nuclear-news

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

Israel is losing its grip on U.S. politics

By Dave Reed , Mondoweiss,  April 12, 2026  

We’ve been covering the shift in American politics on Israel for years. Donald Trump’s disastrously failed war on Iran has accelerated it.

For years, conventional wisdom held that support for Israel was a third rail in U.S. politics. Phil Weiss has written a library of analysis and coverage on that here at Mondoweiss over the past 20 years. Uncritical support for Israel was toxic for politicians to touch, impossible to oppose, and self-reinforcing across both parties through the combined pressure of donor money, media consensus, and institutional loyalty. That consensus is broken forever. It didn’t break because of a sudden moral awakening in Washington. That will never happen, on virtually any issue. If you need any more proof of that, just look at the way the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein are being treated, or refer to the fact that even massacres of schoolchildren haven’t moved Congress to do something about guns in the country. The consensus across the political elite on Israel broke because Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Lebanon, and now in its open effort to torpedo an end to the war with Iran, has become a liability that American politicians can no longer ignore.

Michael Arria, our U.S. correspondent, documented this week how military aid to Israel has finally become a true litmus test in Democratic Party primaries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced she will vote against all military aid to Israel, including weapons classified as “defensive,” a position she had previously hedged. Even J Street, the organization meant to offer a counter to AIPAC’s extremism but locked in perpetual confusion about its identity, is even now opposing U.S. support for the Iron Dome missile defense system. AIPAC, once considered the most powerful of all the many lobby groups, is now a liability in Democratic races, losing key primaries and watching candidates run against it by name. A recent NBC News poll shows just 13 percent of Democrats view Israel positively. These numbers are not marginal; they represent a fundamental and permanent realignment of the Democratic base. Politicians, candidates, and political institutions are paying attention.

This fracturing is thankfully not limited to the left. The Iran war has cracked open the MAGA coalition in ways that the genocide in Gaza could not. Powerful conservative commentators commanding huge audiences and figures closely aligned with the MAGA movement have been openly and harshly critical of Trump over the war. The widespread, and correct, view is that Netanyahu manipulated Trump into a conflict that serves Israeli interests, not American ones. The critique of the tail wagging the dog is now being advanced loudly by people who would never have entertained it two years ago. The political ground is moving, dramatically, in the months before an all-important mid-term election. Republican figures with aspirations for more power, such as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, are beginning to distance themselves from the Iran debacle………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/weekly-briefing-israel-is-losing-its-grip-on-u-s-politics/

April 16, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Norwegian Nuclear Committee says no to nuclear power in Norway

It is too expensive, Norway lacks the necessary expertise, and the process takes too long, according to the Committee. It unanimously rejects nuclear power.

Johannes Enli Kalleberg and NTB ‎, 8 April, 26, https://energywatch.com/EnergyNews/Renewables/article19180637.ece

The government-appointed Norwegian Nuclear Committee – which has consisted of experts in physics, technology, economics, law, ethics, and social sciences – will submit its report to Norwegian energy minister Terje Aasland on Wednesday after a year and a half of work.

In the report “Nuclear Power in Norway? Advantages, Disadvantages, and Prerequisites,” the committee arrived at the following two main recommendations:

  • Norway should not initiate a full-scale nuclear power process at the current moment.
  • But we should build up expertise that will make it easier to make such a decision in the future.

Extensive support

A key rationale is economics. The committee’s calculations show that nuclear power, even under the most optimistic assumptions, requires electricity prices of at least NOK 1.13 (EUR 0.10) per KWh to cover costs. The estimated long-term electricity price in Norway is NOK 0.50-0.80.

“If nuclear power is to be established in Norway, private investors must find it profitable to invest in nuclear power. In that case, investment costs must be 70-80% lower,” the report states.

The committee points out that this aligns well with the situation in Sweden and Finland. There, major energy companies such as Vattenfall and Fortum say they cannot build new nuclear power plants without extensive government support.

”However, the committee does not see any sound socio-economic justifications for the government to support the establishment of nuclear power in Norway.”

Not before the 2040s

A time-consuming process also argues against nuclear power. Even if Norway decided go ahead with nuclear construction today, the committee estimates that production is not realistic before the mid-2040s at the earliest. First, legislation, regulatory frameworks, and professional communities must be developed.

”In any case, nuclear power production will not come in time to help achieve the Paris Agreement’s 2050 goals, and we must expand other sources in the meantime. And we have other alternatives. These include upgrading hydropower plants and expanding wind and solar power,” the committee concludes.

The committee also warns that the prospect of future nuclear power could hinder the development of these alternatives.

”If there is a prospect of nuclear power coming to Norway in 20 years, it will become less profitable to build other types of power plants. With nuclear power, we thus risk having less power and less transition in the coming decades.”

100,000 years

Much of the Norwegian debate has centered on small modular reactors (SMRs). The committee is skeptical of these as an immediate solution: no factories have been established, no models have been standardized, and it is highly uncertain how affordable SMRs will be.

The committee also highlights the management of spent fuel as a major challenge. Spent fuel emits harmful radiation for thousands of years, and there is international consensus that it must be stored at a depth of around 500 meters in stable rock for 100,000 years.

Finland is the only country in the world to have completed such a repository.

”Accidents can have major consequences and necessitate very strict safety requirements that apply specifically to nuclear power […] It is a challenge that we do not know what the probability is, and that it is difficult to assess what consequences an accident might have.”

Knowledge – not power plants

Nuclear power is not, however, entirely negative. The committee points out that it is possible to produce large amounts of stable, emission-free power in a small area over a long period. The fact that it is not dependent on sun and wind is also a plus.

The report makes it clear that building expertise in nuclear power is important.

This involves strengthening academic environments at universities, participating more actively in international cooperation, staying up to date on technological developments, and considering cooperation with Sweden and Finland.

”Therefore, we think the smartest thing we can do today is to build knowledge, not power plants,” the committee writes.

On June 21, 2024, the Ministry of Energy appointed the committee that has examined nuclear power as a potential energy source in Norway. The goal has been to review and assess various aspects of a possible future establishment of nuclear power in Norway.

This article was provided by our sister media in Norway, EnergiWatch.
English edit by Christian Radich Hoffman.

April 12, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

They Reject American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—But Not the War Machine

what does it mean for a state to claim a right to exist if that existence is sustained through the death, displacement, and destruction of others?

April 7, 2026 Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/07/they-reject-aipac-but-not-the-war-machine/

In Washington, a quiet rebrand is underway.

One by one, prominent Democrats positioning themselves for 2028 are announcing that they will no longer accept money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). On its face, this seems like a meaningful break from decades of bipartisan deference. For years, AIPAC has functioned as a gatekeeper of acceptable discourse on U.S. policy toward Israel—rewarding loyalty, punishing dissent.

But look closer, and the shift begins to feel less like a rupture—and more like a recalibration.

Because while the money may be refused, the machinery of war remains firmly intact.

A Political Adjustment, Not a Moral One

Recent polling shows a dramatic shift among Democratic voters, with overwhelming sympathy now leaning toward Palestinians rather than Israelis. Currently, 65 percent of Democrats say their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians, while 17 percent say they sympathise more with the Israelis. That reality has forced politicians to adapt. For the first time in a generation, the moral ground beneath U.S. support for Israel is cracking—driven not by politicians, but by a public no longer willing to ignore the scale of destruction in Gaza.

So candidates pivot.

They distance themselves from AIPAC. They speak in softer tones. Some even flirt with language once considered taboo—words like “apartheid,” quickly walked back when backlash arrives.

Yet beneath this rhetorical repositioning lies a stubborn continuity: unwavering support for military aid, strategic alliance, and the broader architecture of U.S. dominance in the Middle East.

This is not transformation. It is triangulation.

To demonstrate that most clearly, here is the front-runner for 2028 discussing his reversal of calling Israel an apartheid state and his reverence for the country. Newsom’s reversal—pairing regret over the word “apartheid” with an insistence that he “revere[s] the state of Israel”—captures where Democrats are now: distancing from Netanyahu without challenging the system itself.

However, Cory Booker defended the group—from which he has received significant funding—arguing that the intense focus on AIPAC is misplaced. He noted that many ethnic and interest groups raise and bundle political donations, often for causes he personally disagrees with, yet AIPAC has become a singular target of criticism. As he put it, “There are Iranian Americans that bundle money. There are Turkish Americans that bundle money. There are a lot of ethnic groups that bundle money… but somehow AIPAC seems to be drawing a lot of attention, and that’s problematic to me.” At the same time, Booker has said he would no longer accept PAC money in general. Still, at least he stands by his position.

The Illusion of Courage

Rejecting AIPAC donations is being framed as a bold stand. In reality, it is the lowest bar imaginable.

What would actual political courage look like?

It would mean voting to halt weapons transfers used in devastating campaigns across Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond. It would mean openly confronting the human cost of U.S. foreign policy—not just its public relations problem. It would require breaking not just with a lobbying group, but with a system that treats military force as the default instrument of policy.

Few are willing to go that far.

Instead, we see a familiar pattern: symbolic gestures paired with substantive silence.

Blaming Individuals, Protecting Systems

Another tactic has emerged in this moment of discomfort—one as old as politics itself.

Blame the leader, not the structure.

Criticism is carefully directed at Benjamin Netanyahu, portrayed as an outlier or aberration. The implication is that without him, the underlying policies would somehow be more humane, more restrained, more just.

But this framing obscures more than it reveals.

Netanyahu did not create the system—he operates within it. A system sustained by decades of U.S. military funding, diplomatic shielding, and bipartisan consensus. To isolate him as the problem is to avoid confronting the deeper reality: that the policies themselves, not just their most visible architect, are responsible for the devastation.

Here is that dynamic in clear focus with former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel. A longtime supporter of Israel—whose father was Israeli. At the same time, he has also vowed not to take AIPAC’s money.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear underscored again what we have been saying: that the party cannot change its ways despite cutting off one group that has become politically problematic, further showing the disconnect between the people they represent and Israel.

Here, Beshear sticks to familiar pro-Israel talking points in a recent interview and resists labeling the devastation in Gaza as “genocide,” dismissing such language as an unwelcome party “litmus test.” Rep. Ro Khanna pushed back, arguing that defending human rights should be the most basic standard—and that the party must find a new moral direction.

The Money Isn’t the Whole Story

Even as AIPAC becomes politically radioactive in some circles, its influence persists—often through parallel organizations, aligned donors, and entrenched institutional relationships.

More importantly, AIPAC has never been the sole driver of U.S. policy. It is a symptom of a broader alignment between American power and Israeli military strategy—an alignment rooted in geopolitics, not just lobbying.

Which means that removing AIPAC from the equation, while leaving everything else intact, changes very little.

The pipeline of weapons continues.
The bombs keep falling.
The rhetoric adjusts.

And while AIPAC often dominates the conversation, it is far from the only force shaping pro-Israel advocacy in U.S. politics. A wide network of organizations operates across the political spectrum, each reinforcing the U.S.-Israel relationship in different ways. Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel group in the country with over seven million members, mobilizes grassroots evangelical support rooted in Christian Zionist beliefs. J Street, founded in 2008, presents itself as a more progressive alternative, advocating for a two-state solution and diplomacy over military approaches, even as it maintains a pro-Israel stance. Within party politics, the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) works to ensure the Democratic Party remains firmly aligned with Israel, while the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) advances similar priorities within Republican circles. Other groups, such as Pro-Israel America PAC and the Israeli-American Coalition for Action, focus on supporting candidates and advancing legislation that strengthens bilateral ties, including efforts like anti-BDS laws at the state level. Additional organizations—including NORPAC, the Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs (JAC), and Americans for Good Government (AGG)—further reinforce this ecosystem by backing candidates who support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. While these groups differ in strategy—ranging from grassroots mobilization to direct political funding and lobbying—they collectively demonstrate that AIPAC is not an isolated actor but part of a broader, deeply embedded network.

At the same time, opposition has begun to coalesce through the “Reject AIPAC” coalition, which includes groups like IfNotNow, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, and Justice Democrats, signaling a growing pushback against this entrenched influence.

The Bottom Line

The deeper problem is not rhetorical—it is structural. Israel is a settler-colonial state, and until that truth is spoken plainly—alongside the histories of the United States, South Africa, and others built on dispossession—we are not having an honest conversation. We are circling it, softening it, avoiding it. Because the real question cuts too deep: what does it mean for a state to claim a right to exist if that existence is sustained through the death, displacement, and destruction of others? That is the question buried beneath every speech, every careful statement, every political pivot.


Instead, we are handed villains. Netanyahu becomes the embodiment of the problem—like Trump, grotesque enough to absorb our outrage. But this is a sleight of hand. Systems do not begin or end with men like him; they outlive them, operate through them, and are protected by those who claim to oppose them. By narrowing the blame, we absolve the structure.

And so the language collapses. Even Gavin Newsom, for a fleeting moment, brushed against the truth—only to retreat, unable to hold the weight of the word “apartheid,” unable to let it stand. That retreat is not incidental; it is the boundary of acceptable politics. Because to name the system is to implicate ourselves—our history, our alliances, our silence.

Until that boundary is broken, until the words match the reality, there is no path forward—only repetition, only evasion, only the quiet normalization of what should be unthinkable.

April 12, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Former presidents must call for end to Trump’ criminal Iran war destabilizing the world…but won’t.

Walt Zlotow  West Suburban Peace Coalition  Glen Ellyn IL 7 April 26

Former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, like all ex-presidents, tend to refrain from criticizing the current White House occupant. They view themselves as members of the most exclusive American club so are loathe to excoriate their next member joining them upon leaving office. Criticizing the current president is generally political in nature, best left to those still battling in the political arena.

But these are no ordinary times. Current President Trump has embarked on a catastrophic war on Iran that besides needlessly killing thousands, is destabilizing the world economy. Iran wins by not losing. The US loses by not winning.

All US bases in the region have suffered damage, forcing thousands of US military personnel to evacuate. Israel is being bombed relentlessly by Iran and its allies Hezbollah and the Houthis from Lebanon and Yemen respectively. Not only has Iran choked off a fifth of the world’s oil supply by closing the Strait of Hormuz, they are destroying Gulf States oil production facilities.

Iran, Israel, the Gulf States, even the US and the rest of the world may be facing an existential crisis brought on by morally and mentally degraded Trump.

Instead of acknowledging his monstrous crimes against Iran and cease hostilities, Trump is double, triple, quadrupling down, threatening Stone Age destruction of Iran with war crimes against civilian infrastructure. He’s clearly become unhinged facing likely the worst self-imposed military disaster in US history, one with calamitous worldwide aftereffects.

We need Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden to jump into the national debate. They must call out Trump’s criminal war destabilizing the world economy in strongest words possible. They should request the International Criminal Court indict Trump for war crimes and issue a warrant for his arrest.

But instead of lending their status as former presidents to aid the desperate effort to end hostilities, the Former 4 are silent. And it’s not just their collegiality as former presidents preventing their speaking out. All four adhere to American Exceptualism which demands that US wars of choice are never wrong and never to be lost. All four promulgated US world dominance costing hundreds of thousands of lives having nothing whatsoever to do with US national security interests.

Clinton bombed Iraq after his cruel economic sanctions killed hundreds of thousands. When asked by CBS News if the half million Iraqi killed by Clinton’s sanctions were worth it, his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price we think is worth it.” Clinton bombed Serbia for 78 days, killing 2,000 to create a fractured Balkans still unsettled three decades later.

George W. Bush launched two criminal wars that killed over half a million Iraqis and Afghans along with 7,000 Americans. Both countries remain largely failed states a quarter century on. While the Afghan Taliban booted US troops out in 2021, we’re still defiling Iraq with US troops subject to attack by Iraqis trying to replicate the Taliban’s success.

Barack Obama may have succeeded Bush s president, but he couldn’t succeed in removing all US troops from those two sorrowful countries or stopping US servicepersons from being killed there. Inexplicably and senselessly, Obama jumped into the Libyan civil war to oust hated strongman Muammar Ghaddafi. Result? Over 30,000 Libyans dead and another failed state thanks to US meddling. His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gloated regarding Ghaddafi “We came, was saw, he died.” Grotesque.

Joe Biden was the first US president to preside over genocide. He enabled Israel’s near complete destruction of Gaza with tens of billions in genocide weapons that killed over 70,000 while destroying nearly every school, hospital and home for the remaining 2,200,000 Palestinians now living in tents and still be slaughtered by Israeli invaders.

Biden also provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine by supporting Ukraine’s war killing thousands of Russian leaning Ukrainians in Ukraine Donbas. He totally dismissed Russia’s security concerns regarding NATO membership for Ukraine that could place NATO nukes on Russia’s borders. Biden knew Russia would invade but lusted to see Russia destroy itself in the process. By following Biden’s astonishing stupidity it was Ukraine that is destroying itself with over a million casualties, a shattered economy and loss forever of a fifth of its most productive territory.

No wonder the Former 4 remain silent as Trump rains down death and destruction thruout the Middle East and possibly blows up the world economy. To Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden, Trump is just following their blood soaked US presidential tradition.

April 12, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

  Labour and SNP clash over nuclear power for Scotland amid Holyrood campaign. 

 Labour touts “stability” while SNP blasts “misguided” nuclear
plan. Torness power station — could nuclear become a key battleground
ahead of the May poll?

The SNP and Scottish Labour have traded barbs over
energy policy as the debate on new nuclear power in Scotland took centre
stage on the Holyrood campaign trail. It comes as the Scottish Greens
pledged to deliver 40,000 new green energy jobs in Scotland by the end of
the next Holyrood term in 2031. In a statement, Scottish Labour leader Anas
Sarwar vowed to end what he called the SNP’s “ideological and
anti-science” prohibition on new nuclear power.

Opposition to nuclear
energy has a long history in Scotland, beginning in the 1970s with the
construction of the Torness Point reactor in East Lothian. Sarwar said the
SNP stance against nuclear power is costing Scotland high-quality jobs,
investment, and energy security. Scottish Labour said it would immediately
end a ban on new nuclear in office, and begin the process of securing sites
for next-generation technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs).
Sarwar said the SNP’s nuclear policy leaves Scots “vulnerable to
tyrants abroad”. The SNP have chosen misinformation and scaremongering on
nuclear power — leaving Scotland with less energy security, higher bills
and fewer jobs,” he said.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have also backed
new nuclear in Scotland ahead of the May elections, with the party open to
supporting projects at Hunterston and Torness.

SNP warns of high costs from
nuclear In response, the SNP said Scottish Labour’s nuclear plans would
“hammer Scottish bill payers”. The party pointed to North Sea neighbour
Norway, where a government-appointed commission this week recommended
against investing in nuclear power at present. SNP depute leader Keith
Brown said Scottish families “already pay a ‘nuclear tax’ to fund the
two most expensive nuclear plants in the world”, referring to Hinkley
Point C and Sizewell C. “Why on earth does Anas Sarwar want to inflict
more of this on Scotland?” Brown questioned.

 Energy Voice 9th April 2026,
https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/595535/labour-and-snp-clash-over-nuclear-power-for-scotland-amid-holyrood-campaign/

April 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to Washington: The World Cannot Afford Silence

7 April 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/an-open-letter-to-washington-the-world-cannot-afford-silence/

To Members of the United States Congress and the Vice President,

I write to you as an observer from outside the United States, but not outside the reach of its power. What happens in Washington does not stay in Washington. It reverberates across the globe.

A recent public statement by President Donald Trump, circulated widely from his Truth Social account, contains language and threats relating to Iran that are alarming in both tone and substance. The message invokes destruction of infrastructure, uses inflammatory and profane language, and concludes with a phrase that appears to praise a religious figure in a context that is, at best, deeply incongruous and, at worst, dangerously provocative.

Taken together, this is not normal rhetoric for the holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Many across the world are beginning to ask a question that would once have seemed unthinkable: whether the behaviour being displayed is that of a rational leader, or something far more dangerous. In blunt terms – terms now increasingly heard in public discourse – there is a growing fear that the President is acting like a madman.

The concern here is not political disagreement. It is the apparent abandonment of restraint, clarity, and responsibility in matters that could have immediate and catastrophic international consequences. Words at this level are not symbolic – they can signal intent, trigger reactions, and escalate conflict.

If such rhetoric is not constrained by the institutions designed to provide oversight, the consequences could be severe. Miscalculation or escalation in relation to Iran risks drawing multiple nations into conflict, destabilising an already fragile region, and placing countless civilian lives in jeopardy. It risks disrupting global energy markets, triggering economic shocks far beyond the United States, and increasing the likelihood of direct military confrontation between major powers. In the worst case, it opens the door to a broader and more devastating war whose impacts would be felt worldwide.

The United States Constitution anticipates moments when the conduct of a President raises serious questions about their fitness to discharge the duties of the office. It provides lawful mechanisms to respond: the power of impeachment vested in Congress, and the provisions of the 25th Amendment, which empower the Vice President and Cabinet to act where incapacity or inability is evident.

These are not partisan tools. They are safeguards.

No one outside your system can invoke them. Only you can.

History will not judge this moment solely by what was said, but by what was done – or not done – in response. Silence or inaction in the face of credible concern carries its own consequences.

The world is watching the United States not for perfection, but for proof that its institutions still function as intended: that power is checked, that accountability exists, and that no individual is beyond the reach of the law.

I urge you to consider, with the utmost seriousness, whether this moment calls for the use of those constitutional safeguards.

Respectfully,

Michael Taylor

April 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Faced with new energy shock, Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer

Katya AdlerEurope Editor, BBC 5 Apr 26

“…………………….nuclear energy seems to be back in fashion as part of a home-grown European energy mix – in the UK as well as the EU. But how quick a fix can nuclear be – and how safe and reliable is it really?

…………………………A renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power is palpable in Europe:

………………………………………….Italyis preparing draft laws to repeal its longstanding ban

Belgium seems to be making a complete U-turn after years of reluctance about investing in nuclear energy

Greece, historically cautious because of seismic concerns, has opened a public debate on advanced reactor designs

Sweden reversed a four-decade old decision to abandon nuclear technology

In the UK, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently announced streamlining regulation to help advance nuclear projects.

“To build national resilience, drive energy security and deliver economic growth, we need nuclear,” said Reeves.

………………………..No prizes for guessing that France is the loudest nuclear cheerleader. President Emmanuel Macron is ever eager to point to the industry’s credentials as a low carbon-emitter, potentially helping the EU towards its net zero goals.

He told Europe’s nuclear summit that “nuclear power is key to reconciling both independence, and thus energy sovereignty, with decarbonisation, and thus carbon neutrality”.

He also emphasised the increased energy demand from AI and his belief that nuclear power could give Europe a competitive edge or “the ability to open data centres, to build computing capacity and to be at the heart of the artificial intelligence challenge.”

But Berlin has since agreed to the removal of anti-nuclear bias. A cynic might say that could have something to do with defence and security concerns, provoked by deteriorating relations with the Trump administration.

Germany has asked France to extend its independent nuclear deterrent to European partners, something France agreed to this month.

But beware of viewing nuclear as an energy panacea.

Nuclear development is a long-term project, not a short-term fix to current energy insecurity.

Building nuclear reactors can be subject to extremely long delays, as recent examples in France and the UK have illustrated, at Flamanville-3 and Hinkley Point C.

Waste management and public concerns regarding the safety of nuclear energy persist.

Environmental groups warn investment in nuclear energy can divert funds and political attention from speeding up the development of renewables, and an added layer of strategic risk is that a number of Central European countries, especially Hungary and Slovakia, still depend on Russian nuclear technology and uranium.

“You’re ignoring the history of nuclear in Europe if you think it can just slot in [as an easy energy crisis solution],” Chris Aylett told me. He’s a Research Fellow at the Environment and Society Centre, Chatham House.

Nuclear energy is part of the solution, he believes, but many European nuclear reactors are old and governments need to invest considerably just to maintain or extend their working life.

“The main challenge is maintaining existing share [of nuclear power]. If governments really want to increase the share, they need a lot of time and a lot of money.”

But many of Europe’s governments are indebted, cash-strapped and faced with numerous, competing priorities – such as how to maintain welfare and boost defence spending to the levels promised to US President Donald Trump.

Nuclear is also being beaten on price as the costs of wind and solar have gone down, Aylett points out.

So, with price and practicality in mind, the European Commission has rushed to embrace the concept of small modular reactors (SMRs).

………………………….The focus on SMRs is international. Last week, the US and Japan announced a $40bn project to develop SMRs in Tennessee and Alabama, while last month Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, published the regulatory justification for Rolls-Royce’s plan to become the first company to try to build SMRs in the UK.

But as attractive as they sound, SMRs are viewed as unproven at commercial scale. As of early 2026, no construction licences had been granted anywhere in the EU…………………..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8k8vq8gno

April 11, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Statement Condemning Trump

Marjorie Taylor Green’s Statement from X: April 5, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/05/marjorie-taylor-greenes-statement-condemning-trump/

On Easter morning, this is what President Trump posted. Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness. I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit. I’m not defending Iran but let’s be honest about all of this. The Strait is closed because the US and Israel started the unprovoked war against Iran based on the same nuclear lies they’ve been telling for decades, that any moment Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

You know who has nuclear weapons? Israel. They are more than capable of defending themselves without the US having to fight their wars, kill innocent people and children, and pay for it. Trump threatening to bomb power plants and bridges hurts the Iranian people, the very people Trump claimed he was freeing. On Easter, of all days, we as Christians should be reminded that the son of God died and rose from the grave so that we can be forgiven once and for all of our sins. Jesus commanded us to love one another and forgive one another. Even our enemies. Our President is not a Christian and his words and actions should not be supported by Christians. Christians in the administration should be pursuing peace. Urging the President to make peace. Not escalating war that is hurting people. This NOT what we promised the American people when they overwhelmingly voted in 2024, I know, I was there more than most. This is not making America great again, this is evil.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

War front updates: America opposes war on Iran

Wednesday, April 01, 2026, Organizing Notes, Bruce Gagnon

Americans have little appetite for sending troops to Iran, polls show


Only 14% of Americans favor sending ground troops into Iran, while 62% oppose this. Almost all Democrats and 66% of Independents oppose sending in ground troops, while Republicans are divided, with 30% in favor and 37% opposed. 

In the DC mental asylum, they dreamt up the concept of “Greater North America”. In addition to the USA, it includes Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and the Caribbean countries. US Defence Secretary and professional drunkard, Pete Hegseth, displayed a map on which these regions are unified. Hegseth did not explain how these countries are supposed to be united, but emphasized: “Trump has drawn a new strategic map”. ……………………………………………………. https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/war-front-updates-america-opposes-war.html

April 8, 2026 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

UK Government reviewing fallout report after nuclear test concerns

By Craig Langford, UK Defence Journal 5th April 2026,
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-reviewing-fallout-report-after-nuclear-test-concerns/

The government has said it will examine the implications of a previously restricted report into nuclear fallout contamination, following renewed scrutiny over its handling and potential impact on past legal cases involving veterans.

Responding to two written questions from Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, Defence Minister Lord Coaker did not directly address whether the report calls into question evidence presented in earlier litigation, but confirmed that further work is underway.

“We remain committed to listening to their concerns and working collaboratively to address them,” he said, referring to nuclear test veterans.

The questions relate to a 2014 report, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, which has prompted claims about the suppression of evidence and its possible relevance to historic court proceedings, including the Supreme Court case Ministry of Defence v AB and others.

Coaker pointed instead to a recent Commons statement, noting that ministers have committed to reviewing both the contents of the report and how it was handled.

“The Minister for Veterans and People reiterated the government’s commitment to maximum transparency and made a commitment to undertake work to fully understand the implications of the 2014 report and its handling, and to take action if necessary,” he said.

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

New US war team needed to end Iran war on Iran’s sensible terms

Walt Zlotow   West Suburban Peace Coalition, 4 April 26, https://theaimn.net/new-us-war-team-needed-to-end-iran-war-on-irans-sensible-terms/

At day 35 of America’s lost war on Iran choking the entire world economy of Middle East oil, it’s time for a change. No, not regime change in Iran. Regime change in America.

President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio should resign. They are so committed to winning a war that cannot be won on their terms, their continued involvement will produce endless death in the Middle East and worldwide economic catastrophe.

They know the US has no chance of winning on any of their shifting war goals. But they are loathe to admit a single negative reality regarding the disaster they’ve unleashed upon the Middle East and world economy.

Their public statements are 100% US propaganda. They ignore the devastating damage to every US base in the region. They provide virtually no information regarding over 500 US casualties. They totally ignore the devastating Iran retaliation degrading every aspect of life in Israel. They pretend Iran has no offensive capability left when Iran is positioned for long term retaliation. They make up imaginary negotiations with Iranian leaders who will never negotiate with the most duplicitous negotiators on earth. They say they don’t care the Strait of Hormuz is closed when they know it is creating economic ruin worldwide. They’ve alienated every country on earth except Israel, the nation that goaded them into this military disaster.

J.D. Vance should replace Trump and appoint Defense and State Secretaries not wedded to catastrophe. The war must stop immediately. The US should prepare to leave the Middle East as no Gulf State being bombed from America’s perfidy, will ever allow America to rebuild its damaged bases. They should agree to reparations for the colossal damage they senselessly inflicted upon Iran. They should end all sanctions while reestablishing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s nuclear development.

Most importantly, Vance and his new team must make any further military aid to Israel contingent upon ending its wars on Gaza, West Bank Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Israel must commit to creation of a Palestinian state, something Israel has vowed never to do.

Trump and his war council will never resign on their own. But if all 535 Congresspersons demand their resignation and refuse to govern till they do, they may face the music of their foul deeds fouling up the world.

If Congress takes up the challenge of forcing the war’s end thru peaceful regime change, they will not only be reclaiming their constitutional war powers duty, they may prevent impending worldwide catastrophe.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Does the Trump administration understand how ‘enriched’ uranium is made into weapons?

Harmeet Kaur, CNN, 2 April 2026

For the US to reach a deal with Iran or to end its war in the country, President Trump has said he wants Iran to surrender its “enriched” uranium.

“We want no enrichment, but we also want the enriched uranium,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week.

The president has at times cited Iran’s “enriched” uranium stores as part of his ever-changing rationale for the war, and in recent days, he’s reportedly considered sending US troops in to seize them. But nuclear arms experts say the way Trump and his lead negotiator have talked about uranium enrichment raises doubts about how well they understand the technicalities.

For one, Trump keeps referring to “nuclear dust,” which is not a known term in the nuclear energy industry. And since the February 26 US-Iran nuclear talks, Steve Witkoff, a former real estate developer who has been leading US negotiations with Iran along with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, has made claims that experts say betray a similarly weak expertise………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Uranium that has been enriched above the natural 0.7% level of uranium-235 and up to a 20% concentration is considered low-enriched uranium, used for civilian purposes. Commercial reactors typically require uranium enriched to less than 5%, while research reactors used for testing or medicine generally require uranium enriched to up to 20%.

Uranium enriched beyond 20% is considered highly enriched uranium, and uranium enriched above 90% is considered weapons-grade.

The higher the enrichment level, the more quickly uranium can be enriched to weapons-grade, Diaz-Maurin says. Once uranium has been enriched to 20%, a vast majority of the work required to enrich it to weapons-grade levels has been completed. It becomes exponentially easier to enrich 20% uranium to 60%; enriching from 60% to 90% is even easier, he says.

The higher the enrichment level, the lower the minimum mass of enriched uranium required to produce a bomb, says Diaz-Maurin. For example, uranium that’s been enriched above 20% can technically be used to produce a crude weapon, but you would need about 400 kilograms of it, making it inefficient and impractical. When the enrichment level goes up to 60%, the critical mass drops down to about 42 kilograms. Uranium enriched to weapons-grade requires about 28 kilograms, which can fit into a missile warhead, he says.

Since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in his first term, Iran has been enriching its uranium closer and closer to weapons-grade, though it officially proclaimed a religious prohibition against building a nuclear weapon. Now, given that the US and Israel have attacked the country as negotiations were ongoing, Iran’s hardliners in parliament are calling on the regime to advance to full nuclear armament.

Western nations, as well as the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have long expressed concerns about Iran’s production and stockpiling of highly enriched uranium. On June 12 last year, the IAEA estimated that Iran’s stockpile included 440 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60%, Diaz-Maurin wrote in a recent analysis. The next day, Israel attacked Iran, killing prominent nuclear scientists and significantly damaging Iran’s main enrichment site.

Enrichment level is an important indicator of risk, but there are a host of other factors that should be considered in assessing how quickly Iran could produce weapons-grade enriched uranium, says Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. Those other considerations include the amount of enriched uranium a country has, its capacity to enrich it and whether the uranium is being held in solid fuel rods or in gas form.

“Witkoff had a poor grasp of the details,” she says.

For example, Davenport says comments that Witkoff made in the aftermath of February 26 negotiations with Iran indicated some confusion between nuclear reactors, which use enriched uranium for power, and the centrifuge facilities where the enrichment process takes place. Witkoff seemed particularly concerned about a research reactor in Tehran that he claimed was being used to stockpile highly enriched uranium. Reports from the UN’s nuclear watchdog estimate that Iran had about 45 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium stored in fuel assemblies at the reactor, which Davenport says “is not even enough for one bomb.”

To be developed into a nuclear weapon, she says the uranium at the reactor would need to be converted back to gas form and then be further enriched to weapons-grade. Before Israel’s strike on Iran’s main conversion facility last June, that might not have been difficult. Now, the situation has changed. “Could Iran convert that material back to gas form? Yes,” she says. “Could they do it quickly and easily at this point? No.”

Davenport says Witkoff was also reportedly surprised by how much enriched uranium was in Iran’s stockpile, even though this information was well documented by international inspectors. “I think he was focused on the wrong details and did not have the nuclear expertise or the expert team available to him to assess how the Iranian proposal would have impacted risk overall,” Davenport says.

Iran also said that it made an offer to dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower percentage, which Diaz-Maurin calls “a sound one from a non-proliferation perspective.” But he says it doesn’t appear that US negotiators took the proposal seriously. “I suspect that they did not really understand what the meaning was,” he adds. “And here we are.”

Less than two days after Witkoff and Kushner met with Iran to discuss its nuclear program, the US and Israel attacked the country. Some experts suggest that the decision was informed, at least partially, by a shallow understanding of Iran’s nuclear program and positions.

“It certainly seems as though there was a gap, and that’s a huge problem on something like this, especially when it seems like potentially a military decision was made based on things that were happening in that room,” says Connor Murray, a research analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

A month on, the US is engaged in an intense war that experts argue could potentially have been avoided with another word: Diplomacy. US and Israeli strikes have indeed severely diminished Iran’s capacities to enrich uranium, Diaz-Maurin says. But he says Iran’s know-how and political will to build nuclear weapons probably won’t be destroyed so easily.

“​​You can’t really bomb away an idea, a program and knowledge. So there will always be a suspicion that Iran is doing something,” he says. “And one could argue that now more than ever, they have incentive to accelerate whatever program they have.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/01/us/word-of-week-enriched-cec

April 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Manchester Professor appointed expert reviewer for Government nuclear decommissioning review

 A University of Manchester Professor has been appointed by Lord Vallance,
Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, as an
Expert Reviewer for an independent assessment of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA); an executive non-departmental public body
that is charged with, on behalf of government, the mission to clean-up the
UK’s earliest nuclear sites safely, securely and cost effectively.


Professor Zara Hodgson FREng is an internationally recognised expert in
nuclear energy policy and research, and Director of the University’s
Dalton Nuclear Institute. She has been appointed to support the NDA 2026
Review, which has been commissioned by the Government to provide assurance
on the NDA’s performance and governance, and to make recommendations on
improvements.

The Review is led by Dr Tim Stone CBE, a senior expert
adviser to five previous Secretaries of State in two successive UK
governments and the Chair of Nuclear Risk Insurers. Professor Hodgson will
join a team of three other independent experts to support Dr Stone. The
review will focus on the NDA’s strategic planning and management, project
and programme delivery, and financial management. It will assess how
effectively the NDA delivers value for money for the taxpayer while
maintaining the highest standards of safety, transparency and governance
across the UK’s civil nuclear legacy. Reviewers will challenge current
practices, propose bold value-for-money recommendations, and highlight good
practice while identifying areas for improvement.

 Manchester University 1st April 2026, https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/manchester-professor-appointed-expert-reviewer-for-government-nuclear-decommissioning-review/

April 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Israeli nuclear city emerges as focal point in escalating Iran–Israel confrontation

March 30, 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260330-israeli-nuclear-city-emerges-as-focal-point-in-escalating-iran-israel-confrontation/

The city of Dimona has moved to the center of the escalating confrontation between Iran and Israel, following reports of an Iranian strike targeting its vicinity on 21st March.

Located deep in the Negev desert, Dimona is widely regarded as one of the most sensitive nodes in Israeli strategic infrastructure, largely due to its association with the country’s nuclear programme. Established in 1955, the city has since evolved into a key military and strategic site.

Researchers note that the area surrounding Dimona was historically inhabited by tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouin Arabs prior to the 1948 Nakba. According to political analyst Muhammad Mustafa Shahin, the Negev region was home to between 90,000 and 95,000 Palestinians from tribes including the Tayyah, Azazmeh, and Jabarat, who relied on agriculture and herding.

Shahin highlights the geological significance of the region, noting that the Negev contains phosphate deposits rich in uranium in areas such as Aron, Zein, and Arad, alongside industrial facilities like the Rotem Amfert plants. These resources, he argues, contributed to the foundations of Israel’s nuclear development.

At the heart of Dimona’s strategic importance is the Negev Nuclear Research Center, commonly referred to as the Dimona reactor. Constructed with French assistance in the late 1950s and becoming operational in the early 1960s, the facility is widely believed to have played a central role in producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Shahin describes the reactor as part of what is known as Israel’s “Samson Option” — a doctrine of ultimate deterrence — which continues to fuel regional tensions, particularly in light of Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The reported strike near Dimona marks a significant moment in the current escalation, drawing renewed attention to the risks surrounding nuclear-related infrastructure in an increasingly volatile regional conflict.

April 2, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Scotland won’t pursue ‘unproven’ SMRs and ‘experimental’ fusion as focus remains renewables

30 Mar, 2026 By Thomas Johnson, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/scotland-wont-pursue-unproven-smrs-and-experimental-fusion-as-focus-remains-renewables-30-03-2026/

Scotland plans to focus on investing in renewables as nuclear fusion and small modular reactors (SMRs) remain “unproven technology”, a Scottish Minister has said.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), the ruling party in Scotland, has banned the development of any new nuclear in the country – and seems set to maintain this even as promising new technologies emerge.

Speaking in Scottish Parliament last week, MSP for Aberdeenshire East and cabinet secretary for climate action and energy Gillian Martin outlined how even with the buzz around fusion at the moment, the Scottish government will not be pursuing new opportunities within the nuclear sector.


“The Scottish Government recognises the increasing interest in fusion energy. However, fusion remains experimental, with no commercial deployment and uncertainties around cost, safety and timescales,” she said.

“The UK Government’s prototype fusion plant is not expected to be operational until 2040, but the climate emergency demands proven, deployable solutions now.”

Martin explained how this policy extends to the deployment of SMRs.

“We do not plan to build small nuclear reactors, which are unproven technology that has not been deployed,” she said.

“The Scottish Government has a policy against new nuclear fission.”

The topic arose in Scottish Parliament after MSP for South Scotland Martin Whitfield quizzed Martin regarding any impact on Scottish energy policy could expect in light of plans Torness nuclear power station will close by 2030.

Torness, the East Lothian‑based nuclear power plant operated by EDF, is one of the UK’s four remaining advanced gas‑cooled reactor (AGR) stations. It was due to close in 2028 but EDF announced in 2024 it would be extending its life for a further two years.

April 2, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »