nuclear-news

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

A killing at sea marks America’s descent into lawless power

The people on board were not given the chance to surrender. No evidence was presented. No rules of engagement were cited. The administration claimed authority to kill on suspicion alone. A vessel in international waters is not a lawful target simply because officials say so.

International law does not permit such action.

The peremptory strike on a speedboat is a warning to all who serve. Remember your oath.

Jon Duffy, September 8, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/09/killing-sea-americas-descent-lawless-power/407949/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20One%20Breaking%20News:%209/9%20killing&utm_content=C&utm_term=newsletter_d1_alert

The United States has crossed a dangerous line.

Last week, an American military platform destroyed a small vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 people the Trump administration claims were drug traffickers. It was not an interception. It was not a boarding with Coast Guard legal authority. It was a strike—ordered from Washington, executed in international waters, and justified with little more than “trust us.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox that officials “knew exactly who was in that boat” and “exactly what they were doing.” He offered no evidence.

This was not a counterdrug operation. It was not law enforcement. It was killing without process. And it was, to all appearances, against the letter and the spirit of the law.
For decades, the U.S. military and Coast Guard have intercepted drug shipments in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific under a careful legal framework: Coast Guard officers would tactically control Navy ships, invoke law enforcement authority, stop vessels, and detain crews for prosecution. The goal is not execution; it is interdiction within international law.

This week’s strike ripped up that framework. The people on board were not given the chance to surrender. No evidence was presented. No rules of engagement were cited. The administration claimed authority to kill on suspicion alone.

International law does not permit such action. A vessel in international waters is not a lawful target simply because officials say so. Contending that narcotics pose a long-term danger to Americans is at best a weak policy argument, not a legal justification for force. Unless this boat posed an imminent threat of attack—which no one has claimed—blowing it out of the water is not self-defense. It is killing at sea. A government that ignores these distinctions is not fighting cartels. It is discarding the rule of law.

Beyond the gross violations of the law and the Constitution lies an enormous strategic danger. By redefining traffickers as legitimate military targets, the administration has plunged the United States into another war without limits.

Who is the enemy? “Cartels,” we are told. But cartels are not armies. They are networks that span countries and blend with civilians. Declaring war on them is like declaring war on poverty or terrorism—a plunge into an endless campaign that cannot be “won.”

Where is the battlefield? The Caribbean? Venezuela? Central America? Overnight, officials shifted their story about the destroyed vessel’s destination: first, it was “probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean,” then it was among “imminent threats to the United States.” If geography is that malleable, there is no limit to where the next strike may fall.

And what is the objective? To “blow up and get rid of them,” in the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. That is not strategy; it is bravado. We have tried it before, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen. Killing “high-value targets” didn’t end the war on terror.

The U.S. is drifting into an undeclared war of assassination across half a hemisphere, led by unaccountable officials who equate explosions with effectiveness.

Even more dangerous is the backdrop: the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts.” Experts warned this would give the commander-in-chief license to commit murder. The majority waved those fears away. Now the president has ordered killings in international waters.

Eleven people are dead, not through due process but by fiat. The defense secretary boasts about it on television. And the president will face no consequences.

This is no longer abstract. The law has been rewritten in real time: a president can kill, and there is no recourse. That is not strength. That is authoritarianism.

What does this mean for the principle of civilian control, when those who wield it face no consequence for abuse? What does it mean for our military, when they are ordered to carry out missions that violate the standards they have sworn to uphold?

What happens abroad does not stay abroad. A government that stretches legal authority overseas will not hesitate to do the same at home. The same commander-in-chief who ordered a strike on a boat in international waters has already ordered National Guard troops into American cities over the objections of local leaders. The logic is identical: redefine the threat, erase legal distinctions, and justify force as the first tool. Today it is “traffickers” in the Caribbean. Tomorrow it will be “criminals” in Chicago or “radicals” in Atlanta.

This strike is not only about 11 lives lost at sea. It is about the precedent set when the military is unmoored from law, and when silence from senior leaders normalizes the abuse. 

The cost will not be measured in a destroyed boat. It will be measured in the corrosion of law, strategy, and trust. Legally, the U.S. has abandoned the framework that distinguished interdiction from assassination. Constitutionally, presidential immunity has been laid bare: the commander-in-chief of the most destructive military power in history has been placed beyond the reach of law. Strategically, we have entered another endless war against a concept, not an enemy. Internally, the erosion of boundaries abroad feeds the erosion of boundaries at home.

The laws of war, the principles of proportionality, the training drilled into every officer—all run counter to what happened in the Caribbean. Yet silence has prevailed. And silence is acquiescence. Each concession ratifies the misuse of force until it becomes routine. That is how institutions corrode. That is how democracies die.

The strike in the Caribbean is not the action of a strong nation. It is a warning. This is about whether the U.S. military remains an institution of law and principle, or whether it becomes an obedient weapon in the hands of a lawless president.


A republic that allows its leaders to kill without law, to wage war without strategy, and to deploy troops without limit is a republic in deep peril. Congress will not stop it. The courts will not stop it. That leaves those sworn not to a man, but to the Constitution.

The oath is clear: unlawful orders—foreign or domestic—must be disobeyed. To stand silent as the military is misused is not restraint. It is betrayal. 

Jon Duffy is a retired Navy captain. His active duty career included command at sea and national security roles. He writes about leadership and democracy.

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Israel Bombs Doha, Reportedly Targeting Hamas Negotiators Discussing US Proposal

Israel has been known to sabotage ceasefire deals just as they are reaching completion, effectively prolonging the genocide. Israeli officials have long said that their goal is to take over Gaza, and that they will stop at nothing to achieve this objective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office claimed full responsibility for the strike in a statement on social media.

The strike came as Hamas officials were in Qatar to discuss a ceasefire proposal put forth by the Trump administration.

By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, September 9, 2025

srael struck the capital of Qatar on Tuesday, targeting senior Hamas political officials as they gathered in Doha to discuss the latest ceasefire proposal put forth by the U.S.

Loud explosions were heard in the capital city, with pictures of smoke plumes rising. Israel took responsibility for the strikes, saying that they were targeting Hamas leaders.

“The [Israel Defense Forces] and [Israeli Security Agency] conducted a precise strike targeting the senior leadership of the Hamas terrorist organization,” the military said in a statement. “For years, these members of the Hamas leadership have led the terrorist organization’s operations, are directly responsible for the brutal October 7 massacre, and have been orchestrating and managing the war against the State of Israel.”

Hamas has said that five of its members were killed in the strike, including the Hamas lead negotiator’s son. However, it said the strike failed to kill any of their negotiating team. Israel has already assassinated Hamas leaders in Lebanon and Iran, as well as in Gaza.

Qatar’s interior ministry said that a member of Qatar’s Internal Security Force was also killed at the site, and several others were injured.

The attack comes just as Hamas officials were meeting in Doha to discuss a ceasefire proposal put forth by the U.S. this weekend. A Hamas source told Al Jazeera that the strike specifically targeted the negotiation team.

This is the first known time that Israel has struck Qatar — a key party in the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas — amid its genocide in Gaza. Just in the past month, Israel has struck at least five Arab countries: Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Qatar. On Monday, a Gaza-bound aid flotilla was struck by an aerial projectile in a Tunisian port, and activists have pointed the finger at Israel.

Israel has also escalated its siege on Gaza City in recent weeks, and ordered an estimated 1 million Palestinians in Gaza City to evacuate on Tuesday.

The strike comes just after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar claimed that Israel accepted the U.S. ceasefire proposal. Hamas officials had accepted a separate, similar ceasefire deal put forth by Qatar last month, that Israel never responded to.

Israel has been known to sabotage ceasefire deals just as they are reaching completion, effectively prolonging the genocide. Israeli officials have long said that their goal is to take over Gaza, and that they will stop at nothing to achieve this objective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office claimed full responsibility for the strike in a statement on social media. “Today’s action against the top terrorist chieftains of Hamas was a wholly independent Israeli operation. Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility,” his office said.

However, Qatar is an ally of the U.S., and commentators have said it’s unlikely that the strike would not be done in coordination with the U.S. Qatar hosts the largest military base in the Middle East, the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the White House was informed of the strike before it happened, and sought to alert Qatari officials of it. However, Qatari officials denied this account as “completely false.”

“The call that was received from an American official came during the sound of the explosions that resulted from the Israeli attack in Doha,” said Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed al-Ansari.

Axios’s Barak Ravid, citing a U.S. official, said that Israel only notified the U.S. of the strike right before it happened.

Qatar condemned the strike, saying that it targeted residential buildings where Hamas political officials were staying.

“This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms, and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar,” said al-Ansari. “While the State of Qatar strongly condemns this assault, it confirms that it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security, nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty.”

September 11, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

The future of Gaza as seen from the White House

the Gaza Strip would be “administered by the United States for at least 10 years while it is transformed into a glittering tourist resort and a center for high-tech manufacturing and technology.”

The future Gaza project, according to its real estate developers (the three professionals Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, and Steve Witkoff), is worthy of Dubai. Many transnational corporations have already joined forces.

by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 3 September 2025, https://www.voltairenet.org/article222723.html

This possible operation is in line with the vision of the “Jacksonians.” In 1830, President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) enacted the Indian Removal Act. To end the Indian wars, he proposed assigning them reservations rather than continuing to massacre them. The transfer of the Indians was particularly deadly for the Cherokees (the “Trail of Tears” episode), but they accepted this form of peace, while almost all other Indian tribes rejected it. Two centuries later, only the Cherokee tribe has become wealthy and integrated, while all the other tribes have been marginalized. Without a doubt, Jackson’s method succeeded in ending the genocide of the Indians, but at what cost?

Trump’s plan, currently in development, is just as shocking to Palestinians as Jackson’s was to the Cherokee, but it offers a solution where no one else has. Will Palestinians, who have been fighting for generations to assert their rights, be satisfied with this? International law states that no people can be expelled from their own land. The United Nations General Assembly has consistently guaranteed the right of return for those who were forcibly expelled in 1948—UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 11, 1948) and UN Security Council Resolution 237 (June 14, 1967). Seven years ago, Palestinian civilians organized the “March of Return.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fired on a peaceful crowd, killing at least 120 people and wounding 4,000. It is obviously illusory to believe that such a people will easily rally to this project.

So the participants at the White House meeting considered paying $23,000 per person to any family willing to go into exile. Contacts have already been made with Libya, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Indonesia, and Somaliland, although none of these states has confirmed this. The Trump team is considering voluntarily relocating a quarter of the Gaza population in this way.

According to the Financial Times, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TIT) and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) held joint working meetings on the Gaza Riviera project, known as The Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust (GREAT* Trust). It was during these preparatory meetings that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) project was born. During the summer, this Swiss-registered foundation distributed humanitarian aid in Gaza instead of the occupying authority, the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and various humanitarian associations. This certainly bypassed Hamas, but it also led to the IDF killing nearly a thousand civilians who had come to seek food aid. The GHF scandal was unanimously condemned, including by prominent Israeli Jews. In practice, the GHF was created by the Mikveh Yisrael Forum, bringing together Yotam HaCohen, strategic advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu and son of former General Gershon HaCohen, Liran Tankman, a former intelligence officer who switched to high-tech, and Michael Eisenberg, an Israeli-American venture capitalist. Most of the leaders of the Mikveh Yisrael Forum have joined the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Ghassan Alian, convinced that the Netanyahu government is doing nothing to help the people of Gaza and that it is up to the Israelis to take action.

TRIAL International, a Swiss-based NGO, has filed two legal submissions asking the Swiss authorities to investigate the GHF’s compliance with Swiss law and international humanitarian law. The central issue raised by TRIAL International is whether humanitarian organizations can use private military companies. From the outset, GHF’s executive director, former US Marine Jake Wood, resigned. The “Foundation” then enlisted the services of Philip F. Reilly and his company Safe Reach Solutions. However, Reilly is a former soldier in the 7th Special Forces Group, which focused on counter-narcotics missions in Latin America. He became head of the CIA’s paramilitary branch, then known as the Special Activities Division but renamed the Special Activities Center. He was head of the CIA’s Afghan station around 2008 and 2009, as well as head of operations for the agency’s Counterterrorism Mission Center, which led the agency’s highly controversial drone strike program during the War on Terror. He then joined the private sector as senior vice president of special operations for the private military company Constellis, owner of the mercenary company formerly known as Blackwater. Finally, he worked for another private army, Orbis. While it is true that the IDF did not kill the Palestinian civilians who came to look for food, Philip F. Reilly’s men did.

The future Gaza project, according to its real estate developers (the three professionals Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, and Steve Witkoff), is worthy of Dubai. Many transnational corporations have already joined forces.

President Donald Trump, who had rebuffed Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to ask him to annex Gaza, is now preparing to take control of the Palestinian territory. While Tel Aviv is preparing to annex the entire Mandate of Palestine and, on the contrary, Egypt and Jordan are preparing to hand over the keys to the Palestinian Authority, a vast $100 billion real estate operation is being planned

In August 27, President Donald Trump convened a meeting at the White House to gather suggestions for the future of Gaza. In attendance were JD Vance, Vice President; Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy; Marco Rubio, Secretary of State; Jared Kushner, former advisor during the first term; Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister; and Ron Dermer, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs.

No statement was released after this consultation. However, according to the Washington Post, the Gaza Strip would be “administered by the United States for at least 10 years while it is transformed into a glittering tourist resort and a center for high-tech manufacturing and technology.” A colossal $100 million would be invested there.

To facilitate the regrouping of Gazans, Benjamin Netanyahu’s revisionist Zionist government has given instructions to create a tent city for 600,000 people in Rafah. They would have food and hospitals, but would not be able to leave.
Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance, said at a conference on Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank on May 14: “Civilians will be sent south to a humanitarian zone, and from there they will begin to leave in large numbers for third countries.”

The Prime Minister himself finally made the decision on August 13 on i24News in Hebrew. He claimed a “historic and spiritual mission,” assuring that he is ‘very’ attached to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” At 75, he publicly claims to be a follower of his father’s mentor, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of “revisionist Zionism.”

At the same time, on July 23, the Knesset passed a non-binding law by 71 votes to 13, calling on the government to annex the West Bank before new permanent members of the UN Security Council fully recognize the State of Palestine.

In addition, the IDF reports that 618 settler attacks were recorded in the West Bank in 2024, compared to 404 in the first half of 2025.

Republican Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, has expressed his support for annexation. He visited the Ariel settlement in early August 2025 and said he believed that “Judea and Samaria” belonged to the Jewish people and expressed his support for the extension of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. This was the first time that a US figure of this stature had visited Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Trump administration is currently keeping a cautious distance from this movement, especially as it is focusing all its efforts on strengthening the Abraham Accords with Arab states.

According to a December 2024 survey by the Institute for National Security Studies, 34% of the Israeli public rejects the annexation of Palestinian territories, 21% supports annexing the current settlements, and 21% supports annexing everything.

For their part, Egypt and Jordan, unwilling to believe this, continue to train hundreds of young Palestinians loyal to Fatah to form a 10,000-strong private security force to put the Palestinian Authority in power in Gaza. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France plan to fully recognize the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly, which is preparing to proclaim its independence.

Main sources :………………………………….

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Gaza, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

IAEA reports “serious safety risks” at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.

 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi
has reported that six of the seven power transmission lines of the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) have been compromised, leaving only
one functioning off-site line, which poses serious safety risks.

 Ukrainska Pravada 9th Sept 2025, https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/09/9/7529932/

September 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Protect Arctic from ‘dangerous’ climate engineering, scientists warn.

Plans to fight climate change by manipulating the Arctic and Antarctic
environment are dangerous, unlikely to work and could distract from the
need to ditch fossil fuels, dozens of polar scientists have warned. These
polar “geoengineering” techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional
ways, such as artificially thickening sea-ice or releasing tiny, reflective
particles into the atmosphere. They have gained attention as potential
future tools to combat global warming, alongside cutting carbon emissions.
But more than 40 researchers say they could bring “severe environmental
damage” and urged countries to simply focus on reaching net zero, the only
established way to limit global warming.

 BBC 9th Sept 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqw996q1ko

September 11, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Campaigners continue to need their day in court, says NFLA Secretary

 In a personal appeal, NFLA Secretary Richard Outram has called on members
of the Government-appointed Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce not to recommend
to Ministers that the rights of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be
curtailed.

The NRT established to look at the operation of Britain’s
current regulatory and permitting regime within the nuclear sector, both
civil and military, has recently published its Interim Report. The
taskforce has declared that it is intent upon introducing
‘once-in-a-generation change’, but the NFLAs and other campaign bodies
are convinced that this simply represents industry speak for wholesale
deregulation with fears that standards in public safety and environmental
protection will be sacrificed on the altar of business expediency and
profit.

NGOs which are members of the Office for Nuclear Regulation NGO
Forum – including the NFLAs – have submitted a joint response to a
consultation which closed yesterday on the findings outlined in the NRT’s
Interim Report. Richard also submitted his own comments on one element of
the Interim Report that most concerned him – a suggestion that the rights
of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be curtailed on the grounds that
their applications were ‘vexatious’, increasing costs and causing
delays to nuclear developers. This was a clear reference to recent actions
concerning Sizewell C.

 NFLA 9th Sept 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/campaigners-continue-to-need-their-day-in-court-says-nfla-secretary/

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Two down: Whicham joins Millom in withdrawing from undemocratic and discredited community partnership

 In a show of defiance, Whicham Parish Council last week voted unanimously
to withdraw from the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership, joining
Millom Town Council in saying no to further collaboration with plans to
bring a nuclear waste dump to Haverigg and Millom.

Meanwhile at Millom
Without Parish Council, Chair Councillor Carl Carrington has resigned as
the Council’s representative, with the Council resolving in July that
Parish Councillors should take it in turns to attend future Community
Partnership meetings on a ‘rotational basis’. Millom Town Council,
Whicham Parish Council and Millom Without Parish Council, along with the
Friends of the Lake District and Sustainable Duddon, have also submitted a
statement ‘rebutting the NWS report on the Partnership’. This refers to
the report published following the external review conducted by the former
Chair of the now defunct Allerdale GDF Community Partnership, in which the
South Copeland GDF Community Partnership was described as
‘dysfunctional’.

Whicham Parish Council’s decision to withdraw from
the community partnership does not derail the process. Unlike Cumberland
Council, neither Whicham nor Millom are deemed to be Relevant Principal
Local Authorities and so cannot exercise the Right to Withdraw. But the
decisions of Millom and Whicham to withdraw, that of Millom Without to
cease to have a permanent representative, and the collective condemnatory
response to the external review all represent clear signals that local
elected representatives no longer wish to be associated with a discredited
project.

 NFLA 9th Sept 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/two-down-whicham-joins-millom-in-withdrawing-from-undemocratic-and-discredited-community-partnership/

September 11, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The Military-Industrial Complex

How the permanent armaments industry keeps the United States of America engaged in endless conflict

Grant Klusmann, Sep 10, 2025, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/the-military-industrial-complex?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=173240478&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”

These were the words of then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address in which he warned the American people of the perils of the military-industrial complex. Such a relationship between the military and defense industry increased the incentives for endless war. As Eisenhower campaigned on ending combat operations on the Korean peninsula and favored an overall cautious foreign policy, it would not come as a surprise then that Eisenhower would be concerned by the heightened influence held by the armaments industry.

The military-industrial complex is a relationship in which lawmakers are motivated by campaign contributions from the defense industry to provide funding to the Department of Defense for military spending, and the defense industry profits from their lobbying due to the Department of Defense paying various defense firms for the production of military hardware and other services. Such a state of affairs incentivizes an interventionist foreign policy due to conflict generating demand for the equipment produced by the defense industry. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century and the first two decades of the twenty-first century, there had been no shortage of conflicts that were motivated, at least in part, by the military-industrial complex.

The Vietnam War, which the United States entered into over a false flag in which the American government accused North Vietnamese forces of launching two unprovoked attacks on the U.S.S. Maddox, saw President Johnson’s personal wealth increase due to his investing in the kinds of products required to wage war. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush ordered American forces to Somalia under the guise of humanitarianism to justify maintaining the size and expenditures of the post-Cold War military establishment. Nearly a decade later, America would engage in a global campaign across the Greater Middle East in which the objectives and the enemy were left poorly defined, seemingly to drag the conflict out so the defense industry could make as large a profit as possible.

What’s more, is that the military-industrial complex continues to guide our foreign policy in the present. As it stands, the defense establishment and their allies in corporate media are in the process of manufacturing a new ideological bogeyman to justify defense spending. With tensions rising with Russia, China, and Iran, there is a real danger that the powers that be may lie our nation into yet another forever war to justify their wages.

September 11, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kenya’s Ruto says western leaders have broken ‘climate blood pact’.

Africa Climate Summit told that developed countries are failing poorer
nations enduring worst effects of global warming.

Ruto told a gathering of fellow leaders at the Africa Climate Summit in Addis Ababa on Monday he was
“extremely concerned” developed countries were not following through on
their commitments. Overseas assistance budgets have been slashed by the UK,
France, Netherlands as defence spending stretches weak economies,
exacerbated by swingeing cutbacks by the US under President Donald Trump.

“Climate inaction” was costing tens of thousands of lives, Ruto said.
“Lives lost to a crisis Africa did not cause, as the least polluting
continent in the world.” Senegal’s former president Macky Sall also
told the summit that the continent and the rest of the world should prepare
for more shocks, following the “dangerous retreat” of the west from
climate action. “Africa’s crisis is not Africa’s alone,” he said.
“It fuels migration, pandemics, food insecurity, economic shocks,
extremism, and instability.”

 FT 8th Sept 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/c59f1907-4b2c-4f36-886a-60dabbdd29cc

September 11, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Nuclear Sites Dotted Across Ukraine Pose Threat of Radiation Disaster

Each day of war risks a strike on sites that could scatter radioactive material. Officials say one laboratory near the front has been hit dozens of times.

New York Times 9th Sept 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/world/europe/nuclear-sites-ukraine-russia-war.html

September 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment