Sizewell C Inquiry
House of Commons 23rd March 2026,
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9713/sizewell-c/
Sizewell C is a planned large-scale nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Funded by the government in partnership with the energy provider EDF, as well as private finance, the project is projected to cost £40.5bn to £47.7bn. When constructed, it will have a generating capacity of 3.2GW, meaning it will be able to generate around 7% of the UK’s current electricity demand.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) previously reported on the government’s deal with EDF to construct a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, the site with Sizewell C will be based on. The PAC were concerned that that government’s negotiations were not championing the interests of consumers, who might be locked into an expensive deal for decades, and warned that the poorest would likely be the hardest hit. In its response, the Government accepted all of the PAC’s recommendations and stated the actions it planned to take in response.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish its report on Sizewell C in spring 2026. Following the NAO’s investigation, which is likely to examine the government’s current spend, as well as the potential risks to achieving value for taxpayer’s money, the PAC will hear from senior officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Sizewell C on the reports key findings.
If you have evidence on these issues, please submit here by 23.59 on Monday 18 May 2026.
Please note that the Committee’s inquiry cannot assist with individual cases. If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to read the information on Parliament’s website about who you can contact with different issues.
Macron slams ‘unacceptable’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon
The French president stressed that the Jewish state’s military operation violates international law and will not enhance its security.
20 Mar, 2026, https://www.rt.com/news/635660-macron-condemns-israel-lebanon-attacks/
Israel’s ongoing military operation in Lebanon violates international law, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.
Speaking at a European Council press conference in Brussels on Thursday, Macron also criticized the attacks on Israel being carried out by Lebanese-based militant movement Hezbollah, which has vowed to avenge the US-Israeli killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Macron rejected the notion that a third party could resolve the conflict with the Iran-linked group through force, emphasizing that only Lebanese authorities have the legitimacy to address the issue.
“We don’t think that the fight against Hezbollah and the removal of its weapons can be carried out by a third power,” Macron told reporters. “We believe that Israel’s ground military operation and bombardments are inappropriate and even unacceptable in terms of international law and the interests of both the Lebanese and Israel’s long-term security.”
Macron also pointed out that Israel has conducted similar operations in Lebanon for years without ever producing the “expected results.”
The French leader’s comments come as Israel has expanded its military campaign against Hezbollah following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran that began late last month. The Israel Defense Forces announced “limited and targeted ground operations against key Hezbollah strongholds” earlier this week, escalating cross-border hostilities that have already claimed hundreds of lives.
Lebanese authorities report that Israeli strikes have killed over 880 people over the past two weeks, with more than 2,000 injured and over 1 million displaced. The strikes have targeted residential districts, a UN peacekeeping position, and a Russian cultural center in the southern city of Nabatieh.
On Thursday, RT correspondent Steve Sweeney and his cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity were also injured in what appeared to be a deliberate Israeli airstrike on their filming position, despite them wearing clearly labeled press uniforms.
Moscow has condemned Israel over the strike, with Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stressing that the attack on journalists wearing press markings “cannot be called accidental given the killing of two hundred journalists in Gaza.”
US Congress near totally complicit in Trump’s criminal Iran war.
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 17 March 26
There are 533 congresspersons (2 vacancies) all of whom have allowed Trump to launch his immoral, criminal war on Iran that has failed. Not a single one called out Trump’s criminality before his clear, obvious decision to invade.
Virtually all 271 Republicans are either supportively silent about its criminality or are, like Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Ted Cruz, ecstatic Trump finally launched the war they have e spent years promoting. Even the lone antiwar Republicans, Senator Rand Paul and Representative Tom Massie, avoid calling out Trump’s criminality by focusing on his usurping Congress’ constitutional power to declare war.
Aside from fanatical Democratic war supporter Senator John Fetterman, the other 261 Democrats oppose the war for two political reasons. They support Rand Paul and Tom Massie’s constitutional argument regarding Congressional primacy in declaring war. But they are more motivated by using the war’s failure and rising US gas prices to demolish the Trump presidency and regain Democratic control of Congress this November. Their cynicism ignoring Trump’s international law criminality killing thousands including 13 US military, causing massive destruction in Iran, Israel and the Gulf States, pushing the world economy into decline is both stunning and reprehensible.
President Trump is a monstrous war criminal who, in a just world, would be answering to his war crimes in the dock at The Hague. But the 533 cowardly congresspersons who either support Trump’s war crimes or simply use them to collapse his presidency are near fully complicit in them. When the war ends and the wages of his sins are totaled up, President Trump can look toward the 533 congresspersons on Capitol Hill and beam…’Couldn’t have done it without you.’
Scottish National Party face an uphill battle in home of UK’s nuclear subs
FIVE years ago, the SNP fell just one seat short of an overall majority in
the Scottish Parliament, and it perhaps isn’t over-egging the hyperbole to
suggest the one seat in question was Dumbarton.
Of the 11 constituency
seats across the country that the SNP failed to win, Dumbarton was the only
one they should have taken on the basis of national trends. After the
knife-edge result in the previous election, they required less than a 0.2%
swing from Labour to gain the seat, which was below the modest swing from
Labour to SNP of just over 1% that was actually achieved Scotland-wide.
But locally voters bolted in completely the opposite direction, and Labour’s
incumbent MSP Jackie Baillie increased her margin of victory to almost four
percentage points. It can’t be denied that many businesses in Helensburgh
do extremely well out of the presence of a facility that ultimately only
exists to give the UK Government the ability to obliterate foreign cities
at the press of a button.
That very specific type of dependence on the
status quo has created a large segment of the local electorate that is
highly motivated to thwart a party that not only wants Scotland to leave
the UK, but also wants its nuclear weapons to be banished from local
shores.
The National 18th March 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25948137.snp-face-uphill-battle-home-uks-nuclear-subs/
Principled: Trump-appointed counterterrorism director Joe Kent resigns in protest over US war with Iran
ZeroHedge, 17 Mar 2026
In a massive break from President Trump and MAGA, Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), announced his immediate resignation on Tuesday, citing irreconcilable opposition to the ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran.
Kent declared he could not “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” stating unequivocally that Iran posed “no imminent threat to our nation” and that the conflict was initiated “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” The move comes weeks into active strikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites, leadership, and infrastructure, with Iranian retaliation underway and global oil markets feeling the strain.
Kent, a retired Green Beret with 11 combat deployments, former CIA paramilitary officer, and Gold Star husband who lost his wife Shannon in a 2019 ISIS-claimed suicide bombing in Syria, framed his exit as a defense of the “America First” principles Trump championed during his 2016, 2020, and 2024 campaigns. He praised Trump’s first term for decisively striking Qasem Soleimani and defeating ISIS without escalating into endless wars, noting that until June 2025, Trump recognized Middle East conflicts as a “trap” draining American lives and wealth. However, Kent alleges that “early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign” that undermined Trump’s platform, deceived him into believing Iran posed an imminent threat with a “clear path to a swift victory,” and echoed tactics used to draw the U.S. into the “disastrous Iraq war.” He explicitly compares the current situation to Iraq, warning against repeating the mistake that cost thousands of American lives.
“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people,” Kent wrote.
The resignation carries profound weight as Kent was a Senate-confirmed Trump loyalist installed in July 2025, not a career holdover. As head of the NCTC – tasked with assessing terrorist threats from Iranian proxies and beyond – Kent is directly challenging the administration’s justification for the conflict. The letter, addressed personally to the president and thanking DNI Tulsi Gabbard, signals deeper fractures in the MAGA coalition or prompts a policy pivot, Kent’s bombshell exit underscores the high personal and political stakes of America’s latest Middle East engagement.
The resignation effectively places Kent within a growing bloc of Republican lawmakers who have opposed the Iran campaign from the outset, elevating what had been a vocal but limited faction into a more institutionally significant challenge to the administration’s approach.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), longtime advocates of non-interventionist “America First” foreign policy, were among the earliest critics of the strikes, warning they risk entangling the U.S. in another costly and open-ended Middle East conflict. Both have argued in recent weeks that the operation mirrors the strategic missteps that led to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, calling for de-escalation and greater congressional oversight.
The most prominent political voice amplifying that message has been Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who has emerged as one of the war’s fiercest critics within Trump’s base. Since the first strikes in late February, Greene has repeatedly denounced the operation in media appearances and on social platforms, calling it a betrayal of Trump’s campaign pledge to avoid new foreign entanglements.
On Saturday, Greene told CNN that the Republican base is fractured“along generational lines.”
“Many of the older Americans from the Baby Boomer generation that watch Fox News all day long very much believe the talking points on Fox News, and they have spent decades of their lives convinced that fighting these wars is the right thing to do,” she explained.
Meanwhile, the knives are out. Trump’s former Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said that Kent is a “crazed egomaniac who was often at the center of national security leaks, while rarely (never?) producing any actual work.”
Macron accosted
Moment rattled Emmanuel Macron is confronted by activists who storm stage during nuclear summit
By PERKIN AMALARAJ, FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER, Daily Mail,14 March 2026
The protesters, dressed sharply in black suits and ties, interrupted Macron and UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi as they were greeting heads of state today.
They held banners bearing the Greenpeace logo and reading ‘Nuclear Power = Energy Insecurity’ and ‘Nuclear power fuels Russia‘s war.’
One of them shouted at Macron, ‘Why are we still buying uranium from Russia?’ to which the president replied, ‘We produce nuclear power ourselves.’
France has its own uranium enrichment capacity, but also imports enriched uranium for its power plants, including from Russia, according to the latest customs data published by the French government.
Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom accounted for about 44% of the global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, according to the World Nuclear Association.
European nuclear power producers have struggled to wean themselves off these supplies four years after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Around 15 Greenpeace activists blocked arriving convoys outside the venue in Boulogne-Billancourt on the outskirts of Paris on Tuesday, the environmental campaigning group said in a statement.
France is hosting the second world nuclear energy summit on Tuesday, where world leaders will meet to discuss and promote nuclear power.
The protesters, dressed sharply in black suits and ties, interrupted President Emmanuel Macron and UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi as they were greeting heads of state today
One of them shouted at Macron, ‘Why are we still buying uranium from Russia?’
‘For Greenpeace France, the holding of such a summit is an anachronism, an event completely out of touch with reality and with the lessons to be learned from the tragic situations of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the strikes on Iran, and the impacts of the worsening climate disruption,’ the group said.
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen today called Europe’s turn away from civilian nuclear power a ‘strategic mistake’, arguing that the Middle East war had exposed the continent’s fossil fuel ‘vulnerability’.
‘It was a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emission power,’ she said at the opening of a nuclear energy summit just outside Paris as the US-Israeli war with Iran entered its second week.
‘For fossil fuels, we are completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports. They are putting us at a structural disadvantage to other regions,’ she said at the summit, which aims to boost the use of civilian nuclear energy.
‘The current Middle East crisis gives a stark reminder of the vulnerability it creates,’ she added.
‘We have home-grown low-carbon energy sources: nuclear and renewables. And together, they can become the joint guarantors of independence, security of supply, and competitiveness – if we get it right.’
Macron struck a similar note, saying civilian nuclear power helped provide energy sovereignty.
France has its own uranium enrichment capacity, but also imports enriched uranium for its power plants, including from Russia,…………………………………………………………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15631733/Moment-rattled-Emmanuel-Macron-confronted-activists-storm-stage-nuclear-summit.html
“AIPAC Is Toxic”: Illinois Races Expose a Shifting Democratic Landscape
SCHEERPOST, March 8, 2026 Joshua Scheer
The shift comes amid growing criticism of the pro-Israel lobby. Senator Chris Van Hollen recently telling a Jewish audience at a J Street conference that the actions of American Israel Public Affairs Committee were “un-American.”
A growing divide over the war with Iran is emerging inside Democratic politics and within AIPAC itself, and nowhere is it more visible than in Illinois.
According to reporting by Jewish Currents, several Democratic congressional candidates in Illinois who are backed by the powerful pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have publicly criticized the U.S. attack on Iran—despite the lobby’s strong support for the military action.
The break highlights a political dilemma for AIPAC as it pours millions of dollars into Democratic primary races across the country in an effort to maintain strong congressional backing for Israel.
AIPAC praised Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran, describing the move as “decisive.” But the Democratic candidates the group has supported in Illinois have largely taken the opposite position, condemning the U.S. attack while carefully avoiding direct criticism of Israel’s role in the conflict.
Among them is Illinois State Senator Laura Fine, who warned that Trump’s decision could send the Middle East into further chaos and suggested the president’s actions were grounds for impeachment. Other AIPAC-backed candidates—including former congresswoman Melissa Bean, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, and Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears‑Ervin—also criticized the strikes, describing them as unconstitutional, dangerous, or an immoral “war of choice.”
Yet none of the candidates have openly challenged Israel’s involvement in the conflict, reflecting the delicate balancing act facing Democrats who rely on AIPAC support while campaigning in districts where Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the war.
Political analysts say that tension is not accidental. Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, noted that Democratic voters are strongly against the war.
A recent poll by The Washington Post found that roughly 87 percent of Democrats oppose the conflict with Iran. As a result, many candidates are directing their criticism at Trump rather than confronting AIPAC or Israel directly.
“They have to be careful if they want to keep AIPAC support,” Duss explained.
The same political dynamic is playing out in several other races. In New York, Representative Dan Goldman, who has received backing from AIPAC, criticized Trump for defying the Constitution in launching the attack but did not mention Israel. Goldman is currently facing a progressive challenge from former New York City comptroller Brad Lander.
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Representative Valerie Foushee narrowly defeated progressive challenger Nida Allam in a Democratic primary where the Iran war emerged as a late campaign issue. Allam ran television ads highlighting her opposition to the war and criticizing Foushee for accepting donations from defense contractors. Foushee also opposed the war and attempted to distance herself from AIPAC during the race.
Progressive candidates have seen stronger results in other states. In Texas, Reverend Frederick Haynes won the Democratic primary in the heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Haynes has been outspoken in criticizing Israeli policies in Gaza and has also opposed the war with Iran.
Advocates on the left say the results reflect a broader shift within Democratic politics. Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said recent primaries demonstrate how rapidly the political landscape is changing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
In a joint statement, several progressive candidates—including Peters, Ahmed, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, and union organizer Anthony Driver—accused Trump of dragging the United States into what they described as an unnecessary war backed by AIPAC, and called on their opponents to reject the lobby’s “pro-war agenda.”……………………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/08/aipac-is-toxic-illinois-races-expose-a-shifting-democratic-landscape/
As proposals for nuclear stations proliferate across Canada, ‘fleet-based’ reactor deployment remains elusive.
The Ontario government announced last summer a body called the New Nuclear Technology Panel, composed of senior executives from OPG, Bruce Power and the government, and instructed it to co-ordinate a technology selection decision. But the panel has not been established, and there is no timeline for doing so.
among those few proponents that have publicly committed to specific models, at least three have already wavered on their decisions. The situation underlines how tentative plans for nuclear expansion in Canada remain
Matthew McClearn, 9 March 26, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nuclear-stations-canada-fleet-based-reactor-deployment-remains-elusive/
In the nuclear industry it is practically gospel: Canada isn’t populous or wealthy enough to purchase a smorgasbord of different nuclear reactors. Yet after years of lukewarm efforts by Canadian utilities and governments to reach a consensus on which ones to buy, there are few indications that one is emerging.
In January, Saskatchewan’s government announced it had begun evaluating large nuclear reactors for potential deployment. Jeremy Harrison, a minister whose responsibilities include the Crown-owned SaskPower, said the utility will study the readiness of reactors to be built, vendors’ ability to support licensing and construction, and their track record of executing previous projects.
Ontario’s utilities have been asking similar questions for several years. In 2023 Bruce Power began hunting for a reactor for Bruce C, a proposed four-unit station at its facility near Tiverton, Ont. Ontario Power Generation recently began its own search for a huge plant dubbed Wesleyville, planned in Port Hope, Ont.
Observers have long warned that given Canada’s population and economy, utilities, private developers and provinces must co-ordinate procurement of reactors – an approach sometimes dubbed “fleet-based deployment.” But it hasn’t arrived yet.
Indeed, among those few proponents that have publicly committed to specific models, at least three have already wavered on their decisions. The situation underlines how tentative plans for nuclear expansion in Canada remain, even as governments forecast spiking demand for electricity in the immediate future and consider their options for generating that power.
All 25 reactors built in Canada during the 1960s through the 1990s featured Canada deuterium uranium (Candu) technology developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation. One benefit was that later Candus, such as those at the Bruce B and Darlington stations, proved significantly more reliable than earlier ones in that they suffered fewer outages. Similar dynamics applied when those stations required midlife overhauls. Another advantage was that utilities could share operational experience through the Candu Owners Group (now known as Conexus Nuclear).
By the time the federal government began promoting small modular reactors (SMRs), though, the Candu’s monopoly seemed precarious, and international vendors arrived promoting early-stage designs. In 2018 the government published a “roadmap” for SMRs, recommending stakeholders settle on a small number of finalized designs.
Jeremy Whitlock, a nuclear consultant and adjunct professor at McMaster University, wrote in an e-mailed response to questions that fleet-based deployment is vital for nuclear. “There is simply not enough infrastructure, resources, and (currently at least) work force to support multiple lines of technology,” he wrote.
A report released in February by Clean Prosperity, a Toronto-based energy and climate policy think tank, asserted that one necessary precondition for nuclear expansion is that all proponents converge on three designs at most: one “large” design with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more (enough to power a large city), one “small” reactor with an output around 300 megawatts, and one “micro” reactor putting out less than 20 megawatts.
Brendan Frank, Clean Prosperity’s head of policy development, said a first-of-a-kind reactor is far too expensive; the industry needs to learn how to build subsequent units more cheaply to compete with other generation options. “Your chances of doing that are significantly higher if you build the same reactor design over and over and over again,” he said.
The BWRX-300 from U.S.-based GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy has seemingly emerged as the lone contender among the larger SMRs. Yet only OPG has committed to build one.
As for large and micro-reactors, no firm orders have been placed in Canada. However attractive fleet-based deployment might seem, it might be difficult to achieve. Selecting a model has numerous implications, from securing a fuel supply to managing the resulting waste; what’s best for Ontario mightn’t seem so for Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.
Nuclear power is among the few generation options that has grown more expensive, and eliminating pricing competition by sourcing from a single reactor vendor won’t help
Options are limited. AtkinsRéalis Group Inc.
ATRL-T -1.07%decrease, the company which purchased Atomic Energy of Canada’s reactor business more than a decade ago, is developing an updated 1,000-megawatt Candu dubbed the Monark. Its most significant home-court advantage is that utilities and their workers are already familiar with operating and maintaining Candus. Moreover, its supply chain is on Canadian soil, an appealing feature amid surging economic nationalism. Its greatest vulnerability might be its readiness: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says it has not yet begun a preliminary assessment of the Monark, known as a vendor design review.
The CNSC reviewed the Monark’s most obvious competitor more than a decade ago. It concluded there were “no fundamental barriers” to licensing Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000. Although AP1000s have been built in China and the U.S., the American projects suffered disastrous setbacks during construction. Souring Canada-U.S. relations further diminish the AP1000’s appeal.
GE Vernova Hitachi, which designed the BWRX-300, faces similar obstacles in marketing its larger Advanced Boiling Water Reactor. Dark horses include the European Pressurized Reactor, a French design, and the South Korean APR-1400.
If fleet-based deployment is to succeed in Canada, Ontario appears to be the most credible co-ordinator. Between Bruce C and Wesleyville, it might purchase up to 14 large reactors.
Neither OPG nor Bruce Power specified reactors in their regulatory applications, which are intended to encompass a variety of options. Bruce Power’s chief operating officer, James Scongack, said since late 2023 his company has sought information from reactor vendors, a process intended to ascertain which reactors are ready to be constructed and at what cost. The process “was really designed to look at what are all the technologies available for new nuclear, assess them, review them, narrow them down,” he said.
Citing confidentiality agreements, Mr. Scongack declined to discuss which ones had emerged as front-runners. But “we’re now very focused on options that would not be a surprise to you.”
The Ontario government announced last summer a body called the New Nuclear Technology Panel, composed of senior executives from OPG, Bruce Power and the government, and instructed it to co-ordinate a technology selection decision. But the panel has not been established, and there is no timeline for doing so.
Lately, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce has spoken emphatically about the importance of promoting Canadian technology and supply chains – comments suggesting strong support for Candus.
“My first preoccupation is: What is going to advance the national interest of Canada in a post-Trump world,” he told The Globe in late January.
“We need to be fiercely protective of our intellectual property, of Canadian technology for Candu, a large-scale [reactor] that is made in Canada, stored in this country, a supply chain that is Canadian, a work force that is mature and Canadian.”
But a different champion could emerge in Saskatchewan. As far back as 2022, SaskPower selected the BWRX-300. Yet just two years later, SaskPower announced it had signed an agreement with Westinghouse to evaluate other models including its AP300, a direct competitor.
That sudden interest in Westinghouse didn’t come out of nowhere. The uranium giant Cameco Corp. CCO-T +5.86%increase, based in Saskatoon, is one of the province’s most influential companies. In 2023 it purchased a 49-per-cent stake in Westinghouse.
Mr. Harrison said the AP300 is no longer under consideration, and SaskPower confirms it’s planning to announce a proposed site for building BWRX-300s later this year. But SaskPower won’t make a final investment decision until at least 2029, leaving plenty of time to pivot again.
And that’s one reason Saskatchewan’s decision to explore large reactors could be highly significant. Mr. Harrison said the province is prepared to go its own way. And while SaskPower will consider candidate reactors on their merits, he added that local companies’ interests are an important consideration.
“We are really very, very proud of Cameco, a great Saskatchewan company,” Mr. Harrison said. “To be a 49-per-cent owner of this iconic American company, Westinghouse Electric, is really a quite an amazing story for a company that began life as a Crown corporation.”
He added: “Without question, benefits to the supply chain in Saskatchewan is a part of the consideration. We’ve been very upfront about that.”
Energy Alberta, a nascent developer with a long-standing proposal to build a four-reactor plant in Peace River, Alta., offers perhaps the most striking example of indecision. It had selected the Monark, but late last year announced it was considering Westinghouse’s AP1000s instead.
New Brunswick selected two reactors for construction at its Point Lepreau station nearly a decade ago. But neither the ARC-100 nor the SSR-W appear to be nearing a completed design; their vendors (ARC Clean Technology and Moltex Energy Canada, respectively) have few employees and have struggled to raise capital.
NB Power’s chief executive officer, Lori Clark, said her utility remains committed to building reactors. But it has come around to fleet-based thinking: it no longer wants to build a first-of-a-kind, or one-of-a-kind, reactor, because they are inevitably costlier. Provincial officials have expressed interest in a variety of different reactors over the past year, including the BWRX-300, AP1000 and Candu.
“We want to watch what’s happening in Ontario, because they are much bigger player in the nuclear field than we are.”
Senator Joins Police to Eject Antiwar Marine From Hearing, Breaking His Arm
“America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel,” McGinnis said as he protested the hearing. “This is wrong.”
Police and Sheehy tried to force the protester out of the room as he yelled, “no one wants to fight for Israel.”
By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, March 5, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/senator-joins-police-to-eject-anti-war-marine-from-hearing-breaking-his-arm/
Republican senator joined Capitol Police as they violently ejected an anti-war protester and U.S. Marine veteran from an Armed Services subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, appearing to break his arm as the group tried to wrestle him out of the chamber.
Video of the incident shows Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican from Montana, rushing over to help police as they try to tug and push the protester out of the chamber, as the protester yells, “no one wants to fight for Israel.” The protester appears to be wearing a U.S. Marine Corps dress uniform.
The protester, Green Party candidate Brian McGinnis, has his hand stuck in the door frame, with his arm hooked around the adjacent open door panel as several police try to force him out of the room. Sheehy lifts up McGinnis’s leg as police officers grab his torso and tug.
As Sheehy is moving over to dislodge the protester’s hand and tug on his arm, McGinnis’s forearm can be seen appearing to snap in half. There is a loud cracking sound, and bystanders begin to yell at the police to stop. Shortly after, officers let up on their tugging, and begin to work to dislodge McGinnis’s hand, as Sheehy returns to the front of the room.
“The senator broke his hand. A sitting U.S. senator just broke the hand of a Marine,” one person yells. One bystander asks McGinnis, “is your hand ok?”
“No, it’s not,” McGinnis responds. McGinnis is running for Senate in North Carolina, and is a Marine who fought in Iraq, according to his campaign website.
Police arrested McGinnis and have charged him with three counts of assault on a police officer, and three counts of resisting arrest and crowding, obstructing, and incommoding for his demonstration.
In a statement posted on McGinnis’s X account, his family expressed gratitude for the well wishes. “We are taking a necessary step back from the public eye to allow him to focus fully on his recovery in private,” the statement said.
The protest occurred during a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, held to hear testimony from military officials on the readiness of various military branches for combat. The hearing was scheduled before the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.
“America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel,” McGinnis said as he protested the hearing. “This is wrong.”
Sheehy called McGinnis an “unhinged protester,” and claimed on social media that he was trying to “help out and deescalate the situation,” ignoring that he helped lift McGinnis off the ground, potentially helping to break his arm.
“This gentleman came to the Capitol looking for a confrontation, and he got one,” Sheehy said, though McGinnis was merely protesting the hearing.
In a video posted to social media ahead of his protest, McGinnis said that he was in D.C. to “speak out against the Senate and ask them why they’re going to send our men and women to harm’s way.”
“Anyone who feels disillusioned and betrayed, you’re not alone. Join us in demanding accountability for this betrayal,” he said. “Free Palestine, free America.”
Loony Bin Rationales: The Continuing War on Iran
6 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/loony-bin-rationales-the-continuing-war-on-iran/
Villainous lunacy is abundant these days as the bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States continues. The rationale for this illegal pre-emptive war that not only lacks legitimacy but should land its perpetrators in the docks of the International Criminal Court, continues to get increasingly muddled. With US President Donald Trump now given to giving press conferences on the conflict, loony bin mutterings are becoming increasingly the norm.
A common assumption behind these attacks is Israel’s firm, unremitting stranglehold on the US President. Combined with the considerable influence of what John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called the “Israeli Lobby,” American foreign policy in the Middle East has been tenanted by Israeli interests. And Israel has shown itself to be a particularly bruising tenant in this regard.
While the central rationale is both fantastic and mendacious – namely, the destruction of a nuclear capability that had been, in any case, apparently obliterated last June – the view that Iran was going to unilaterally strike either Israel, the United States, its allies or all of the above, is fascinatingly absurd.
In a classified briefing with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill on March 2, senior administration officials put forth the position that Israel had already planned to strike Iran, with or without US support. Present were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the increasingly deranged Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. Prior to the briefing, Rubio put forth the view that “there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer high casualties.” Israeli impulsiveness proved the heaviest of tails in wagging the dimmest of dogs.
This less than convincing explanation worried Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others that it was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline.” He questioned whether American lives should be put at risk when an alleged imminent threat was directed at an ally. “Israel is a great ally of America. I stand firmly with Israel. But I believe at the end of the day when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm’s way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests. I still don’t think that standard has been met.” Had Iran actually posed an imminent threat to the US, “better planning” should have been in place.
An even clearer statement of the foolish rationale was allegedly put to conservative broadcaster and commentator Tucker Carlson by Trump himself, suggesting that Israel had essentially painted him into the smallest of corners. Carlson, according to The New York Times, had attempted no fewer than three times in meetings at the Oval Office to argue why the US should not go to war with Iran. Reasons for not doing so included risks to US military personnel, the soaring effects of war on energy prices and concern about how Washington’s Arab partners would react. He surmised that it was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to strike Iran that was the sole reason the president was considering a military effort. It would be prudent, suggested Carlson, if the Israeli PM was restrained in his bellicosity.
Carlson has also personally expressed the view that the war took place “because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States War.” It had been launched on a freight of “lies” and orchestrated by Netanyahu’s beguiling approach. “The point is regional hegemony.” Israel wanted “to control the Middle East” and “sow chaos and disorder” in the Gulf.
Another right-wing commentator, Megyn Kelly, reiterated what had been a central, even canonical line of MAGA: “No one should have to die for a foreign country.” The four service members (there were actually six) who had given their lives for the US “died for Iran or for Israel.” The war was clearly Israel’s and based on a fictional threat. “Does it make any sense to you that Iran was planning pre-emptive strikes against us? Obviously, it doesn’t.”
Trump was dismissive of both Carlson and Kelly, slipping into that habit common to megalomaniacs humming before a mirror: he referred to himself in the third person. “I think MAGA is Trump – not the other two.” The movement wished “to see our country thrive and be safe, and MAGA loves what I’m doing.” Carlson’ could “say whatever he wants. It has no impact on me.”
Israel, however, did and does, though Trump, in what can only be regarded as piffling nonsense, is now promoting the view that Israel was the second hitter, with the US taking the bold lead. “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he reasoned at a bilateral meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz. As he “didn’t want that to happen,” Trump thought he “might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready and we were ready.”
Hegseth, in another mad, uneven display before the press, also laid the entire blame for the war on Iran itself. “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” Not that the facts even mattered. International law did not exist. “No stupid rules of engagement, no national-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” (What do politically correct wars look like?) He sums up the jungle attitude to conflict, a deranged, semi-literate Tarzan whose views would sit well with the state machinery of Nazi Germany, one that showed the world how best to avoid international protocols and violate the laws of war in the name of streaky fantasy and monstrous ego.
Canada will soon release new electricity and nuclear strategy, minister says
Canada’s Energy and Mining Minister Tim Hodgson said on Thursday the
government will release a new electricity and nuclear strategy in the
coming months as demand for nuclear energy rises. “Investors want
clarity. They want speed, and they want direction from nations to which
they are allocating capital. That is why our government will release a
new comprehensive electricity and nuclear strategy in the coming
months, probably weeks,” Hodgson said at CIBC’s nuclear summit.
Reuters 5th March 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canada-will-soon-release-new-electricity-nuclear-strategy-minister-says-2026-03-05/
.
Preemptive War, Permanent Emergency: The Real Cost of Trump’s Iran Strike
Since January 2025, Trump has carried out more than 600 military strikes on foreign targets that include Iran, Yemen, Nigeria and Venezuela, while threatening forceful military takeovers of Greenland, Colombia and Mexico.
Preemptive force has become policy.
Call it what it is: war.
The Rutherford Institute, John & Nisha Whitehead, March 04, 2026
“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”—Jeremiah 6:13–14
“This is insane. Regime change will result in a bloody civil war… Resist this!”—Charlie Kirk (2025)
The military-industrial complex and the American police state have joined forces.
War abroad and war at home are no longer separate enterprises. They have fused.
This did not happen overnight.
Every modern president has stretched the limits of war-making power. Some have shredded those limits altogether.
Each time that boundary is breached, the Constitution recedes a little further.
This is one of those moments.
In a complete about-face from his claims to being a peace president, Donald Trump has authorized yet another preemptive strike—this time against Iran—without a declaration of war from Congress, without meaningful public debate, and without constitutional clarity.
The gravity of that decision cannot be overstated.
While American troops were being ordered into harm’s way, Trump was hosting a $1 million-a-ticket fundraiser for himself at Mar-a-Lago, trotting out his signature dance moves between curtained war briefings.
That spectacle tells you everything you need to know.
That is how we arrived at Operation Epic Fury.
With its Orwellian proclamations of “peace through strength,” Operation Epic Fury is less strategy than spectacle—an egotistical, muscle-flexing distraction by the Trump administration and an overarching attempt to normalize the use of unilateral force by the executive branch without congressional input or authorization.
This was never about peace. It was always about power.
And the Constitution is clear about how this is supposed to work, even if the White House is not.
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. The president under Article II, Section 2 is designated as commander-in-chief with the power to command the military. He is not commander-of-everything.
Yet here we are.
The Trump administration is advancing a global policing doctrine that mirrors the domestic police state: strike first, ask questions later.
Since January 2025, Trump has carried out more than 600 military strikes on foreign targets that include Iran, Yemen, Nigeria and Venezuela, while threatening forceful military takeovers of Greenland, Colombia and Mexico.
Preemptive force has become policy.
Call it what it is: war.
Despite the word games over its war games—the administration insists its actions in Iran do not constitute a war—members of Trump’s Cabinet use the word “war” freely until congressional authorization is mentioned.
And when the administration is asked to explain themselves, the answer is not constitutional deference but open defiance.
Clearly, they have lost sight of who they answer to—and who funds their war chests: we the taxpayers.
Pete Hegseth—the self-righteous blowhard who brags about lethal weapons and has rebranded the Defense Department as the Department of War—dismissed public accountability outright, expressing in no uncertain terms that it’s none of our business: “Why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective. We fight to win. We fight to achieve the objectives the President of the United States has laid out and we will do so unapologetically.”
The Constitution is the “why.”
The American people have a right to debate war before it begins. We have a right to know how our tax dollars are spent. We have a right to insist our representatives authorize the use of force. We have a right to know why our sons and daughters are sent into harm’s way. We have a right to refuse to have our tax dollars used to kill other people’s daughters and sons.
……………As Cato Institute’s Katherine Thompson explains, “War…costs American blood and treasure. The Founders placed the power to initiate it in Congress precisely to ensure those costs are confronted and debated before the country walks into battle.”
War fuels defense contracts, reconstruction deals and intelligence budgets. It sustains a vast military-industrial apparatus whose profits depend on instability.
Nothing about Operation Epic Fury puts America first. It pushes us toward a fiscal cliff.
Within days, the costs were staggering: $300 million for three F-15E jets downed by “friendly” fire. $630 million to transport troops, ships and aircraft to the region in advance of the attacks. More than 50,000 troops deployed to the region. $13 million a day just for two aircraft carriers stationed nearby. $43.8 million for 1,250 Kamikaze drones. $2 million each for Tomahawk missiles. $12.8 million each for anti-ballistic missile interceptors.
Forbes estimates that Trump’s military strikes in Iran have already cost American taxpayers over $1 billion, “with a price tag that could approach $100 billion, depending on how long it can stretch on.” The total economic cost of the conflict “could trigger an economic loss for the U.S. of between $50 billion and $210 billion.”
And that is before accounting for the human cost.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This unprovoked attack on Iran is turning the Middle East into a war zone, in turn laying the groundwork for Trump to act on the fantasies he has long entertained about cancelling the mid-term elections.
………………………………………………………………………….War is not peace. Preemptive war is not strength. And an imperial presidency—no matter how loudly it wraps itself in flags—is not constitutional government.
The Founders understood that the gravest threat to liberty would not come from foreign enemies alone, but from the concentration of power in the hands of one man who believed himself indispensable.
A president who can send bombs abroad without consent can silence opposition at home without hesitation.
A government that governs by the rule of emergency eventually ceases to govern by the rule of law.
And a nation that trades liberty for spectacle will wake up to find that it has neither.
…………………………………………………………………….As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the question is no longer whether America can police the globe. The question is whether our Republic can survive the weight of the Empire it has become.
We are at the point where we must choose: the spectacle of permanent war, or the survival of the American experiment in freedom.
We cannot have both. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/preemptive_war_permanent_emergency_the_real_cost_of_trumps_iran_strike
Residents invited to have say on Hunterston nuclear forum
By Calum Corral, Ardrossan Herald 3rd March 2026, https://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/25903086.residents-invited-say-hunterston-nuclear-forum/
A PUBLIC meeting of the Hunterston Site Stakeholder Group will take place at Seamill Hydro on Thursday, March 5, to discuss the ongoing decommissioning of the former Hunterston A and B nuclear power stations
EDF is handing Hunterston B over to Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), the decommissioning subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which will take ownership of the site and manage the long‑term clean‑up programme.
The event begins at 1.30pm
As Trump Bombs Iran, We Need to Reckon With the American War Machine
We cannot afford to slip into despair. We must push back against militarism everywhere, at every turn. By Negin Owliaei , Truthout, February 28, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/as-trump-bombs-iran-we-need-to-reckon-with-the-american-war-machine/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=4670da1a6d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_03_01_07_35&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-4670da1a6d-650192793
As news broke that the United States and Israel had launched war on Iran, two posts kept showing up over and over on my social media feeds. One was from the Israeli military’s official account, which stated an oft-repeated phrase: “Israel has the right to defend itself.”
The other was a video from the Iranian city of Minab, where the first reports of casualties were emerging. The joint U.S.-Israeli attack had hit a girls’ elementary school; the death toll kept ticking higher and higher. At the time of publication, Iranian authorities said 108 people, mostly schoolchildren, had been killed in the strike, with many more injured.
Plenty has been written, in Truthout and elsewhere, about the totally incoherent justifications for this war, the illegality of it, the potential for regional disaster, the joke it has made of the very idea of diplomacy. All of this was and continues to be true, and all of it is important to raise. But more than anything, we in the U.S. need to reckon with the fact that so much of our state wealth, capacity, and technology goes toward burying children in rubble.
Last year, when Israel and the U.S. launched the strikes that would be prelude to this attack, I wrote that the two countries were “shedding even the pretense and facade of the principles of a rules-based international order that has already worked in their favor.” In the wake of those strikes, once the immediate violence ceased, we largely heard crickets from U.S. lawmakers. This, despite the fact that those strikes, like these, were illegal under U.S. and international law. We cannot let this continued lack of accountability stand. If we do, what will happen next?
Over the years, U.S. and Israeli leaders have become increasingly vocal about their hopes for “greater Israel” — the boundless expansion of an apartheid state. Before the start of the current assault on Iran, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, a favorite in the country’s upcoming elections, accused Turkey of being the hub of a threatening axis “similar to the Iranian one.” This war is not about Iran’s nuclear program. It is not a war to free Iranians from a repressive regime. This is a war to preserve U.S. power and hegemony across the entire region.
It is also not accurate to say that Israel is dragging the U.S. into a war against its choosing. Reporting has shown that these two nuclear powers were in lockstep in their planning of this attack. In order to stop this violence, we need to really contend with how it started. The U.S. is hardly a victim here.
This state of affairs is intolerable. I am disgusted to know that my tax dollars are being spent to bomb my ancestral homeland. I was sickened to wake up to messages from family members telling me that the city where they live was under attack from the country where I live. I’m terrified now that Iran’s government has cut internet access yet again, leaving us disconnected from our loved ones. No fear, of course, can compare to the terror of being on the receiving end of missiles or guns, whether they are wielded by a foreign power or your own government; Iranians have been killed by both in horrifying numbers over the last year. But for those of us in the diaspora, the fact that it has now become routine to check in on family and friends living through untold violence does not make it any less traumatic.
Despite the abject horror of this moment, we cannot afford to slip into despair. There is still space for things to get much worse, but, more importantly, there is still so much left that we must protect. No one can predict what will happen over the coming days and weeks, but we know they are likely to be filled with more violence and uncertainty. We need to use every single tool at our disposal to chip away at the war-making systems inflicting this horror, which are so thoroughly embedded in the heart of the United States.
We can start, of course, by demanding that Congress immediately pass a war powers resolution to put an end to this destructive assault. Beyond that we can lift up the call being made by groups like Defending Rights & Dissent for Congress to impeach not only Donald Trump but every single member of his cabinet who had a hand in making this unjust and illegal war possible.
But we shouldn’t stop there. Our elected officials need to publicly explain why they hemmed and hawed over a war powers resolution before these attacks occurred, despite an obvious military buildup.
We must demand that every member of Congress who has voted to increase our military budget to nearly a trillion dollars account for their choices. We must push those members who have personal investments in the military machine — to the tune of tens of millions of dollars — even further. They need to explain their conflicts of interest, and why they continue to profit off this death and destruction. Lawmakers who take money from groups like AIPAC that are relishing in this war especially need to answer for their votes.
It’s also imperative to not view this war in a silo, but instead see it as part of the same violent, hegemonic project that has been conducting genocide and spreading violence across Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and beyond. We must hold elected officials accountable for failing to uphold U.S. and international law by continuing to support the transfer of weapons to Israel as it commits genocide against Palestinians. We must make it politically toxic for those lawmakers not to support legislation like the Block the Bombs Act, which aims to stop such transfers.
We also can’t expect elected officials to do more just because we ask them to. We need to build power. We must support grassroots movements like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement that seek to make war, apartheid, and genocide too costly to wage. We must back campaigns like Taxpayers Against Genocide that are searching for legal avenues to keep federal funds from being used to violate human rights.
We can wage campaigns against death-dealing corporations and make sure that war-profiteering is exposed and subjected to public outrage. The No Tech for Apartheid movement has long been organizing to push Silicon Valley to stop supplying the Israeli military with computing power, and has already found some success. The Israeli military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Gaza has received a great deal of reporting; now that OpenAI has announced a deal to allow the Pentagon to use its models in their classified networks, the fight against AI has taken on renewed urgency. Campaigns across the country against data centers are now also a crucial nexus of resistance against militarism.
So too are campaigns for immigrant rights and against deportations. In the wake of the U.S. strikes against Iran last June, the Trump administration rounded up Iranian immigrants for deportation. Those deportations continued into this year, even as the Iranian government staged a brutal crackdown on protesters. As we prepare for war to rage across the region, we can demand the U.S. and Europe open their borders to people fleeing violence and despair. We can continue to show the links between the occupation of cities by federal immigration agents here at home and imperial wars waged abroad. The enemies of democracy here are also the enemies of democracy abroad.
Some of these demands may seem futile under this murderous president, backed by an obedient Congress, and with a Supreme Court that has offered comparatively little restraint. But this unaccountable bureaucracy makes it all the more essential that we build grassroots power to issue these demands and force those in power to heed them.
Polling shows that this war is unpopular. Trump may be an authoritarian, but he is not entirely invulnerable, nor are the elected officials who have given him pass after pass. We cannot let him believe for a second longer that he can get away with something this wildly illegal or recklessly dangerous without accountability. And we cannot let the leaders who follow him believe that they, too, can unleash such violence without consequences. After all, would we be here if there were any real repercussions for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or the continuing genocide in Palestine? We need true accountability for these crimes. And the only way to get it is to wage a struggle against militarism every day — not only in moments of crisis, but whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.
Stop Trump’s New Mass-Murder Spree
By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, February 28, 2026, https://worldbeyondwar.org/stop-trumps-new-mass-murder-spree/
The latest location where Trump has given the orders to murder people is Iran.
Remember a couple of months back when establishment U.S. lawyers and human rights groups were admitting that Trump’s attacks on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific were nothing other than murder?
Murder doesn’t cease being murder because it’s further away or grander or provokes a more dramatic response or targets victims who speak a different language.
By all means hunt in the Epstein files for evidence of Trump raping or murdering, but don’t pretend we don’t already know.
Did Trump have no choice but to start slaughtering people? The mediator said a deal was within reach.
The deal was a solution in search of a problem to begin with, given the absolute lack of evidence of the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and the openly admitted possession of nuclear weapons by numerous other nations not being bombed, including the one currently sending missiles into schools in Iran.
Didn’t Trump need to murder people to prevent the Iranian government from murdering them? Hmm. Is more murder or more high-tech murder or more distant murder better? Should we pretend the people have not been protesting economic hardship largely created by illegal and murderous U.S. sanctions? Must we all conspire to act as if nonviolent activism does not exist? Are we really going to pretend Israel hasn’t demanded this crime — and provided a rotating selection of ludicrous excuses and frauds to justify it — for decades?
Public pressure helped prevent a U.S. war on Iran several times in recent decades, and helped create public opinion in the U.S. that as of the start of this war was more against such a war than ever, and more against such a war than against almost any other evil thing ever asked about in opinion polls.
So why did a war happen now?
One reason is of course that Trump is a psychopath with no qualms about acting on the most horrific advice given to him most recently.
A second reason is that there is no opposition party in Washington. Schumer and Jeffries, the “leaders” of the Democrats, actually prevented votes prior to the start of this crime on the War Powers Resolution ritual of redundantly declaring that this crime would be a crime.
A third reason is that there is almost no opposition among the governments of wealthy nations or in the United Nations.
A fourth reason is — depending on how you want to look at it — either the onslaught of numerous threats and crises from the Trumpoctopus wrecking ball targeting of Venezuela, Mexico, Minneapolis, Greenland, Canada, Russia, the natural environment, healthcare, etc., etc., or the established pattern of the people of the United States, their local governments, their state governments, the Congress, the media, and the two corporate political parties in the U.S. Congress failing to effectively stand up to any of these things with votes, impeachments, prosecutions, sit-ins, boycotts, or truth commissions.
A fifth reason is that you get what you pay for, and the institutions and television viewers of much of the world have collectively hallucinated military spending as a public good to be maximized at the expense of all that is useful or decent in the world.
Is all hopeless? Of course not.
What’s needed is obvious. But we have to be willing to do it. We have to stop picking which type of people to care about. We have to stop worrying about the risks. We have to all stand up together, no matter whom we’ve voted for or against, no matter what myths we’ve believed in the past, no matter what corner of the planet we live in, and work every nonviolent educational and media and activist angle to effectively demand NO MORE.
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (244)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
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 