nuclear-news

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

New Study on Cancers near NPPs: additional comments

 IanFairlie.org 17th July 2025, https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/new-study-on-cancers-near-npps-additional-comments/

Additional Comments on New Study on Cancers Near UK NPPs*.

The recent Davies et al study  (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities. On July 16, I placed initial reservations re the above study on my website. These remain correct so may be used with confidence.

However on closer examination the study has the additional shortcomings listed below.

First, the study makes several incorrect statements. It states[1] “Our work {shows}  that the clusters of cancer identified in proximity to Sellafield and Dounreay between 1955 and 1991 are no longer present after 1991.” But if one examines their detailed Supplementary data in Table S3[2] for 1995-2016, one sees that around Dounreay, for 0-4 year old children, the SIR[3] is 1.56 for solid cancers and 1.99 for CNS tumours. Ie increases in cancer incidences. Similarly around Sellafield, for 10-14 year old children, the SIR is 1.65 for solid cancers and 1.46 for CNS tumours.  Again increased cancer incidences.

Also, on Imperial College’s website, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/266256/no-increased-risk-childhood-cancer-near/, the lead author stated “As the UK government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.”

This statement is of doubtful veracity. The study examined data only to 2016:  is it correct to assert nine years later in 2025 that the clusters are “no longer evident”?

Second, my initial comments criticised the choice of a very large 25 km radius around NPPs in which to conduct its studies.  But another methodological criticism exists. The best source of information about cancers near NPPs, the Kikk study (see below) observed cancer increases only among children near NPPs aged under 5.  Unfortunately the Davies et al study does not examine ill health in under 5 year olds near NPPs.

This study unfortunately shows that by careful manipulation of epidemiological parameters, almost any desired result, or non-result, can be achieved.

Childhood cancers near NPPs

New Study on Cancers near NPPs: additional comments

July 17, 2025

Additional Comments on New Study on Cancers Near UK NPPs*.

The recent Davies et al study  (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities. On July 16, I placed initial reservations re the above study on my website. These remain correct so may be used with confidence.

However on closer examination the study has the additional shortcomings listed below.

First, the study makes several incorrect statements. It states[1] “Our work {shows}  that the clusters of cancer identified in proximity to Sellafield and Dounreay between 1955 and 1991 are no longer present after 1991.” But if one examines their detailed Supplementary data in Table S3[2] for 1995-2016, one sees that around Dounreay, for 0-4 year old children, the SIR[3] is 1.56 for solid cancers and 1.99 for CNS tumours. Ie increases in cancer incidences. Similarly around Sellafield, for 10-14 year old children, the SIR is 1.65 for solid cancers and 1.46 for CNS tumours.  Again increased cancer incidences.

Also, on Imperial College’s website, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/266256/no-increased-risk-childhood-cancer-near/, the lead author stated “As the UK government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.”

This statement is of doubtful veracity. The study examined data only to 2016:  is it correct to assert nine years later in 2025 that the clusters are “no longer evident”?

Second, my initial comments criticised the choice of a very large 25 km radius around NPPs in which to conduct its studies.  But another methodological criticism exists. The best source of information about cancers near NPPs, the Kikk study (see below) observed cancer increases only among children near NPPs aged under 5.  Unfortunately the Davies et al study does not examine ill health in under 5 year olds near NPPs.

This study unfortunately shows that by careful manipulation of epidemiological parameters, almost any desired result, or non-result, can be achieved.

Childhood cancers near NPPs

The study purports to examine the issue of childhood cancers near NPPs, but an ecological study like this is the poorest way to do so. It may be cheap and quick but its results are not particularly reliable. One has to look for better evidence from case-control studies or from meta studies which group together several similar studies to reach sufficient size for statistical confidence to be established.

In fact, the best available epidemiological evidence is the 2008 Kikk[4] case-control study (Spix et al, (2008); Kaatsch et al (2008)) commissioned by the German Federal government which examined cancers near all 19 German nuclear reactors.  It was conducted over a 3 year period by a crack team of German epidemiologists at Mainz University: apparently no expense was spared.

The problem is that the KiKK study found a 120% increase in leukemias and a 60% increase in all cancers among infants and children under 5 years old living within 5 km of all German NPPs. The increase of risk with proximity to the NPP site, tested with a reciprocal distance trend, was statistically significant for all cancers (p < 0.0034, one-sided), as well as for leukemias (p < 0.0044, one-sided).

Clearly the Imperial researchers did not wish to discuss these disturbing findings, but an unbiased study discussion would have.

Indeed much epidemiological evidence indicates increased leukaemia and solid cancer risks near  nuclear plants all over the world. Laurier and Bard (1999) and Laurier et al (2008) examined the literature on childhood leukaemia near NPPs world-wide. These identified a total of over 60 studies[5]. An independent review of these studies (Fairlie and Körblein, 2010) indicated the large majority (>70%5) showed small increases in childhood leukaemia although many findings were not statistically significant. Laurier et al were employees of the French Government’s Institut de Radioprotection et Sûreté Nucléaire: they confirmed that clusters of childhood leukaemia cases existed near NPPs but refrained from drawing any conclusions.

Fairlie and Körblein (2010) in their review of the above studies concluded that the evidence indicating increased leukaemia rates near nuclear facilities, specifically in young children, was convincing. This conclusion was supported by two meta-analyses of national multi-site studies. Baker and Hoel (2007) assessed data from 17 research studies covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan, and Spain. In children up to nine years old, leukaemia death rates were 5% to 24% higher and leukaemia incidence rates were 14% to 21% higher. However their analysis was criticised by Spix and Blettner (2010) authors of the KiKK study – see below.

The second meta-analysis by Körblein and Fairlie (2012) covering NPPs in Germany, Switzerland, France and the UK also found a statistically significant increased risk of child leukemias and relative risk of leukaemia deaths near NPPs (RR = 1.37; one-tailed p value = 0.0246). Further studies (Guizard et al, 2001; Hoffman et al, 2007) in France and Germany indicated raised leukaemia incidences.  Later, Bithell et al (2008) and Laurier et al (2008) found increases in child leukemias near UK and French NPPs respectively. In both cases, the numbers were low and the results not statistically significant.

Ultimately we should rely on the KiKK study as it was a large, well-conducted study; its findings were scientifically rigorous; its evidence was particularly strong; and the German government’s radiation protection agency, the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) confirmed its findings. A BfS appointed expert group stated (BfS, 2008)

“The present study confirms that in Germany there is a correlation between the distance of the home from the nearest NPP at the time of diagnosis and the risk of developing cancer (particularly leukemia) before the 5th birthday. This study is not able to state which biological risk factors could explain this relationship.” (BfS, 2008)

Although the KiKK study refrained from discussing the reasons for its findings, my hypothesis (Fairlie, 2014) is that the infant leukemias are a teratogenic effect of in utero exposures from intakes of radionuclides[6] from NPPs received during fetal development in pregnant women living nearby. The risks from NPP emissions to embryos/fetuses are apparently much larger than currently estimated. For example, haematopoietic (ie blood-forming) tissues are considerably more radiosensitive in embryos and fetuses than in children/adults. The combined immaturity of embryonic nervous and blood-forming systems make them particularly vulnerable to chronic radiation exposures from NPPs.

Unfortunately, official organisations, without exception, have found it difficult to accept that cancer increases near NPPs may be due to radioactive emissions. In their view, official doses from NPP emissions are too small to explain the observed increases in risks. This assumes that official risk models are correct and that their dose estimates are without uncertainties. However in 2004 the report of the UK Government’s CERRIE Committee stated that official dose estimates from internal emitters contained uncertainties which could sometimes be very large (CERRIE, 2004).

*Credit is due to Dr Alfred Korblein for his valuable assistance during this review.

References

Baker and Hoel (2007) Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of child[1]hood leukemias in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur. J. Cancer Care 16, 355e363.

BfS (2008) Unanimous Statement by the Expert Group commissioned by the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz, 5 Dec 2007. (German Federal Office for Radiation Protection) on the KiKK Study [cited March 30 2008] http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/Ufoplan/4334_KIKK_Zusamm.pdf (in English).

Bithell et al (2008) Childhood leukaemia near British nuclear installations: methodological issues and recent results. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 132 (2), 191- 197

CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee on the Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140108135436/http://www.cer%5B1%5Drie.org/

Bethan Davies, Frédéric B Piel, Aina Roca-Barceló, Anna Freni Sterrantino, Hima Iyathooray Daby, Marta Blangiardo, Daniela Fecht, Frank de Vocht, Paul Elliott, Mireille B Toledano (2025)  Childhood cancer incidence around nuclear installations in Great Britain, 1995–2016.  International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 54, Issue 4, August 2025, dyaf107, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107

Fairlie I and Körblein A (2010) Review of epidemiology studies of childhood leukemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on Laurier et al. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 138 (2), 194-195 author reply 195-7……………………………………………………………..(and more)

July 20, 2025 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

Trump sprang Ukraine surprise on NATO states – Reuters

Trump noted that the plan is seen by Washington as a business opportunity. 

16 July 25, https://www.rt.com/news/621575-trump-ukraine-weapons-surprise/

Several bloc members reportedly only learned they were supposed to fund American weapons for Kiev when it was announced by the US president.

Several NATO member states were not notified in advance that they would be asked to fund new arms deliveries to Ukraine under US President Donald Trump’s latest proposal, Reuters has reported, citing European officials.

On Monday, Trump pledged to provide more US-made weapons to Kiev through a new scheme funded by European NATO members. “We’re not buying it,” Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with the bloc’s secretary-general, Mark Rutte. “We will manufacture it, and they’re going to be paying for it.”

Trump noted that the plan is seen by Washington as a business opportunity. 

Rutte said six countries – Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada – were willing to take part in the arms procurement scheme. However, high-ranking sources at the embassies of two of those countries told Reuters they only learned of their supposed participation when the announcement was made.

“It is my clear sense that nobody has been briefed about the exact details in advance,” one European ambassador told Reuters. “And I also suspect that internally in the administration they are only now beginning to sort out what it means in practice.”

Several countries have already distanced themselves from Trump’s plan. According to Politico and La Stampa, France and Italy will not be financially supporting the effort. Hungary and the Czech Republic have also declined to participate, with Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala saying Prague is focusing on other projects.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, on the other hand, has welcomed the proposal but emphasized that Washington should “share the burden,” stating that if European countries pay for the weapons, it should be considered as “European support.” 

Since taking office in January, Trump has renewed pressure on NATO members to increase defense spending and warned that the US may not defend allies who do not meet their obligations.

Russia has repeatedly condemned Western arms supplies to Ukraine, arguing that it only prolongs the bloodshed and does not change the course of the conflict. The Kremlin maintains that foreign military aid is being used to escalate the hostilities rather than seek a diplomatic resolution.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

In a historic gathering, 12 countries announce Israel sanctions and renewed legal action to end Gaza genocide

Meeting in Bogotá, Colombia, representatives of Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, and South Africa announced sanctions against Israel to cut the flow of weapons facilitating genocide and war crimes in Gaza.

By María F. Fitzgerald  July 17, 2025  https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/30-countries-announce-israel-sanctions-and-renewed-legal-action-to-end-gaza-genocide/

Speaking about Palestine is speaking about resistance in the heart of horror. That is how Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, summed it up at an emergency conference in Bogotá, Colombia. The same Albanese who is currently facing sanctions imposed by the U.S. government for, according to them, making antisemitic remarks, after repeatedly denouncing the brutalities committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

Despite these accusations, Albanese remains firm in her denunciations. She reiterated on several occasions that we must not allow these actions to distract us from what truly matters: the genocide that, for the past twenty months, has escalated against the people of Gaza, and the massive human rights violations taking place across Palestine, which have left more than 60,000 people dead, most of them women and children.

“The global majority [also known as the Global South] has been the driving force behind actions against Israel’s genocide, with South Africa and Colombia playing key roles in this process,” she told Mondoweiss during a press conference on the first day of the Emergency Conference for Gaza, convened by the governments of Colombia and South Africa. “These actions have led to the creation of spaces for sanctions and resistance. What we’ve been insisting on all along is that more and more countries must join these efforts.”

The Hague Group coordinated this Emergency Conference, which brought together representatives from over 30 states, including China, Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Turkey, and Qatar. Initially formed by Colombia and South Africa, the group seeks to establish specific sanctions against Israel that, according to Colombia’s Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir, aim to move beyond discourse and into action.

Heads of state and their representatives emphasized that these sanctions are not retaliatory but are in full compliance with international humanitarian law. They are part of the international community’s commitment to ending the genocide. One of the central calls made was for more nations to join this effort and uphold their duty to defend human rights.

All 30 participating states unanimously agreed that “the era of impunity must end— and that international law must be enforced.” To begin this effort, 12 states from across the world — Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa — committed to implementing six key points:

1. Prevent the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel, as appropriate, to ensure that our industry does not contribute the tools to enable or facilitate genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international law.

2. Prevent the transit, docking, and servicing of vessels at any port, if applicable, within our territorial jurisdiction, while being fully compliant with applicable international law, including UNCLOS, in all cases where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel, to ensure that our territorial waters and ports do not serve as conduits for activities that enable or facilitate genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international law.

3. Prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag, while being fully compliant with applicable international law, including UNCLOS, ensuring full accountability, including de-flagging, for non-compliance with this prohibition, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

4. Commence an urgent review of all public contracts, in order to prevent public institutions and public funds, where applicable, from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to ensure that our nationals, and companies and entities under our jurisdiction, as well as our authorities, do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

5. Comply with our obligations to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with our obligation to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.

6. Support universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Both Jaramillo and Zane Dangor, Director-General of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation, emphasized that these actions must not be seen as reprisals, but rather as part of an international effort to break the global silence that has enabled atrocities in Palestine.

This decision is aligned with Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s renewed order to halt all coal exports from Colombia to Israel: “My government was betrayed, and that betrayal, among other things, cast doubt on my order to stop exporting coal to Israel. We are the world’s fifth-largest coal exporter, which means the country of life is helping to kill humanity. Colombian coal is still being shipped to Israel. We prohibited it, and yet we are being tricked into violating that decision. We cannot allow Colombian coal to be turned into bombs that help Israel kill children.”

In his closing speech, Petro reaffirmed that Colombia would break all arms trade relations with Israel and would continue to support the Palestinian people’s right to resist.

The legitimacy of the Hague Group and these decisions has also been backed by several multilateral organizations that have denounced the genocide. As Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla, Executive Secretary of the Hague Group, stated: “The International Criminal Court (ICC) has already clearly denounced the genocide. The United Nations has stated that Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth. What we lack now is not clarity, it’s courage. We need the bravery to take the necessary actions”.

These words were echoed by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Mansour, who emphasized that, together with the Madrid Group (a coalition of over 20 European and Arab countries also taking action against Israel and led by Spain), they could be the key to breaking Israel’s siege of horror: “This will not be an exercise in theatrical politics. The time has come for concrete, effective action to stop the crimes and end the profiteering from genocide. We will defeat these crimes against humanity and give the children who are still alive in Palestine a future full of promise, independence, and dignity. Recognizing Palestine is not a symbolic gesture, it is a concrete act of resistance against colonial expansion”.

His statement was followed by that of Palestinian-American doctor Thaer Ahmad, who worked in Nasser Hospital in Gaza and left the territory two months ago. In his testimony, he said he is certain that official death tolls do not even come close to reality, that Gaza is currently hell on Earth, and that every day the genocide continues brings devastating consequences for Palestinian children: “How can we look ourselves in the mirror? When this ends, if it ends, what will we say? ‘Sorry, we did everything we could’? They can’t afford to keep waiting for vague responses. They are surviving genocide every day. So now, how do we ensure that the effort to erase Palestinians from history does not succeed?”

Although the agreed-upon actions are significant, even the attending delegations acknowledge that their efforts will not be enough. Broader and more forceful measures are required. Yet, one day earlier, standing at the podium of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Francesca Albanese reaffirmed the historic importance of this event. She stated it could be: “A historical turning point that ends, with concrete measures, the genocide-based economy that has sustained Israel. I came to this meeting believing that the narrative is shifting. Hope must be a discipline that we all preserve.”

Correction: The original version of this article said that all 30 countries participating in the gathering had endorsed the six action points. The article has been updated to make clear that only 12 of the participating countries have committed to implementing the measures at this time.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Call for evidence on building nuclear for a new UK “golden age of clean energy abundance”

The UK is embarking on an ambitious programme of
investment in nuclear energy, seeking to reverse decades of declining
capacity. The Government is counting on new nuclear to help deliver energy
security and decarbonise electricity generation. Announcing funding for the
Sizewell C nuclear power plant in June, the Energy Secretary said “we
need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance.”

But past promises of a golden age of nuclear energy have failed to materialise.
A new reactor has not been connected to the grid for 30 years. Nuclear
projects have historically faced unique barriers, including complex
regulatory and planning processes. The Government now aims to deliver
reforms to streamline planning approvals and give greater certainty to
developers. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is now inviting
written submissions to help assess whether EN-7 provides a coherent and
effective framework for enabling the UK’s nuclear ambitions.

 Energy Security and Net Zero Committee 17th July 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/664/energy-security-and-net-zero-committee/news/208378/call-for-evidence-on-building-nuclear-for-a-new-uk-golden-age-of-clean-energy-abundance/

July 20, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

We’ll stop Nimbys from blocking nuclear power stations, say Tories.

The rule changes would see planning officers ignore all environmental
considerations when building a new nuclear site,

Party wants to make it impossible to challenge plans using environmental impact assessments or habitat regulations

 Nimbys will be stopped from blocking nuclear power stations in their area
under Tory plans. The party wants to end the “absurd” blocking of new
nuclear sites through environmental impact assessments or regulations on
habitats, and would make it impossible to challenge a new power station in
court.

The Tories have submitted amendments to the Government’s Planning
and Infrastructure Bill that would exempt nuclear power stations from being
blocked or delayed on environmental grounds, to speed up energy production
in the UK. They accused Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, of presiding
over “the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade” and called for
more nuclear power to meet the UK’s growing demand for electricity.

The rule changes would see planning officers ignore all environmental
considerations when building a new nuclear site, which is likely to anger
locals and lead to public opposition. Writing for The Telegraph, Claire
Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said the new Hinkley Point C power
station in Somerset is set to be the most expensive in history because of
“bureaucracy and rampant lawfarism”. “[There is] Endless lawfare,
environmental paperwork, and legal challenges that do little to protect
nature but create plenty of expensive work for planning consultants and
pencil-pushing bureaucrats,” she said. “Every single delay and absurd
mitigation measure adds more cost.”

The amendments would only become law
with the support of Labour MPs, which is not expected to happen. Labour has
previously said it will reform the same rules raised by the Conservatives,
but will not exempt them from judicial review or all environmental
assessments.

Responding to the Conservative proposal, Sam Richards, chief
executive of pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, said the UK had the
“worst of both worlds” with a planning system that does not protect
nature and slows down infrastructure projects. “These amendments are
radical, but the status quo where safe, clean nuclear power projects are
delayed and made more expensive due to repeated legal challenges and poorly
drafted environmental legislation is intolerable,” he said.

 Telegraph 18th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/18/tories-stop-nimbys-block-nuclear-power-hinkley-fish-disco/

July 20, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Ominous Plans: Making Concentration Camp Gaza

18 July 2025, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/ominous-plans-making-concentration-camp-gaza/

The odious idea of a camp within a camp. The Gaza Strip, with an even greater concentration of Palestinian civilian life within an ever-shrinking stretch of territory. These are the proposals ventured by the Israeli government even as the official Palestinian death toll marches upwards to 60,000. They envisage the placement of some 600,000 displaced and houseless beings currently living in tents in the area of al-Mawasi along Gaza’s southern coast in a creepily termed “humanitarian city”. This would be the prelude for an ultimate relocation of the strip’s entire population of over 2 million in an area that will become an even smaller prison than the Strip already is.

The preparation for such a forced removal – yet another among so many Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinians – is in full swing. The analysis of satellite imagery from the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) by Al Jazeera’s Sanad investigations unit found that approximately 12,800 buildings were demolished in Rafah between early April and early July alone. In the Knesset on May 11 this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave words to those deeds: “We are demolishing more and more [of their] homes, they have nowhere to return to. The only obvious result will be the desire of the Gazans to emigrate outside the Strip.”

Camps of concentrated human life – concentration camps, in other words – are often given a different dressing to what they are meant to be. Authoritarian states enjoy using them to re-educate and reform the inmates even as they gradually kill them. Indeed, the proposals from the Israel’s Defense Department carry with them plans for a “Humanitarian Transit Area” where Gazans would “temporarily reside, deradicalize, re-integrate, and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so.”

The emetic candy floss of “humanitarian” in the context of a camp is a self-negating nonsense similar to other experiments in cruelty: the relocation of Boer civilians during the colonial wars waged by Britain to camps which saw dysentery and starvation; the movement of Vietnamese villagers into fortified hamlets to prevent their infiltration by the Vietcong in the 1960s; the creation of Pacific concentration camps to detain refugees seeking Australia by boat in what came to be called the “Pacific Solution.”

Those in the business of doing humanitarian deeds were understandably appalled by Israel’s latest plans. Philippe Lazzarini, head of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), stated that this would “de facto create massive concentration camps at the border with Egypt for the Palestinians, displaced over and over across generations.” It would certainly “deprive Palestinians of any prospects of a better future in their homeland.” Self-evidently and sadly, that would be one of the main aims.

A few of Israeli’s former Prime Ministers have ditched the coloured goggles in considering the plans for such a mislabelled city. Yair Lapid, who spent a mere six months in office in 2022, told Israeli Army Radio that it was “a bad idea from every possible perspective – security, political, economic, logistical.” While preferring not to use the term “concentration camp” with regards such a construction, incarcerating individuals by effectively preventing their exit would make such a term appropriate.  

Ehud Olmert’s words to The Guardian were even less inclined to varnish the matter. “If they [the Palestinians] will be deported into the new ‘humanitarian city’, then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing.” To create a camp that would effectively “clean” more than half of Gaza of its population could hardly be understood as a plan to save Palestinians. “It is to deport them, to push and to throw them away. There is no other understanding that I have at least.”

Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg was also full of candour in expressing the view that the plan was “for all facts and purposes a concentration camp” for Gaza’s Palestinians, “an overt crime against humanity under international humanitarian law”. This would also add the burgeoning grounds of illegality already being alleged in this month’s petition by three Israeli reserve soldiers of Israel’s Supreme Court questioning the legality of Operation Gideon’s Chariots. Instancing abundant examples of forced transfer and expulsions of the Palestinian population during its various phases, commentators such as former chief of staff of the IDF, Moshe “Bogy” Ya’alon, are unreserved about how such programs fare before international law. “Evacuating an entire population? Call it ethnic cleansing, call it transfer, call it deportation, it’s a war crime,” he told journalist Lucy Aharish. “Israel’s soldiers had been sent in “to commit war crimes.”

There is also some resistance from within the IDF, less on humanitarian grounds than practical ones. To even prepare such a plan in the midst of negotiations for a lasting ceasefire and finally resolving the hostage situation was the first telling problem. The other was how the IDF could feasibly undertake what would be a grand jailing experiment while preventing the infiltration of Hamas.  

This ghastly push by the Netanyahu government involves an enormous amount of wishful thinking. Ideally, the Palestinians will simply leave. If not, they will live in even more carceral conditions than they faced before October 2023. But to assume that this cartoon strip humanitarianism, papered over a ghoulish program of inflicted suffering, will add to the emptying well of Israeli security, is testament to how utterly desperate, and delusionary, the Israeli PM and his cabinet members have become.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Cognitive collapse and the nuclear codes: When leaders lose control

Date:July 17, 2025, Source: University of Otago, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/07/250717013857.htm

Summary:

A shocking study reveals that many leaders of nuclear-armed nations—including US presidents and Israeli prime ministers—were afflicted by serious health problems while in office, sometimes with their conditions hidden from the public. From dementia and depression to addiction and chronic diseases, these impairments may have affected their decision-making during pivotal global crises.

The research underscores the need for greater transparency, better safeguards for nuclear decisions, and reforms such as mandatory health evaluations and shared launch authority to reduce global security risks. Credit: Shutterstock

Many former leaders of the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations were impaired by health conditions while in office, raising concerns over their decision-making abilities while they had access to nuclear weapon launch codes, a study from the University of Otago, New Zealand, has found.

The study analyzed the health information of 51 deceased leaders of nuclear-armed countries: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Eight of the leaders died from chronic disease while still in office, five from heart attacks or strokes. Many of the leaders had multiple serious health issues while in office, including dementia, personality disorders, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.

The research was led by Professor Nick Wilson, from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, Wellington – Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Pōneke, with Associate Professor George Thomson and independent researcher Dr Matt Boyd. Professor Wilson says that of the leaders who left office while still alive, 15 had confirmed or possible health issues which likely hastened their departure.

“Probably all of this group of 15 leaders had their performance in office impaired by their health conditions. In some cases, the degree of impairment was profound, such as in the case of two former Israeli Prime Ministers: Ariel Sharon, who became comatose after suffering a stroke in office, and Menachem Begin, whose depression was so severe he spent his last year as leader isolated in his home. Impairment during crises was also seen in the case of Richard Nixon’s bouts of heavy drinking – including during a nuclear crisis involving the Middle East.

“There have also been occasions where health information about leaders has been kept secret at the time.”

This was the case for multiple US presidents, including Dwight D Eisenhower, whose doctor described his 1955 heart attack as a digestive upset; John F Kennedy, whose aides lied about him having Addison’s disease, a serious, chronic condition; and Ronald Reagan, whose administration hid the extent of his injuries after he was shot in 1981, and the likely signs of his dementia near the end of his term.

Professor Wilson says Kennedy was in poor health during his first two years in office in 1961 and 1962, with his performance likely impaired from Addison’s disease, back pain, and his use of anabolic steroids and amphetamines. It was in 1961 that he authorized the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and that his poor performance at a Cold War summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was noted. In turn, Khrushchev’s poor mental health probably contributed to him triggering both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In France, long-serving President François Mitterrand clung onto power until the end of his term in 1995, despite keeping secret his advanced prostate cancer and after his doctor had concluded in late 1994 that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties. This latest study follows previous research involving Professor Wilson on the health of former New Zealand Prime Ministers. It found the performance of at least four of the leaders was impaired, in three cases by poor health, and, in the case of Robert Muldoon, by his heavy drinking.

Professor Wilson says with the rise in international instability following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it has become even more important to ensure there is good leadership and governance in those countries with nuclear weapons.

“This is particularly the case for the United States, where a leader can in principle authorize the release of nuclear weapons on their own, a situation referred to as a ‘nuclear monarchy’.”

He says there are a range of measures which could reduce global security risks from leaders whose judgement is in question. They include removing nuclear weapons from ‘high alert’ status, adopting ‘no first use’ policies where nations refrain from using nuclear weapons except as a retaliatory second strike, ensuring any weapon launches need authorization by multiple people, and progressing nuclear disarmament treaties.

Professor Wilson says democracies could consider introducing term limits for their leaders, as well as recall systems, so voters could petition for politicians to step down. Requirements for medical and psychological assessments could be introduced for leaders before they take office, and during their terms.

“Maintaining a strong media with investigative journalists can also help expose impairment in leaders.”

Professor Wilson says politicians in general are exposed to high levels of stress, which can affect their mental well-being. A study of UK Members of Parliament has found they were 34 per cent more likely to experience mental health problems than other high-income earners.

“Finding ways to reduce stress on politicians and better address their mental health needs is another way global security risks can be reduced.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Otago. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Nick Wilson, George Thomson, Matt Boyd. The frequently impaired health of leaders of nuclear weapon states: an analysis of 51 deceased leaders. BMC Research Notes, 2025; 18 (1) DOI: 10.1186/s13104-025-07351-8

July 19, 2025 Posted by | psychology - mental health | Leave a comment

New reports cast doubt on impact of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites

Citing intelligence assessments, NBC News and Washington Post report that only Fordow site was destroyed in US attack.

US Secretary of Defense attacks media for questioning Iran strikes

By Al Jazeera Staff, 18 Jul 202518 Jul 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/18/new-reports-cast-doubt-on-impact-of-us-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-sites

Washington, DC – New media reports in the United States, citing intelligence assessments, have cast doubt over President Donald Trump’s assertion that Washington’s military strikes last month “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Washington Post and NBC News reported that US officials were saying that only one of the three Iranian nuclear sites – the Fordow facility – targeted by the US has been destroyed.

The Post’s report, released on Friday, also raised questions on whether the centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the deepest level of Fordow were destroyed or moved before the attack.

“We definitely can’t say it was obliterated,” an unidentified official told the newspaper, referring to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Trump has insisted that the US strikes were a “spectacular” success, lashing out at any reports questioning the level of damage they inflicted on Iran’s nuclear programme.

An initial US intelligence assessment, leaked to several media outlets after the attack last month, said the strikes failed to destroy key components of Iran’s nuclear programme and only delayed its work by months.

But the Pentagon said earlier in July that the attacks degraded the Iranian programme by one to two years.

While the strikes on Fordow – initially thought to be the most guarded facility, buried inside a mountain – initially took centre stage, the NBC News and Washington Post reports suggested that the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan also had deep tunnels.

‘Impenetrable’

The US military did not use enormous bunker-busting bombs against the Isfahan site and targeted surface infrastructure instead.

A congressional aide familiar with intelligence briefings told the Post that the Pentagon had assessed that the underground facilities at Isfahan were “pretty much impenetrable”.

The Pentagon responded to both reports by reiterating that all three sites were “completely and totally obliterated”.

Israel, which started the war by attacking Iran without direct provocation last month, has backed the US administration’s assessment, while threatening further strikes against Tehran if it resumes its nuclear programme.

For its part, Tehran has not provided details about the state of its nuclear sites.

Some Iranian officials have said that the facilities sustained significant damage from US and Israeli attacks. But Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said after the war that Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the strikes.

The location and state of Iran’s highly enriched uranium also remain unknown.

Iran’s nuclear agency and regulators in neighbouring states have said they did not detect a spike in radioactivity after the bombings, suggesting the strikes did not result in uranium contamination.

But Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, did not rule out that the uranium containers may have been damaged in the attacks.

“We don’t know where this material could be or if part of it could have been under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told CBS News last month.

According to Grossi, Iran could resume uranium enrichment in a “matter of months”.

The war

Israel launched a massive attack against Iran on June 13, killing several top military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.

The bombing campaign targeted military sites, civilian infrastructure and residential buildings across the country, killing hundreds of civilians.

Iran responded with barrages of missiles against Israel that left widespread destruction and claimed the lives of at least 29 people.

The US joined the Israeli campaign on June 22, striking the three nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against an air base housing US troops in Qatar.

Initially, Trump said the Iranian attack was thwarted, but after satellite images showed damage at the base, the Pentagon acknowledged that one of the missiles was not intercepted.

“One Iranian ballistic missile impacted Al Udeid Air Base June 23 while the remainder of the missiles were intercepted by US and Qatari air defence systems,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Al Jazeera in an email last week.

Advertisement

“The impact did minimal damage to equipment and structures on the base. There were no injuries.”

After a ceasefire was reached to end the 12-day war, both the US and Iran expressed willingness to engage in diplomacy to resolve the nuclear file. But talks have not materialised.

Iran and the US were periodically holding nuclear talks before Israel launched its war in June.

During his first term in 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The agreement saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

In recent days, European officials have suggested that they could impose “snap-back” sanctions against Iran as part of the deal that has long been violated by the US.

Tehran, which started enriching uranium beyond the limits set by the JCPOA after the US withdrawal, insists that Washington was the party that nixed the agreement, stressing that the deal acknowledges Iran’s enrichment rights.

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he held talks with the top diplomats of France, the United Kingdom and Germany – known as the E3 – as well as the European Union’s high representative.

Araghchi said Europeans should put aside “worn-out policies of threat and pressure”.

“It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal – coordinated by EU in 2015 – not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a military option instead, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister said in a social media post.

“Any new round of talks is only possible when the other side is ready for a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial nuclear deal.”

Tehran denies seeking a nuclear bomb. Israel, meanwhile, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Miliband bets on nuclear fusion in bid to lead (?)clean power race.

Energy Secretary to make it easier for developers to build reactors with planning shake-up

 Ed Miliband has taken a bet on nuclear fusion one day powering Britain by
making it easier for developers to build new reactors with minimal planning
restrictions.

Fusion plants are to be included in the UK’s national
infrastructure planning system, meaning they can be built in any part of
Britain without needing consent from local authorities and with little
opportunity for local people to object. Mr Miliband said the aim was to
ensure fusion, if it ever works, could rapidly become part of the UK energy
system.

 Telegraph 18th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/18/miliband-bets-on-nuclear-fusion-by-making-it-easier-to-buil/

July 19, 2025 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

‘Keeping us hooked on fossil fuels’: how can we negotiate with autocracies on the climate crisis?

 When it comes to the climate crisis, how do you negotiate with an
autocracy? It is the case today, and it is almost certain to remain so for
the dwindling number of years in which we can hope to stave off the worst
of climate breakdown, that the bulk of the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions come from countries that are not democratic. Add to that, many of
the major suppliers of oil and gas – the Gulf petrostates for instance,
plus Russia, Venezuela and a few others – are likewise authoritarian.
Their outsize impact puts autocratic nations in the spotlight when it comes
to global climate talks. How their governments decide to act will be
crucial to the planet’s future. But while democracies are subject to the
whims of electorates, which can often be unpredictable, autocratic nations
tend to be far more inscrutable. Take the small handful of the world’s
biggest fossil fuel companies, referred to as the “carbon majors”. They
hold our future in their hands, and of the top 20 with the biggest carbon
output globally, 16 are state-owned and were responsible for 52% of global
emissions in 2023.

 Guardian 18th July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/18/climate-crisis-fossil-fuels-autocracies-authoritorian-countries

July 19, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Trump’s nuclear power push weakens regulator and poses safety risks, former officials warn

Spencer Kimball, Jul 17 2025

Key Points

Former NRC commissioners say the order threatens the regulator’s independence, raising safety concerns that could undermine public confidence.

President Donald Trump has ordered an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, part of his push to quadruple nuclear power in the U.S. by 2050.

The order requires the NRC to make decisions on nuclear plants within 18 months, completely revise its regulations and reduce its staff.

Former NRC commissioners say the order threatens the
regulator’s independence, raising safety concerns that could undermine
public confidence. President Donald Trump’s push to approve nuclear
plants as quickly as possible threatens to weaken the independent regulator
tasked with protecting public health and safety, former federal officials
warn.

Trump issued four sweeping executive orders in May that aim to
quadruple nuclear power by 2050 in the U.S. The White House and the
technology industry view nuclear as powerful source of reliable electricity
that can help meet the growing energy needs of artificial intelligence.

The most consequential of Trump’s orders aims to slash regulations and speed
up power plant approvals through an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The NRC is an independent agency established by Congress in
1975 to make sure that nuclear reactors are deployed and operated safely.
Trump accuses the NRC of “risk aversion” in his order, blaming the
regulator for how few nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. over the
past three decades. The president says that the NRC is focused on
protecting the public from “the most remote risks,” arguing that such a
cautious approach to approving plants restricts access to reliable
electricity.

 CNBC 17th July 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/17/trumps-nuclear-power-push-weakens-regulator-and-poses-safety-risks-former-officials-warn.html

July 19, 2025 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C | Investor withdraws from consortium set for 25% stake.

17 Jul, 2025 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-investor-withdraws-from-consortium-set-for-25-stake-17-07-2025/

One of the investors reported to be considering a stake in Sizewell C has decided to withdraw, while the government is no longer planning to classify nuclear energy as “sustainable”.

Schroders Greencoat, which describes itself as “a specialist renewables infrastructure investor”, was previously reported to be one of the companies considering an ownership stake in Sizewell C.

It was widely reported that Schroders Greencoat was one of the companies in the consortium led by Brookfield Asset Management, which was in total considering a 25% stake in the nuclear power plant.

In an email dated 16 July seen by NCE, the investor said it no longer wishes to invest in the project on the Suffolk coast.

Wait for final investment decision continues

Sizewell C must achieve its final investment decision (FID) before main construction can start.

Despite the delay, Sizewell C has committed over £2.5bn on contracts.

The scale of the works are now visible to the public via aerial images taken in April 2025 published on Google Earth and Maps.

It is now expected that the final investment decision will be taken this summer.

Nuclear dropped from sustainable finance classification plans

The UK Government recently decided to not go ahead with plans to create a UK Green Taxonomy for financial investments, meaning that it won’t have a specific classification of certain areas of activity, like nuclear power, as “sustainable”.

This had been a plan hatched by former chancellor Jeremy Hunt in the 2023 Spring Budget, but NCE found that no work had gone towards this 16 months later.

HM Treasury economic secretary to the treasury and city minister Emma Reynolds announced the decision in the UK Green Taxonomy Consultation Response.

“To make sure the UK is well-positioned to capture [growth in the green economy], the government is delivering a world-leading sustainable finance framework,” Reynolds said.

“This includes ensuring that we have the right tools in place and the proportionate regulation that is needed to support the transition, strengthening the UK’s position as the sustainable finance capital of the world so that the UK can lead the clean energy transition at home and abroad.

“That is why, after careful consideration, the government has concluded that a UK Taxonomy would not be the most effective tool to deliver the green transition and should not be part of our sustainable finance framework.

“Whilst our ambitions to continue as a global leader remain unchanged, the consultation responses showed that other policies were of higher priority to accelerate investment into the transition to net zero and limit greenwashing.”

It is understood that the decision to drop plans for the taxonomy may have contributed to Schroders Greencoat’s withdrawal from investing in Sizewell C.

Anti-Sizewell C campaign attributes withdrawal to taxonomy decision

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “It’s welcome news that Schroders Greencoat won’t be investing in Sizewell C.

Based on our dialogue with Schroders, we attribute this to the government deciding not to adopt a green taxonomy, which thankfully has the outcome that nuclear energy cannot be erroneously labelled ‘green’.

“We wish that other investors would take the same view and exit Sizewell C forthwith.”

No comment from parties to negotiations

The negotiations around the final investment decision are often described as commercially sensitive, and as such the government doesn’t tend to comment.

This hasn’t stopped sources informing the media about certain parts of the negotiations, like the report in the FT that the government is now taking a minority ownership stake.

The Department for Net Zero and Energy Security, Sizewell C and Schroders Greencoat did not supply a comment.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

THE END FOR ZELENSKY?

Washington wants the Ukrainian president to leave office—will it happen?

Seymour Hersh, Jul 19, 2025

In fall of 2023, Ukrainian General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of the country’s armed forces, gave an interview to the Economist and declared the war with Russia had become a “stalemate.” It took three months for President Volodymyr Zelensky to fire him. The general, who is the most popular public figure in Ukraine, was named ambassador to London a month later and has served there with distinction, if quietly.

Zaluzhnyi is now seen as the most credible successor to Zelensky. I have been told by knowledgeable officials in Washington that that job could be his within a few months. Zelensky is on a short list for exile, if President Donald Trump decides to make the call. If Zelensky refuses to leave his office, as is most likely, an involved US official told me: “He’s going to go by force. The ball is in his court.” There are many in Washington and in Ukraine who believe that the escalating air war with Russia must end soon, while there’s still a chance to make a settlement with its president, Vladimir Putin………………………………………………………… (Subscribers only) https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/the-end-for-zelensky?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1377040&post_id=168643905&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

∙

July 19, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Trump Asked Zelensky If He Could Strike Moscow If the US Provided Longer-Range Weapons.

Trump later denied that he was considering sending long-range weapons to Ukraine and said that Ukraine shouldn’t target Moscow

by Dave DeCamp | Jul 15, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/07/15/trump-asked-zelensky-if-he-could-strike-moscow-if-the-us-provided-longer-range-weapons/

President Trump has encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep inside Russia and even asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky if his forces were capable of striking Moscow if the US provided longer-range weapons, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.

Sources told the FT that the conversation occurred during a July 4 phone call. “Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked. Zelensky replied that his forces could “absolutely” strike the Russian cities if the US provided the necessary weapons.

The report said that Trump signaled backing for the idea of providing long-range weapons in order to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” to pressure Moscow at the negotiating table. In comments to reporters, Trump later denied that he was considering providing Ukraine with long-range weapons and said that Zelensky “shouldn’t target Moscow.”

The White House confirmed that the conversation about striking Moscow took place, but insisted Trump wasn’t encouraging Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. A White House official told the BBC that Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He’s working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.”

The FT report said that US officials have also provided Zelensky with a list of potential long-range weapons the US could supply. The Ukrainians have been asking for Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of over 1,000 miles, making them capable of hitting Moscow from Ukrainian territory.

Last year, the Biden administration gave Ukraine the green light to use ATACMS missiles in strikes on Russian territory. The ATACMS have a range of about 190 miles, which is not far enough to hit Moscow. Russia has made clear that attacks on its territory risk nuclear escalation since it lowered the threshold for its use of nuclear weapons in response to the US backing the ATACMS attacks.

The revelation about the Trump-Zelensky call came after the US president announced a new plan to provide Ukraine with “billions of dollars” worth of weapons by selling arms to NATO countries that will then transfer them to the war-torn nation. He also threatened major tariffs on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal isn’t reached in 50 days, an ultimatum Moscow has rejected.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ian Fairlea critiques New Study on Cancers near UK nuclear facilities

July 16, 2025, https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/new-study-on-cancers-near-uk-nuclear-facilities/

A recent UK study Davies et al (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 has concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities.

This is my initial quick response to this study.

In my view, the new study  has several limitations which inhibit its use a guide to nuclear policy.

First, as the authors admit, it’s an ecological study – the weakest kind of epidemiological study which just looks at incidence data from UK National Statistical tables.  It is much better (but more time-consuming and expensive) to conduct a case-control  study, or even better a cohort  study.

But their discussion refrains from discussing in detail the much better 2008 German KIKK study which was a case-control study and which actually observed a doubling of leukaemia risks and a 60% increase in solid cancer risks near all German NPPs.

Second the study’s methodology is flawed for several reasons. The authors chose (or were instructed to use) a large 25 km radius around UK NPPs even though the better KiKK study showed that almost all cancer cases resided much closer to the NPPs ie within 5 km with very few cases beyond. Also almost  all UK nuclear facilities are on the coast. That means about half the catchment areas here consist of the sea and of course there are no cancer cases there.

The results are that the signal (cancer cases) is diluted …and therefore no increases are detected. It’s almost as if the study were constructed with the aim of not finding any increases. This is not good science.

Third the study refrains from discussing many scientific references by Korblein, by Laurier et al (one is mentioned but their more important ones are not), by myself, and by others,  and as stated above the Kikk study. This is evidence of a biased approach, sorry to say.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »