nuclear-news

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

Chernobyl, 40 Years Since Disaster: Five Things to Know

 Ukraine on Sunday marks the 40th anniversary of the explosion at the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant – the worst civilian nuclear disaster in
history. It comes four years into the Russian invasion that has put the
plant once again under threat and raised risks of another radioactive
catastrophe.

Here are five things to know about the disaster and the plant
today: Thousands are estimated to have died as a result of exposure to the
radiation, though assessments of the precise human toll vary. A 2005 UN
report put the number of confirmed and projected deaths at 4,000 in the
three worst-affected countries. Greenpeace in 2006 estimated that the
disaster had caused close to 100,000 deaths. According to the United
Nations, some 600,000 people involved in the clean-up operation — known as
“liquidators” — were exposed to high levels of radiation. The disaster
raised public fears of nuclear energy, fuelling a surge in anti-nuclear
movements across Europe.

 Kyiv Post 24th April 2026, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/74633

April 27, 2026 Posted by | incidents, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Remembering Chornobyl

  by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/04/19/remembering-chornobyl/

40 years on we are still asking the wrong questions and getting a lot of wrong answers, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

Probably the most heinous crime, other than the avoidable accident itself and its immediate coverup, is the way that the Chornobyl (Ukrainian equivalent spelling) nuclear power disaster in Ukraine, 40 years old this week, has been used to downplay and normalize the long-lasting health impacts caused by that April 26, 1986 explosion.

Still today, the myth is repeated that “no one died” — meaning no one in the public. Instead, we are told over and over that it was only a handful of liquidators, sent in to deal with the immediate crisis, who were killed by the massive release of radiation resulting from the reactor explosion.

And still today, in part because of that myth, now so firmly cemented in the public and media narratives around the Chornobyl disaster, the true health effects of even just routine reactor operation, or the exposures suffered by communities living around active or abandoned uranium mines, or by those working in uranium enrichment or fuel fabrication facilities, are discounted and dismissed.

Worse still, we are now facing a concerted effort by the Trump administration to emasculate already weak radiation protection standards, once again ignoring females who are most vulnerable to harm, and especially pregnant women, babies and children. 

Through yet another executive order accelerating nuclear power expansion while sparing the industry the costs it should incur to guarantee safety (an impossibility anyway), the White House wants to abandon the long-held Linear No Threshold (LNT) model.

LNT holds that radiation damage increases with higher exposures, and that harm is posed by all radiation exposure no matter how small. But LNT itself is already unsatisfactory, since health studies continue to indicate that more — not less — protection is needed for non-cancer impacts, and for radionuclides taken internally, than is already provided by applying LNT.

This is what makes the perpetual focus on “who died” when it comes to major nuclear accidents, fundamentally the wrong question. We will likely never know who or how many died as a result of the Chornobyl disaster. Registries and statistics weren’t kept, people moved around, and, as is so often the case, illnesses were ascribed to other causes. Certainty is hard to achieve.

Nevertheless, perhaps one of the most important pieces of research on the health realities of the Chornobyl aftermath was done by historian Kate Brown in her book Manual For Survival. A Chernobyl Guide to the Future. It looks like a “hefty tome”, but it is anything but. Despite being nonfiction, it reads like a page-turning thriller and some of what she uncovers is eye-stretching. And, of course, by saying “uncovers,” we immediately understand that this was indeed a cover-up, first by the then Soviet Union, and then compliantly perpetuated by the United States and other western allies eager to avoid any shocking realization by the general public that nuclear power technology is phenomenally dangerous and human beings are liable to lose control of it, with disastrous results.

This returns us to the question about the protracted harm that can be caused if something goes very badly wrong at a nuclear power plant. And it returns us to dispensing with the wrong question, which is “how many people died?”

That wrong question, a favorite of headline writers and spin doctors, sets us on a perpetual path to dispute. The health figures, especially fatalities, have become the most misrepresented statistic related to the Chornobyl disaster. But focusing only on fatalities also serves to diminish the disaster’s impact. Nuclear power plant accidents often do not kill people instantly and sometimes not at all. It can take years before fatal illnesses triggered by a nuclear accident take hold. This creates a challenge in calculating just who eventually died due to the accident and who suffered non-fatal consequences.

Exposure to ionizing radiation released by a nuclear power plant (and not just from accidents but every day) can cause serious non-fatal illnesses as well. These should not be discounted. Arguably, neither should post-accident psychological trauma. Nuclear power plant accidents can and should be prevented. The only sure way to do so is to close them all down. Otherwise we risk another Chornobyl, or Three Mile Island, or Fukushima.

In our Thunderbird newsletter of 2018, we examined some of the key myths around the impacts of the Chornobyl disaster now 40 years ago. Below, is a synopsis of some of the key points, as they bear repeating and remain perpetually true. The full document can be read here.

What happened?

On April 26, 1986, Unit 4 at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant exploded. That explosion and the resulting fire, lofted huge amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere. Unit 4 was relatively new, having only been in service for just over two years. The accident occurred during what should have been a routine test to see how the plant would operate if it lost power. The test involved shutting down safety systems but a series of human errors, compounded by design flaws, instead set in motion a catastrophic chain of events.

After shutting down the turbine system that provided the cooling water to the reactor, the water began boiling and workers desperately tried to re-insert control rods to slow down the nuclear reaction. But the rods jammed and control of Unit 4 was irrevocably lost. The explosion and fire — which took five months to put out — dispersed at least 200 times more radioactivity than that produced by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The fallout contaminated several million square kilometers of land in the former Soviet Union and in Europe and was also detected in the US

Soviet authorities were slow to react. The accident was first detected by monitors in Sweden. The nearby city of Pripyat was not evacuated immediately. By the time they did so, radioactivity levels were 60,000 times higher than “normal”. 

The financial cost of the accident, while difficult to calculate given the many unknowns, is estimated to be in the region of $700 billion and is expected to keep rising.

The Liquidators 

The Chornobyl liquidators were dispatched to the stricken nuclear plant in the immediate aftermath, as well as for at least the subsequent two years, to manage and endeavor to “clean up” the disaster. They included military as well as civilian personnel such as firefighters, nuclear plant workers and other skilled professionals.

While estimates of the number of liquidators varies, the generally accepted figure is around 800,000. However, evaluating their fate has been difficult. Only a small portion of them were subject to medical examinations. 

Yet, by 1992 it was estimated that 70,000 liquidators were invalids and 13,000 had died. These estimates rose to 50,000 then to 100,000 deaths among liquidators in 2006. By 2010, Yablokov et al. estimated a death toll of 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators.

Even the Russian authorities admit findings of liquidators aging prematurely, with a higher than average number having developed various forms of cancer, leukemia, somatic and neurological problems, psychiatric illnesses and cataracts.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found a statistically significant increase of leukemia among Russian liquidators who were in service at Chernobyl in 1986 and 1987.

General populations inside and outside the former Soviet Union 

As with the liquidators, tracking the health of general populations exposed to the plume pathway of Chornobyl has been problematic. Within the Soviet Union, people moved away and neither they nor many living in other affected countries were tracked or monitored. While countless numbers may have died from their Chornobyl-related illnesses, equal or even greater numbers may have survived with debilitating or chronic physical as well as mental illnesses caused by the accident. 

Establishing exact numbers may never be possible. Media reports often rely on the 2003-2005 Chernobyl Forum report produced by the nuclear promoting International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency ignored its own data that indicated there would be 9,000 future fatal future cancers in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, claiming there would be no more than 4,000. Both numbers are gross underestimations. The report focused only on the most heavily exposed areas in making its predictions. It ignored the much larger populations in the affected countries as a whole, and in the rest of the world, who have been exposed to lower but chronic levels of radiation from Chornobyl.

In contrast, a comprehensive analysis by the late Soviet scientist, Alexey Yablokov and colleagues, examined more than 5,000 Russian studies. They concluded that almost a million premature deaths would result from Chornobyl. Meanwhile, the TORCH report (The Other Report on Chernobyl), by Dr. Ian Fairlie, predicts between 30,000 and 60,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide due to the accident.

More than half the Chornobyl fallout landed outside of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia — in Europe, Asia and North America. Fallout from Chornobyl contaminated about 40% of Europe’s surface. Immediately after the accident, thyroid cancer was particularly rampant in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, where no prophylactic remedy in the form of potassium iodide pills was offered. Consequently, as Baverstock and Williams found in 2006, “by far, the most prominent health consequence of the accident is the increase in thyroid cancer among those exposed as children . . . particularly in children living close to the reactor.”

In contrast, Poland, where potassium iodide was distributed, experienced relatively low rates of thyroid cancers. While thyroid cancer is considered one of the more treatable kinds of cancers, this does not mean it should be viewed as an acceptable consequence of a nuclear power plant accident. Such diseases — especially among children — impact emotional, social, and physical wellbeing. In the former Soviet Union, those operated on bear a scare referred to grimly as the “Chornobyl necklace.”

Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki, a physician and geneticist, has conducted research, particularly focused on Polissia, Ukraine. There he found clear indications of altered child development patterns, or teratogenesis. Wertelecki noted birth defects and other health disturbances among not only those who were adults at the time of the Chornobyl disaster, but their children who were in utero at the time and, most disturbingly, their later offspring.

Important research has also been conducted on psychological effects. Pierre Flor-Henry and others examined some of the psychological disorders resulting from Chornobyl and found a clinical pathology related to radiation exposure. Flor-Henry found that schizophrenia and chronic fatigue syndrome among a high percentage of liquidators were accompanied by organic changes in the brain. This suggested that various neurological and psychological illnesses could be caused by exposure to radiation levels between 0.15 and 0.5 sieverts.

There are of course many other non-cancerous diseases caused by nuclear accidents that release radioactivity. A peak in Down Syndrome cases was observed in newborns born in 1987 in Belarus, one year after the Chornobyl nuclear accident. This phenomenon has been found around other nuclear sites. Abnormally high rates of Down Syndrome were found in the Dundalk, Ireland population possibly tied to the operation of the Sellafield nuclear waste reprocessing plant across the Irish Sea in Cumbria, England.

Read full Thunderbird: Chornobyl: The Facts.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the Executive Director of Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. She is the author of the book, No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress And Provokes War, published by Pluto Press. Any opinions are her own.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Reference, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Beyond Nuclear statement on threat to Iran’s reactor

“Secretary Grossi is ignoring two key factors,” Pentz Gunter said. “The first is that the IAEA actively promotes the use and expansion of nuclear power around the world, so the agency must take responsibility for its role in the extreme danger we have found ourselves in, first in Ukraine and now Iran, with nuclear plants embroiled in war. Second, the “seven pillars” make an assumption we can now recognize as entirely unreliable — that the world leaders expected to abide by these protocols are sane and rational.

April 7, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/beyond-nuclear-statement-on-threat-to-irans-reactor/

Trump’s threats to obliterate power plants in Iran could lead to a fatal nuclear disaster affecting the Middle East and beyond

The recklessness of the US and Israeli bombing attacks on Iran that now threaten to potentially destroy the Bushehr commercial nuclear power plant there, represents a radiological risk of monumental proportions, warned Beyond Nuclear today.

The 1,000 megawatt Russian built VVER reactor sits on the Iranian coast. It is the same design as the reactors in Ukraine where alarm has already been raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international authorities, should any be struck or seriously damaged by Russian missiles as the war in Ukraine continues to drag on.

But there has been significantly less international comment about the similar risks at Bushehr, a disturbing trend as the US president dispenses with all the norms and protocols of war and threatens to obliterate all of Iran’s critical infrastructure including power plants by midnight on Tuesday if no agreement with Iran is met by then.

“Hitting the Bushehr civil nuclear power plant would be a war crime,” said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear. “The Geneva Convention specifically defines a war crime to include hitting facilities that, if damaged or destroyed, would result in extensive loss of non-combatant life,” Pentz Gunter added. “A commercial nuclear power plant certainly falls into this category.”

The particular dangers at Bushehr stem from the highly radioactive uranium fuel inside the reactor and stored in cooling pools and on-site casks. Any extended loss of power caused by an attack or a direct hit could see the fuel overheat and ignite, potentially leading to explosions. The resulting radiological releases would result in long-lasting radioactive fallout affecting vast areas in Iran, neighboring countries and beyond, contaminating agricultural land as well as sea water, an essential drinking water source for a region that relies on desalination.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s director general, Rafael Grossi, has called for restraint, citing the “Seven Indispensable Pillars” he created to try to discourage attacks on nuclear power plants.

“Secretary Grossi is ignoring two key factors,” Pentz Gunter said. “The first is that the IAEA actively promotes the use and expansion of nuclear power around the world, so the agency must take responsibility for its role in the extreme danger we have found ourselves in, first in Ukraine and now Iran, with nuclear plants embroiled in war. Second, the “seven pillars” make an assumption we can now recognize as entirely unreliable — that the world leaders expected to abide by these protocols are sane and rational.

“Grossi is effectively clinging to his pillars like a barrelman hanging onto the mast of a storm-tossed ship about to hit the rocks while his cries of alarm are drowned out by the mayhem around him,” Pentz Gunter said.

Nuclear meltdowns deposit radioactive contamination where the wind blows, coming down during rainfall as fallout. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power disaster resulted in a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone, still too radiologically contaminated for human habitation even today.

Japan experienced a triple meltdown in March 2011, when three of the four Fuskushima Daiichi reactors exploded. The long gestation period for some diseases caused by persistent exposure to radiation, means that the true health outcomes from that disaster, whether fatalities or debilitating diseases, will not be known for many years.

“To set up the possibility of another Chernobyl or Fukushima in the Middle East is criminally irresponsible,” Pentz Gunter concluded. “And even though we know Iran’s nuclear facilities were merely the pretext for the US-Israeli attack, we must remember that it was President Trump during his first term who effectively tore up a perfectly effective nuclear inspection and verification agreement — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — that ensured Iran stayed within the boundaries of a civil nuclear program. Maintaining the JCPOA would have been the sensible way to keep those nuclear safeguards in place.”

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Iran, safety | Leave a comment

Japanese earthquake and tsunami warning forces evacuation from Fukushima nuclear plants

20 Apr, 2026 By Tom Pashby

 Workers at two Fukushima nuclear power plants in Japan were forced to
evacuate to higher ground following earthquake and tsunami warnings today
(20 April). Japan’s nuclear power company Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power
Company) issued statements where they sought to reassure the public about
its plants. “At around 16.53 [local time] on April 20, 2026, an
earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 on the Richter scale struck off the
coast of Sanriku, Japan”, it said. “As of now, there is no abnormality
with our main power system. “In response to the tsunami advisory issued
for Fukushima Prefecture, evacuation orders have been issued to workers at
the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stations.

 New Civil Engineer 20th April 2026,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/japanese-earthquake-and-tsunami-warning-forces-evacuation-from-fukushima-nuclear-plants-20-04-2026/

April 23, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Japan, safety | Leave a comment

THE NEW NUCLEAR POWER PUSH INTENSIFIES PART 1

Enviro Close-Up #712, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxgwmJi-ew

The push for nuclear power has intensified. It’s as if the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power disasters never occurred —and the growing and widespread use of safe, clean, green energy, led by solar and wind, is not happening.

In this Enviro Close-Up, three experts on nuclear issues, each for many decades, analyze what’s going on. Kevin Kamps, executive director of the organization Don’t Waste Michigan, says the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has “from the beginning…not been about nuclear safety and nuclear security, the environment, public health, the list goes on…but it’s never been worse than it is now.”

Nuclear regulations are in freefall. It’s the “nuclear push on steroids,” says Kamps. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry vice president who broke from the industry and for decades has been a leading nuclear whistleblower, says: “I’ve always said the NRC is a lapdog, but under Trump the lapdog has had its vocal cords cut and its teeth ground down.”

Attorney Terry Lodge, who has been in court battle after court battle in challenges to nuclear power, describes it as “the most dangerous, inherently technologically difficult way of boiling water…and it continues to be that.” Further, the NRC and the agency it replaced, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, have been “the absolute epitome, textbook examples of captive regulatory agencies….owned and dominated politically by the industry that they supposedly regulate.” Also, it’s “the most expensive” energy technology, and in financing it “we’re siphoning off money” from energy forms that are to create “faster…and cheaper, to feed a nuclear industry.” And the intensified nuclear push in the U.S. is going on elsewhere in the world.

April 22, 2026 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia NPP loses external power for the second time in a week, IAEA investigates

Kyiv • UNN, April 17 2026,

The Zaporizhzhia NPP has temporarily lost all external power for the fourteenth time

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant temporarily lost all external power supply, which was subsequently restored. This was reported by the IAEA, which is currently studying the situation and investigating the incident, writes UNN.

Details

According to the agency, the incident occurred in the evening. External power was restored approximately 40 minutes later.

The cause of the outage is currently unknown and is being investigated by specialists on site.ime since the start of the war. The IAEA is conducting an investigation due to critical nuclear safety risks.


Ministry of Energy confirms 13th complete blackout of Zaporizhzhia NPP; parts of 6 regions without power due to Russian attacks14.04.26, 10:52 • 23755 views

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that this is the second such incident in less than a week and the 14th since the beginning of the full-scale war.

The loss of external power supply underscores the ongoing critical nuclear safety situation– he noted.

The IAEA team at the plant continues to monitor and investigate the circumstances of the incident. The agency emphasizes that such failures pose a serious risk to nuclear safety. https://unn.ua/en/news/zaporizhzhia-npp-loses-external-power-for-the-second-time-in-a-week-iaea-investigates

April 22, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Chernobyl at risk of ‘catastrophic’ collapse as haunting new images of nuclear site emerge

It’s nearly 40 years since the world’s most terrifying nuclear disaster and rare access in side the stricken plant show how it looks today

By Johnny Goldsmith, Picture Editor, 14 Apr 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery/chernobyl-risk-catastrophic-collapse-haunting-37009206

As the war in Ukraine continues to rage, haunting new images have emerged from inside the site of the world’s most terrifying nuclear catastrophe.

AFP photographer Genya Savilov alongside Greenpeace have been given rare access inside the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history.

An uncontrolled collapse of the internal radiation shell at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine could increase the risk of radioactivity release in the environment, Greenpeace have warned.

Our gallery reveals the eerie reality of the plant today, nearly 40 years after the 1986 explosion sent radioactive fallout spewing across the globe.

It was on 26th April 1986 when an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine caused radioactive fallout to begin spewing into the atmosphere.

Dozens of people were killed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, while the long-term death toll from radiation poisoning is believed to number in the thousands.

April 19, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Chernobyl could face ‘catastrophic’ collapse as repairs stall following Russian drone strike.

euro news, By Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom,  14/04/2026 

Failure to repair the protective structure around the nuclear site could unleash ‘highly radioactive dust’ that ‘does not recognise borders’, experts warn.

A potential collapse of the internal radiation shelter at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine could risk a release of radioactivity into the environment, Greenpeace warned on Tuesday (14 April).

It comes just days before the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which remains the world’s worst nuclear disaster. On 26 April 1986, while Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, a reactor at the plant exploded, contaminating a vast area spanning Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

Following the disaster, an inner steel-and-concrete structure, known as the sarcophagus, was hastily built around the destroyed reactor to prevent further radiation leaks.

Years later in November 2016, a high-tech metal dome called the New Safe Confinement (NSC) structure was built, at a cost of €1.5 billion, to reinforce the inner shell.

Why are experts concerned about Chernobyl?

……..While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initially had not reported any radiation leaks, in December it confirmed that the drone impact had degraded the steel structure and that it no longer blocked radiation.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said that an inspection “confirmed that the [protective structure] had lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability, but also found that there was no permanent damage to its load-bearing structures or monitoring systems.”

Grossi added that while some repairs had taken place, “comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety”

Chernobyl requires an estimated €500 million in repairs

Last month, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot estimated the dome required almost €500 million in repairs.

“We presented this evening the first financial estimate of the damage caused by this drone which amounts to around €500 million,” said Barrot after chairing a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in March.

Greenpeace reported that despite some repair efforts, the protective shield has not yet been fully restored. The organisation warned that this increases the risk of radioactivity release, especially in the case of a collapse of the internal structure.

“That would be catastrophic because there’s four tonnes of dust, highly radioactive dust, fuel pellets, enormous amounts of radioactivity inside the sarcophagus,” senior nuclear specialist for Greenpeace Ukraine, Shaun Burnie, told media agency AFP earlier this month.

“And because the New Safe Confinement cannot be repaired at the moment, it cannot function as it was designed, there’s a possibility of radioactive releases,” Burnie added.

‘Radioactive particles do not recognise borders’

The deconstruction of unstable elements of the inner shell is crucial to prevent an uncontrolled collapse, Greenpeace said, but further works to the site have been impeded by Russia’s ongoing attacks.

In addition to Greenpeace’s warning, the power plant’s director Sergiy Tarakanov has also warned that if a rocket were to land near the facility, the structure could be at risk of collapsing due to the impact.

“And from what the 1986 accident showed us…the radioactive particles do not recognise borders,” Tarakanov added. https://www.euronews.com/2026/04/14/chernobyl-could-face-catastrophic-collapse-as-repairs-stall-following-russian-drone-strike

April 18, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Targeting Nuclear Power


 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Streamed live on 13 Apr 2026, https://www.youtube.com/live/CQGbJKEbzy8

Since it began on February 28th, the war in the Middle East has targeted civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure. Civilian nuclear power plants have not been immune as Dimona in Israel and areas near Bushehr in Iran have been targeted repeatedly. In early April, Moscow evacuated Russian nationals working at the Bushehr facility. And IAEA director Rafael Grossi has warned about an increasing possibility of nuclear leaks, raising the specter of a nuclear incident caused by conflict. Years of Russian targeting of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility in Ukraine, show that this threat is not unique to one conflict.

Notwithstanding, the US and Iran have reached a ceasefire agreement. But these security concerns should not be forgotten. Interest – and investment – in nuclear energy is increasing globally, as leaders seek to reduce energy interdependence and reliance on fossil fuels.

This panel will discuss growing concerns around nuclear safety as well as broader questions around nuclear power plants becoming targets in war and implications for the future of nuclear energy.

Speakers on the panel include:

Moderator: Rachel Bronson, a senior advisor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From February 2015 to January 2025, she served as the Bulletin’s president and CEO. She also serves as the Lester Crown Nonresident Senior Fellow for Energy and Geopolitics at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Lars van Dassen, the Executive Director for the World Institute for National Security. Previously, he served as the Acting Department Head, Section Head and Director for the Office for External Relations at the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.

Laura S. H. Holgate, who served most recently as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations International Organizations in Vienna and the Representative of the United States of America to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Holgate currently leads LSHH International Advisors.

April 18, 2026 Posted by | safety, weapons and war | Leave a comment

There’s a Glaring Safety Problem With Nuclear Energy Startups

The reason comes down to profit, essentially: why listen to a bunch of bureaucrats telling you to slow down and play it safe when you could just fire up the uranium?

Move fast, break isotopes.,

By Joe Wilkins,  Apr 12, 2026, https://futurism.com/science-energy/nuclear-startups-safety

The United States approach to nuclear energy is interesting, to say the least. Of all the countries harnessing the power of the atom, the United States is perhaps the most privatized nuclear energy system in the world. Most countries treat nuclear fission as a government affair — China runs its reactors through state-owned enterprises, and France went so far as to fully renationalize its main nuclear company in 2023. The States, meanwhile, leave their reactors almost entirely in the hands of the private sector.

Disciples of the free market will tell you this is exactly how things should be. If you don’t have a financial stake in the nuclear race, however, you might notice this arrangement comes with side effects like chronic understaffing and public subsidies of private profit. It also raises serious safety questions as a rising number of nuclear startups jostle for a piece of the atomic pie.

Case in point, new reporting by Politico‘s energy publication E&E News found that several baby nuclear companies are avoiding requests to join one of the industry’s main safety organizations. The regulatory body, called the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), was formed in the fallout of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. While not a government body, the INPO is a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, responsible for conducting plant inspections, sharing operational guidance between nuclear companies, and helping companies train nuclear personnel.

For a nuclear energy company, joining the INPO is completely voluntary, though every operator has — until now. Of the nine nuclear startups which have sprouted up off the back of the tech industry’s data center boom, only one has signed up to join the INPO, E&E reported. These include companies like the “mass-manufactured nuclear” startup Aalo Atomics, and the “microreactor” company Antares Nuclear.

The reason comes down to profit, essentially: why listen to a bunch of bureaucrats telling you to slow down and play it safe when you could just fire up the uranium?

“These entities are businesses, and they’re trying to make money,” Scott Morris, a nuclear consultant and former US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) official, told E&E. “Any infrastructure that you put around that entity that is not directly contributing to its bottom line, it’s going to be questioned.”

Their decision to sidestep the INPO is even more concerning in the wake of Donald Trump’s regulatory cutbacks, which put the industry-led INPO in charge of regulations previously handled by the NRC. In effect, these moves have made certain operational regulations completely optional for nuclear energy companies.

“In fact, the NRC has delegated some of its regulatory authority, so to speak, to [the] INPO, specifically in the realm of operations and maintenance training programs,” Morris said. “The NRC and INPO are not duplicative; they’re complimentary.”

April 18, 2026 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Nuclear costs of the Iran War

 

To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions.

even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone. 

In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones. It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.

 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/04/11/nuclear-costs-of-the-iran-war/

Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters, writes Sharon Squassoni

President Donald J. Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters. For them, existential threats mean only one thing: use of nuclear weapons.  Thankfully, Trump’s April 7, 2026 threats were empty and possibly just a ruse to create a dramatic background for the temporary ceasefire in Iran. 

To be clear, the use of nuclear weapons in combat would serve no earthly strategic or tactical purpose, but threats to use them can be potent: even a latent capability in the hands of Iran was regarded as too threatening for the United States to tolerate any longer, which reportedly drove the U.S. and Israeli military actions.

It’s hard to tell who’s winning or losing in this conflict, but already it’s clear that disruption of energy sources (Iran’s blocking the Straits of Hormuz and the U.S. and Israel striking Iran’s oil infrastructure) focuses attention like no other infrastructure attack.  A sudden cutoff that shrinks supplies and distorts prices echoes in economies across the globe. 

This is one reason the world was hesitant to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil some twenty years ago when Iran’s clandestine nuclear program was first unveiled.  Today, the Iran war has underscored just how dependent the world continues to be on foreign sources of oil. 

Would nuclear energy be any different?

Since 2022, there has been a push in Europe and elsewhere to deploy nuclear reactors to reduce dependencies on Russian oil and gas, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  But such a response is almost laughable to anyone paying attention to what has transpired in Ukraine in the last four years. 

Russia hesitated not at all to hold the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants hostage, in addition to firing upon them.  The only thing that has saved Ukraine from a major nuclear meltdown is the fact that Russia wants to save Ukraine for itself, rather than destroy it utterly.  

For those who still believe in international laws, there are rules to prevent attacks on nuclear plants — specifically the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, a key document in international humanitarian law adopted in 1979 — that 175 countries follow. 

Unfortunately, Russia withdrew in 2019 and the US has never ratified Protocol I (along with Israel, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran).  The Protocol protects “works and installations containing dangerous forces,” prohibiting attacks on nuclear power plants that generate civilian electricity, among other things.  It concedes that some nuclear power plants that regularly support military purposes may be attacked. 

For those paying attention to nuclear development trends, this should be worrisome because both China and the United States have programs to develop nuclear reactors for specific military uses. Not content to learn from past experience, the United States plans to deploy a military microreactor by July 4th of this year. Leaving aside questions of cost, safety and peacetime security, such deployments will widen the base of deadly targets in war.  Civilians won’t care whether international law deems these “legitimate” targets of attack.

Attacks on nuclear facilities themselves are not new. The United States, Russia, Israel, Iran and Iraq have all, at times, targeted nuclear research and power reactors under various stages of construction and operation in the past.  Sometimes these attacks tried to slow nuclear weapons proliferation programs and sometimes, as in the Iran-Iraq war, they were targeted for less specific purposes. 

After the June 2025 attacks on uranium enrichment-related facilities by the United States, touted as “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi warned that a strike on the Bushehr power plant could cause a regional catastrophe.   

Recently, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has claimed that the Bushehr plant, which generates close to 1000 Megawatts of electricity, has been struck four times since February this year.  The closest hit has been 75 meters from the plant on April 4, killing a security guard and damaging a building. Russia, which has 128 Rosatom personnel at the plant, is considering further evacuations, which sounds eerily similar to what happened to the Zaporizhzhia plant in March 2022. 

To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions. In the case of Zaporizhzhia, operators shut down reactors to minimize some of the risks. But even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone. 

The Bushehr power plant is still operating and has spent nuclear fuel on-site in spent fuel pools. Who can forget the video footage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011 when crews attempted to spray seawater from helicopters on spent fuel pools damaged by the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan?  More than a decade later, the site is still undergoing remediation.

In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones.  It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.

In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption.  A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power.  The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running.  More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.  

Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason.  This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply.  Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.  

In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption.  A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power.  The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running.  More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.  

Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason.  This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply.  Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently voted to discontinue force-on-force commando drills designed to reveal weaknesses in site vulnerabilities. A victim of the DOGE process, the NRC has been stripped of its independence and will now overhaul the entire licensing process, even as the Trump administration seeks to end-run the NRC by deploying new reactors on government sites owned by the Departments of Energy and Defense. 

If anything, the Iran war demonstrates Gulliver’s dilemma. Both Ukraine and Iran have used drones successfully to compensate for conventional force inferiority.  Are we truly prepared to counter cheaper and more plentiful attacks that are more difficult to detect and defend against?  

Iran’s nuclear program was feared for its potential to provide the basis for nuclear weapons. Now it is generating fear for its potential to provoke a more imminent regional catastrophe, whether intended or accidental. These security risks, perhaps not widely appreciated now, will only grow in a more nuclearized future.

April 15, 2026 Posted by | safety | 1 Comment

WHO warns of catastrophic risks after strike on Bushehr nuclear plant


April 6, 2026 , Middle East Monitor,

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned of catastrophic consequences following the targeting of Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, amid escalating conflict in the region.

In a statement posted on X, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation said he shares the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding the safety of nuclear facilities in Iran.

He stressed that any attack on a nuclear site could trigger a nuclear accident, warning that such an event would have long-term and far-reaching health consequences.

“The recent attack on the Bushehr nuclear plant is a stark reminder,” Tedros said, adding that the risks are increasing with each passing day of the ongoing war.

He called for urgent de-escalation, stating that peace remains “the best medicine” to prevent further deterioration.

The Bushehr facility was reportedly targeted on Saturday, marking the fourth such attack since the start of the US-Israeli offensive against Iran on 28th February……………………………………………………. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260406-who-warns-of-catastrophic-risks-after-strike-on-bushehr-nuclear-plant/

April 11, 2026 Posted by | Iran, safety | Leave a comment

UN nuclear agency chief ‘deeply concerned’ by reports of latest attack on Iran power plant.

4 April 2026 , https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/04/1167250

Reports of yet another projectile strike near the Bushehr nuclear power plant prompted Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to register his deep concern on Saturday.

The IAEA was informed of the strike – the fourth such incident in recent weeks – by Iranian officials. Iran also informed the agency that a member of the site’s physical protection staff members was killed by a projectile fragment and that a building on site was affected by shockwaves and fragments.  

Mr. Grossi emphasised that nuclear power plant sites or nearby areas must never be attacked, noting that auxiliary site buildings may contain vital safety equipment. No increase in radiation levels was reported, following the latest incident.

Reiterating call for maximum military restraint to avoid risk of a nuclear accident, Mr. Grossi again stressed the paramount importance of adhering to the IAEA’s seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict (see below).

The previous strike on Bushehr took place on 18 March, when a structure about 350 metres from the reactor was hit and destroyed. No damage to the reactor or injuries were reported, but the agency warned that any attack near nuclear facilities risks violating key safety principles.

Earlier in the month, in an address to the IAEA Board at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Mr. Grossi underscored the risk of a nuclear incident from the military escalation since Iran “and many other countries in the region that have been subjected to military attacks have operational nuclear power plants and nuclear research reactors”.

The seven pillars for nuclear safety and security in armed conflict

The Seven Indispensable Pillars were introduced by the IAEA Director General in March 2022 to address the unprecedented challenge of maintaining nuclear safety and security when facilities are in a warzone.

  1. The physical integrity of facilities – whether it is the reactors, fuel ponds or radioactive waste stores – must be maintained.
  2. All safety and security systems and equipment must be fully functional at all times.
  3. The operating staff must be able to fulfil their safety and security duties and have the capacity to make decisions free of undue pressure.
  4. There must be a secure off-site power supply from the grid for all nuclear sites.
  5. There must be uninterrupted logistical supply chains and transportation to and from the sites.
  6. There must be effective on-site and off-site radiation monitoring systems, and emergency preparedness and response measures.
  7. There must be reliable communication with the regulator and others.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | safety | 1 Comment

60 Years Nuclear Accident of Palomares – Lost hydrogen bombs and their consequences

Exactly 60 years ago, on January 17, 1966, one of the worst nuclear accidents of the Cold War occurred in southern Spain. A US tanker plane collided with a B-52 bomber carrying four hydrogen bombs. The planes exploded and fell with their dangerous cargo over the coastal village of Palomares in Andalusia. Two of the four bombs failed to deploy their parachutes. They shattered on impact, contaminating the air and soil around Palomares with plutonium and uranium. The fourth bomb fell into the Mediterranean Sea and was discovered just 80 days later.

Uranium Film Festival, 6 April 26

A conversation with the Spanish author and documentary filmmaker José Herrera Plaza from Almería. Interview by Norbert Suchanek

Where were you in January 1966, when the hydrogen bombs fell from the sky?

I had just started school in Almería, about 90 kilometers from Palomares. Like most people in Andalusia, I had no idea about the hydrogen bombs flying over our heads.

When and why did you begin your research on the Palomares accident and make it your main focus?

On January 13, 1986, I attended a meeting with the residents of Palomares. It was three days before the 20th anniversary of the accident, and their claims for compensation for health damages were about to expire. I wanted to make a documentary about this little-known, almost unbelievable story, but at that time, all sources for documentary films were classified. I waited 21 years, gathering all available documents, until I was finally able to complete the documentary “Operation Broken Arrow: The Palomares Nuclear Accident.”

What does “Operation Broken Arrow” mean?

“Broken Arrow” is an U.S. military code word. It  refers to an accidental event that involves nuclear weapons like an accidental or unexplained nuclear explosion or the loss or theft of nuclear bombs.

How did the local authorities react? Were they aware of the plutonium threat?

The local authorities responded to the protocol of an aviation accident without knowing about the involvement of nuclear weapons or the contamination of a large area until several days later.

How and when did the government in Madrid react?

Spanish authorities learned of the crash almost immediately, thanks to alerts sent via emergency channels by a Spanish Navy helicopter. The fact that the plane was carrying four hydrogen bombs was revealed later that same day, thanks to the US ambassador. But both governments involved kept quiet about it until, three days later, the media exposed it to the public

How was it possible that the media reported on this so quickly during the Franco dictatorship?

The Spanish-American journalist André del Amo(link is external), from United Press International, was in Palomares two days after the accident and exposed the involvement of nuclear weapons as well as the use of Geiger counters in ground measurements. The following day, his report appeared in major media outlets worldwide. The dictatorship reacted in its usual manner: it confiscated newspapers from newsstands and at the airports in Madrid and Barcelona as soon as international flights landed.

Nevertheless, the residents of Palomares and the rest of Spain learned of the news because, to circumvent the strict media censorship, it was common practice to listen to Spanish-language shortwave broadcasts from Radio Paris, the BBC, and especially Radio España Independiente “La Pirenaica,” the station of the Communist Party of Spain, broadcasting from Bucharest, Romania.

What were the direct consequences of the shattered hydrogen bombs? Was there a risk of a nuclear explosion?

The two Mk-28 FI bombs had 68 times the explosive power of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Upon impact at Palomares, the Hydrogen bombs exploded because the conventional explosive charge of the trigger detonated. An area of ​​635 hectares was subsequently contaminated with fissile fuel: approximately 10 kilograms of plutonium-239 and -241, and slightly more than 10 kilograms of uranium-235 and uranium-238, also known as depleted uranium. While the risk of an accidental nuclear detonation was very low, it did exist. Nevertheless, these hydrogen bombs were among the most technologically advanced in the US arsenal at the time. Their safety systems were quite good, with the exception of the conventional explosive, which was sensitive to shock and vibration. Due to this accident and a similar one two years later in Thule, Greenland, the US military replaced this explosive with a shock- and fire-resistant one.

Was the local population warned about plutonium contamination and the consumption of potentially contaminated food such as tomatoes?

The inhabitants of Palomares were continually and perversely misinformed and thus continued for fifty years, in the Franco dictatorship as well as in democracy. All awareness of their precarious situation was thanks to the banned shortwave stations such as Radio España Independiente “La Pirenaica”, and BBC or Radio Paris in their evening programs in Spanish. Also the empathic help of one of the highest members of the Spanish nobility: the Duchess of Medina Sidonia, helped to inform the locals  of her situation and rights, for which the fascist dictatorship of Franco put her in prison.

Are there any data or estimates on how many people became ill or died as a result of the contamination with Plutonium or Uranium?

No, because they have never allowed a rigorous epidemiological study to be conducted. When some independent people have tried, it has all been problems. At the same time, the official history created and maintained by the two Governments has stated that there has never been a tumor disease caused by plutonium. Palomares is an environmental sacrifice zone with significant health risks for its inhabitants. But it is not an exception to the rest of the world: invisible minority, invisible consequences……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://uraniumfilmfestival.org/en/60-years-ago-in-palomares

April 9, 2026 Posted by | incidents, Spain | Leave a comment

TEPCO halts cooling of spent fuel pool at Fukushima Daini plant

April 6, 2026 (Mainichi Japan),
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260406/p2a/00m/0bu/002000c

FUKUSHIMA, Japan (Kyodo) — The operator of the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant being decommissioned said Sunday it halted cooling of a spent fuel pool after receiving an alert about a pump malfunction.

According to Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., the alarm for the spent fuel pool of the No. 1 reactor was triggered at around 2:45 p.m. Sunday. Workers shut down the pump after smoke was confirmed at the site, suspending the pool’s cooling.

The four-reactor Fukushima Daini plant is located about 12 kilometers south of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, devastated by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster.

TEPCO has decided to decommission both complexes following the disaster.

The latest incident has not affected the radiation level outside, and no one has been injured, TEPCO said. The company is investigating the cause.

The No. 1 unit spent fuel pool at the Fukushima Daini complex stores 2,334 used fuel assemblies, as well as 200 new fuel ones.

The water temperature at the time when the cooling system was halted was 26.5 C, and it will take about eight days to exceed the temperature level set for safe operation, according to TEPCO.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »