a massive RM303 million clean-up by Mitsubishi Chemicals.

None of the people in Bukit Merah were compensated, although Mitsubishi Chemicals donated RM500,000 to the community’s schools in an out-of-court settlement.

Locals in the 11,000-large town have blamed the plant for the population’s many birth defects and eight leukemia cases. Seven of the leukemia cases have since died……

Birth defects still exist’

Industrial health expert T Jayabalan told FMT that he lived in Bukit Merah for three years during the 1980s, “collecting data” on the residents there.

According to him, Lai Kwan and Cheah were only two of the many people he studied before presenting his findings to Malaysian courts. “Birth defects still exist,” he said, “and the number of miscarriages is incredibly high. Even if a foetus survives, it can still be born with leukemia and brain damage.”

Jayabalan also said that many people associated with Bukit Merah had since passed away, including “lawyers and plaintiffs” involved with the case.

“They died of cancer. Some of them died very young.”

He said he worried that the controversial Lynas rare earth plant near Kuantan, which is expected to see operations begin early next year, would see a “tenfold” effect.

“The amount of metals to be used is huge compared to Bukit Merah, and it’s going to leak, and these areas (in Kuantan) are prone to flooding,” he said.

“I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes. I’ve seen the suffering of these people. The only good thing about Lynas is that it hasn’t happened yet.”

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/11/24/inside-the-world-of-a-radiation-victim/

 
 

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Resources -audiovicual, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

The New York Times Finally Stops Avoiding The G-Word

Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 16, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-new-york-times-finally-stops?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=168435877&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The New York Times has published an op-ed by a genocide scholar who says that he resisted acknowledging the truth of what Israel is doing in Gaza for as long as he could, but can no longer deny the obvious.

It’s an admission that may as well have come from The New York Times itself.

In an article titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”, a Brown University professor of Holocaust and genocide studies named Omer Bartov argues that “Israel is literally trying to wipe out Palestinian existence in Gaza,” and denounces his fellow Holocaust scholars for failing to acknowledge reality.

“My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people,” Bartov writes. “Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.”

And resist he did. In November 2023, Bartov wrote another op-ed for The New York Times saying “As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.”

Apparently he is seeing the proof now and has stopped resisting what’s been clear from the very beginning. And it would seem the editors of the Gray Lady have ceased resisting as well.

The New York Times, which has an extensively documented pro-Israel bias, has frenetically avoided the use of the g-word on its pages from the very beginning of the Gaza onslaught. Even in its opinion and analysis pieces the NYT Overton window has cut off at framing the issue as a complex matter of rigorous debate, with headlines like “Accused of Genocide, Israelis See Reversal of Reality. Palestinians See Justice.” and “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” representing the closest thing to the pro-Palestinian side of the debate you’d see. During the same time we’ve seen headlines like “From the Embers of an Old Genocide, a New One May Be Emerging” used in reference to Sudan.

In an internal memo obtained by The Intercept last year, New York Times reporters were explicitly told to avoid the use of the word “genocide”, as well as terms like “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territory”.

“‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law,” the memo reads. “In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”

Earlier this year the American Friends Service Committee cancelled its paid advertisement in The New York Times calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza, saying the outlet had wanted them to change the word “genocide” to “war” in order for their ad to be published.

So there has been a significant change.

To be clear, this analysis by Omer Bartov is not significant in and of itself. He is only joining the chorus of what has already been said by human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations human rights experts, and the overwhelming majority of leading authorities on the subject of genocide.

What is significant is that even experts who’ve been resisting acknowledging the reality of the genocide in Gaza because of their bias toward Israel have stopped doing so, and that even the imperial media outlets most fiendishly devoted to running propaganda cover for that genocide have run out of room to hide.

The Israel apologists have lost the argument. They might not know it yet, but they have. Public sentiment has turned irreversibly against them as people’s eyes are opened to the truth of what’s happening in Gaza, and more and more propagandists are choosing to rescue what’s left of their tattered credibility instead of going down with the sinking ship.

Truth is slowly beginning to get a word in edgewise.

Keep pushing. Keep fighting. Keep resisting.

It’s working.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel, media | Leave a comment

Ex-UN Special Rapporteur Says Francesca Albanese Deserves Nobel Prize, Not US Sanctions

The US is punishing UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her scathing reports on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, July 14, 2025

The day after Donald Trump welcomed indicted war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States for the third time in less than six months, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed sanctions against UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine Francesca Albanese for her clear-eyed critiques of Israel’s genocide.

In a July 9 press statement, Rubio charged that Albanese “has directly engaged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries.” He alleged that Albanese “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West … including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants” for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

“No comment on mafia style intimidation techniques,” Albanese responded to the sanctions in a text message to Al Jazeera. “Busy reminding member states of their obligations to stop and punish genocide. And those who profit from it.” She queried why she had been sanctioned: “for having exposed a genocide? For having denounced the system? They never challenged me on the facts.”

In the height of irony, war criminal Netanyahu nominated serial lawbreaker Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. But it is Albanese who deserves that prize.

“The UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, not the U.S. punitive pushback by way of targeted sanctions denying her entry into the country and freezing any American assets she may have,” Richard Falk, who served as UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine from 2008 to 2014, told Truthout.

“This was an intimidating attack on Albanese, an unpaid civil servant, for her brave truth-telling and expert knowledge fully in accord with expectations of the job to report periodically to the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly,” Falk added. “Her well-documented reports have broken the mainstream silence in the West on Israel’s genocidal assault, carried out before the eyes and ears of the world, shocking many by its transparency and sadism over a period of more than 20 months. She has also exposed shameful patterns of U.S. complicity with Israeli criminality.”

As they dined together in Washington, Netanyahu told Trump he had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. The nomination, which Netanyahu sent to the Nobel Committee 10 days after the U.S. bombed nuclear facilities in Iran, rewarded Trump for his unwavering support for the crimes of the Zionist regime in both Palestine and Iran. Trump has continued and increased Joe Biden’s financial, political, and diplomatic assistance to Israel’s (now) 21-month-long genocide in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has killed more than 58,000 Palestinians. Trump also dutifully complied with Netanyahu’s plea to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, dropping several 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Iran. U.S. participation in Israel’s international crimes is patently illegal.

“Anatomy of a Genocide”

On July 1, 2024, Albanese filed her report “Anatomy of a Genocide” with the UN Human Rights Council. The summary begins, “After five months of military operations, Israel has destroyed Gaza.” That was one year ago. Not content with destroying Gaza, Israel continues to slaughter, starve, and displace the Palestinian people.

In this report, Albanese thoroughly documents Israel’s commission of genocide which is prohibited by the Genocide Convention. She cites the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ’s) order that Israel prevent and punish genocide and ensure humanitarian aid, which Israel has ignored. Albanese finds that “Israel has strategically invoked the international humanitarian law framework as ‘humanitarian camouflage’ to legitimize its genocidal violence in Gaza.” Israel, she charges, “appears to represent itself as conducting a ‘proportionate genocide.’” The crime of genocide, Albanese notes, entails “both individual and State responsibility.”

Israel’s actions “have been driven by a genocidal logic integral to its settler-colonial project in Palestine, signalling a tragedy foretold,” Albanese continues. “[D]isplacing and erasing the Indigenous Arab presence,” she writes, “has been an inevitable part of the forming of Israel as a ‘Jewish State.’”

Since illegally acquiring Palestinian territory by force in 1967, “Israel has advanced its settler-colonial project through military occupation, stripping the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination,” the report reads. “Genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances, including purported self-defence.” The ICJ has repeatedly held that Israel, as occupier, does not have a right to self-defense against the occupied Palestinians.

Albanese recommends that UN member states immediately implement an arms embargo on Israel, and investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under principles of universal jurisdiction.

“Genocide as Colonial Erasure”

On October 1, 2024, Albanese filed her report “Genocide as Colonial Erasure.” In it, she expands her analysis of Israel’s genocide beyond the July 1 report. She cites the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024, finding Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and reaffirming that the unlawfulness of the occupation “vitiates [Israel’s] claims of purported self-defence.” Albanese writes that “the only lawful recourse available to Israel is its unconditional withdrawal from the whole of that territory.”

When this report was filed, at least 90 percent of Palestinians in Gaza had been forcibly displaced, “many more than 10 times,” Albanese writes. Israeli officials and religious leaders “continue to encourage erasure and dispossession of Palestinians, setting new thresholds for acceptable violence against civilians. The Nakba, which has been ongoing since 1948, has been deliberately accelerated.”

“As Israeli leaders promised,” Albanese writes, “Gaza has been made unfit for human life.” She found “an intent to destroy [the] population [of Gaza] through starvation … Hungry crowds waiting for food have been massacred.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/ex-un-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-deserves-nobel-prize-not-sanctions/

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel, PERSONAL STORIES, USA | Leave a comment

Tonnes of nuclear waste from Gentilly-1 secretly rolled down Quebec roads

A federal appeals court has already ruled that CNL and Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), both acted improperly by not consulting the Kebaowek FN on the proposed “megadump” at Chalk River.

Shockingly, many of the radioactive species proposed for permanent storage in that earthen mound – the megadump, the NSDF – will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years. 

Gordon Edwards, 15 July 25

Since 2015, a consortium of multinational corporations led by two American firms has been contracted by the Government of Canada to “manage” all federally-owned nuclear facilities and all federally-owned radioactive waste. 

The consortium, operating under the banner of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), has already been paid several billions of dollars from the Canadian treasury. In September a new consortium of three American multinationals is slated to take over the reins of CNL
 and will continue to receive close to a billion dollars a year of federal tax dollars.

There is a federal petition in the House of Commons calling on the government to pause the contract until a federal audit has been conducted to determine where all that money is going. If you are a Canadian citizen, please sign your name to that petition and tell your friends and colleagues about it.
The article below indicates that all the high-level radioactive waste – used nuclear fuel – from the defunct Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor in Quebec has been secretly transported to Chalk River Ontario by the consortium, even though its current licence does not authorize such a transfer.

In typical grandiose fashion, CNL spokespersons boast that the consortium has “eliminated” a major liability. In actual fact the high-level waste has merely been moved upstream, to Chalk River, right on the border of Quebec, right beside the Ottawa river that flows down to Montreal. 
There is no mention of how much Canadians have had to pay the consortium for this operation, which was both unnecessary and ill-advised. The high-level waste cannot stay at Chalk River, it will have to be moved again at further taxpayer expense – because there is as yet no permanent home for any such highly radiotoxic waste – waste that will remain dangerous for many hundreds of thousands of years.

CNL falsely claims that municipalities and indigenous people were fully informed about the shipments. This is not true. For example, Keboawek First Nation (on whose ancestral land Chalk River is situated) was completely blind-sided by the Gentilly-1 radioactive waste being imported onto their territory without their full prior and informed consent, as required by law. 

A federal appeals court has already ruled that CNL and Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), both acted improperly by not consulting the Kebaowek FN on the proposed “megadump” at Chalk River. KFN knew nothing about this operation until after it was completed. You cannot consult someone about a “fait accompli”.
The Chalk River megadump – euphemistically called the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) – is intended to hold a million tons of so-called “low level radioactive waste” in a glorified landfill operation perched on a height of land not far from the Ottawa River.

Shockingly, many of the radioactive species proposed for permanent storage in that earthen mound – the megadump, the NSDF – will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years. 
The megadump has been opposed by over a hundred Quebec municipalities, including the City of Montreal and its “agglomeration” partners. As far as we can determine, none of these municipalities were notified or consulted about the Gentilly-1 waste shipments.

Has Canada granted American multinational corporations, all of them closely linked to the American nuclear weapons program, “carte blanche” to do what it likes without even notifying or consulting those Canadians that are most directly affected by their actions?
CNL is concentrating all federally-owned radioactive wastes of human origin at Chalk River, right across from Quebec, on a river that empties into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. Large volumes of radioactive waste from Quebec and Manitoba, as well as from Kincardine and Rolphton in Ontario, is being accumulated at this one location  It is astonishing that the present Quebec government has absolutely nothing to say about this.

Past Quebec leaders have had the audacity to speak up. When Quebec activists intervened to prevent a high level nuclear waste dump in Vermont, Premier Bourassa stated that Quebec would never allow a permanent nuclear waste repository “in its territory or on its frontiers”. The Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution against the import of radioactive waste into Quebec for permanent disposal. Just on the border is OK?
Apparently, out of sight is out of mind. How times have changed….

The operation was completed at the end of June, after several months.

Sylvain Larocque, Le Journal de Montréal, 14 July 2025, https://tinyurl.com/msasbd4w

Over the past few months, dozens of trucks have been secretly driving the roads of Quebec to transport tonnes of irradiated fuel from the Gentilly-1 plant in Bécancour to Chalk River, Ontario.

– Also read: Hydro-Québec CEO Michael Sabia cautious on the nuclear issue

– Also read: Looking back: the nuclear adventure lasted only 29 years in Quebec

How many convoys were there?

Where exactly did they go?

It’s impossible to know.

‘To ensure the safe and secure transport of these materials, we cannot divulge specific information about the routes,’ Alexandra Riopelle, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which was responsible for the operation, told Le Journal.

In all, there were 2985 fuel bundles to be transferred. These contained 62.8 tonnes of uranium, occupying a total volume of 12.1 cubic metres.

The trips began last autumn and ended a fortnight ago,” says Ms Riopelle.

Protected by the provincial police (Sûreté du Québec)

Quebec police officers provided security for each of the convoys.

‘I can confirm that we saw these materials being transported,’ says Sûreté du Québec inspector Richard Gauthier, although he declined to give any further details.

CNL, a consortium made up of the engineering firms Atkins-Réalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), Jacobs and Fluor [both based in Texas], discreetly issued a press release last week highlighting the ‘success’ of the ‘removal of fuel from Gentilly-1, more quickly than expected’.

‘Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has eliminated a major nuclear liability and paved the way for the next stages in the decommissioning’ of the former experimental power station, which operated intermittently from 1972 to 1977, the organisation declared in a tone of self-congratulation.

No clear announcement

However, CNL has never made a clear announcement about the start of transport activities. In the spring of 2025, CNL provided information [no details!] on the decommissioning of Gentilly-1, but the question of transporting nuclear waste was only vaguely addressed.

It was a Montreal citizen, Jacques Dagenais, who alerted Le Journal in May. ‘If there were an accident, half the Montreal and Gatineau-Ottawa regions would have to be evacuated,’ he said. 

Although the nuclear waste from Gentilly-1 left the Centre-du-Québec region, it did not go very far: the Chalk River Laboratories are located on the banks of the Ottawa River, a stone’s throw from Quebec.

Gordon Edwards, a well-known anti-nuclear campaigner, also condemns the transport of spent fuel from Gentilly-1.

‘Even after 40 years, irradiated fuel still emits significant quantities of radioactivity’, he says. [Correction: it is not radioactivity that is emitted; radioactive materials emit ‘ionizing radiation’ often referred to as ‘atomic radiation’]

Terrorist risks

Guy Marleau, a professor at Polytechnique Montréal, maintains that it is to reduce risks, particularly terrorist risks, that nuclear waste shipments are not announced in advance.

“We make sure that the transport is carried out at times and on routes where the risk of collision is minimised,” explains the expert. As far as possible, we try to avoid crossing watercourses…. 

“Even if there is a collision with fire, the fuel is protected. The thing we’re most afraid of is it ending up at the bottom of a river.”

CNL asserts that it has notified the municipalities and aboriginal communities along the convoy route. The town of Bécancour and the Abenakis of Wôlinak did not reply to the Journal on this subject.

‘Quebec is notified and consulted’ when highly reactive waste is transported, ‘to ensure that risks are properly managed’, says Marjorie Larouche, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Environment.

As for Hydro-Québec’s Gentilly-2 power station, which ceased operations in 2012, its decommissioning [dismantling] could also be accelerated. It is not yet known whether its irradiated fuel will remain on site or be shipped elsewhere in Canada.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Peace River nuclear power project: The hidden cost

Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator.”

Patrick Jean, Jul 15, 2025 , https://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/opinion/more-expensive-than-you-think-the-hidden-cost-of-nuclear-energy

As someone born in Peace River and raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, I care deeply about the land, water, and communities that would be affected by the proposed nuclear facility in northwestern Alberta. Although I live in Edmonton now, I work as a Municipal Energy Manager for a small rural municipality in the province, and my family still lives across the region — from McLennan to Marie-Reine.

Though I’m relatively new to public service, I bring over 20 years of experience in project management, systems analysis, and strategic planning across various sectors, including energy, agriculture, and technology. I’ve worked with municipalities, nonprofits, and institutions across Alberta on energy efficiency, infrastructure modernization, and rural economic development. I hold an Honours degree in Sustainability Management from MacEwan University, and continue to deepen my training in energy policy and climate adaptation as I prepare to do my Master of Sustainable Energy Development at the University of Calgary. I’ve also published and presented research on how geothermal energy can support rural economies—work that reflects my broader commitment to clean, decentralized solutions that benefit communities like the one I come from.

In contrast, Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). Most renewable projects are completed in under five years, with many rooftop and community systems operational in less than one. In 2022, solar became the world’s fastest-growing source of new electricity capacity.

They’re also far more cost-effective. Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy+ estimates nuclear at $141–$251 per megawatt-hour, compared to just $37–$81 for wind and $38–$66 for solar. Nuclear is up to six times more expensive than renewables, and that doesn’t include long-term waste management, decommissioning, or liability coverage—costs that often fall to the public. Clean energy isn’t just cheaper—it’s better for jobs. A dollar invested in solar or wind creates 2.8 to 5.7 times more employment than the same dollar spent on nuclear, according to peer-reviewed research in energy policy. These are jobs in construction, maintenance, engineering, and operations, many of which can be located in rural and underserved communities.

Even if built, nuclear doesn’t align with the needs of modern energy systems. Grids today depend on flexibility, not constant output “baseload” plants like nuclear reactors that can’t adjust quickly to changing demand. When renewable energy production is high, inflexible nuclear can force the grid to waste clean power. In contrast, renewables combined with battery storage, smart grid controls, and demand-side response offer more adaptable, resilient energy systems. Research in Joule and PNAS shows that 100 per cent renewable grids with storage are not only viable, they’re more stable than those relying on nuclear.

In the time it would take to bring Peace River’s reactors online, Alberta could:
• Deploy 10 to 15 GW of solar and wind,
• Install 1–2 GW of grid-scale storage,
• Retrofit public buildings and homes for energy efficiency,
• Launch locally led clean energy partnerships, and
• Create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.

The local risks are just as serious. A nuclear facility would withdraw millions of litres of water per day from the Peace River for cooling, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems and fish spawning habitats. A 2021 study in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that thermal pollution and water drawdown from nuclear plants disrupt river ecosystems.

Public submissions and academic research have also raised critical concerns about the cultural and social impact of this project. The proposed site lies within Treaty 8 territory—an area with deep spiritual, cultural, and subsistence significance. According to The Canadian Journal of Native Studies (2022), long-term nuclear waste storage near such lands threatens intergenerational safety and undermines the cultural integrity of surrounding communities. The Land Use Policy journal emphasizes the importance of free, prior, and informed consent under Canada’s obligations to UNDRIP—yet many affected communities report they have not been meaningfully engaged. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has already documented frustration with inaccessible technical documents and limited public engagement in its summary of issues.

We don’t need to go down this road. Alberta already has the tools to reduce emissions, create good jobs, and support rural communities—without waiting decades or spending billions on a legacy system that doesn’t serve our needs.

The Peace River nuclear proposal would delay real climate action, raise electricity costs, and place long-term environmental and financial burdens on the very communities it claims to help. We already have faster, cleaner, and smarter options. We should be investing in them now.

Patrick Jean is a holistic sustainability consultant, policy analyst, and municipal energy manager based in Edmonton. He holds an honours degree in sustainability management, has over 20 years of experience in systems analysis and project management, and has published research on rural energy innovation. He was born in Peace River, raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, and maintains strong family and community ties across the region. His comprehensive comments are available on the Government of Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency. 

July 17, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Construction workers walk out at Hinkley Point C

 Thousands of construction workers have walked out unofficially at the
massive Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant against bullying management. As
we go to press, they are still out. It has been estimated that there are
12,000 workers on the site, organised by Unite and the GMB, and it is
reported that anything from 2,000 to 4,000 workers are involved in this
dispute, reportedly at MEH Alliance – bringing together Altrad Services,
Cavendish, Balfour Beatty, NG Bailey and Altrad Babcock.


 Socialist Party 15th July 2025,
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/140831/15-07-2025/construction-workers-walk-out-at-hinckley-c/

July 17, 2025 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Northern Ontario residents oppose plan to dump radioactive material near drinking water source.

By Angela Gemmill, July 15, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/northern-ontario/article/northern-ont-residents-oppose-plan-to-dump-radioactive-material-near-drinking-water-source/

Residents in Nairn and Hyman and surrounding communities met Monday to discuss concerns about a plan by the province to transfer radioactive material into the area.

Concerns were first raised last summer after a local municipal councillor noticed newer back roads and inquired about the upgrades.

That’s when the township discovered that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Mines were planning to move 18,000 cubic metres of niobium radioactive materials from Nipissing First Nation to the tailings area at Agnew Lake.

Agnew Lake is 27 kilometres from the township’s drinking water.

“We felt we really hadn’t been consulted,” Nairn and Hyman Mayor Amy Mazey told the crowd.

“We were told the ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’ was just like gravel.”

Last September, the municipality asked the province for more specific information about the project, which was scheduled to begin this summer.

“This is not ‘NORM ‘–naturally occurring radioactive material,” Mazey said.

“It contains hazardous heavy metals — uranium, niobium, radium 226, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, silver and manganese.”

In April, both ministries provided the township with a massive report filled with technical and scientific details. So the township hired environmental consultants Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. to interpret the report — and determine what science was missing.

That information was presented to residents on Monday, who were then asked for feedback and suggestions on what to do next.

Mazey said there are eight studies missing from the report.

“The two most important are a cumulative risk assessment — what’s going to happen when you put uranium tailings on top and niobium tailings together,” she said.

What will happen? And also a drainage study — so where is the water going to go, how is it going to leech? All of those things that were outlined that should have been done already, we just haven’t seen them.”

Township CAO Belinda Ketchabaw said what it boils down to is that the province wants to put radioactive materials in a lake that’s already struggling.

“(Agnew Lake) site is already in crisis, and they want to bring in more radioactive material to ‘fix’ the site,” Ketchabaw said.

“It doesn’t really add up to me. When the science isn’t there, there’s no trust. We need to trust what is best for our community.”

Safe outcome

Ketchabaw said they’ve learned that some of the niobium material will be taken to a Clean Harbors facility near Sarnia, made for hazardous waste.

She said it raises the question that if the material is hazardous enough to be sent to this facility, shouldn’t it all be sent there?

“Let’s just bring it all there and have a safe outcome for everyone,” Ketchabaw said.

Furthering distrust, Mazey said the two ministries often give the community contradictory information.

“It just raises a lot of red flags,” she said.

“I hope that the Ontario government listens to the residents and takes us seriously that this isn’t an easy fix … Just because this is the most convenient solution for the province, it doesn’t mean that it’s the best solution.”

Margaret Lafromboise, who lives close to the Spanish River, said she’s concerned about having “an unsafe radioactive site increased in volume.”

“I think the most constructive and practical thing to do would be to see if the municipality could get financial help to hire a lawyer and initiate an injunction to stop the action immediately,” Lafromboise said.

“As a society, as a province, we are not taking good enough care of our environment, the water and I don’t believe our current government is willing to take the action that is required.”

Representatives from the provincial ministries were not invited to Monday’s town hall.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment