nuclear-news

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

We’re being asked to save two buckets of water a day. Meanwhile data centres drink a town’s worth

England is heading for a 5bn-litre daily water shortfall by 2055 – so why is the government fast-tracking one of the most water-hungry industries there is, and letting it keep its consumption private, asks campaigner Adele Walton


Adele Walton, Jul 8, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/adele-walton-heatwave-data-centres-water-shortage?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=farage-under-fire-tuesday-edition&_bhlid=8b1d393304f745e4dafb1328c154dd5ec4a3e882

Lying on my bedroom floor in front of a fan with a wet flannel on my head, desperately trying to cool down in the middle of the UK’s historic heatwave last month, I couldn’t stop thinking about one thing. Data centres. 

Every time I had a cold shower for a temporary relief, I was haunted by the knowledge that AI data centres are already gobbling up millions of litres of water that they require for cooling, and I became fearful of a day where I might turn on the tap and not be able to get a drop. I would go to my local park to seek shade and a cool breeze to no avail and have pressing visions of superscale data centres that endlessly whir and hum and churn out emissions. This is dystopian, but it’s not unrealistic. Lying on my bedroom floor in front of a fan with a wet flannel on my head, desperately trying to cool down in the middle of the UK’s historic heatwave last month, I couldn’t stop thinking about one thing. Data centres. 

Every time I had a cold shower for a temporary relief, I was haunted by the knowledge that AI data centres are already gobbling up millions of litres of water that they require for cooling, and I became fearful of a day where I might turn on the tap and not be able to get a drop. I would go to my local park to seek shade and a cool breeze to no avail and have pressing visions of superscale data centres that endlessly whir and hum and churn out emissions. This is dystopian, but it’s not unrealistic. 

England is predicted to reach water shortages of 5bn litres a day by 2055. Data centres are increasingly becoming one of the most water-intensive forms of infrastructure and the AI hype is rapidly exacerbating the speed at which our natural resources get stolen by Big Tech. Research by the campaign group Global Action Plan reveals that 84% of projected data centre developments in the UK are expected in areas already water-stressed or projected to be water-stressed by 2040. 

What makes this even more scandalous is the fact that the UK government classified data centres as critical infrastructure in September 2024, ranking them as important as essential services such as water, energy and even emergency services systems. Far from proceeding with caution, the government is bending over backwards to appease AI companies and attract their investment, at the expense of our planet. 

Andy Burnham’s recent appointment of James Purnell – the former chief executive of corporate lobbying firm Flint Global, whose clients included Apple, Google, Amazon and other tech giants – as his chief of staff highlights the revolving-door relationship between lobbyists and government. The EU, which had previously seemed to be taking a stronger stance on regulating the AI industry, is caving in to pressure, and is already preparing to water down plans to rate data centres on energy and water use, after pressure from tech lobby groups.

It’s vital that the next prime minister prioritises public need over private greed if we are to avoid heading straight into a climate crisis sponsored by Silicon Valley

How can we trust that our government will act in our interests when they consistently prioritise Silicon Valley’s financial motives? Eager to position itself as a global leader in the space race unfolding across the AI industry, the UK government is fast-tracking £14bn of private investment into data centres and AI growth zones. 

Quite frankly, it’s insulting that the government has launched their biggest ever campaign to encourage the British public to reduce water usage in a heatwave, while charging full steam ahead with data centre expansion. The government campaign urges Brits to cut their daily use by 28 litres; meanwhile, hyperscale data centres consume the equivalent of 10,000 people’s daily needs in a single day. Time and time again, the onus is put on individuals to make lifestyle changes that will barely make a dent, while tech corporations are given a get-out-of-jail-free card by our governments. 

As it stands, data centres are not required to disclose their water usage, and tech companies that do consistently underestimate their environmental impact. In May, Google’s developers were found to have understated by a factor of five the carbon emissions of two proposed AI data centres in Essex, again highlighting the lack of transparency within the industry. This is why climate charities and local communities are calling for a moratorium on all new data centre developments until necessary environmental regulations are in place. Our politicians ought to be managing data centre development, making decisions that protect our communities from the extractive nature of the AI boom. 

Just a few weeks ago, I helped organise a protest at London’s historic Truman Brewery venue on Brick Lane with Pull The Plug and Global Action Plan, because while the AI hype was being championed locally at the SXSW festival, lots of people weren’t aware of the current plans to turn part of this popular social and creative hub into a data centre. AI data centre development is being rushed through, right under our noses, while we get no say in where they’re built, what resources they access and how they’ll affect our lives. But now, the difficulty of just existing in a heatwave makes the need to push back against AI data centre development in the UK more urgent.

It’s vital that the next prime minister prioritises public need over private greed if we are to avoid heading straight into a climate crisis sponsored by Silicon Valley. Unquestioned AI expansion is directly in conflict with the planet’s limits, and the burden of political shortsightedness will fall on us if our government presses on – manifesting in unbearable temperatures, water and energy scarcity, and loss of life. Across the political spectrum the general public want stronger regulation of AI; politicians ought to see taking a bold stance on AI governance as a political opportunity, not a problem.

Adele Walton is a journalist and online safety campaigner. She is the author of Logging Off: the Human Cost of our Digital World and co-founder of Logging Off Club


July 9, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, water | Leave a comment

Scottish climate campaigners condemn new nuclear power plans.

By Nan Spowart, 5 July 26

CLIMATE activists have poured scorn on the UK Government’s attempts to foist new
nuclear power stations on Scotland. Last week saw the publication of a
report by Great British Energy Nuclear, ordered by Energy Secretary Ed
Miliband, which identified multiple sites in Scotland which could be used
for new reactors.

However, this will not fix the energy crisis Scots are
facing, according to climate campaigners, and also flies in the face of
Scottish Government policy which is firmly against new nuclear. Arguments
against new nuclear power stations include their huge expense, the amount
of time it takes before they are operational and the problems regarding
waste disposal.

“Instead of sinking billions of pounds into nuclear
power, investment should be channelled into renewable energy and other
projects that tackle climate change and benefit society,” said Fraser
Sutherland, coalition manager for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. “We must
ensure Scots get their fair share of the wealth that comes from our natural
resources by increasing community and municipal ownership of renewables
schemes and building a solid Scottish manufacturing industry for the
sector.”

He pointed out that while nuclear power is often described as
“clean”, this ignores the climate emissions and resources used in
construction and operation of the plants. “Additionally, there are
significant uncertainties and lack of long-term plans relating to the
disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioning, meaning these reactors
are not a sustainable solution to our energy needs,” said Sutherland.

 The National 5th July 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26253766.scottish-climate-campaigners-condemn-new-nuclear-power-plans/

July 9, 2026 Posted by | UK | Leave a comment

As in Gaza, the Israel-Lebanon ‘peace’ agreement is designed to fail


Qassam Mijaddi, Mondoweiss,Thu, 02 Jul 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/507264-As-in-Gaza-the-Israel-Lebanon-peace-agreement-is-designed-to-fail

Israel’s conditioning of its withdrawal from southern Lebanon on the disarmament of Hezbollah mirrors its strategy in Gaza:

Insist on terms that are impossible to implement to justify its constant state of war.

Israel has finally reached an agreement to end its war on Lebanon after ambassadors from both countries signed a “framework” agreement in Washington, D.C. last week that laid out conditions for Israel’s phased withdrawal from southern Lebanon. There’s just one problem: the party that signed the deal from the Lebanese side isn’t the same party doing the fighting, and the terms of the withdrawal are conditioned on the disarmament of the very party that wasn’t a part of the negotiations to begin with.

As a result, it’s hardly surprising that a section of the Lebanese political establishment regards the U.S.-brokered trilateral agreement with skepticism. The agreement ostensibly charts a pathway to ending Israel’s war, but conditioned on Hezbollah’s disarmament — and without it being a part of the agreement. Instead, the agreement calls on the Lebanese army to disarm the group, a feat which the Israeli army itself has been unable to achieve.

So the question becomes: whywould Israel insist on terms that make the entire agreement impossible to implement? The answer becomes clearer when considering Israel’s treatment of Gaza’s so-called “ceasefire.”

Israel has conditioned its withdrawal from Gaza on the total disarmament of Hamas and every other faction in Gaza. Such a condition, even if Hamas were willing to implement it, is practically impossible given the ubiquitous presence of arms in Gaza and the presence of Israeli-armed gangs. But as has been pointed out, the impracticality of these terms is a trap meant to ensure Israel’s continued occupation of most of the Strip.

When we examine the contents of the recent agreement between Israel and Lebanon, it’s hard not to reach the same conclusion.

What’s in the agreement?

The agreement stipulates the end of the state of war between Israel and Lebanon and the formation of a task force to begin the drafting of a comprehensive peace accord. But more immediately, the agreement introduces a particular framework for how Israel would withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory.

Israel’s withdrawal, which would ostensibly be accompanied by the redeployment of the Lebanese army in all of Lebanon’s territory, starting with two “pilot zones,” is all hinging on the Lebanese army disarming “non-government groups” — mainly Hezbollah — and dismantling their military infrastructure. In exchange, the agreement previews a package of U.S. economic aid to Lebanon aimed at reconstruction and boosting the country’s economy, and the creation of a special “security coordination team” between Israel and Lebanon, supervised by the U.S. This is the part of the agreement that is being publicly celebrated. But there is more.

According to Israel’s Channel 12, the agreement includes a secret security annex, as later confirmed to the media by sources close to the Lebanese government, that would give Israel “freedom of military action” within the area still occupied by Israel. According to the leaked information, the annex also ties Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the success of the disarmament process, rather than according to a fixed timetable.

The terms of the agreement — both the public part and the leaked annex — explain the polarized reaction from Lebanese political forces.

A recipe for internal bloodshed

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has hailed the U.S.-brokered framework as a “major diplomatic achievement” and a first step toward restoring Lebanon’s full sovereignty. The head of the right-wing Phalange party, Sami Gemayel, a prominent opponent of Hezbollah, called the agreement “an achievement” that “guarantees the monopoly of arms by the state.”

But other parts of the Lebanese political landscape, including allies with Hezbollah, blasted the agreement as unworkable. The speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, described the agreement as “dictations” by the U.S., while a leading member of the Lebanese Communist Party, Hanna Ghareeb, rejected it as “a step towards normalization” of relations with Israel. Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader and former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, slammed the agreement as “trilateral in form but unilateral in substance,” adding that it ignored the 1949 armistice agreement with Israel, which he argued weakens Lebanon’s position and legitimacy. Most importantly, the party directly concerned by the agreement, Hezbollah, categorically rejected it.

Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem,said that the agreement is a “concession over Lebanon’s sovereignty,” stressing that conditioning Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on the disarmament of Hezbollah “crosses all red lines” and “legitimizes the occupation of Lebanese lands for many long years to come.” Qassem declared that Hezbollah did not recognize the agreement and considered it void, calling on the Lebanese state to back down.

Lebanese critics of the agreement have also warned that the stipulation calling on the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah directly is a recipe for internal conflict and would result in intra-Lebanese bloodshed.

Even Israeli critics have pointed out the fact that Hezbollah, which has remained intact as a fighting force in the face of Israel’s military pressure, would be put in a position to consolidate itself regardless of what Israel does: if Israel withdraws from Lebanon,Hezbollah will claim victory and use it as an argument to keep its arms,and if Israel does not withdraw,Hezbollah will claim that it needs to keep its arms to push Israel out.

In other words, since the agreement sidelines Hezbollah and makes the Lebanese state the main actor, implementing the agreement appears impossible without devolving into something resembling a civil war. The Lebanese state might give Israel all the security guarantees that it demands on paper, but neither Israel nor the Lebanese state has been able to wrest any such concessions from Hezbollah.

So while the rhetorical concessions made to Israel are politically significant (given that they are made by the Lebanese state), they have no apparent way of being implemented on the ground.

This discrepancy, then, might indicate that the entire agreement was designed to fail. This becomes easier to understand once we look at where Israel has tried such agreements elsewhere. And one doesn’t need to look very far.

The Gaza déjà vu

When the ceasefire agreement in Gaza was reached last October, it stipulated three phases for Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip, which was supposed to be accompanied by an increase in the entry of humanitarian aid and the start of reconstruction. Only the first phase was partially implemented, with Israel withdrawing its forces to the so-called “Yellow Line” that divided Gaza roughly in half. Israel has since conditioned its move to the second phase on the full disarmament of Hamas and other resistance groups in Gaza — an almost identical arrangement to the Lebanon agreement. And just like in Lebanon, the Gaza ceasefire terms, as originally conceived in Trump’s 20-point plan, remained deliberately vague on what disarmament would look like, making it easy for Israel to claim at any time in the future that the conditions for disarmament haven’t been met.

During recent months, Israel has shifted toward pushing for a maximalist vision of disarmament, which first surfaced last March during direct talks between the head of Trump’s “Board of Peace,” Nikolay Mladenov, and Palestinian factions in Gaza. In subsequent talks, Mladenov issued an ultimatum to Hamas and other Palestinian factions that Gaza must be fully disarmed as a precondition for Israeli withdrawal and the beginning of reconstruction, down to the last rifle and pistol.

Hamas leaders have since characterized Mladenov’s conditions as an almost verbatim repetition of Israel’s maximalist terms, regarding Mladenov as a biased and compromised actor.

Such a demand is impossible to meet due to the ubiquity of light personal weapons in Gaza, which are privately owned by families and clans, while several factions other than Hamas are also in possession of light weapons. Moreover, Gaza’s Israeli-backed militias are heavily armed and have vowed to destroy Hamas, meaning that any voluntary disarmament would leave the group vulnerable to its rivals and result in chaos and a security vacuum. For Israel, chaos and internal Palestinian strife would be a welcome consequence that allows it to maintain the occupation of Gaza indefinitely.

Even if Hamas were to attempt to comply with these terms, Israel could easily claim the inevitable continuation of light weapons possession in Gaza as evidence that Hamas has not fulfilled its end of the bargain.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces continue to demolish Palestinian homes and other structures in the part of Gaza that they directly control, which now comprises over 65% of the Strip, destroying any chance of Palestinians returning.

It’s almost as if, in both Lebanon and Gaza, the impossibility of implementing the agreements is the point: Israel uses the lack of disarmament as the pretext to continue occupying Lebanese and Palestinian territory, and it justifies its constant state of war with the need to disarm Hezbollah and Hamas.

For Netanyahu, who is months away from elections and whose chances of winning remain uncertain in the polls, continued war is a political necessity.

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Clearwater ship has been ejected from 250 Hudson sail by US government

Joyce Hanson, 4 July 26

Clearwater was told they MUST REMOVE THE BANNERS before we re-enter the inner NY harbor to return to our berth in Brooklyn. At that point we will be a private vessel (no longer part of Sail250), Sail 250 will be over, yet the US Govt will still be afraid of our message. 

On the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater as part of the Sail250 parade, we have been TURNED AROUND by the US Coast Guard and removed from the parade. 

Threatened with arrest if we did not comply!  This decision was not made by the organizers of Sail 250, but by the USGovt. 

I guess our banners are scary.  They say: “Indigenous Rights – Racial Justice  – Climate Solutions” on the starboard side, and “Save the Clean Water Act” on the port side.

Now (11:45) ordered to remain south of the Verezzano Bridge until 15:00. We are forbidden to enter the “security zone” of the Sail 250, so we’re sailing around Gravesend Bay. 

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Local protests derail US data centre ‘monstrosity’ backed by Wall Street giant

 Local protesters have hailed victory after a US investment giant abandoned
plans for a data centre “monstrosity” that would have been built on the
edge of a historic battlefield in Virginia. QTS, which is owned by Wall
Street investor Blackstone, dropped a proposal for what would have been the
world’s largest data centre after a wave of protests and local lawsuits.
The termination represents a landmark win for local activism as protesters
across the US attempt to turn the tide against AI data-centre construction
projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

 Telegraph 3rd July 2026,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/03/local-protests-derail-us-data-centre-monstrosity/

July 9, 2026 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Can provocative climate messaging on OnlyFans cut through social media’s noise?

by Jessica Riches, July 2, 2026, https://www.positive.news/environment/can-provocative-climate-messaging-on-only-fans-cut-through-social-medias-noise/

A climate narrator is using OnlyFans to reach new audiences in unlikely places. It turns out, people listen

As part of a climate communications project, I joined OnlyFans. It wasn’t a publicity stunt, it was an attempt to answer a question that sits at the heart of my work: if the climate crisis is one of the defining issues of our time, why do so many people still tune out?

My job is to help ordinary people understand existential risks to humanity in a way that does not make them want to switch off. Some people wonder why that job needs to exist at all. If terrible things are coming, surely humanity should respond at the level of the risk?

Sadly, humans are not rational, and fossil fuel companies have preyed on that knowledge for decades. Since the industry first learned of its own polluting powers, it has spent tens of billions of dollars trying to influence public opinion, lobby governments and spread climate doubt among ordinary people.

If that bored you, there’s a reason for that. I just shared alarming facts with no emotional experience, no solution, no way through. And you do not know me, so why should you listen?

The human brain is not built to absorb warnings about slow-moving, existential threats when they come with no clear route out, so turning away is not irrational, it is protective. What a lot of people never hear is that there is a lot we can do, both to stop the climate crisis getting worse and to adapt to what has already happened. Part of my work is finding new ways to share that information, and to cut through the confusion created by fossil fuel billionaires.

That is where Headline Newds came from. Some of the most intimate parasocial relationships that exist right now, especially among people climate communications often fail to reach, are on OnlyFans, the online subscription platform favoured by adult content creators. So what would happen if we worked with comedy and OnlyFans stars to communicate urgent climate science, political context and solutions to people who usually scroll past this stuff?

It turns out, people listen. We’ve had millions of views on our videos, and in my DMs I hear from men who are dismayed by our governments’ response to the climate crisis, scared for the future of ocean life and angry about the lies they have been fed by corporations for years. Many are lonely, or grew up in a generation where expressing emotion was punished, and most have never had climate messaging reach them in a way they connected with.

That is the impact of meeting people where they are, rather than where the climate sector wishes they were. Story and entertainment can help complex messages land because our brains lower their defences when they are immersed in rich worlds, humour and emotional character journeys. But we are also living in a different information economy, where influencers shape what people believe every day. A 30-second political aside in a gaming stream can be far more persuasive than a political ad, while right-wing political content now dominates the influencer ecosystem.

We would have reached even more people if the accounts of all our creators had not been shadowbanned by Instagram, which means the algorithm will not recommend their content to non-followers because it may be deemed “offensive”. Content moderation has an important role to play, particularly on platforms used by children, but it is striking what is deemed dangerous. 

Most have never had climate messaging reach them in a way they connected with

The policing of women’s bodies has stopped us reaching wider audiences, yet there is still more stigma attached to showing human flesh, and celebrating the most natural instincts of desire and connection, than there is to destroying the earth for profit. As a white middle-class woman with a ‘real’ job that nobody understands, I am largely protected from that stigma, and I joined OnlyFans myself as a message to the climate communications industry that we have to try everything and be everywhere if we want to cut through a media ecosystem designed to suppress us.

I might not be providing the type of comfort people are used to finding on OnlyFans, but I can tell them that the apocalypse they are used to seeing is not inevitable. We know how to survive the impacts that we are too late to reverse and, more importantly, we know how to stop it getting worse. What we have to do now is dismantle the systems that politicians, fossil fuel billionaires and the media they own have built to protect the status quo and prevent meaningful climate action.

July 9, 2026 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Dunfermline MSP speaks out at possible Longannet nuclear site

By Hannah Emma Shedden, 3rd July, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26250982.dunfermline-msp-speaks-possible-longannet-nuclear-site/

A DUNFERMLINE MSP has called on the UK Government to rule out any future nuclear development at the former Longannet Power Station site in West Fife.

Shirley-Anne Somerville’s call follows a UK Government assessment of potential sites for new nuclear development, which appeared to identify the former power station as a candidate location.

Currently, through devolved powers, the Scottish Government have the power to block planning, and has said it would not permit the building of any stations.

So far, MSPs David Barratt and Mark Ruskell have come out against the plans, while MP Graeme Downie has said it would be “a wasted opportunity” to ignore nuclear energy.

Ms Somerville has now written to the UK’s Minister of State for Energy, Michael Shanks, urging him to remove the site from consideration.

She said: “Longannet should not be considered for a new nuclear power station, and I’ve told the Labour UK Government this directly.

“The SNP’s position on this is a long-standing one; we do not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland and communities in West Fife should not have one imposed on them.

“What this process really looks like is Labour’s much-hyped GB Energy searching for a mission to justify the money that’s been ploughed into it, rather than backing the clean industries Scotland is actually good at.

“Longannet powered Scotland for decades, and I want that site to go on playing a role in our energy future.

“However, that future must be built on clean energy, not on a technology that’s slow, expensive, and leaves radioactive waste behind for future generations to manage.

“I’ve therefore asked the UK Government to take Longannet off the table and to respect Scotland’s clear and consistent opposition to new nuclear development.”

July 9, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »