Lawsuit on Nuclear Regulation
Nuclear Start-up Valar Atomics is suing the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), claiming in essence that the NRC doesn’t have the right
to regulate small reactors, and instead the states should have oversight.
Let’s skip over for a moment what a nightmare it would be to have 50
different regulators to deal with just for one country. Their claim —
that small reactors are not capable of accidents posing public health and
safety concerns — is dangerous baloney. It seems after decades of
fighting rampant radiophobia from anti-nuclear activists and scared
normies, the pro-nuclear community must now also contend with a new
problem: nukebros who have become too cavalier about radiation.
Elemental 15th April 2025
CND Cymru condemns billions for nuclear industry
Morning Star 15th April 2025
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/cnd-cymru-condemns-billions-nuclear-industry
CAMPAIGNERS have condemned the billions being poured into nuclear energy while the Westminster government “preaches austerity” for everybody else.
CND Cymru attacked Sir Keir Starmer today, claiming he was poised to announce more public subsidy for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset, not due to open until 2031.
A CND Cymru spokesperson said: “The willingness of the government to fund the nuclear industry to the tune of billions while preaching austerity to everyone else is absolutely farcical.
The anti-nuclear campaigners said Hinkley Point is likely to cost over £40 billion, £14bn over the initial estimate, with CND pointing out the project was managed by French company EDF.
“We must not accept the subsidy of a failing industry in order to preserve our nuclear attack capabilities while working people are facing impossible choices,” the CND spokesperson said.
“A different, greener, fairer, future is possible which doesn’t leave future generations with nuclear waste.”
U.S. advances microreactor program for military sites
Nuclear Newswire, Apr 15, 2025,
The Defense Innovation Unit announced April 10 next steps in the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program, launched in 2024 to deploy microreactor nuclear systems for increased power reliability at select military locations.
The ANPI program is a collaboration between DIU, which is under the Department of Defense, and the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, with the goals of working to design, license, build, and operate one or more microreactor nuclear power plants for the armed forces………………..
The DIU released the names of eight companies eligible to receive Other Transaction awards to provide commercially available dual use microreactor technology at various DOD installations:
- Antares Nuclear
- BWXT Advanced Technologies
- General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems
- Kairos Power
- Oklo
- Radiant Industries Incorporated
- Westinghouse Government Services
- X-energy
“Projecting power abroad demands ensuring power at home and this program aims to deliver that, ensuring that our defense leaders can remain focused on lethality,” ………………………………………………………………… https://www.ans.org/news/2025-04-14/article-6931/us-advances-microreactor-program-for-military-sites/
Donald Trump flounders about on the Ukraine situation
17 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/donald-trump-flounders-about-on-the-ukraine-situation/
Trump’s previous presidency resulted in huge job losses, a massive increase in the national debt, and global uncertainty about economics. Still, the stock market went up, and the very wealthy got wealthier. His purpose then was perhaps to enrich himself and his rich mates. Apart from that, it all looked like incompetence. If the job of President is to preserve the security and well-being of the nation, his administration was floundering about.
So – no real surprise that this is now happening again.
And what better example of the flounder is there than Trump’s dithering about over the Ukraine war?
As far as the Ukraine war goes, Trump’s big advantage over his predecessor Joe Biden, is that he is willing to negotiate at all. But Donald Trump’s concept of “negotiation”really needs to be examined. He is inordinately and mistakenly proud of his “art of the deal”. But when we observe his actual behaviour, it’s more like a form of childish bullying, than any real method of negotiation.
Major tenets of negotiation, as explained by Herb Chen, to achieve a win-win situation, are to prepare well with information on the situation, seek out and understand the other side’s needs, respect the other side and establish trust.
To start with. Donald Trump aims to win, i.e to defeat the other side. Is Donald Trump even capable of going for a win-win situation? He is quoted as saying “My whole life is about winning” – though I could not find the source. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YPg9sBtuMJw
So already it appears that Trump’s goal in negotiating is to get what he wants, in a bulldozing manner. And what he wants now is for USA business interests to win in Ukraine, rather than an acceptable peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.
As to “preparing well with information on the situation”, Trump seems to have understood some of the critical facts – for example, that Putin will not tolerate Ukraine becoming a member of NATO, that Zelensky depends on USA military backing. But the more complex picture concerning the national borders, and the industries in the region seems to be beyond him. And this starts to matter when questions arise about the ownership of rare earths resources. This is a complicated story, but industry experts and economists warn that for the USA to gain control of Ukraine’s mineral resources is not likely to be a success, either commercially or geopolitically.
But Trump’s focus in the negotiations is on American business taking over Ukraine’s minerals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WKaveRXU
The “deal” that Trump is pursuing also involves that very thorny question – which nation will own and control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station. I have previously written about this. But suffice to say that the ownership of this particular NPP is a very fraught matter. All three nations, Ukraine, Russia, and USA, seem to want to take on this huge responsibility – massive out-of-action nuclear reactors, all very dangerous and lacking a dependable supply of cooling water.
So, squabbles over industrial resources, and nuclear facilities would be predictable to anyone who bothered to prepare for negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine.
Seeking out and understanding the other side’s needs? Has Donald Trump any concept of this? He might appreciate strongman Putin’s need to look tough and insistent on tough conditions – but Trump does not take account of Russia’s need for to have sanctions on it ended, nor to have Ukrainian troops gone from Russia’s Kursk region, nor to prrevent a pause that enables Ukraine to build up weapons. Trump doesn’t take any interest in the complex needs of the Ukrainian side either, – with many in the Donbass area especially desperate for the war to end.
Respecting the other side and establishing trust? Trump’s manner shows that he doesn’t even respect his own side – as evidenced by his recent rudeness to Ukraine’s President Zelensky. About the other side – he’s said that he’s “pissed off” with Putin, and has threatened to impose secondary tariffs on countries that buy from Russia. He has broadcast his anger with Putin, – but added that “the anger dissipates quickly … if [Putin] does the right thing”.
So much for Trump’s promise about quickly ending the carnage in Ukraine. Almost three months after he took office, Trump has achieved nothing. Thousands of soldiers and civilians continue to be injured or die each month.
Without going into the nightmare of the Trump tariffs situation, the economic effect of the current Trump administration is starting to look very like the economic effect of his previous one. Unless the purpose of it is solely the enrichment of Trump and billionaires, the whole operation looks like being massively incompetent. And, sadly, the Ukrainian people are prime victims of this incompetence.
On Ukraine war and Israeli Gaza genocide, Trump playing Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 16April 25
We in the peace community welcome any leader who seeks peaceful resolution to ongoing wars. That is why we welcomed Trump’s break with predecessor Biden’s senseless war with Russia in Ukraine.
Trump wisely campaigned to end the war and swiftly started negotiations to do that upon returning to power. Astonishing as Biden not only prosecuted the war endlessly for his last 29 months, he refused to even recognize the existence of Russian leaders much less communicate with them.
Trump quickly sidelined Biden’s war puppet Zelensky who stupidly believed the BS Biden fed him that Ukraine could prevail with endless US weapons but not one drop of US blood.
Negotiating peace will be daunting since Trump has no cards to play in achieving any semblance of Biden’s unrealistic war objectives. But he can shift the onslaught of blame that will erupt from the US war party where it rightly belongs…on Joe Biden.
Concerning Ukraine, Trump is channeling the wise and kindly Dr. Jekyll. But when it comes to Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza, Trump’s ingesting some bad medicine which turns him into the murderous Mr. Hyde.
He’s ecstatic over the prospect of a colossal Trump real estate development to expand Greater Israel into Gaza after 2,300,000 Palestinians (less the hundred thousand already expired) are dead and gone. To that end he’s keeping the genocide weapons train rolling along, winking ‘A OK’ to Israel’s cutting off of all food, water, medicine, and electricity prodding Palestinians to leave ‘voluntarily’.
Then, instead of arresting indicted war criminal Netanyahu when he visited the Oval Office, Trump bragged about how they’re working furiously in tandem to find nearby countries to absorb the displaced Palestinians so the Trump Gaza project can commence.
All things considered, we in the peace community prefer Trump’s Ukraine Dr. Jekyll to his Israeli genocide Mr. Hyde.
Zelensky started the war then begged for missiles – Trump
Ed COMMENT. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump again plays fast and loose with the truth. In fact Zelensky did not start Russia’s wholescale invasion of Ukraine. Putin did.
However, there’s more than a grain of truth in Trump’s claim. Zelensky deceived the Ukrainian public by pledging to support the autonomy of the Donbass regions, and end the Ukraine government’s 8 year war against them. Once elected, he reneged on this .
14 Apr, 2025 , https://www.rt.com/news/615756-zelensky-started-war-trump/
The Ukrainian leader has recently renewed his call for Washington to supply air defense systems
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should never have started a war with Russia, US President Donald Trump has said.
In a press conference alongside El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump commented on Zelensky’s recent offer to finance $15 billion worth of Patriot air defense batteries with the aid of Kiev’s European backers.
“He’s always looking to purchase missiles,” the US presided noted.
“When you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war,” he said of Zelensky. “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.”
Trump added that he gave Kiev American-made Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles during his first presidency.
In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Zelensky called on the US to supply Ukraine with more air defenses. Kiev is ready to buy or lease up to ten Patriot air defense systems, and some European backers have offered to help with the money, he claimed.
During the interview, the network suggested that Trump tried to cut Kiev out of peace talks with Russia, and that he lied in his statements about the conflict. Trump allegedly “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections’,” according to CBS.
The US president lashed out at the news network on Truth Social on Monday, calling the interview inaccurate and fraudulent.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Ukraine conflict would never have escalated had he been in the White House, rather than his predecessor Joe Biden.
According to the US president, the previous administration invested more than $300 billion into supporting Kiev. Trump has promised to “get back” the money, entering talks with Ukraine about jointly exploiting its mineral resources. He also suggested taking over Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
The Kremlin has hailed the Trump administration’s peace efforts, but cautioned that resolving long-standing issues will take time and “painstaking work.”
Nuclear Energy Means Climate Action Delay: O’Donnell and Winfield
Susan O’Donnell and Mark Winfield, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-energy-means-climate-action-delay-odonnell-and-winfield/ 16 Apr 25
What is the best way for utilities to delay the transition from fossil fuels? Propose to build nuclear reactors.
Electricity utilities wanting to “decarbonize” have several options for replacing the fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) plants on their grids: aim to increase energy efficiency and productivity; add new renewable energy and storage resources; consider adding carbon capture and storage (CCS); or propose to build new nuclear reactors.
By objective measures, building new nuclear power plants will cost more, take longer to deploy, and introduce catastrophic accident risks—relative to improving energy productivity, expanding renewables with energy storage, and developing distributed energy resources. CCS suffers from limits of appropriate geology, reduced plant efficiency, and high costs.
However, if the goal is to keep fossil fuel-fired plants operating as long as possible, promising to build more nuclear energy has definite appeal.
Reactor design, planning, and build times are notoriously long—usually measured in decades—with well-established patterns of significant “unexpected” delays. Delaying while waiting for the promised new nuclear builds or reactor refurbishments maintains the status quo, effectively kicking actual climate action well down the road.
The two Canadian provinces with operating nuclear power reactors, Ontario and New Brunswick, provide case studies in this strategy. Both provinces are investing in significant new fossil gas generating infrastructure while waiting for new reactor designs to be developed and then built.
In Ontario, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector have already risen dramatically as fossil gas plants are run to replace out-of-service nuclear reactors, and the province proposes to add more gas-fired generating capacity to its system. After a nearly decade-long hiatus, it only recently proposed a feeble reengagement with renewable energy. New nuclear reactor builds at Darlington, Bruce, and now Wesleyville, with timelines stretching well into the 2030s and 40s, remain the centrepiece of its energy (and supposed) climate strategy.
New Brunswick’s NB Power plans to add 600 MW of new nuclear power at its Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy. Calls to build renewables instead have been rebuffed. In 2018, the province invited two nuclear start-up companies to set up in Saint John and apply for federal funding. Despite generous support from federal and provincial taxpayers, the companies have been unable to attract matching private funds. The NB Power CEO recently said she is “unsure” if the ARC-100, the reactor design promoted in 2018 as the closest to commercialization, will be ready by “the late 2030s.”
Meanwhile, the government recently announced support for building a large fossil gas plant, the biggest power project in the province in more than a decade.
The reality is that the new nuclear reactors being pushed by proponents are largely “PowerPoint reactors”—unproven and unbuilt designs. The BWRX-300 reactor that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing for its Darlington site, for example, lacks a fully-developed design, including key elements like safety systems. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) still gave OPG a licence to build it, while the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still reviewing the design and asking for more information.
Recent analyses from the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority also suggest the cost of the reactors will be far higher than OPG has claimed, and the timeline to construction and completion by 2030 seems less and less likely.
The new Monark design for a CANDU reactor that AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is proposing for the Bruce Power nuclear site is even further behind the BWRX-300 in development. According to the CNSC, the Monark is at a “familiarization and planning” stage, with no date set for even the first, preliminary stage of the design review.
The Monark’s main competitor is the AP-1000 reactor by Westinghouse. In 2002, the company submitted the AP-1000 design for formal review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two reactors came online in 2023 and 2024 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, more than two decades later and twice the original timeline. Prior to the Vogtle project, the last reactor to come online in the U.S. took more than five decades from the start of construction to supplying power to the grid.
The final cost of the recent Vogtle project, at US$36.8 billion, was more than twice the original budget. If the same cost profile is applied to Ontario’s nuclear expansion projects, the total bill to Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers could exceed $350 billion.
Promising to build more nuclear power is a political path to climate action delay and a distraction from a sustainable and decarbonized energy system transition. There is a reason why the International Energy Agency predicts that despite new nuclear reactor builds, nuclear energy will provide only eight percent of electricity supplies globally by 2050. In the meantime, while renewables development continues to accelerate globally, Canadian utilities, detoured by nuclear and CCS ambitions, double down on fossil gas and drift further and further behind in the global energy revolution.
Dr. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Dr. Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.
.
Flood warnings as Europe named as the fastest-warming continent in the world
Europe has been named the fastest-warming continent in the world in a
UN-led annual report. The UN-led European State of the Climate 2024, which
included contributions from about 100 scientists and experts, found that
last year was the warmest on record for the continent as countries were hit
by clear climate change impacts, extreme weather and record temperatures.
Released on Tuesday by the UN World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and
the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), the report details a year of
extremes.
Independent 15th April 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/flooding-spain-global-warming-un-report-b2733121.html
The climate crisis has tripled the length of ocean heatwaves, study finds.
The climate crisis has tripled the length of ocean heatwaves, a study has
found, supercharging deadly storms and destroying critical ecosystems such
as kelp forests and coral reefs. Half of the marine heatwaves since 2000
would not have happened without global heating, which is caused by burning
fossil fuels.
The heatwaves have not only become more frequent but also
more intense: 1C warmer on average, but much hotter in some places, the
scientists said. The research is the first comprehensive assessment of the
impact of the climate crisis on heatwaves in the world’s oceans, and it
reveals profound changes.
Hotter oceans also soak up fewer of the carbon
dioxide emissions that are driving temperatures up. “Here in the
Mediterranean, we have some marine heatwaves that are 5C hotter,” said Dr
Marta Marcos at the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies in
Mallorca, Spain, who led the study. “It’s horrible when you go
swimming. It looks like soup.”
Guardian 14th April 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/14/climate-crisis-has-tripled-length-of-deadly-ocean-heatwaves-study-finds
Trump envoy demands Iran eliminate nuclear programme in apparent U-turn
Steve Witkoff’s switch from saying low-level production could continue seen as example of chaotic US foreign policy
Guardian, Patrick Wintour, 16 Apr 25
Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has announced Iran must totally eliminate its nuclear programme, seeming to reverse the policy he had articulated on Fox News only 12 hours earlier that would have allowed Iran to enrich uranium at a low level for civilian use.
The switch to a more hardline policy is likely to make it much harder for the US to reach a negotiated agreement with Tehran, bringing back the threat of an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.
In a further switch, it was agreed that the next round of indirect US-Iran talks, due to start on Saturday, will continue to be in Oman and the venue would not switch to Italy as proposed by the US.
In a statement posted to social media on Tuesday Witkoff said: “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal. Any final arrangement must set in place a framework for peace, stability and prosperity in the Middle East – meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponisation program. It is imperative for the world that we create a tough fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do.”……………………………….
Witkoff’s two positions are hard to reconcile – unless he is trying to distinguish between an interim deal that reduces Iranian uranium enrichment to civilian levels and a final agreement that eliminates its nuclear programme entirely.
It also possible Trump has faced a backlash from Iran hawks who warned that Witkoff’s negotiating stance was largely re-establishing the nuclear deal Barack Obama had agreed with Iran in 2015, from which Trump withdrew the US in 2018 saying it was unenforceable.
Witkoff’s apparent volte face may also be seen as another example of chaotic foreign policymaking, in which the administration battles behind the president’s back and he either does not focus on the policy details or does not understand the choices he is allowing to be made on his behalf.
Witkoff, a man with no diplomatic experience and charged with producing diplomatic breakthroughs in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran, has never tried to portray himself as anything than Trump’s messenger. He would have thought the proposals he aired in the weekend talks in Oman and on Fox News were those of the president.
Iran has repeatedly demanded the right to maintain a civil nuclear programme, meaning the latest iteration of US thinking will cause consternation in Tehran and could strengthen hardliners, who maintain the US cannot be trusted.
A rare consensus had broken out in Tehran that the talks between Witkoff and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, could result in some US sanctions being lifted as part of the most positive development in relations between Iran and the US in a decade.
The head of the UN nuclear inspectorate, Rafael Grossi, is due to visit Iran this week to see if progress can be made on improving his inspectors’ access to Iran’s nuclear sites. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/15/trump-envoy-steve-witkoff-demands-iran-eliminate-nuclear-programme
Robot starts 2nd mission to retrieve debris at Fukushima nuclear plant
Apr. 16 , By Mari Yamaguchi, TOKYO, https://japantoday.com/category/national/robot-starts-2nd-mission-to-retrieve-debris-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant
A remote-controlled robot on Tuesday embarked on its second mission to retrieve tiny bits of melted fuel debris from inside a damaged reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant that was wrecked by a tsunami 14 years ago.
The mission, which follows the first such debris retrieval in November, is aimed at eventually developing the technology and robots needed for a larger scale cleanup of the plant, destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.
The extendable “Telesco” robot carries cameras and a tong to grip tiny nuggets of radioactive debris. It entered the No. 2 reactor’s primary containment vessel Tuesday, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company.
This time, the company aims to send the robot further into the containment vessel to get a sample from an area closer to the center where more melted fuel is believed to have fallen.
It is expected to take several days before the front tip of the robot reaches the targeted area, where it will lower a device carrying a tong and camera in a fishing-rod style.
That first sample retrieval in November, despite a number of mishaps, was a crucial step in what will be a daunting, decades-long decommissioning that must deal with at least 880 tons of melted nuclear fuel that has mixed with broken parts of internal structures and other debris inside the three reactors ruined in 2011.
After a series of small missions by robots to gather samples, experts will determine a larger-scale method for removing melted fuel, first at the No. 3 reactor, beginning in the 2030s.
Experts say the huge challenge of decommissioning the plant is just beginning, and that the work could take more than a century.
Chinese firm ‘will not bid’ to run Essex nuclear plant,
Sources no longer expect planning applications to be submitted by China General Nuclear Power Group for Bradwell B
Ollie Cole, Times Radio |Geraldine Scott, Senior Political Correspondent. April 15 2025, The Times
Plans for China’s state-run nuclear company to develop and operate a proposed nuclear site in Essex will no longer go ahead, The Times can reveal amid renewed focus on Chinese involvement in Britain’s critical infrastructure.
Bradwell B, the proposed nuclear power station, was earmarked for investment by China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) in 2015. CGN is the majority investor in the proposed development alongside French energy company EDF.
But government and industry sources told The Times and Times Radio they no longer expected planning applications to be submitted by CGN for the site, and EDF will look to take back the lease from the Chinese firm at the earliest opportunity.
The development comes as Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, said Chinese firms
But government and industry sources told The
Times and Times Radio they no longer expected planning applications to be
submitted by CGN for the site, and EDF will look to take back the lease
from the Chinese firm at the earliest opportunity.
The development comes as
Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, said Chinese firms
would be looked at in “a different way” should they bid for involvement
in British Steel.
CGN holds a 66.5 per cent majority share in the Bradwell
project and the site was said to be of key strategic importance to Beijing
as it would use the Chinese-developed and designed Hualong One reactor —
the first time it would be used in a developed country outside of China.
The company, which has been sanctioned by the United States and was charged
by the US Department of Justice with stealing nuclear secrets, was
initially involved in three major nuclear projects in Britain — Sizewell
C in Suffolk, Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Bradwell. But as
relationships with Beijing soured, the government paid about £100 million
to buy the firm out of Sizewell in 2022, and CGN halted its funding of
Hinkley in 2023 and therefore its stake has been receding.
In Bradwell CGN was due to operate as well as fund and develop the site, but government
sources now say they do not expect the developers to submit a planning
application. Warnings were raised by parliament’s security and
intelligence committee in 2023 when a report on China’s influence and
strategic aims in the UK characterised the plans for Bradwell B as
“opening a direct channel from the UK nuclear enterprise to the Chinese
state”.
It is understood that while EDF owns the site, it leases it to
CGN, but it expects to take the site back once an exit clause becomes
available. It is not clear when that would be. Industry sources said the
site was more likely to be used in the future to house small modular
reactors (SMRs). The Times previously revealed that Sir Keir Starmer wanted
a fleet of SMRs to be built across Britain alongside large power plants.
Times 15th April 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/chinese-firm-will-not-bid-to-run-essex-nuclear-plant-d0sd2ssvd
Uranium’s hazardous effects on humans and recent developments in treatment
USA National Library of Medicine, Epub 2025 Mar 12. Yahya Faqir 1, Ziang Li 1, Talaal Gul 1, Zahoor 1, Ziwei Jiang 2, Libing Yu 2, Chengjia Tan 3, Xi Chen 4, Jiahua Ma 5, Jiafu Feng 6
Abstract
Uranium, a naturally occurring element, is predominantly recognized for its role as fuel in both civilian and military energy sectors. Concerns have been raised regarding the adverse environmental impacts and health risks associated with uranium mining due to the exposure it causes. Such exposure leads to systemic toxicity, affecting pulmonary, hepatic, renal, reproductive, neurological, and bone health. This review identifies significant research gaps regarding detoxification methods for uranium contamination and recommends further advancements, including genetic modification and exploration of plant compounds. A comprehensive review of published research materials from diverse sources of uranium, including various treatments and hazardous impacts on the human body, was conducted. Additionally, a PRISMA analysis was performed in this study. This review emphasizes the importance of collaboration and the formulation of research-informed regulations to effectively safeguard vulnerable communities from the consequences of contamination. Public discourse often emphasizes the significance of radiotoxicity; however, the non-radioactive chemotoxicity of uranium has been identified as a significant risk factor for environmental exposures, contingent upon species, enrichment, and exposure route. Given these serious health consequences, several methods are being investigated to ameliorate uranium toxicity. In response to these concerns, several techniques, such as phytomedicinal treatments, biochemical approaches, and chelation therapy, have been investigated to minimize the adverse effects of uranium exposure in the human body……………………………………………………..https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40080936/#:~:text=Concerns%20have%20been%20raised%20regarding,%2C%20neurological%2C%20and%20bone%20health
Gender Stunts in Space: Blue Origin’s Female Celebrity Envoys
April 15, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/gender-stunts-in-space-blue-origins-female-celebrity-envoys/
Indulgent, vain and profligate, the all-female venture into space on the self-piloted New Shepard (NS-31) operated by Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin was space capitalism and celebrity shallowness on full show, masquerading as profound, moving and useful.
The crew consisted of bioastronautics research scientist and civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King, pop entertainer Katy Perry, film producer Kerianne Flynn, former NASA scientist and entrepreneur Aisha Bowe and Lauren Sánchez, fiancée of Jeff Bezos. The journey took 11 minutes and reached the Kármán line at approximately 96 kilometres above the earth.
Blue Origin had advertised the enterprise as an incentive to draw girls to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). It also shamelessly played on the background of some of the crew, with Nguyen promoted as “the first Vietnamese and south-east Asian female astronaut” whose presence would “highlight science as a tool for peace” and also project a potent “symbol of reconciliation between the US and Vietnam.”
Phil Joyce, Senior Vice President of New Shepard, thought it a “privilege to witness this crew of trailblazers depart the capsule today.” Each woman was “a storyteller” who would “use their voices – individually and together – to channel their life-changing experience today into creating lasting impact that will inspire people across our planet for generations.”
What was more accurately on show were celebrity space marketers on an expensive jaunt, showing us all that women can play the space capitalism game as well, albeit as the suborbital version of a catwalk or fashion show. Far from pushing some variant of feminism in the frontier of space, with scientific rewards for girls the world over, we got the eclipsing, if not a wholesale junking, of female astronauts and their monumental expertise.
It hardly compared, at any stretch or by any quantum of measure, with the achievement of Russian cosmonaut, Valentina Tereshkova, who piloted a Vostok 6 into earth’s orbit lasting 70 hours over six decades prior. To have Sánchez claiming to be “so proud of this crew”, tears cued for effect, gave the impression that they had shown technical expertise and skill when neither was required. It was far better to have deep pockets fronting the appropriate deposit, along with the necessary safe return, over which they had virtually no control over.
Dr Kai-Uwe Schrogl, special advisor for political affairs at the European Space Agency, offered a necessarily cold corrective. “A celebrity isn’t an envoy of humankind – they go into space for their own reasons,” he told BBC News. “These flights are significant and exciting, but I think maybe they can also be a source of frustration for space scientists.” How silly of those scientists, who regard space flight as an extension of “science, knowledge and the interests of humanity.”
The Guardian was also awake to the motivations of the Bezos project. “The pseudo progressiveness of this celebrity space mission, coupled with Bezos’s conduct in his other businesses, should mean we are under no illusion what purpose these flights serve.” With Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, the space tourism market, marked by its bratty oligarchs, is becoming competitive. In an effort to corner the market, attractive gimmicks are in high demand.
The cringingly superficial nature of the exercise was evident in various comments on the fashion aspect of the suits worn by the crew. Here was branding, and the sort that could be taken to space. As Sánchez stated: “Usually, you know, these suits are made for a man. Then they get tailored to fit a woman. I think the suits are elegant, but they also bring a little spice to space.” Blue Origin had capitalised on NASA’s own failings in 2019, which saw the abandoning of an all-female spacewalk for lacking appropriately fitting spacesuits.
On their return, the female cast performed their contractual undertakings to bore the press with deadly clichés and meaningless observations, reducing space travel to an exercise for the trivial. “Earth looked so quiet,” remarked Sánchez. “It was quiet, but really alive.” King, after getting on her knees to kiss the earth, merely wanted “to have a moment with the ground, just appreciate the ground for just a second.” (Surely she has had longer than that.) Perry, on her return after singing What a Wonderful World during the trip, overflowed with inanities. She felt “super connected to life”, as well as being “so connected to love.”
On the ground were other celebrities, delighted to offer their cliché-clotted thoughts. “I didn’t realise how emotional it would be, it’s hard to explain,” reflected Khloé Kardashian. “I have all this adrenaline and I’m just standing here.” From a family of celebrities that merely exist as celebrities and nothing else, she had some advice: “Dream big, wish for the stars – and one day, you could maybe be amongst them.”
Amanda Hess, reflecting on the mission in The New York Times, tried to put her finger on what it all meant. “The message is that a little girl can grow up to be whatever she wishes: a rocket scientist or a pop star, a television journalist or a billionaire’s fiancée who is empowered to pursue her various ambitions and whims in the face of tremendous costs.” Just not an astronaut.
How climate change could disrupt the construction and operations of US nuclear submarines
By Allie Maloney | April 14, 2025 https://thebulletin.org/2025/04/how-climate-change-could-disrupt-the-construction-and-operations-of-us-nuclear-submarines/ Allie Maloney is the Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow with the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Maloney holds two bachelor’s degrees in international affairs and political science from the University of Georgia. Previously, she was a Richard B. Russell Security Leadership Fellow at the University of Georgia’s Center for International Trade and Security.
The US Defense Department is currently in the midst of a multi-decade-long nuclear modernization effort that includes replacing all the nuclear submarines making up the sea leg of the US nuclear triad. The nuclear-armed and -powered submarines—which hold over half of deployed US nuclear warheads—are known for their “survivability,” thereby providing the United States with second-strike capability even after a surprise attack.
But climate change could make the US submarine force inoperable over the coming decades.
Rising sea levels and extreme weather events increasingly threaten the submarine force’s infrastructure, which is mainly located in at-risk flood areas. This vulnerability reveals the precarious state of nuclear weapons—which the Defense Department considers the “backbone of America’s national security”—to the threat of climate change.
Threat multiplier. The Navy plans to spend $130 billion on procuring new Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) over the next two decades to replace the current Ohio-class fleet. The delivery of the lead boat—the USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826)—has already been delayed by 12 to 16 months due to insufficient work instructions, low material availability, and disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is now only about halfway through construction. According to the Government Accountability Office, budget overruns are five to six times higher than estimates by the Navy and General Dynamics Electric Boat, the submarine’s building company. As the Pentagon spends more and more on modernizing its nuclear submarines, natural disasters are likely to disrupt supply chains and damage nuclear facilities, sinking costs further.
In recent years, the Defense Department has started to acknowledge climate change as a “threat multiplier”—albeit slowly. Acknowledging the billions of dollars climate change could cost the Navy in the future, the Pentagon now incorporates inclement weather disasters and other climate effects into military planning and base structures. However, during the first Trump administration, the Navy quietly ended the climate change task force put in place by the Obama administration, which taught naval leaders how to adapt to rising sea levels. As the new Trump administration wipes all mention of climate change and other environmental measures from federal agency websites, climate-related measures may also be halted despite being critical for the viability of naval missions.
Most of the naval construction and operations infrastructure for the United States’ ballistic missile submarines are located on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Due to sea level rise and increased inclement weather attributed to climate change, these facilities are becoming more vulnerable to flooding. The intensity and number of hurricanes in the North Atlantic region have increased since the 1980s and will continue to do so as ocean temperatures keep rising, further threatening coastal areas. These incidents are highly costly and disruptive to operations. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the Defense Department has 1,700 coastal military installations that could be impacted by sea level rise. In 2018, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida suffered $4.7 billion in damages from Hurricane Michael.
Infrastructure at risk.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Self-induced vulnerability. The Navy’s Final Environmental Assessment for the Columbia class submarines estimated that homeporting at Kings Bay, Georgia, would result in emissions of 998 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is equivalent to 1,108,593 pounds of coal burned and the amount of carbon sequestered by 1,001 acres of US forests in one year. General Dynamic’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2023 were around 713,874 metric tons—over 700 times higher. While it had committed to reducing GHG emissions in 2019, the company’s emissions have increased since taking on several Pentagon contracts related to nuclear modernization.
The geophysical threats the nuclear deterrent faces show just how precarious these weapons are. As the United States builds new ships for national security, it also contributes to the sinking of its bases. A nuclear weapon buildup is vulnerable to changing environments and cannot save the United States from the looming threat of climate change.
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (259)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 