nuclear-news

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

Flatteries and falsehoods – A multi-million dollar PR campaign can’t hide nuclear power’s ugly truth

Apparently there is at least one issue BOTH parties in these divided states of America seem to wholeheartedly agree on. How perverse that it is support for the dying nuclear power industry that can only survive through massive government subsidies and a slick propaganda campaign designed to deceive the American public into believing it’s clean and safe.

 Sharleen Leahey,   by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/05/flatteries-and-falsehoods/

Consider for a moment being a ‘fly on the wall’ silently viewing the goings-on among a bunch of NukeBros at a recent Holtec* Meetup. Andrew Zwicker, a New Jersey State Senator, is in attendance. Casually co-opting language from the environmental movement, a PR guy  declares, “Our young people are increasingly embracing nuclear power as the key to a clean energy future!”

You have entered a room occupied by men who speak with forked tongues. No million dollar PR campaign can alter the awful truth: Nuclear power is not clean. It is not safe, not affordable, nor is it the solution to our climate crisis.

Nuclear power has shown itself over many decades to be a ticking time bomb. What the nuclear industry and its promoters do not want to discuss is the high-level radioactive waste generated by each and every nuclear reactor they plan to build. This waste has nowhere to go. It will be lethal for hundreds of thousands of years. The plain fact they cannot deny is that no permanent storage repository exists where high-level radioactive nuclear waste can be safely sequestered for thousands of generations into the future.

To State Senator Zwicker, also a Science Professor, I pose two simple questions: How can you ignore the mountain of scientific and historical evidence proving  that nuclear power technology poses a grave danger to living beings and the environment?  Why are you failing to “follow the science”?

Marie Curie was one of history’s most renowned scientists. Her groundbreaking discovery of radioactivity led to the invention of the first x-ray equipment for medical use. She personally saved the lives of  many soldiers during WWI by enabling battlefield surgeons to locate and remove bullets and shrapnel from their wounded bodies. Tragically the radioactive elements Marie Curie utilized to save lives, eventually killed her.

The French Government buried Marie  Curie with honors. They placed her remains in a lead coffin to protect the public and environment from her contaminated body. If Marie could see us now I imagine she’d be shocked that after almost one hundred years since her untimely death caused by radiation poisoning, our heedless political leaders are failing to protect us from its now well-documented deadly effects.

After the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor meltdown in 1979, the American public became alerted to the threat nuclear power posed. Armies of citizen activists mobilized to oppose the construction of new reactors. They organized grassroots alliances  throughout the US to resist the power of the nuclear lobby. They educated the public through teach-ins, demonstrations and nonviolent civil disobedience. 

Musicians including Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Bruce Springsteen formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE). They performed live concerts attended by thousands. Millions of Americans recognized that nuclear power poses a threat to the health of living beings now and to future generations not yet born. It had to be stopped. And it was.

Despite a massive cover-up by the industry and government agencies, after the accident at TMI no new nuclear plants were built in the U.S. until President Obama approved new funding in 2010.

Over six decades later our nuclear power nightmare is returning. It is being unleashed on us by an industry counting on the American public’s infamous historical amnesia. A so-called “nuclear renaissance” is being propelled by voracious energy consuming AI Data Centers. Public Citizen founder and long-time nuclear power critic Ralph Nader warns of dire consequences for our health, our environment and our economy if the “big fools” are allowed to push on.

After the TMI accident in 1979, two catastrophic nuclear reactor meltdowns at Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) caused untold thousands of people (including children) to develop fatal cancers. Many villages in Ukraine, Belarus and Japan were evacuated, their residents forced to flee. Homes, businesses, farms, possessions and pets were abandoned. The extent of the devastation on the lives of people, and animals can never be fully known but authors, filmmakers and independent researchers still strive to tell their tragic stories.

In light of the dark history of nuclear power, you would  think that our Governor and legislators representing the people of the State of New Jersey would decisively say “no” to this dangerous technology. You would be wrong. On April 8, 2026 Governor Mikie Sherrill signed Senate bill S3780 into law. This legislation overturned a 50-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power reactors in our State. The law was fast-tracked through committee hearings in both chambers of the Legislature in record time (less than a month total). Unanimous approval by both Republicans and Democrats ensued. 

Though each and every one of our elected State officials solemnly swore an oath to protect their constituents, it’s plain to see that in this case party bosses, corporate lobbyists and resident pay-to-players are calling the shots. Yet I refuse to believe that objections to nuclear power by voters and grassroots activists can continue to be ignored. The people who live here, work here, raise children and grandchildren here, pay utility bills and taxes here (and the salaries of our elected officials), are the ones who will ultimately bear the risks of increased radioactivity. The struggle to protect our air, water, land and the health of our families and neighbors (including our wildlife), make it increasingly urgent that the voices of residents who oppose the funding, building and siting of new nuclear reactors here in our State be heard and heeded.

Apparently there is at least one issue BOTH parties in these divided states of America seem to wholeheartedly agree on. How perverse that it is support for the dying nuclear power industry that can only survive through massive government subsidies and a slick propaganda campaign designed to deceive the American public into believing it’s clean and safe. It’s time for taxpayers and ratepayers everywhere to demand that the officials we voted into office prioritize our health and safety and that of our environment (including our dwindling wildlife population), over the profits and agendas of the morbidly wealthy .001%!

NJ Governor Mikie Sherrill  appointed a paid Holtec Lobbyist to sit on her newly created Nuclear Task Force. 

This is NOT what Democracy looks like!

*Holtec claims to specialize in nuclear waste management and reactor decommissioning. They are based in Camden, NJ. If the CEO gets his way, Holtec is poised to construct NJ’s new crop of nuclear reactors known as SMRs (Small Modular Reactors). Holtec is the very same company now being sued by New York State’s Governor Hochul and Environmental groups to stop Holtec’s horrifying plan to dump over one million gallons of radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River. The contaminated water resulted from Holtec’s ongoing decommissioning of the now shuttered Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. The notorious plant was forced to close after years of unrelenting grassroots activism and lawsuits by NY residents.

Sharleen Leahey is a peace and justice activist and writer. She can be reached at: women4justicecoalition@gmail.com

July 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Japan begins 21st release of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into ocean

TOKYO, July 6 (Xinhua) Zhang Kaiwei, Liang Jun)– https://en.people.cn/n3/2026/0706/c90000-20474742.html

Japan on Monday began a new round of discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea, marking the 21st such release since the controversial operation began in 2023.

The discharge started at 11:41 a.m. local time. According to the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), the latest round, scheduled to continue through July 24, will release about 7,800 tonnes of wastewater into the ocean, containing approximately 1.3 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium.

Struck by a 9-magnitude earthquake and the ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Despite concerns and opposition from the international community, Japan unilaterally launched the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant into the ocean in August 2023. So far,  TEPCO has completed 20 rounds of discharges, and around 157,000 tonnes of wastewater have been released into the sea.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Propulsion in Shipping: Challenges Ahead

June 30, 2026, https://www.seanews.com.tr/article/nuclear-ships-seen-as-pipe-dream-mqzpc3uq

Nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping faces significant hurdles, including regulatory issues and a lack of viable business cases, says Lloyd’s List.

Nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping remains far from reality, with no viable business case and unresolved regulatory, insurance, and political hurdles, reports London’s Lloyd’s List.

Advocates such as British start-up Core Power argue that small modular reactors are the only alternative to fossil fuels. However, experts say the technology is decades away from being viable. Norwegian and UK academics note that no Gen-IV designs have been commercially deployed, and fuel supply chains for HALEU remain limited to Russia.

The industry has yet to settle on a reactor design, leaving unanswered questions regarding refueling, waste disposal, and costs. Professor Steve Thomas of the University of Greenwich warned that it will be the late 2030s before any experience with SMRs is available worldwide.

Even if modular shipyard production could reduce costs, governments would have to fund the first reactors and assume liability. Shipowners would face high capital expenditure and decommissioning costs, while charterers would benefit from lower fuel bills.

Political and regulatory barriers compound the challenge. Nuclear ships would be restricted to flags of nuclear-equipped states, limiting trade routes. The IMO and IAEA have yet to clarify oversight, and there is no international convention on liability for nuclear shipping.

Analysts say the real customers for SMRs are more likely to be warships and submarines, where governments absorb costs. For commercial shipping, nuclear remains an unproven technology promoted more for its political cachet than its economic feasibility.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

MSP says ‘no’ to nuclear power plant as UK Government eyes Fife

4th July, By Hannah Emma Shedden, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26253439.msp-says-no-nuclear-power-plant-uk-government-eyes-fife/

FIFE has been revealed as a potential site for a nuclear power plant in a new UK Government report – but a local MSP says it “wouldn’t go down well” with communities.

The document, titled ‘Potential future nuclear power plant siting in Scotland ‘, published on Tuesday, June 30, was penned by both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy – Nuclear.

Ordered by Ed Miliband, the document’s scope was to offer “technical advice” on potential future sites.

In a section called “Land Areas of Interest”, Fife was identified as one of the areas across eastern Scotland which could be eyed up for new development by the UK Government.

The report read: “The northern shore of the Firth of Forth benefits from a strong industrial heritage, existing brownfield land, good transport connections and historic use of river water for power station cooling.

“The presence of previous energy generation sites and proximity to major industrial hubs supports technical suitability.”

SNP MSP for Cowdenbeath, David Barratt said: “The document implies quite heavily, I would say, about nuclear power at Longannet. It’s talking about a site on the north side of the Forth, in close proximity to areas of flood risk and oil and gas.

“The SNP’s position aligns, from my perspective, closely with what communities think. I don’t think if you went to any community and asked them whether they like a nuclear power station next door, I struggle to imagine any in Fife, or along the Forth shore, would say yes please.

“I don’t think that would go down well at all with communities (near Longannet) who have put up with enough environmental consequences of that site. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of renewable sources, and we don’t require nuclear.”

The new report picks out six areas in total that the government sees as ripe for the development of nuclear sites.
Torness Nuclear Power Plant in East Lothian, which is scheduled to end operations in 2030, Dounreay Nuclear site in Caithness, and Hunterston Nuclear Power Plant and the surrounding coast in North Ayrshire.

Both Dounreay and Hunterston are currently being decommissioned.

As well as the Forth, it selected two other larger areas, such as the south bank of the Forth in Stirling and the Aberdeenshire and Angus coast.

Overall, it came to the conclusion that “Scotland has land areas with high potential for new nuclear development”.

But the Scottish Government have pushed back, claiming that the report was put together “secretly” and that the push for nuclear energy “ignored the hard economic and environmental facts”.

They went on to cite financial inefficiency, longitude of developments, and a “deadly legacy of radioactive waste”.

On next steps, the document added: “Should the policy position of the Scottish Government change, specific local considerations and uncertainties notwithstanding, several significant land areas appear to offer suitable terrain, ready access to a source of cooling water, transport access by road, rail and sea as well as access to a skilled workforce, indicating a new nuclear power plant could be hosted.”

But the Scottish Government said: “Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will. The Scottish Parliament has already passed an SNP motion demanding that power over our energy resources be fully devolved to Holyrood.”

July 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

More U.S. Troops Are Refusing to Fight—and Reviving a Tradition of Patriotic Dissent

SCHEERPOST, July 4, 2026, Joshua Scheer

As Americans mark the Fourth of July with official celebrations of military power and national triumph, another vision of patriotism is emerging from those who have worn the uniform themselves. In this interview, Army veteran and Center on Conscience & War Executive Director Mike Prysner discusses the growing number of active-duty troops seeking conscientious objector status, the moral questions confronting service members, and why veterans and military families are organizing a “Freedom Over Fascism” march in Philadelphia. At a moment when dissent within the ranks is reaching levels not seen since the post-9/11 era, Prysner argues that some of the strongest opposition to endless war is now coming from those asked to fight it.

As we reflect on the words of Ron Kovic this Fourth of July, it is worth remembering that his courage did not end when he returned home from Vietnam. Kovic inspired generations of veterans to speak out, challenge militarism, and redefine patriotism as a commitment to peace, justice, and democracy.

As America Celebrates 250 Years, More U.S. Troops Are Refusing to Fight

Over the years, ScheerPost has highlighted the voices of veterans who have challenged the assumptions of endless war and reminded us that service to one’s country does not end with military duty. Among the most important of those voices is U.S. Army veteran Mike Prysner, whose work carries forward a long tradition of principled dissent.

In this timely conversation with BreakThrough News, Prysner discusses the growing number of active-duty service members seeking conscientious objector status, the profound moral questions confronting today’s military, and why more U.S. troops are refusing to fight than at any point since the years following September 11. At a moment when official America 250 celebrations emphasize military spectacle and displays of national power, Prysner offers a powerful counternarrative—one rooted in conscience, accountability, and the belief that patriotism demands more than unquestioning obedience.

As Ron Kovic has reminded us throughout his life, the deepest form of patriotism is not blind loyalty to government but the courage to follow one’s conscience, even when doing so comes at great personal cost. Mike Prysner’s work is a powerful reminder that Kovic’s legacy lives on in a new generation of veterans and active-duty service members determined to place humanity before war and conscience before conformity.

Every Fourth of July, Americans are encouraged to celebrate freedom with fireworks, military flyovers, patriotic speeches, and declarations of national greatness. This year’s Independence Day carries even greater symbolism as the nation marks the 250th anniversary of its founding. Yet beneath the official celebrations, another story is unfolding—one that receives far less attention but may ultimately say more about the state of American democracy than any parade ever could.

Across the United States, an increasing number of active-duty service members are refusing to participate in war.


That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.

The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.
That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.

The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.
That growing resistance was the focus of a recent conversation with Mike Prysner, a U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War. Speaking with BreakThrough News ahead of a July Fourth mobilization in Philadelphia, Prysner described what he says is an unprecedented surge in military personnel seeking conscientious objector status following the Trump administration’s expanding military operations abroad.

The trend represents something larger than individual acts of dissent. It reflects a growing moral crisis within the armed forces themselves.

Resistance From Inside the Military

Public opposition to war is nothing new. From Vietnam to Iraq, Americans have repeatedly questioned military interventions that stretched on for years with enormous human costs.

What is different today, according to Prysner, is where some of that opposition is emerging.

Rather than coming solely from veterans after they return home, increasing numbers of active-duty personnel are questioning their missions while still in uniform. Some are filing for conscientious objector status before completing their service. Others are reaching out for legal assistance after witnessing events they say fundamentally changed their understanding of what they were being asked to do.

Prysner says his organization experienced its largest increase in conscientious objector cases since the attacks of September 11, with the surge accelerating after the recent war with Iran. For many service members, individual incidents became moral breaking points that transformed private doubts into action.

Those stories challenge a common assumption that military personnel universally support the policies they are ordered to carry out.

Instead, they suggest that many wrestle deeply with questions of ethics, legality, and personal responsibility.

Patriotism Beyond Obedience

The timing of this movement is particularly striking.

While official America 250 events emphasize military strength, national pride, and displays of power, veterans and military families are organizing an alternative gathering in Philadelphia—the birthplace of the United States—to argue that patriotism should not be measured by unquestioning obedience to government policy.

Their message is not that America should abandon its ideals, but that it should strive to fulfill them.

Participants are calling for an end to endless wars, greater investment in communities at home, protection of civil liberties, and opposition to the growing militarization of domestic politics. Veterans, active-duty personnel, military families, and peace organizations will march together under the belief that defending democracy sometimes means challenging those who claim to speak in its name.

It is a reminder that throughout American history, some of the country’s strongest critics have also been among its most devoted citizens.

A Long Tradition of Military Dissent……………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………….https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/04/more-u-s-troops-are-refusing-to-fight-and-reviving-a-tradition-of-patriotic-dissent/

July 8, 2026 Posted by | global warming, USA | Leave a comment

Canadian nuclear site question would become ‘how’ not ‘whether’ under new law

Officials have previously said the project to bury nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario is not a “done deal,” but that would change if it becomes a nationally-significant project.


Matt Prokopchuk, July 2, 2026
, https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-news/nuclear-site-question-could-become-how-not-whether-under-new-law-12501083

REVELL LAKE — If a proposed underground facility to store nuclear waste is made a project of national interest, it’s virtually guaranteed to get federal approval.

The Major Projects Office will decide whether it gets listed under the Building Canada Act as project of national interest, with that decision scheduled for the fall.

Should that happen, “the focus of the federal review would shift from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it should proceed,” Privy Council Office spokesperson Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email.

TThat would be a significant change from what the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, who has been leading the integrated study of the deep geological repository, told residents at public meetings about the proposed Revell Lake-area site to store high-level spent fuel from Canada’s nuclear power plants.

“It’s not a done deal that the project will happen,” an IAAC official said at an April 22 meeting in Melgund, an unorganized community about 12 kilometres away from the proposed site, citing the years-long ongoing impact assessment that is scheduled to end around 2030 with a final report and decision by appropriate senior ministers.

The repository’s proponent is the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or NWMO, a government-mandated not-for-profit funded by the nuclear industry and tasked with the long-term management of Canada’s nuclear waste.

That distinction between “whether” a project gets greenlit versus “how” is important, said Brennain Lloyd, a project coordinator with environmental group Northwatch and a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North.
“Meaning that it is absolutely a done deal, which really, really, really strongly demonstrates that they don’t understand that the NWMO project is still a concept,” she said. “It’s in the development stage, it’s full of uncertainty.”
The Impact Assessment Agency declined to comment, directing questions to the Major Projects Office.

Bujold said, if the project gets listed, it means all its federal approvals required under a slate of acts of parliament and federal regulations would be “granted through a consolidated federal process.” That review concludes with a “conditions document” which “is the legal equivalent of all required permits, decisions or authorizations under the applicable federal statutes,” Bujold added.

“Once a project is listed, no other Governor in Council decisions are needed,” he said, adding that the federal sign-off is still subject to “applicable” Indigenous treaty-based processes and consultations.

This allows for greater coordination, reduced delays and more certainty for proponents and investors, while protecting the environment and respecting Indigenous rights.”

If the deep geological repository gets deemed a nationally-significant project, the ongoing impact assessment process would continue, Bujold said, where it would “inform” that final conditions document.

“The proponent would be required to comply with those conditions as the project proceeds through construction and operation.”

Lloyd and other anti-nuclear advocates have pointed to the hundreds of public comments already submitted during the current impact assessment’s consultation phases, with many expressing concern or outright opposition citing long-term safety and the issue of site-to-site transportation, among other things.

Transportation along highways and rail was not included in the NWMO’s initial project description, with the Impact Assessment Agency saying it was a “common concern” raised by many.

A summary of draft guidelines posted by the assessment agency earlier in 2026 calls on the NWMO to provide more information on that front, including that its work “must assess potential adverse effects of project-related transportation on the applicable valued components within an area surrounding the project site, along with the intersections along Highway 17 that will be required for site access.”

The Building Canada Act is not about bypassing approvals,” Bujold said.

He said the necessary licences the waste repository would require from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are still separate; those don’t start getting issued until after Ottawa’s approval.

If federal approval becomes a sure thing, Lloyd said she’s concerned the Nuclear Safety Commission’s work would amount to “simply tinkering with the deal.”

July 8, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Changes to radiation protection in the USA -could have been worse but are still bad

Tony Webb 2 July 26

The US NRC has now released its proposed revisions to radiation protection standards
mandated by President Trump’s 2025 Directive (EO14300). It could have been worse. The
proposals do not completely abandon the established principle that there is no safe level of
exposure in favour of the contested view that low level exposures are ‘beneficial’. They do
not propose raising the existing permissible limits on exposure for workers and the public.
They do however abandon other important principles such as that all exposures should be
kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and give the nuclear industry flexible options
for a whole range of ‘operating procedures’ that can be used to control and limit exposures

– all overtly designed to ease the regulatory burden on the industry.

While repeatedly claiming that existing standards are already  “conservative” these US
regulations already permit higher exposures than recommended internationally. The US 5
Rem (50 mSv ) occupational exposure limit is 2.5 times greater than the internationally
recommended limit used in most countries. Far from placing the proposals in the context of
the scientific evidence the proposals refer only to the outdated and flawed Life-span studies
of the Japanese bomb survivors who received high doses over short time periods rather
than studies of populations receiving low doses over longer time periods. In the whole 180-
page document outlining the proposed new regs I could not find a single mention of the
INWORKS studies of European and US nuclear plant workers that show the current
international standards underestimate the current internationally accepted level of
radiation-induced cancer risks used to set occupational exposure limits.

There is also no
mention of the increased risks for cardio-vascular diseases and dementia faced by such
workers and no mention of the studies of populations living close to nuclear plants that
show higher cancer rates – increasing the closer people live to these facilities. Buried in the
detail where devils usually hide there are also proposals that would weaken the so called
‘planned special exposures’ limits – the carve out that is used in the USA and elsewhere to
permit hiring of casual workers as ‘radiation sponges’ for the radiation-dirty jobs in annual
shutdown maintenance and clean-up operations for nuclear power plants. A closer reading
will probably reveal a more concerns but overall, the NRC proposals represent a significant
weakening of US standards that need to be opposed both within the USA and globally lest
they lead to weakening of standards or operating procedures for protection in other
countries. Other countries have reason to worry that joint operations with the USA (like the
Australian AUKUS nuclear submarine deal) and shared technologies that use these weaker
NRC standards as the basis for their design will be used as a backdoor for relaxation of
protection standards worldwide. US groups and others interested have 45 days to register
objections with the NRC to this latest Trump Dictated obscenity. Comments must be
submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov


On the positive side the legitimate concerns raised by these US proposals provide unions,
public health and environment groups in all countries with a ‘calling card’ to raise the demand with our national protection agencies for improved regulations for occupational
and public exposures in line with the available scientific evidence that shows current
standards need to be significantly tightened.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | radiation, USA | Leave a comment

We condemn the attempted offshore rocket launch by the military, Hanwha, and the Jeju Provincial Government!

June 30, 2026, https://savejejunow.org/june-30th-statement-we-condemn-the-attempted-offshore-rocket-launch-by-the-military-hanwha-and-the-jeju-provincial-government/

Gangjeong Villagers’ Association Against the Naval Base, Gangjeong Daily Resistance Action, Gangjeong Friends, People Making Jeju a Demilitarized Peace Island, People Opposing Space Militarization and Rocket Launches, Justice Party Jeju Provincial Chapter, Jeju Green Party, Islands’ Solidarity for a Sea of Peace, HotPinkDolphins

On June 30, the military and Hanwha attempted to conduct the fourth test of a solid-propellant space launch vehicle off the coast of Seogwipo, Jeju, but were ultimately forced to cancel it [mainly due to technical reasons]. This occurred less than a month after the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon.

An investigation into the cause of the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon has revealed some facts. Hanwha has consistently ignored workers’ requests to improve their working conditions. Furthermore, Building 56—the explosives cleaning facility where the tragedy occurred—was an unlicensed structure.

At Hanwha Aerospace’s Daejeon plant, at least 13 workers lost their lives in explosions in 2018, 2019, and 2026. The company even went so far as to cover up the 2016 accident. At a time when all efforts should be focused on a thorough investigation of the facts and holding those responsible to account, we are outraged that Hanwha has gone ahead with a sea-based launch off the coast of Jeju.

Hanwha’s anti-human rights and anti-life practices, which disregard workers’ human rights and lives, are clearly evident in the Jeju offshore launch as well. In Gangjeong and Daepo Villages—where the sea launch took place—most residents, with the exception of fishing cooperatives that had to suspend operations, did not receive proper advance notice. The residents were not even aware that the object floating in the sea was a launch pad. In the case of Daepo Village, residents were preparing to operate their yachts and boats even on the very day of the launch. The villagers’ right to know about their own living environment and their right to safety were completely disregarded. The Jeju Provincial Government also bears significant responsibility for aiding and abetting the Jeju offshore launch by collaborating with the military and Hanwha.

For this fourth launch of the military’s solid-propellant space launch vehicle, Hanwha Aerospace is providing the launch vehicle, Hanwha Systems is providing the reconnaissance satellite, and Hanwha Ocean is providing the launch pad platform. In other words, this launch—which brings together all three of Hanwha’s major subsidiaries—is entirely for military purposes. On the one hand, this experiment marks the full-scale beginning of efforts to upgrade the military’s satellite network, a long-standing ambition; on the other hand, it serves to conceal even more lethal missile launch tests. Furthermore, the development of solid propellants—which caused the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon—could lead to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This means that Hanwha will continue to generate profits in collaboration with military capabilities, leveraging the military infrastructure provided by the Jeju Naval Base.

On May 6, three major Hanwha subsidiaries met with former Pacific Command Commander Harry Harris and others to emphasize that the ROK-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Hanwha’s defense industry. However, the Jeju Space Center, which Hanwha constructed last December in the Jeju mid-mountain Groundwater Special Management Zone, is depleting and polluting the drinking and agricultural water that is the lifeblood of Jeju residents. The planned solid- and liquid-fuel engine test facilities on the site cannot rule out the possibility of explosions similar to those in Daejeon. The adjacent river in the Absolute Conservation Area will no longer serve as a lifeline for the island’s residents. The numerous debris and chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, generated during sea-based launches will affect areas hundreds of kilometers away from the launch site, causing suffering and even death to many non-human beings, including endangered marine species. If sea-based launches continue in this manner, the sea—which sustains the people of Jeju and countless marine beings—will soon become a sea of death. The Jeju Provincial Government deserves to be condemned for turning a blind eye to the violation and exploitation of the groundwater and the sea—which are vital to the lives of Jeju residents—for the sake of the military interest and weapons manufacturers’ profits.

  On June 29, civic groups in Daejeon and Jeju who had gathered 306 signatures from individuals and organizations nationwide delivered them respectively to Daejeon Mayor-elect Heo Tae-jeong, and Jeju Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, urging the central and local governments to conduct a comprehensive review of the space and defense industries that threaten life and peace. Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, who has pledged to carry on the legacy of Governor Oh Young-hoon’s administration and make the space industry a core industry for Jeju, must heed the anger and warnings of citizens, including the people of Jeju. Stop the offshore launch in Jeju. We condemn the plan for an offshore launch in Jeju. Halt the space industry, which is turning our shared living environment into ruins.

We want life and peace, not warships and rockets! We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches!

We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches which threaten the survival of Jeju’s marine life!

Stop the Hawon Techno Campus project, which is polluting Jeju’s groundwater and soil and threatening the survival of the local community!

Stop the Hawon Techno Campus Project, which is procedurally unjust and will further militarize Jeju!

A boon for the military, but poison for the people—Stop the space industry cluster!

For more photos, see. https://cafe.daum.net/space4peaceK/bs4u/44

July 8, 2026 Posted by | space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

If this is Climate Change, then bring it on!’ (NOT!)

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) 15 June 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/climate-change-bring-it-on-not/

Professor Andrew Blowers, Chair of BANNG considers this statement in the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) for Energy and Environment June 2026 Column for Regional Life

The long spell of hot weather we endured/enjoyed (?) towards the end of May may well have been a turning point in our attitude towards Climate Change.

There are still those who deny or refuse to accept the glaring truth that heatwaves and persistently dry weather during summer and intense rainfall and flooding, but rarely frost and snowfall during winter, is becoming the new normal.

For them ‘Bring it on!’ is the response to Climate Change and warmer weather.

But for others the recent heatwave confirmed the growing anxiety that Climate Change is real, happening now, long-lasting and perilous. And it is caused by human misuse, overuse and abuse of the resources of our living space.

The basic facts are well known and now widely accepted. Global warming has already reached an average of 1.4°C above preindustrial levels close to what is regarded as the limit deemed by climate scientists necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts. If present trends continue we are on course for 2.0°C by mid-century and 3.0°C – and possibly even 4.0°C – by the end of the century, at which point, in the words of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, the UK’s climate will be ‘unrecognisable, with potentially catastrophic impacts’.

So, what are we doing by way of mitigation to keep the warming within tolerable limits. Not enough, it seems. All but fools, knaves and naysayers realise global warming is real, pressing and urgent. But, they remain powerful enough to undermine efforts to achieve net zero carbon by 2050.

The transition to electrification of the whole economy is slow and uneven. It requires decarbonisation and long-term commitment. In the current political climate calls to ‘drill, baby, drill’ try to drown out the commitment to sustainable development and net zero.

If the effort to maintain a safe level of global warming is failing we have little choice but to adapt to its consequences as best we can. For the UK this means focusing on three areas.

Cooling our homes and workplaces. Heatwaves with temperatures reaching 40°C would make 92% of homes overheat, threatening health and wellbeing.
Flooding. It is estimated that 1 in 4 properties in England will be at risk of flooding from rivers, sea and surface water by mid-century.
Water management. It will be vital to conserve water to ensure adequate supplies and avoid drought and wildfires.
Land management. We must halt the predicted drop by 2050 of our high quality farmland to 10% from the present 40% and ensure that 30% of land is protected for nature.

Yet, we remain blissfully unprepared in terms of insulating our homes, building flood defences, constructing reservoirs and managing our land. It is estimated that investing in adaptation at the rate of £11Bn each year will generate returns in the tens of billions.

If this is the price to avoid the worst impacts of Climate Change, then……. ‘Bring it on!’.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

This EU state’s anti-Russian crusade has become a strategic dead end

Poland wanted to use Ukraine against Russia, now Kiev is using Poland

2 Jul, 2026 20:09By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club, https://www.rt.com/russia/642505-eu-states-anti-russian-crusade/

The situation in which Poland now finds itself is a good example of how even a relatively successful country can drive itself into a foreign policy impasse through the narrowness of its own thinking.

Poland is not, by modern standards, an inept state and its economy is growing, its institutions function and it occupies an important place in European affairs. Yet its foreign policy has been reduced to a single organizing principle: opposition to Russia. Warsaw has designated Moscow as its ideal adversary and has subordinated almost every other aspect of its external activity to the goal of harming Russia by any means available.

This applies first and foremost to Poland’s relationship with the Kiev regime. It would be naïve to believe that Polish politicians have ever held many illusions about the nature of the authorities in Ukraine and nor have they traditionally had warm feelings towards their Ukrainian neighbors. On the contrary, the Polish elite’s attitude to Ukraine has long been shaped by contempt and historical suspicion and this view has been formed over centuries and, it must be admitted, has not emerged without reason.

Nevertheless, in recent years Warsaw has made itself Kiev’s most energetic advocate in Europe as it’s supplied Ukraine with vast quantities of weapons and has turned its own territory into the main logistical hub for Western military aid. At the same time, the Polish authorities have done everything possible to destroy channels of dialogue with Moscow and Minsk, casting Poland as Russia’s most irreconcilable opponent, even by the standards of the wider West.Among all the countries that matter in European politics, Poland chose the most radical course during the current military and political crisis. The logic was simple, if Ukraine could be used against Russia, then Ukraine had to be supported, whatever the cost.

The problem is that Warsaw convinced itself of something that was never realistic in that it imagined that Ukraine could serve as a powerful Polish instrument for containing Russia while remaining manageable and responsive to Polish requests. Some in Poland also appear to have believed that Kiev was fighting for a European choice and that its desire to join NATO and the European Union would make it more accommodating.

Both assumptions were wrong and the Ukrainian authorities have behaved towards their Polish patrons in exactly the way one should have expected. They have taken what was offered, demanded more, and then publicly insulted and humiliated those who helped them. The recent exchange of awards and diplomatic gestures is only the most visible symptom of a deeper problem after Poland imagined a relationship that couldn’t exist and then built a strategy around this chimera.

As a result, Polish foreign policy now looks absurd as Warsaw has invested enormous political and emotional capital in Ukraine, only to find that Kiev feels no need to show gratitude. Worse still for Poland, there is no obvious way out because a serious confrontation with Kiev would undermine the whole anti-Russian structure of Polish policy, while continuing as before means accepting repeated humiliation.

This is not an accident and it flows from the central fixation of Polish foreign policy, Russia as the sole true object of Warsaw’s interest in the world.

That fixation has deep historical roots as for Poland, Russia isn’t merely a neighboring power, but a source of complexes and envy on a scale rarely found in modern European politics. Russia deprived Poland of any chance of becoming the leader of the Slavic world and later, the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union shaped the conditions under which modern Polish political culture developed. The struggle against Russian domination became one of the defining themes of Polish public life.

In effect, opposition to Russia helped create modern Polish identity, but it left the political elite with little ability to look at the world through any other prism. The result is the mindset of a sizeable European nation whose foreign policy imagination has room for almost nothing except the struggle against its great eastern neighbor.

The career of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the American political thinker of Polish origin, embodied this drama. He wrote a series of striking works on international relations, but almost everything in them was subordinated to the Russian question, which meant his intellectual universe was large in appearance, but in practice revolved around one object.

After the end of the Cold War, Poland’s entry into the Western world only reinforced this pattern. Warsaw could no longer openly pursue its traditional suspicions of Germany because NATO and the European Union confined those instincts within institutional limits. It’s true that Poland’s current rearmament program has a potential anti-German dimension, but it also reflects a desire to become Washington’s most important continental ally as Britain and France weaken. However, in the medium term, Poland’s hands are tied in the West by American interests in preserving NATO and the EU.

That leaves Russia and here the Polish elite feels entirely at home as, for two centuries, it has trained itself to think of little else. Now, however, reality is intruding because Kiev is behaving as Kiev was always likely to behave, taking Polish support for granted, glorifying figures whom many Poles regard as war criminals, and treating Warsaw not as a patron but as a useful subordinate.

Still, the current crisis is unlikely to produce a military clash between Poland and Ukraine, or even a genuine political break. Nor will it lead to a significant reduction in Polish support for Kiev and we can already see the dispute being presented as an internal Polish quarrel, a by-product of rivalry within Warsaw’s ruling elite. In this version, the problem isn’t Kiev’s conduct but Poland’s own domestic politics and this is convenient.

It allows Polish politicians to avoid confronting the failure of their strategy. After a few rounds of public argument, they will probably try to push the matter aside and return to business as usual. To do otherwise would mean admitting that Poland has no coherent foreign policy beyond its hostility to Russia.

Kiev understands this perfectly and it has no reason to make concessions because Poland has backed itself into a corner. Warsaw cannot withdraw support from Ukraine without damaging the central myth of its own policy and therefore Kiev can continue to insult and ignore Polish sensitivities, confident that the aid will keep coming.

This is the deeper humiliation as Poland, unable to formulate a foreign policy that is not anti-Russian, inevitably becomes an instrument of other people’s interests. For many years these were primarily American and British interests, but now Poland also finds itself serving the interests of the Kiev regime, a government entirely dependent on outside support but still capable of dictating the emotional terms of its relationship with Warsaw.

All this is especially strange because Poland has no urgent need to behave this way given it’s one of the few major European countries whose economy is still growing at a steady pace, roughly 3.3 to 3.6 percent a year. A more self-confident country might have used this position to consolidate, enrich itself and avoid unnecessary geopolitical adventures.

But Poland can’t do that. A relatively large country must have a foreign policy and since Warsaw has no foreign policy idea except opposition to Russia, it will continue to move in circles.

That’s the trap Poland has built for itself. It imagined that Ukraine could be used as a weapon against Russia, but instead, it’s discovered that those who define themselves only by hostility to Moscow are easily used by others.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment