nuclear-news

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

A War Built on Lies, Sold by Lobbyists, with Innocent Children as its Price

23 March 2026 David Tyler, Australian Independent Media

On 27 February 2026, the night before the bombs fell, Oman’s foreign minister, Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, announced that a breakthrough had been reached. After months of back-channel diplomacy, Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium, to full IAEA verification, and to irreversibly downgrade its existing stock to the lowest possible level. Peace, he said, was “within reach”. Technical talks were scheduled to continue in Vienna the following week.

Fourteen hours later, at 7:00 AM Tehran time on 28 February, the first wave of missiles arrived. China had been working to improve Iran’s situational awareness. It did not matter. The attack came without warning. Reports from Arab media, undenied by Tehran, claimed that Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, had been arrested and executed as a Mossad agent.

Within twelve hours, the United States and Israel had conducted more than 900 strikes. Two hundred Israeli aircraft, the largest combat sortie in its history, dropped over 1,200 bombs on 500 sites across western and central Iran. US Tomahawk missiles, launched from destroyers in the Arabian Sea, hit leadership compounds, missile factories, naval installations, and the National Security Council offices where Ali Khamenei was meeting his senior advisers. They knew he was there. Netanyahu had personally briefed Trump on the location days earlier. Khamenei was above ground, in daylight, when the strike came. He was dead before midday.

Forty-eight hours later, US forces had flown more than 1,700 sorties and struck over 1,250 targets across 29 of Iran’s 31 provinces. The first six days of Operation Epic Fury cost the United States more than $11 billion.

In that same period, Amnesty International confirmed that a US Tomahawk missile struck a girls’ primary school in Minab. Debris bearing the inscription “Made in USA” and the name “Globe Motors, Ohio” was recovered at the site. At least 170 people were killed. Most were children aged seven to twelve.

Then Donald Trump, in the second year of his second term, appeared on Truth Social to claim the war was about freedom.

The Lobbyists and the Lie

The question corporate media has avoided is simple. Who wanted this war, and how did they get it?

The Washington Post reports that Trump acted after sustained lobbying from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged him to strike. Netanyahu’s government pressed the case repeatedly. Their interests converged. Israel sought to restore deterrence and reshape a regional order drifting beyond its control. Saudi Arabia saw an opportunity to weaken a rival it had failed to contain by other means. Together, they found a willing president.

The deeper breach was internal. Pentagon briefers told congressional staff on 1 March that Iran was not preparing to attack US forces or bases unless Israel struck first. The intelligence did not support the war. It was set aside. This was not a failure of information. It was a decision to ignore it.

US intelligence had already assessed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and would not have the capacity to build one before the end of the decade, even if it chose to do so. The IAEA had affirmed it. At the same time, Badr Al Busaidi was moving between delegations, and Iran’s chief negotiator was describing the talks as the most substantive in years. A framework for Vienna was in place. Technical teams were on standby.

Inside the administration, advisers discussed the advantages of letting Israel strike first to create a cleaner pretext for US entry after Iranian retaliation. That is not strategy. It is sequencing. Diplomacy was not the alternative to war. It was its cover.

Behind the push stood the familiar architecture of American intervention. Senator Lindsey Graham. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The American Enterprise Institute. Donor networks that have spent decades advocating regime change in Iran. They did not invent the policy. They sustained it, funded it, and waited for a president prepared to act on it.

Trump supplied the rest. On different days he has offered regime change, nuclear prevention, Iranian freedom, mineral security, and the Venezuela model as justification. None align. That is because the rationale followed the decision, not the other way around.

Congress, meanwhile, has largely abdicated its role. War powers have withered into ritual complaint. Democratic leadership has offered little more than procedural discomfort. The constitutional check on executive war-making is now 
 political theatre, observed and ignored.

Illegal, Immoral and Known to Be Both

The legal position is clear. The UN Charter permits the use of force only with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack. Neither condition applied. Iran had not attacked the United States or Israel. The Security Council had authorised nothing. The strikes began during active negotiations.

Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism, called it what it is: a crime of aggression. Oona Hathaway described it as “blatantly illegal”. The European Council on Foreign Relations reported broad consensus among legal scholars that no valid justification exists. This was not a contested case. It was an unambiguous one.

Within the United States, dissent has come from the margins of power. Rashida Tlaib. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders. They are not describing a grey area. They are describing what the law already recognises.

What the Bombs Actually Did……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Catastrophe in Progress

………………………….This is not a regional disruption. It is a global economic shock. Energy prices feed directly into inflation, into transport, into food. The cost of this war will not be confined to the battlefield. It will be paid at petrol stations, in grocery aisles, and in central bank decisions across the world.

………..Senator Thom Tillis has asked the only question that matters. What are we trying to accomplish?

There is no coherent answer because coherence was never the point. This is the Venezuela model applied to a country four times larger, with a military doctrine built to resist precisely this kind of intervention, and a  political system shaped by decades of confrontation with the United States. The architects of this war designed Iraq. The pattern is familiar. The outcome will be too. https://theaimn.net/a-war-built-on-lies-sold-by-lobbyists-with-innocent-children-as-its-price/

March 27, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A Sunken Nuclear Submarine Is Leaking Radiation Into the Ocean. How Worried Should We Be?

Repairs or just outright cleanup would be expensive, extremely difficult, slow, and, of course, quite dangerous.

By Luis Prada, March 25, 2026, https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-sunken-nuclear-submarine-is-leaking-radiation-into-the-ocean-how-worried-should-we-be/

According to new research published in PNAS, a Cold War-era nuclear submarine sitting at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea is still leaking radioactive material. It’s happening slowly, if unevenly, and it’s contained just enough to avoid becoming a full-scale environmental disaster… for now.

The K-278 Komsomolets sank in 1989 after an onboard fire, taking with it a nuclear reactor and two nuclear torpedoes. It now sits more than 1,600 meters below the surface, in a part of the ocean that is freezing and almost entirely out of reach.

A research team led by Justin Gwynn at Norway’s radiation safety authority analyzed years of data, including a 2019 survey using a remotely operated vehicle. The team found that the wreck is leaking radioactive isotopes, including cesium and strontium, through cracks in its deteriorating hull.

The leaks aren’t constant. They come in waves, with visible plumes drifting out from various spots, like the reactor compartment or a ventilation pipe. Radiation levels take a big jump closer to the submarine, with levels reaching hundreds of thousands of times above normal background radiation levels.

At Least the Nuclear Submarine’s Nuclear Torpedoes Are Still Intact

Terrifying, and here’s where it gets strange: measurements taken from just a few feet away dramatically drop off. Researchers believe this is caused by the ocean diluting the problem. That may be why the surrounding ecosystem isn’t showing any obvious signs of collapse, given all of the toxic radiation. There’s still plenty of marine life clinging to the wreck, including sponges, corals, and anemones. They have slightly elevated radiation levels but no visible signs of deformation or damage, though genetic damage wouldn’t be surprising.

Sediment samples collected nearby show minimal contamination. Things wouldn’t be looking so rosy if the nuclear torpedoes inside it weren’t intact, which they very much are and have been since the 1990s.

So far, there are no signs of imminent disaster. Everything is stable and holding steady… for now.

This won’t always be the case, and it is really more a matter not of if but of when. The reactor is still corroding, and the structure is still weakening. Repairs or just outright cleanup will be expensive, extremely difficult, slow, and, of course, quite dangerous. The risk is contained, but that doesn’t mean it’s going away anytime soon.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

US moves to approve more than $16 billion in air defense sales to Middle East

By Eve Sampson, https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2026/03/19/us-moves-to-approve-more-than-16-billion-in-air-defense-sales-to-middle-east/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=c4-overmatch

The United States is moving to bolster air defenses across the Middle East, notifying Congress of more than $16.5 billion in potential weapons sales aimed primarily at countering missile and drone threats.

The packages include systems for the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, and range from advanced radar and air defense sensors to counter-drone technology and aircraft munitions, according to several statements released Thursday by the U.S. Department of State.

The notifications come as missile and drone attacks have intensified across the Middle East during the war with Iran, putting pressure on air defense systems used to protect U.S. forces and regional allies.

The State Department said the secretary of state determined that an emergency justified the immediate sale, allowing the administration to bypass the typical congressional review process under the Arms Export Control Act.

Among the proposed sales is a long-range radar for the UAE that is designed to integrate with its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, for $4.5 billion.

The UAE package also includes a $2.1 billion fixed-site system designed to counter small drones, as well as $1.22 billion in air-to-air missiles and a $644 million set of F-16 munitions and upgrades to support its fighter aircraft.

Separately, Kuwait would receive $8 billion in lower tier air and missile defense radars designed to detect shorter-range threats, while Jordan’s $70.5 million package focuses on aircraft repair and parts to maintain its existing fleet.

Together, the sales point to a broader effort to build layered air defenses that are capable of detecting and intercepting threats at different ranges.

The demand comes as U.S. air defense systems are being used at a rate analysts worry exceeds the pace at which stockpiles can be replenished.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ontario’s nuclear push risks another costly policy failure.

Nuclear power is neither nimble nor affordable and it’s about time the Ontario government stopped posturing otherwise.

Policy Options, Samuel Buckstein , March 20, 2026

Nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence worldwide and Ontario is no exception. The province has a long history with this awesome and terrifying energy technology, and it is once again turning to nuclear power in response to concerns over national sovereignty, economic growth, electrification and decarbonization.

Looking back over Ontario’s troubled history with nuclear energy, it is concerning to see the Ford government stumbling back to the bar for another round of nuclear cool-aid. Yet Ontario’s plan shows little evidence of having done its homework. Contrary to the government’s claims, it is fiscally irresponsible, incapable of delivering the energy the province needs in the time required, and compromises Ontario’s energy security.

When it should be investing in much cheaper and more easily deployed renewables, the province is recklessly doubling down on nuclear despite the evidence against it.

A legacy mired in debt

To understand Ontario’s nuclear trajectory, it is helpful to reflect on its origins. When civilian nuclear power was commercialized after the Second World War, its advocates promised it would be “too cheap to meter.” Buoyed by encouragement and financing from both provincial and federal governments, Ontario Hydro duly invested in a fleet of 20 CANDU reactors at three nuclear power stations over the course of 30 years.

By the turn of the millennium, Ontario Hydro’s nuclear obsession had saddled it with $38.1 billion in debt — $20.9 billion of it stranded (unsupported by assets). This burden was so immense that it toppled the once proud flagship Crown corporation. Ontarians continue to pay for this nuclear hangover today. As of March 2023, ratepayers were still on the hook for $13.8 billion.

Even as late as 1989, with Ontario Hydro already buckling under its crushing debt, the utility was forecasting the need for 10 to 15 new reactors by 2014. Reality proved otherwise, with peak electricity demand in 2014 lower than it had been 25 years earlier.

After a generation of staggering cost overruns and catastrophic international incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power fell out of favour in much of the developed world. Cheaper, more flexible and faster-to-deploy alternatives took its place, first gas and then renewables…………………………………

Lessons from the U.K. and Ukraine

However, Ontario should learn from the United Kingdom, not authoritarian China. The experience of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant to be built in the U.K. in more than 20 years, should be a cautionary tale.

At least five years behind schedule and two times over budget, Hinkley Point C will likely be the most expensive nuclear power plant yet. The electricity generated by this colossal waste of rate-payer dollars will cost between two to four times more than renewable energy, which can be brought online in half the time. This is what the provincial government has in store for Ontario.

The scale of Ontario’s plan is immense. In addition to the CANDU refurbishments at Darlington and Bruce, Ontario has announced the refurbishment of Pickering B, one of the oldest and most urban nuclear power stations in the world.

Sovereignty concerns

Ontario has also contracted with GE Vernova Hitachi to build up to four small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington site. It is unclear why the government has committed to building four SMRs before even the first is constructed. The greater concern with this arrangement is GE Vernova Hitachi is a U.S.-controlled company and the fuel supply chain is in the U.S. and France, not Canada…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

No price tag and no certainty it will pay

Despite these red flags, Ontario’s nuclear ambitions do not stop there. The government is also considering building two new large nuclear power stations at the Bruce site and at a new location near Port Hope. This despite the fact that, like the U.K., the domestic nuclear supply chain has all but vanished. This is precisely the kind of multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade infrastructure lock-in that bankrupted Ontario Hydro.

The government has been silent on how much this plan will cost. No one can predict whether demand will materialize to justify this massive supply expansion, or what electricity prices will be when these reactors finally come online. Committing to decades of investment in such an uncertain environment is sheer folly.

To top it all off, nuclear power is not even operationally flexible. Generation cannot be adjusted rapidly enough to follow demand, and the reactors can only be quickly turned off, but not back on again (it took Ontario more than a day to restore power after the 2003 Great Northeastern Blackout due to neutron poisoning in the reactors).

Renewable options

It does not have to be this way. Much has changed since the last wave of nuclear infatuation. Renewables are now the cheapest source of energy on a levelized basis. While renewables may be intermittent, they are reasonably predictable, and for the first time since the inception of the electricity industry, generation no longer needs to coincide perfectly with consumption. Rapidly falling battery costs have made energy storage a commercially viable reality…………………………………………………………. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/03/ontario-nuclear-energy-costs-risks-renewables/

March 27, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Fife Council approve Babcock plan for nuclear waste storage building

24th March, By Ally McRoberts, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25961651.fife-council-approve-babcock-plan-waste-storage-building/

A TEMPORARY storage facility will be built for waste that’s taken out of old nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard.

Fife Council have given the green light to Babcock for a new warehouse between docks two and three for “decommissioning operations”.

The large industrial building – an ‘intermediate waste storage facility’ – will be 27 metres long and up to 20 metres in height with roller doors and security fencing.

Work is currently taking place at the dockyard to cut up and dismantle HMS Swiftsure, one of seven old nuclear subs that have been laid up in Rosyth for decades.

The demonstrator project is attempting a world first by removing the most radioactive parts left in the vessel, the reactor and steam generators.

The new building “will be utilised for cutting processes to aid submarine dismantling” and will go next to a larger steel shed that was approved in 2024 for the project.

A council report said: “The applicant has indicated that the waste to be temporarily stored would not be considered hazardous under the Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 and that the site is currently subject to a permit issued by SEPA covering the related decommissioning activity.

“The site is also subject to regular inspections by the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and is one of their registered sites.

“Ultimately, the decommissioning activities are controlled by SEPA, the Health and Safety Executive and ONR and fall under their own consenting and control regimes, with mechanisms for changes to existing permits to be reviewed and approved by these bodies.”

There were no objections and the report said SEPA had confirmed that “no reprocessing of radioactive waste or materials takes place at Rosyth”.

The seven decommissioned nuclear subs at the yard are Swiftsure, Revenge, Renown, Repulse, Resolution, Dreadnought and Churchill.

Dismantling takes place in three stages with low level radioactive waste taken out first.

Next is the removal of the reactor pressure vessel, which is classed as intermediate level radioactive waste.

The final stage, once all radioactive material has gone, is [?] recycling.

So far the programme has invested more than £200 million in Rosyth Dockyard.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The Inheritance of Fear: From the Cold War to Trump’s World

24 March 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-inheritance-of-fear-from-the-cold-war-to-trumps-world/

Even as children, we knew something was wrong. The adults spoke in hushed tones. The news carried a sense of urgency. At school, the playground chatter wasn’t about games – it was about war. The kind that could end everything.

By my final year, the fear had become personal. Among the boys, we spoke about conscription – about being called up to fight in the Vietnam War. It wasn’t abstract anymore. It was waiting for us.

That was the world we inherited.

And now, it seems, the next generation is inheriting something disturbingly familiar.

Recent polling shows that fear of a major global conflict is no longer a fringe concern. In the United States, nearly half of respondents – 46% – believe a world war is likely within the next five years, with similar fear echoed across Britain, Canada and France. Across Europe, between 41% and 55% of people think another world war is likely within a decade.

Among younger people, the anxiety runs deeper still. A global Red Cross survey found that almost half of millennials believe a third world war is likely in their lifetime. And here in Australia, new research suggests that young adults are among the most anxious about national security threats, with many expecting conflict within years rather than decades.

This is not abstract fear.

It is generational.

But there is a difference between then and now.

The Cold War was terrifying, but it was also structured. Two superpowers, locked in a tense but calculated standoff. There were rules – dangerous ones, but rules nonetheless.

Today, the fear feels less ordered. Less predictable. More dependent on personalities than systems.

And that is where Donald Trump enters the picture.

To his supporters, he is decisive – a leader unafraid to act. But to many others, particularly younger people watching from a distance, he represents something far more unsettling: volatility. A willingness to escalate, to threaten, to test boundaries not as a last resort, but as a demonstration of strength.

In some international polling, even allied populations now cite the United States itself – under Trump’s leadership – as a potential source of global instability. 

That perception matters.

Because fear is not driven solely by events, but by expectations – by what people believe might happen next.

And for a generation raised on a constant stream of crisis – pandemics, climate change, economic instability, and now rising global tensions – the idea that a single leader’s impulses could tip the balance is deeply unsettling.

Unlike our childhood, there is no buffer. No evening news that ends at six o’clock. No space between events and reaction. Every threat is immediate. Every escalation is live-streamed. Every rumour amplified.

There is no off switch.

And so the fear settles in – not always as panic, but as something quieter and more corrosive. A sense that the future is unstable. That the world is being shaped not by steady hands, but by unpredictable ones.

We have seen this kind of fear before.

We lived through it.

But today’s version carries an added uncertainty – not just about what might happen, but about who might make it happen.

For younger generations, that may be the most unsettling thought of all.

March 27, 2026 Posted by | culture and arts | Leave a comment

IAEA Database: About 55% of Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Thefts Since 1993 Occurred During Transport 

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, 23 March 2026, Vienna, Austria

More than half of all thefts of nuclear and other radioactive material reported to the Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) since 1993 occurred during authorized transport, with the share rising to nearly 70% in the past decade. The new data released today by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) underlines the need for continued vigilance in transport security.

Of the 4626 reported incidents in the ITDB from 1993 to 2025, 730 were thefts of radioactive material, including attempted thefts. Almost 55% of those thefts occurred during transport, and in more than 59% of those transport-related cases – about 400 incidents – the stolen radioactive material has not been recovered.

Nuclear and other radioactive material remains vulnerable to security threats during transport, and data from the ITDB underscores the continued need to strengthen security,” said Elena Buglova, Director of the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Security. “The IAEA assists countries, upon request, in enhancing their national nuclear security regimes to ensure that such materials are securely managed and fully protected against criminal or intentional unauthorized acts during their transport.”

The ITDB is the IAEA’s information system on incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities and events involving nuclear and other radioactive material out of regulatory control. While most incidents are not linked to trafficking or malicious intent, their occurrence reflects persistent challenges in transport security, regulatory control, disposal practices and detection. 

In 2025, 236 incidents were reported by 34 of the 145 ITDB participating States. This number is higher than in 2024 – 147 incidents – however, the increase is attributed to retrospective reporting.

All types of nuclear material – including uranium, plutonium and thorium
 – as well as naturally occurring and artificially produced radioisotopes, and radioactively contaminated material found in scrap metal are included in the ITDB’s scope. Incidents at metal recycling sites involving manufactured goods contaminated with radioactive material continue to be reported to ITDB, indicating an ongoing challenge for some countries in securing disused radioactive sources and detecting their unauthorized disposal. 

The release of the ITDB factsheet coincides with this week’s International Conference on the Safe and Secure Transport of Nuclear and Radioactive Material. The IAEA estimates that millions of shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material are transported annually for peaceful applications in energy, medicine, education, agriculture and industry. 

The conference provides the international transport community with a platform to discuss opportunities, challenges and key enablers for the safe and secure transport of nuclear and other radioactive material. The conference will cover legal and regulatory aspects, transport package design, operations, commercial and supply chain considerations, and innovative technologies that have the potential to impact transport safety and security.

About the ITDB

The ITDB fosters global information exchange about incidents that involve nuclear and other radioactive material falling out of regulatory control because they were lost, stolen, improperly disposed of or otherwise neglected
. The database also includes reports about material returning under regulatory control through various means, for example, through the detection of orphan radioactive sources in metal recycling facilities. The ITDB data is voluntarily reported, and only participating States can fully access it,
 while international organizations, such as the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Customs Organization (WCO), have limited access.

The ITDB covers incidents involving nuclear material, radioisotopes and radioactively contaminated material. By reporting lost or stolen material to the ITDB, countries increase the chances of its recovery and reduce the opportunities for it to be used in criminal activities
. States can also report scams or hoaxes where the material is purported to be nuclear or otherwise radioactive.

States wishing to join the ITDB need to submit the request to the IAEA through the official channels (i.e. Permanent Mission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or a national competent authority for nuclear security matters).

Press Contacts

Email the Press Team

March 27, 2026 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Switzerland Just Exposed Project Ranger’s Weakness

 (Project Ranger, a 1,000-acre hypersonic manufacturing campus in Sandoval County, designed to support high-cadence production of hypersonic strike systems. )

Elaine Cimino, 23 Mar 26

Switzerland’s halt on weapons-related exports to the United States is not symbolic. It is a disruption—and it lands directly on projects like Project Ranger.

This facility is being built on the assumption that a complex, global weapons supply chain will function without interruption. That assumption is now broken.

Advanced weapons manufacturing depends on precision components, machine systems, and specialized inputs that cannot be swapped out overnight. When a country like Switzerland shuts off supply, timelines don’t “adjust”—they fail. Production stalls. Certification resets. Entire sequences of manufacturing have to be reworked.

That means one thing for Rio Rancho:

Project Ranger will not meet its LEDA job timelines as promised as long as the supply chain is disruptied.

LEDA agreements are performance-based. Jobs are supposed to materialize on a defined schedule. That schedule is now tied to a disrupted international supply chain. No amount of local approval, zoning, or political messaging can override that reality.

If the components aren’t there, the jobs aren’t there.

And when the jobs don’t show up on time, the public is left holding the bag.

Because the costs are already locked in.

Rio Rancho has approved development while operating with a water deficit. Return flow credits are not being met. Infrastructure is being expanded. Rates are rising. Nearly 40% of residents are low- or fixed-income—and they are being forced to subsidize a project whose economic return is now uncertain.

Water rates were locked designed for developers and project Ranger build out on the residents dollars.

At the same time, the broader economy is unstable. If the economy contracts—and all indicators say that risk is real—projects dependent on fragile, globalized supply chains are the first to break. Delays compound. Costs escalate. Public subsidies become sunk losses.

This is the predictable outcome of building a local economy around a volatile defense supply system.

And yet, construction continues. Question for how long—Until they stopped cold. 

Steel is going up. Concrete is being poured. Commitments are being made in real time, while the underlying conditions that justified those commitments are collapsing. Now from the governor to the Castelion excuses to city dodging questions. Don’t count on the fascist  tech bros to let their bomb factory to got to rust. 

Switzerland didn’t just halt exports.

It exposed the truth: Project Ranger is not in control of its own timeline.And Rio Rancho is not in control of the consequences. The public pays

March 27, 2026 Posted by | Switzerland, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear plant told to improve after ‘near misses

Tom BurgessNorth East and Cumbria,
 BBC 24th March 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24l9epwkdo

A nuclear power plant has been ordered to improve safety measures after an increase in “near misses”, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has said.

The decision was made after visits to the Hartlepool site, operated by EDF, identified areas where safety improvements were required after an increase in the number of reported “serious incidents”.

The ONR said the plant remained safe to continue to operate and the events were “not associated with radiological or nuclear risk”.

EDF said it had agreed an improvement plan with the regulator last year and was making progress.

ONR said moving the plant into “significantly-enhanced regulatory attention level” related to efforts it was making to bring about improvements in conventional health and safety and performance.

Dan Hasted, ONR’s director of regulation for operating facilities, said safety improvements were required but the decision to put the plant into the new category was not a punitive measure.

He said: “In the conventional health and safety area there has been an increase in the number of serious events or near misses that Hartlepool is legally required to report to the ONR.

“It’s important to note these have not been associated with radiological or nuclear risk.”

Hasted said it was important to look at the root causes to ensure they do not “transfer across to nuclear safety”.

Vital to Teesside

The Hartlepool site operates two gas-cooled reactors and has generated electricity for 43 years.

EDF said the regulator would be inspecting the site more regularly.

A spokesperson said the station was a vital part of the Teesside community.

They said: “Last year we agreed an improvement plan with the regulator.

“We have been making progress against that plan, but understand the ONR feels that some more focused attention is required to support that.

“We are committed to working with the regulator to ensure it is content that improvements required are being implemented.”

March 27, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Inquiry

House of Commons 23rd March 2026,
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9713/sizewell-c/

Sizewell C is a planned large-scale nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Funded by the government in partnership with the energy provider EDF, as well as private finance, the project is projected to cost £40.5bn to £47.7bn. When constructed, it will have a generating capacity of 3.2GW, meaning it will be able to generate around 7% of the UK’s current electricity demand. 

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) previously reported on the government’s deal with EDF to construct a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, the site with Sizewell C will be based on. The PAC were concerned that that government’s negotiations were not championing the interests of consumers, who might be locked into an expensive deal for decades, and warned that the poorest would likely be the hardest hit. In its response, the Government accepted all of the PAC’s recommendations and stated the actions it planned to take in response. 

The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish its report on Sizewell C in spring 2026. Following the NAO’s investigation, which is likely to examine the government’s current spend, as well as the potential risks to achieving value for taxpayer’s money, the PAC will hear from senior officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Sizewell C on the reports key findings. 

If you have evidence on these issues, please submit here by 23.59 on Monday 18 May 2026.

Please note that the Committee’s inquiry cannot assist with individual cases.  If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to read the information on Parliament’s website about who you can contact with different issues. 

March 27, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment