nuclear-news

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

Ominous Plans: Making Concentration Camp Gaza

18 July 2025, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/ominous-plans-making-concentration-camp-gaza/

The odious idea of a camp within a camp. The Gaza Strip, with an even greater concentration of Palestinian civilian life within an ever-shrinking stretch of territory. These are the proposals ventured by the Israeli government even as the official Palestinian death toll marches upwards to 60,000. They envisage the placement of some 600,000 displaced and houseless beings currently living in tents in the area of al-Mawasi along Gaza’s southern coast in a creepily termed “humanitarian city”. This would be the prelude for an ultimate relocation of the strip’s entire population of over 2 million in an area that will become an even smaller prison than the Strip already is.

The preparation for such a forced removal – yet another among so many Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinians – is in full swing. The analysis of satellite imagery from the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) by Al Jazeera’s Sanad investigations unit found that approximately 12,800 buildings were demolished in Rafah between early April and early July alone. In the Knesset on May 11 this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave words to those deeds: “We are demolishing more and more [of their] homes, they have nowhere to return to. The only obvious result will be the desire of the Gazans to emigrate outside the Strip.”

Camps of concentrated human life – concentration camps, in other words – are often given a different dressing to what they are meant to be. Authoritarian states enjoy using them to re-educate and reform the inmates even as they gradually kill them. Indeed, the proposals from the Israel’s Defense Department carry with them plans for a “Humanitarian Transit Area” where Gazans would “temporarily reside, deradicalize, re-integrate, and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so.”

The emetic candy floss of “humanitarian” in the context of a camp is a self-negating nonsense similar to other experiments in cruelty: the relocation of Boer civilians during the colonial wars waged by Britain to camps which saw dysentery and starvation; the movement of Vietnamese villagers into fortified hamlets to prevent their infiltration by the Vietcong in the 1960s; the creation of Pacific concentration camps to detain refugees seeking Australia by boat in what came to be called the “Pacific Solution.”

Those in the business of doing humanitarian deeds were understandably appalled by Israel’s latest plans. Philippe Lazzarini, head of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), stated that this would “de facto create massive concentration camps at the border with Egypt for the Palestinians, displaced over and over across generations.” It would certainly “deprive Palestinians of any prospects of a better future in their homeland.” Self-evidently and sadly, that would be one of the main aims.

A few of Israeli’s former Prime Ministers have ditched the coloured goggles in considering the plans for such a mislabelled city. Yair Lapid, who spent a mere six months in office in 2022, told Israeli Army Radio that it was “a bad idea from every possible perspective – security, political, economic, logistical.” While preferring not to use the term “concentration camp” with regards such a construction, incarcerating individuals by effectively preventing their exit would make such a term appropriate.  

Ehud Olmert’s words to The Guardian were even less inclined to varnish the matter. “If they [the Palestinians] will be deported into the new ‘humanitarian city’, then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing.” To create a camp that would effectively “clean” more than half of Gaza of its population could hardly be understood as a plan to save Palestinians. “It is to deport them, to push and to throw them away. There is no other understanding that I have at least.”

Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg was also full of candour in expressing the view that the plan was “for all facts and purposes a concentration camp” for Gaza’s Palestinians, “an overt crime against humanity under international humanitarian law”. This would also add the burgeoning grounds of illegality already being alleged in this month’s petition by three Israeli reserve soldiers of Israel’s Supreme Court questioning the legality of Operation Gideon’s Chariots. Instancing abundant examples of forced transfer and expulsions of the Palestinian population during its various phases, commentators such as former chief of staff of the IDF, Moshe “Bogy” Ya’alon, are unreserved about how such programs fare before international law. “Evacuating an entire population? Call it ethnic cleansing, call it transfer, call it deportation, it’s a war crime,” he told journalist Lucy Aharish. “Israel’s soldiers had been sent in “to commit war crimes.”

There is also some resistance from within the IDF, less on humanitarian grounds than practical ones. To even prepare such a plan in the midst of negotiations for a lasting ceasefire and finally resolving the hostage situation was the first telling problem. The other was how the IDF could feasibly undertake what would be a grand jailing experiment while preventing the infiltration of Hamas.  

This ghastly push by the Netanyahu government involves an enormous amount of wishful thinking. Ideally, the Palestinians will simply leave. If not, they will live in even more carceral conditions than they faced before October 2023. But to assume that this cartoon strip humanitarianism, papered over a ghoulish program of inflicted suffering, will add to the emptying well of Israeli security, is testament to how utterly desperate, and delusionary, the Israeli PM and his cabinet members have become.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Cognitive collapse and the nuclear codes: When leaders lose control

Date:July 17, 2025, Source: University of Otago, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/07/250717013857.htm

Summary:

A shocking study reveals that many leaders of nuclear-armed nations—including US presidents and Israeli prime ministers—were afflicted by serious health problems while in office, sometimes with their conditions hidden from the public. From dementia and depression to addiction and chronic diseases, these impairments may have affected their decision-making during pivotal global crises.

The research underscores the need for greater transparency, better safeguards for nuclear decisions, and reforms such as mandatory health evaluations and shared launch authority to reduce global security risks. Credit: Shutterstock

Many former leaders of the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations were impaired by health conditions while in office, raising concerns over their decision-making abilities while they had access to nuclear weapon launch codes, a study from the University of Otago, New Zealand, has found.

The study analyzed the health information of 51 deceased leaders of nuclear-armed countries: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Eight of the leaders died from chronic disease while still in office, five from heart attacks or strokes. Many of the leaders had multiple serious health issues while in office, including dementia, personality disorders, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.

The research was led by Professor Nick Wilson, from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, Wellington – Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Pōneke, with Associate Professor George Thomson and independent researcher Dr Matt Boyd. Professor Wilson says that of the leaders who left office while still alive, 15 had confirmed or possible health issues which likely hastened their departure.

“Probably all of this group of 15 leaders had their performance in office impaired by their health conditions. In some cases, the degree of impairment was profound, such as in the case of two former Israeli Prime Ministers: Ariel Sharon, who became comatose after suffering a stroke in office, and Menachem Begin, whose depression was so severe he spent his last year as leader isolated in his home. Impairment during crises was also seen in the case of Richard Nixon’s bouts of heavy drinking – including during a nuclear crisis involving the Middle East.

“There have also been occasions where health information about leaders has been kept secret at the time.”

This was the case for multiple US presidents, including Dwight D Eisenhower, whose doctor described his 1955 heart attack as a digestive upset; John F Kennedy, whose aides lied about him having Addison’s disease, a serious, chronic condition; and Ronald Reagan, whose administration hid the extent of his injuries after he was shot in 1981, and the likely signs of his dementia near the end of his term.

Professor Wilson says Kennedy was in poor health during his first two years in office in 1961 and 1962, with his performance likely impaired from Addison’s disease, back pain, and his use of anabolic steroids and amphetamines. It was in 1961 that he authorized the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and that his poor performance at a Cold War summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was noted. In turn, Khrushchev’s poor mental health probably contributed to him triggering both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In France, long-serving President François Mitterrand clung onto power until the end of his term in 1995, despite keeping secret his advanced prostate cancer and after his doctor had concluded in late 1994 that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties. This latest study follows previous research involving Professor Wilson on the health of former New Zealand Prime Ministers. It found the performance of at least four of the leaders was impaired, in three cases by poor health, and, in the case of Robert Muldoon, by his heavy drinking.

Professor Wilson says with the rise in international instability following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it has become even more important to ensure there is good leadership and governance in those countries with nuclear weapons.

“This is particularly the case for the United States, where a leader can in principle authorize the release of nuclear weapons on their own, a situation referred to as a ‘nuclear monarchy’.”

He says there are a range of measures which could reduce global security risks from leaders whose judgement is in question. They include removing nuclear weapons from ‘high alert’ status, adopting ‘no first use’ policies where nations refrain from using nuclear weapons except as a retaliatory second strike, ensuring any weapon launches need authorization by multiple people, and progressing nuclear disarmament treaties.

Professor Wilson says democracies could consider introducing term limits for their leaders, as well as recall systems, so voters could petition for politicians to step down. Requirements for medical and psychological assessments could be introduced for leaders before they take office, and during their terms.

“Maintaining a strong media with investigative journalists can also help expose impairment in leaders.”

Professor Wilson says politicians in general are exposed to high levels of stress, which can affect their mental well-being. A study of UK Members of Parliament has found they were 34 per cent more likely to experience mental health problems than other high-income earners.

“Finding ways to reduce stress on politicians and better address their mental health needs is another way global security risks can be reduced.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Otago. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Nick Wilson, George Thomson, Matt Boyd. The frequently impaired health of leaders of nuclear weapon states: an analysis of 51 deceased leaders. BMC Research Notes, 2025; 18 (1) DOI: 10.1186/s13104-025-07351-8

July 19, 2025 Posted by | psychology - mental health | Leave a comment

New reports cast doubt on impact of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites

Citing intelligence assessments, NBC News and Washington Post report that only Fordow site was destroyed in US attack.

US Secretary of Defense attacks media for questioning Iran strikes

By Al Jazeera Staff, 18 Jul 202518 Jul 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/18/new-reports-cast-doubt-on-impact-of-us-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites

Washington, DC – New media reports in the United States, citing intelligence assessments, have cast doubt over President Donald Trump’s assertion that Washington’s military strikes last month “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Washington Post and NBC News reported that US officials were saying that only one of the three Iranian nuclear sites – the Fordow facility – targeted by the US has been destroyed.

The Post’s report, released on Friday, also raised questions on whether the centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the deepest level of Fordow were destroyed or moved before the attack.

“We definitely can’t say it was obliterated,” an unidentified official told the newspaper, referring to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Trump has insisted that the US strikes were a “spectacular” success, lashing out at any reports questioning the level of damage they inflicted on Iran’s nuclear programme.

An initial US intelligence assessment, leaked to several media outlets after the attack last month, said the strikes failed to destroy key components of Iran’s nuclear programme and only delayed its work by months.

But the Pentagon said earlier in July that the attacks degraded the Iranian programme by one to two years.

While the strikes on Fordow – initially thought to be the most guarded facility, buried inside a mountain – initially took centre stage, the NBC News and Washington Post reports suggested that the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan also had deep tunnels.

‘Impenetrable’

The US military did not use enormous bunker-busting bombs against the Isfahan site and targeted surface infrastructure instead.

A congressional aide familiar with intelligence briefings told the Post that the Pentagon had assessed that the underground facilities at Isfahan were “pretty much impenetrable”.

The Pentagon responded to both reports by reiterating that all three sites were “completely and totally obliterated”.

Israel, which started the war by attacking Iran without direct provocation last month, has backed the US administration’s assessment, while threatening further strikes against Tehran if it resumes its nuclear programme.

For its part, Tehran has not provided details about the state of its nuclear sites.

Some Iranian officials have said that the facilities sustained significant damage from US and Israeli attacks. But Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said after the war that Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the strikes.

The location and state of Iran’s highly enriched uranium also remain unknown.

Iran’s nuclear agency and regulators in neighbouring states have said they did not detect a spike in radioactivity after the bombings, suggesting the strikes did not result in uranium contamination.

But Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, did not rule out that the uranium containers may have been damaged in the attacks.

“We don’t know where this material could be or if part of it could have been under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told CBS News last month.

According to Grossi, Iran could resume uranium enrichment in a “matter of months”.

The war

Israel launched a massive attack against Iran on June 13, killing several top military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.

The bombing campaign targeted military sites, civilian infrastructure and residential buildings across the country, killing hundreds of civilians.

Iran responded with barrages of missiles against Israel that left widespread destruction and claimed the lives of at least 29 people.

The US joined the Israeli campaign on June 22, striking the three nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against an air base housing US troops in Qatar.

Initially, Trump said the Iranian attack was thwarted, but after satellite images showed damage at the base, the Pentagon acknowledged that one of the missiles was not intercepted.

“One Iranian ballistic missile impacted Al Udeid Air Base June 23 while the remainder of the missiles were intercepted by US and Qatari air defence systems,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Al Jazeera in an email last week.

Advertisement

“The impact did minimal damage to equipment and structures on the base. There were no injuries.”

After a ceasefire was reached to end the 12-day war, both the US and Iran expressed willingness to engage in diplomacy to resolve the nuclear file. But talks have not materialised.

Iran and the US were periodically holding nuclear talks before Israel launched its war in June.

During his first term in 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The agreement saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

In recent days, European officials have suggested that they could impose “snap-back” sanctions against Iran as part of the deal that has long been violated by the US.

Tehran, which started enriching uranium beyond the limits set by the JCPOA after the US withdrawal, insists that Washington was the party that nixed the agreement, stressing that the deal acknowledges Iran’s enrichment rights.

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he held talks with the top diplomats of France, the United Kingdom and Germany – known as the E3 – as well as the European Union’s high representative.

Araghchi said Europeans should put aside “worn-out policies of threat and pressure”.

“It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal – coordinated by EU in 2015 – not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a military option instead, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister said in a social media post.

“Any new round of talks is only possible when the other side is ready for a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial nuclear deal.”

Tehran denies seeking a nuclear bomb. Israel, meanwhile, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Miliband bets on nuclear fusion in bid to lead (?)clean power race.

Energy Secretary to make it easier for developers to build reactors with planning shake-up

 Ed Miliband has taken a bet on nuclear fusion one day powering Britain by
making it easier for developers to build new reactors with minimal planning
restrictions.

Fusion plants are to be included in the UK’s national
infrastructure planning system, meaning they can be built in any part of
Britain without needing consent from local authorities and with little
opportunity for local people to object. Mr Miliband said the aim was to
ensure fusion, if it ever works, could rapidly become part of the UK energy
system.

 Telegraph 18th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/18/miliband-bets-on-nuclear-fusion-by-making-it-easier-to-buil/

July 19, 2025 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

‘Keeping us hooked on fossil fuels’: how can we negotiate with autocracies on the climate crisis?

 When it comes to the climate crisis, how do you negotiate with an
autocracy? It is the case today, and it is almost certain to remain so for
the dwindling number of years in which we can hope to stave off the worst
of climate breakdown, that the bulk of the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions come from countries that are not democratic. Add to that, many of
the major suppliers of oil and gas – the Gulf petrostates for instance,
plus Russia, Venezuela and a few others – are likewise authoritarian.
Their outsize impact puts autocratic nations in the spotlight when it comes
to global climate talks. How their governments decide to act will be
crucial to the planet’s future. But while democracies are subject to the
whims of electorates, which can often be unpredictable, autocratic nations
tend to be far more inscrutable. Take the small handful of the world’s
biggest fossil fuel companies, referred to as the “carbon majors”. They
hold our future in their hands, and of the top 20 with the biggest carbon
output globally, 16 are state-owned and were responsible for 52% of global
emissions in 2023.

 Guardian 18th July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/18/climate-crisis-fossil-fuels-autocracies-authoritorian-countries

July 19, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Trump’s nuclear power push weakens regulator and poses safety risks, former officials warn

Spencer Kimball, Jul 17 2025

Key Points

Former NRC commissioners say the order threatens the regulator’s independence, raising safety concerns that could undermine public confidence.

President Donald Trump has ordered an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, part of his push to quadruple nuclear power in the U.S. by 2050.

The order requires the NRC to make decisions on nuclear plants within 18 months, completely revise its regulations and reduce its staff.

Former NRC commissioners say the order threatens the
regulator’s independence, raising safety concerns that could undermine
public confidence. President Donald Trump’s push to approve nuclear
plants as quickly as possible threatens to weaken the independent regulator
tasked with protecting public health and safety, former federal officials
warn.

Trump issued four sweeping executive orders in May that aim to
quadruple nuclear power by 2050 in the U.S. The White House and the
technology industry view nuclear as powerful source of reliable electricity
that can help meet the growing energy needs of artificial intelligence.

The most consequential of Trump’s orders aims to slash regulations and speed
up power plant approvals through an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The NRC is an independent agency established by Congress in
1975 to make sure that nuclear reactors are deployed and operated safely.
Trump accuses the NRC of “risk aversion” in his order, blaming the
regulator for how few nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. over the
past three decades. The president says that the NRC is focused on
protecting the public from “the most remote risks,” arguing that such a
cautious approach to approving plants restricts access to reliable
electricity.

 CNBC 17th July 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/17/trumps-nuclear-power-push-weakens-regulator-and-poses-safety-risks-former-officials-warn.html

July 19, 2025 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C | Investor withdraws from consortium set for 25% stake.

17 Jul, 2025 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-investor-withdraws-from-consortium-set-for-25-stake-17-07-2025/

One of the investors reported to be considering a stake in Sizewell C has decided to withdraw, while the government is no longer planning to classify nuclear energy as “sustainable”.

Schroders Greencoat, which describes itself as “a specialist renewables infrastructure investor”, was previously reported to be one of the companies considering an ownership stake in Sizewell C.

It was widely reported that Schroders Greencoat was one of the companies in the consortium led by Brookfield Asset Management, which was in total considering a 25% stake in the nuclear power plant.

In an email dated 16 July seen by NCE, the investor said it no longer wishes to invest in the project on the Suffolk coast.

Wait for final investment decision continues

Sizewell C must achieve its final investment decision (FID) before main construction can start.

Despite the delay, Sizewell C has committed over £2.5bn on contracts.

The scale of the works are now visible to the public via aerial images taken in April 2025 published on Google Earth and Maps.

It is now expected that the final investment decision will be taken this summer.

Nuclear dropped from sustainable finance classification plans

The UK Government recently decided to not go ahead with plans to create a UK Green Taxonomy for financial investments, meaning that it won’t have a specific classification of certain areas of activity, like nuclear power, as “sustainable”.

This had been a plan hatched by former chancellor Jeremy Hunt in the 2023 Spring Budget, but NCE found that no work had gone towards this 16 months later.

HM Treasury economic secretary to the treasury and city minister Emma Reynolds announced the decision in the UK Green Taxonomy Consultation Response.

“To make sure the UK is well-positioned to capture [growth in the green economy], the government is delivering a world-leading sustainable finance framework,” Reynolds said.

“This includes ensuring that we have the right tools in place and the proportionate regulation that is needed to support the transition, strengthening the UK’s position as the sustainable finance capital of the world so that the UK can lead the clean energy transition at home and abroad.

“That is why, after careful consideration, the government has concluded that a UK Taxonomy would not be the most effective tool to deliver the green transition and should not be part of our sustainable finance framework.

“Whilst our ambitions to continue as a global leader remain unchanged, the consultation responses showed that other policies were of higher priority to accelerate investment into the transition to net zero and limit greenwashing.”

It is understood that the decision to drop plans for the taxonomy may have contributed to Schroders Greencoat’s withdrawal from investing in Sizewell C.

Anti-Sizewell C campaign attributes withdrawal to taxonomy decision

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “It’s welcome news that Schroders Greencoat won’t be investing in Sizewell C.

Based on our dialogue with Schroders, we attribute this to the government deciding not to adopt a green taxonomy, which thankfully has the outcome that nuclear energy cannot be erroneously labelled ‘green’.

“We wish that other investors would take the same view and exit Sizewell C forthwith.”

No comment from parties to negotiations

The negotiations around the final investment decision are often described as commercially sensitive, and as such the government doesn’t tend to comment.

This hasn’t stopped sources informing the media about certain parts of the negotiations, like the report in the FT that the government is now taking a minority ownership stake.

The Department for Net Zero and Energy Security, Sizewell C and Schroders Greencoat did not supply a comment.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

THE END FOR ZELENSKY?

Washington wants the Ukrainian president to leave office—will it happen?

Seymour Hersh, Jul 19, 2025

In fall of 2023, Ukrainian General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of the country’s armed forces, gave an interview to the Economist and declared the war with Russia had become a “stalemate.” It took three months for President Volodymyr Zelensky to fire him. The general, who is the most popular public figure in Ukraine, was named ambassador to London a month later and has served there with distinction, if quietly.

Zaluzhnyi is now seen as the most credible successor to Zelensky. I have been told by knowledgeable officials in Washington that that job could be his within a few months. Zelensky is on a short list for exile, if President Donald Trump decides to make the call. If Zelensky refuses to leave his office, as is most likely, an involved US official told me: “He’s going to go by force. The ball is in his court.” There are many in Washington and in Ukraine who believe that the escalating air war with Russia must end soon, while there’s still a chance to make a settlement with its president, Vladimir Putin………………………………………………………… (Subscribers only) https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/the-end-for-zelensky?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1377040&post_id=168643905&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

∙

July 19, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment