Fulsome bribery to communities – from Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)

Frank Greening, 7 Oct 24
Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is using offers of money – and I’m talking about a lot of money in the millions of dollars range – to “persuade” local individuals or groups to vote in favor of constructing a DGR on their land. For example, consider the announcement by the township of Ignace after it agreed to allow NWMO to construct a used fuel DGR on its land:
There are of course many benefits to hosting the DGR in the area and these benefits will exceed the $170 Million monitory value of this agreement plus the cost of the Centre of Expertise, and thousands of dollars in housing, infrastructure, and capacity building studies to build the Township over the course of many years.
As we all know, NWMO is fond of saying that it will only proceed with the construction of a DGR at a particular location if there is a “willing host”. Now the dictionary definition of “willing” implies a readiness and eagerness to accede to or anticipate the wishes of another person or group. However, I’m sure if you asked the people of Ignace if they were ready and eager to host a DGR in their town, without any compensation or inducement, the answer would be a resounding NO! However, throw $170 million into the pot and everything changes! So, it’s obvious that the notion of “willingness” really means “a willingness to be bribed”.
Now some might argue that my use of the word bribe is too strong – dare I say offensive – but consider the dictionary definition of bribe: To give someone money or something else of value, to persuade that person to do something you want. In this case “you” means the NWMO, and what NWMO “wants” is a township’s approval of a DGR. I would argue, however, that the true meaning of willingness is acceptance without inducement!
I believe that NWMO know full well that, as the saying goes, “money talks”, and NWMO appears to have plenty of money to talk unwilling hosts into becoming willing hosts. In this regard, consider the opinion of a certain James Kimberly as expressed in his letter to the Fort Francis Times, dated December 6th, 2023:
The NWMOs proposed budget for 2023 is $162 million dollars. Projections to 2026 increase their budget to $299.8 million dollars increasing on average $40 million dollars per year. Their budget is broken into eight categories; engineering, site assessment, safety, regulatory decisions, engagement, transportation, communications, staffing and administration. All of the money the NWMO spends in their budget is derived from the public – people who pay the electricity bills. The interesting thing about their budget projection is the amount of money dedicated to the different activities.
Second to staffing and administration the next major expenditure is what they call “engagement”. There are no specific details on what “engagement” entails but I think one could safely state it is getting the public on side for their proposed dump. The engagement portion of their budget in 2023 is $47.8 million rising to $81.9 million by 2026. Other parts of their budget such as engineering, site assessment and safety come in at much lower costs literally a fraction of the staffing and engagement dollars.
According to NWMO’s projections over the next five years they will spend $359.3 million dollars of public money in trying to convince people their plan will work and that is just a part of their bottomless pit of money…..
So, I’m sure we can continue to present endless technical arguments against NWMOs plans to build a DGR, and I believe we are doing the right thing because we have the moral high-ground, but how can such arguments compete with NWMO’s bottomless pit of money?
and ……. it looks like Ignace is being short-changed!
Check out the South Bruce Hosting Agreement:
South Bruce stands to receive a stunning $418 million if it signs NWMO’s Hosting Agreement, (tabled in May of this year), and due to be voted on October 28th.
I would say, to quote a famous Mafia line, NWMO is making an offer South Bruce residents can’t refuse…
Finally Free, Assange Receives a Measure of Justice From the Council of Europe

In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
In his first public statement since his release, Assange said, “I’m free today … because I pled guilty to journalism.”
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, October 4, 2024
he Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Europe’s foremost human rights body, overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on October 2 formally declaring WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a political prisoner. The Council of Europe, which represents 64 nations, expressed deep concern at the harsh treatment suffered by Assange, which has had a “chilling effect” on journalists and whistleblowers around the world.
In the resolution, PACE notes that many of the leaked files WikiLeaks published “provide credible evidence of war crimes, human rights abuses, and government misconduct.” The revelations also “confirmed the existence of secret prisons, kidnappings and illegal transfers of prisoners by the United States on European soil.”
According to the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty on June 25 to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the U.S. Espionage Act. Without the deal, he was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in an indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration, stemming from WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. After his plea, Assange was released from custody with credit for the five years he had spent in London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison.
The day before PACE passed its resolution, Assange delivered a powerful testimony to the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This was his first public statement since his release from custody four months ago, after 14 years in confinement – nine in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and five in Belmarsh. “Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroads,” Assange told the parliamentarians.
A “Chilling Effect and a Climate of Self-Censorship”
The resolution says that “the disproportionately harsh charges” the U.S. filed against Assange under the Espionage Act, “which expose him to a risk of de facto life imprisonment,” together with his conviction “for — what was essentially — the gathering and publication of information,” justify classifying him as a political prisoner, under the definition set forth in a PACE resolution from 2012 defining the term. Assange’s five-year incarceration in Belmarsh Prison was “disproportionate to the alleged offence.”
Noting that Assange is “the first publisher to be prosecuted under [the Espionage Act] for leaking classified information obtained from a whistleblower,” the resolution expresses concern about the “chilling effect and a climate of self-censorship for all journalists, editors and others who raise the alarm on issues that are essential to the functioning of democratic societies.” The resolution also notes that “information gathering is an essential preparatory step in journalism” which is protected by the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution cites the conclusion of Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that Assange had been exposed to “increasingly severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”
Condemning “transnational repression,” PACE was “alarmed by reports that the CIA was discreetly monitoring Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and that it was allegedly planning to poison or even assassinate him on British soil.” The CIA has raised the “state secrets” privilege in a civil lawsuit filed by two attorneys and two journalists over that illegal surveillance.
In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
Moreover, the resolution expresses deep concern that, according to publicly available evidence, no one has been held to account for the war crimes and human rights violations committed by U.S. state agents and decries the “culture of impunity.”
The resolution says there is no evidence anyone has been harmed by WikiLeaks’ publications and “regrets that despite Mr Assange’s disclosure of thousands of confirmed — previously unreported — deaths by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been the one accused of endangering lives.”
Assange’s Testimony
The testimony Assange provided to the committee was poignant. “I eventually chose freedom over realizable justice … Justice for me is now precluded,” Assange testified. “I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pled guilty to journalism.” He added, “I pled guilty to seeking information from a source. I pled guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I pled guilty to informing the public what that information was.” His source was whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who provided the documents and reports to WikiLeaks. “Journalism is not a crime,” Assange said. “It is a pillar of a free and informed society.”………………………………………………………………………………
PACE Urges US to Investigate War Crimes
The resolution calls on the U.S., the U.K., the member and observer States of the Council of Europe, and media outlets to take actions to address its concerns.
It calls on the U.S., an observer State, to reform the Espionage Act of 1917 to exclude from its operation journalists, editors and whistleblowers who disclose classified information with the aim of informing the public of serious crimes, such as torture or murder. In order to obtain a conviction for violation of the Act, the government should be required to prove a malicious intent to harm national security. It also calls on the U.S. to investigate the allegations of war crimes and other human rights violations exposed by Assange and Wikileaks.
PACE called on the U.K. to review its extradition laws to exclude extradition for political offenses, as well as conduct an independent review of the conditions of Assange’s treatment while at Belmarsh, to see if it constituted torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.
In addition, the resolution urges the States of the Council of Europe to further improve their protections for whistleblowers, and to adopt strict guidelines to prevent governments from classifying documents as defense secrets when not warranted.
Finally, the resolution urges media outlets to establish rigorous protocols for handling and verifying classified information, to ensure responsible reporting and avoid any risk to national security and the safety of informants and sources.
Although PACE doesn’t have the authority to make laws, it can urge the States of the Council of Europe to take action. Since Assange never had the opportunity to litigate the denial of his right to freedom of expression, the resolution of the Council of Europe is particularly significant as he seeks a pardon from U.S. President Joe Biden. https://truthout.org/articles/finally-free-assange-receives-a-measure-of-justice-from-the-council-of-europe/
Refurbished Three Mile Island Payment Structure Is Not Quite What It Seems

In May Constellation applied for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee — which coincidentally is precisely the amount of money it plans to invest to restart the shuttered reactor. According to the Washington Post, the taxpayer-backed loan could give Microsoft and Constellation Energy a major boost in their unprecedented bid to steer all the power from a US nuclear plant to a single company.
A loan guarantee would allow Constellation to shift much of the risk of reopening Three Mile Island to taxpayers.
Clean Technica, 4 Oct 24, Steve Hanley
Two weeks ago, the news was filled with reports that Reactor 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear generating station, which was shut down in 2019, will be refurbished and put back into service for another 20 years or more. Its sole customer will be Microsoft, which needs a lot of electricity to operate its data centers. Reactor 2 is the one that melted down in 1979. It is in the process of being dismantled.
The Three Mile Island facility is currently owned by Constellation Energy, the largest operator of nuclear power plants in America. It told the New York Times it plans to spend $1.6 billion to refurbish Reactor 1 and restart it by 2028, pending regulatory approval. “The symbolism is enormous,” said Joseph Dominguez, chief executive of Constellation. “This was the site of the industry’s greatest failure, and now it can be a place of rebirth.”
Economic Benefits Of Three Mile Island
Local residents and politicians welcome the return of Three Mile Island, which will employ about 600 people when it restarts. “This will transform the local economy and presents a rare opportunity to power our economy with reliable clean energy that we can count on,” said Tom Mehaffie, a Republican state representative whose district includes the plant. “This is a rare and valuable opportunity to invest in clean, carbon-free and affordable power — on the heels of the hottest year in Earth’s history.” A recent poll found that 57% of Pennsylvania residents supported reopening Three Mile Island “as long as it does not include new taxes or increased electricity rates.”
Dominguez was especially proud to announce that Constellation would pay to refurbish the Three Mile Island facility entirely out of its own pocket, and Microsoft would be on the hook for buying electricity from the plant for 20 years. “We’re not asking for a penny from the state or from utility customers,” he said.
There is a lot to unpack here. The demand for electricity is exploding, thanks to cryptomining and AI. Data centers are sucking up vast amounts of electricity, much of it from renewables. That means there is precious little electricity left over to cool our homes and business, power our electric cars, or meet the needs of industries trying to decarbonize their activities. Supplying the crypto and AI sectors with renewable energy threatens to slow or reverse the transition to clean energy for the rest of society. At some point, we may need to ask ourselves just how much crypto and AI we really need.
A $1.6 Billion Federal Loan Guarantee
What Joseph Dominguez failed to mention when he proclaimed that Constellation was not asking for a penny from the state or from utility customers to restart Three Mile Island was that in May it applied for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee — which coincidentally is precisely the amount of money it plans to invest to restart the shuttered reactor. According to the Washington Post, the taxpayer-backed loan could give Microsoft and Constellation Energy a major boost in their unprecedented bid to steer all the power from a US nuclear plant to a single company. Microsoft is one of many large tech companies scouring the nation for zero emissions power for its data centers and one of the leaders in the field of artificial intelligence.
The plan to restart the shuttered reactor on Three Mile Island has already generated controversy as energy experts debate the merits of providing separate federal subsidies for the project in the form of tax credits. Constellation’s pursuit of the $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, which has not been previously disclosed, is likely to intensify that debate. The loan guarantee request has cleared an initial review. It has now reached the stage where the specific terms of a deal would ordinarily start to be negotiated, according to the Washington Post. A loan guarantee would allow Constellation to shift much of the risk of reopening Three Mile Island to taxpayers. The federal government, in this case, would pledge to cover up to $1.6 billion if there is a default. The guarantees are typically used by developers to lower the cost of project financing, as lenders are willing to offer more favorable terms when there is federal backing.
Borrowing Costs For Three Mile Island
In this case, the loan guarantee could save Constellation up to $122 million in borrowing costs for restarting Three Mile Island, John Parsons, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Post. It would come on top of the federal tax credits on the sale of the power — passed in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — which could be worth nearly $200 million annually for Constellation and Microsoft. Over 20 years, that comes to a tidy sum — $4 billion to be exact. Technology companies already benefit from similar tax credits when they purchase energy from a solar or wind farm, but nuclear power plants generate electricity at a higher cost, making the scale of the subsidy larger. Microsoft and Constellation have not released any details about how much the electricity from Three Mile Island will cost.
The Energy Department declined to comment on the application, but Constellation told the Post it has not decided whether to accept the loan guarantee if one is offered, but claimed that any financial risk for taxpayers would be negligible. “Rest assured that to the extent we may seek a loan, Constellation will guarantee full repayment,” said a statement from the company. “Any notion that taxpayers are taking on risk here is fanciful given that any loan will be backstopped by Constellation’s entire $80-billion-plus value.” If that is so, then why the need for the federal loan guarantee in the first place?
The biggest risk to taxpayers would be if the project were to fail after a significant amount of money is spent trying to get Three Mile Island operational. Such setbacks are common when new nuclear plants are being built. The last new nuclear reactors to go online near Augusta, Georgia, were seven years late and $17 billion over budget. Constellation says it is confident Three Mile Island won’t face such setbacks because the company is restarting an existing unit rather than building a new one from the ground up. Some may view that as wishful thinking, or as my old Irish grandmother liked to say, “There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.”
…………………… Another Kink In The Program
To hear Microsoft and Constellation tell it, every electron generated by the rejuvenated Three Mile Island plant would be used to power Microsoft data centers. That’s not quite how it will work out in practice, however. The electricity from the restarted nuclear reactor will not be connected directly to Microsoft’s data centers. Instead it will flow into the broader power grid that serves 13 states and D.C. As the purchaser of the clean energy, Microsoft can use it to erase — on paper — the emissions from burning gas or coal to produce electricity that does flow into its data centers. Microsoft is among several large tech firms using such accounting methods to brand their data centers climate friendly. CleanTechnica readers are savvy enough to recognize there is great potential for all of this euphoria over Three Mile island to become little more than another corporate greenwashing scheme, one paid for in large part by federal taxpayers.
Some critics question if Constellation is presenting an overly optimistic assessment of how quickly and cheaply a nuclear plant can be restarted. The company said last month that $1.6 billion would cover the full cost of reopening Three Mile Island by 2028. “We have one Big Tech company trying to do something that is not aligned with how the markets should be working, and they want to do it on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers,” said Evan Caron, co-founder of Montauk Climate, which invests in clean energy technologies.
If there are any cost overruns or delays, Microsoft would probably have the option of abandoning the deal and Constellation would need to find another buyer willing to pay a premium for Three Mile Island power, he said. “This has real risk. I think the likelihood of that plant coming back online by 2028 is low to zero,” Caron said………………….
The Takeaway
There is nothing overtly wrong with the plan to restart Three Mile Island, but when the details are examined, there certainly are some reasons to be skeptical. First, when the company bragged it was putting its own money unto the project, it should have been upfront about the federal loan guarantee. Second, when Microsoft bragged it was increasing the supply of renewable energy to its data centers, it should have been upfront about how the process will actually work. In point of fact, none of the electricity from Three Mile Island may ever be used to power a Microsoft data center. There are carbon offsets and accounting shenanigans at work here, which open the door to chicanery or what some might call “creative accounting.” more https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/04/refurbished-three-mile-island-payment-structure-is-not-quite-what-it-seems/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFvCNVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcU7hX-pedORjEJ_lcT_tU0Hsy_C2HBPk6pbnMqSpjCnc7SnZtgJeCxCcQ_aem__L52Lun4mpFIcwhpVmUUpw
Unrealisable Justice: Julian Assange in Strasbourg
October 2, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/unrealisable-justice-julian-assange-in-strasbourg/
It was good to hear that voice again. A voice of provoking interest that pitter patters, feline across a parquet, followed by the usual devastating conclusion. Julian Assange’s last public address was made in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. There, he was a guest vulnerable to the capricious wishes of changing governments. At Belmarsh Prison in London, he was rendered silent, his views conveyed through visitors, legal emissaries and his family.
The hearing in Strasbourg on October 1, organised by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), arose from concerns raised in a report by Iceland’s Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, in which she expressed the view that Assange’s case was “a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’.” She found it “appalling that Mr Assange’s prosecution was portrayed as if it was supposed to bring justice to some unnamed victims the existence of whom has never been proven, whereas perpetrators of torture or arbitrary detention enjoy absolute impunity.”
His prosecution, Ævarsdóttir went onto explain, had been designed to obscure and deflect the revelations found in WikiLeaks’ disclosures, among them abundant evidence of war crimes committed by US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instances of torture and arbitrary detention in the infamous Guantánamo Bay camp facility, illegal rendition programs implicating member states of the Council of Europe and unlawful mass surveillance, among others.
A draft resolution was accordingly formulated, expressing, among other things, alarm at Assange’s treatment and disproportionate punishment “for engaging in activities that journalists perform on a daily basis” which made him, effectively, a political prisoner; the importance of holding state security and intelligence services accountable; the need to “urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act” to include conditional maliciousness to cause harm to the security of the US or aid a foreign power and exclude its application to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.
Assange’s full testimony began with reflection and foreboding: the stripping away of his self in incarceration, the search, as yet, for words to convey that experience, and the fate of various prisoners who died through hanging, murder and medical neglect. While filled with gratitude by the efforts made by PACE and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, not to mention innumerable parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, even the Pope, none of their interventions “should have been necessary.” But they proved invaluable, as “the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.”
The legal system facing Assange was described as encouraging an “unrealisable justice”. Choosing freedom instead of purgatorial process, he could not seek it, the plea deal with the US government effectively barring his filing of a case at the European Court of Human Rights or a freedom of information request. “I am not free today because the system worked,” he insisted. “I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else.”
When founded, WikiLeaks was intended to enlighten people about the workings of the world. “Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.” Power can be held to account by those informed, justice sought where there is none. The organisation did not just expose assassinations, torture, rendition and mass surveillance, but “the policies, the agreements and the structures behind them.”
Since leaving Belmarsh prison, Assange rued the abstracting of truth. It seemed “less discernible”. Much ground had been “lost” in the interim; truth had been battered, “undermined, attacked, weakened and diminished. I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self–censorship
Much of the critique offered by Assange focused on the source of power behind any legal actions. Laws, in themselves, “are just pieces of paper and they can be reinterpreted for political expedience.” The ruling class dictates them and reinterprets or changes them depending on circumstances.
In his case, the security state “was powerful enough to push for a reinterpretation of the US constitution,” thereby denuding the expansive, “black and white” effect of the First Amendment. Mike Pompeo, when director of the Central Intelligence Agency, simply lent on Attorney General William Barr, himself a former CIA officer, to seek the publisher’s extradition and re-arrest of Chelsea Manning. Along the way, Pompeo directed the agency to draw up plans of abduction and assassination while targeting Assange’s European colleagues and his family.
The US Department of Justice, Assange could only reflect, cared little for moderating tonic of legalities – that was something to be postponed to a later date. “In the meantime, the deterrent effect that it seeks, the retributive actions that it seeks, have had their effect.” A “dangerous new global legal position” had been established as a result: “Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights.”
PACE had, before it, an opportunity to set norms, that “the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all”. “The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere. I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.”
A spectator, reader or listener might leave such an address deflated. But it is fitting that a man subjected to the labyrinthine, life-draining nature of several legal systems should be the one to exhort to a commitment: that all do their part to keep the light bright, “that the pursuit of truth will live on, and the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few.”
Questions still remain on the suspicious death of nuclear worker Karen Silkwood
Karen Gay Silkwood (February 19, 1946 – November 13, 1974) was an American chemical technician and labor union activist known for raising concerns about corporate practices related to health and safety of workers in a nuclear facility. Following her mysterious death, which received extensive coverage, her estate filed a lawsuit against chemical company Kerr-McGee, which was eventually settled for $1.38 million. Silkwood was portrayed by Meryl Streep in Mike Nichols‘ 1983 Academy Award-nominated film Silkwood.
She worked at the Kerr-McGee Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Site plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States. Silkwood’s job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. This plant experienced theft of plutonium by workers during this era. She joined the union and became an activist on behalf of issues of health and safety at the plant as a member of the union’s negotiating team, the first woman to have that position at Kerr-McGee. In the summer of 1974, she testified to the Atomic Energy Commission about her concerns.
For three days in November, she was found to have plutonium contamination on her person and in her home. That month, while driving to meet with David Burnham, a New York Times journalist, and Steve Wodka, an official of her union’s national office, she died in a car crash under unclear circumstances.
Her family sued Kerr-McGee on behalf of her estate. In what was the longest trial up until then in Oklahoma history, the jury found Kerr-McGee liable for the plutonium contamination of Silkwood, and awarded substantial damages. These were reduced on appeal, but the case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1979, which upheld the damages verdict. Before another trial took place, Kerr-McGee settled with the estate out of court for US $1.38 million, while not admitting liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Silkwood
Questions Still Remain In Suspicious Death Of Karen Silkwood
Karen Silkwood and Kerr-McGee: A Reinvestigation

Silkwood was an outspoken advocate of both maintaining union representation and taking precautions to protect the workers from plutonium contamination caused by the company’s poor handling practices.
Van De Steeg’s analysis is definitive proof that Silkwood never spiked her samples. Kerr-McGee argued that she did it to embarrass the company……… Van De Steeg testified that after Bill Silkwood filed his lawsuit, his lab notebook containing his notes on Silkwood’s samples was removed from his lab and was never seen again.
[The film] Silkwood poorly portrays the real Silkwood…………………. she cared about the lives of her friends and co-workers at the plant and channeled that care about others into activism.
the real Karen Silkwood “died defending her trade union and coworkers against a powerful employer—one whose lax practices threatened not only its employees, but also the community and possibly the entire nation.
By Steven H. Wodka, September 25, 2024, https://www.wodkalaw.com/karen-silkwood-and-kerr-mcgee?fbclid=IwY2xjawFi1zBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbdJGAfN8QXm-MRvButaJeYwt7KZrRu3b1OHQNkIkSlxxJ8rmbk2rRMLvQ_aem_Laom06PdDllnHMWJxw7Wsg
In 1974, Karen Silkwood and her union, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, were engaged in a confrontation with her employer, the Kerr-McGee Corporation, and its regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission. On November 5th, Silkwood became contaminated with plutonium and died in a car crash a few days later. Fifty years later, even after repeated investigations, the basic questions on how these events occurred have gone unanswered.
On November 7, 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) took responsibility for determining “the cause and extent of the contamination.” But by December 16, 1974, the AEC had given up and stated that its “investigation did not reveal exactly how the contamination occurred.”
After Silkwood’s death on November 13, 1974, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to commence an investigation of her car crash. On February 21, 1975, the DOJ further ordered the FBI, after a request from the newly formed Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC, a successor to the AEC), to expand its investigation to include the circumstances of Silkwood’s contamination with plutonium. The unauthorized possession and use of plutonium is prohibited by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Silkwood’s union, the OCAW, had high hopes for a thorough investigation. The FBI was known for its massive response to the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Within six months, even though it was operating in hostile territory, the FBI had their suspects, which included the county sheriff and his deputy. We expected no less for Silkwood.
However, neither the DOJ nor the FBI effectively supervised the FBI agent placed in charge of the Silkwood investigation, Lawrence J. Olson, Sr. There was no dispute that plutonium from Kerr-McGee’s nuclear fuel manufacturing plant at Crescent, Oklahoma had escaped and contaminated Silkwood’s apartment. Yet Olson failed to treat anyone associated with the plant with suspicion, except for Silkwood.
Olson joined forces with Kerr-McGee’s internal security to defend the corporation and destroy Silkwood’s credibility. In the course of his investigation, Olson uncovered critical evidence that indicated that someone other than Silkwood had placed plutonium in her urine and fecal sample kits. Olson also obtained information that it was likely that an anti-union worker had spiked her kits. But Olson never pursued any investigation into a potential perpetrator.
Read more: Karen Silkwood and Kerr-McGee: A ReinvestigationUltimately, the DOJ conceded that the FBI’s investigation “did not determine” how the plutonium was taken out of the plant. The FBI’s failure allowed for rampant speculation. On March 9, 1976, The Washington Star reported, without any supporting facts, that Silkwood “managed to carry a small quantity of plutonium oxide out of the plant without being detected.”
The failures of the AEC and the FBI led to Congressional investigations. In the Senate, the Government Operations Committee led by Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-MT), started to look into the matter, but Kerr-McGee intervened and Metcalf backed off. In the House, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) led a two day hearing by his Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. But Jacque Srouji, who claimed to have a “special relationship” with the FBI, successfully sidetracked the Subcommittee’s investigation before it could make any meaningful progress.
In November 1976, Silkwood’s father, Bill Silkwood, as administrator of his daughter’s estate and on behalf of her children, filed a civil action against Kerr-McGee in Federal court in Oklahoma City. This action presented Bill Silkwood with the opportunity to use the court’s discovery process to pick up the leads that Olson had dropped.
Instead, Silkwood’s attorney, Danny Sheehan, used the discovery process to pursue nonsensical conspiracy theories concerning the Oklahoma City police, wiretapping, physical surveillance, and anti-nuclear dissidents. Sheehan took eight depositions of members of the Oklahoma City Police Department that went nowhere. As a result, most of the available time and money, as well as the patience of the court, was wasted by Sheehan, who never pursued the evidence before him on Silkwood’s contamination.
At the trial of the lawsuit, from March 7 to May 18, 1979, Silkwood’s personal injury claim was saved by brilliant lawyering conducted by another attorney, Gerry Spence. The circumstances of Silkwood’s contamination pervaded the trial. Kerr-McGee contended that Silkwood contaminated herself while spiking her urine and fecal samples in order to embarrass the company. Bill Silkwood, the plaintiff, didn’t offer any proof on how the samples were spiked. Rather, the plaintiff followed a tort rule of strict liability that applied to ultra-hazardous activity, such as the handling of plutonium. Under strict liability, if such dangerous activity gets out of control and hurts someone, the owner or operator of the dangerous activity is liable, regardless of how much care was taken.
But before reaching that issue, the jury had to determine whether “Karen Silkwood intentionally, that is knowingly and consciously, carried from work to her apartment the plutonium that caused her contamination.”
The jury answered that question in the negative and went on to award Silkwood $10,505,000 in damages, a sum that included $10 million for punitive damages that was ultimately affirmed by the US Supreme Court. But the last word on that award was issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which ordered a new trial and took away $10.5 million of the award. The Tenth Circuit held that Silkwood’s contamination arose in the course of her employment. Accordingly, the exclusivity of workers’ compensation barred any tort recovery against Kerr-McGee for personal injuries suffered by Karen Silkwood. As a result, the case settled for $1.38 million.
The question of how Silkwood got contaminated was never answered during the trial.
My Reinvestigation
Since 1974, I have attempted to follow every twist and turn of this case. At the time, I was a staff representative for the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) at its legislative office in Washington, DC. In 1981, I left the union, went to law school, and then practiced law for 37 years representing workers who had developed cancer as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals.
I retired in 2023. I finally had unlimited time to explore the obscure edges of this case and double and triple check the claims that others had made. I still had my notes and files from 1974. I also had multiple responses from Freedom of Information Act requests that I had made to the AEC and the FBI. I also obtained the entire discovery record and trial transcript of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee that had been held in the National Archives repository in Kansas City.
In 1974, Kerr-McGee was known by the OCAW as a brutal and ruthless employer. From May through November 1973, the OCAW members who worked at Kerr-McGee’s uranium mine in Grants, New Mexico went on strike for more than six months in order to obtain a new contract. At Grants, Kerr-McGee followed the same tactic that it had successfully used in the prior year against Silkwood’s local at the Crescent plant.
Instead of negotiating with its union for a new contract, Kerr-McGee would impose a new contract on the union. If the union didn’t like the terms of the contract that Kerr-McGee sought to impose, the local could go on strike. In fact, Kerr-McGee took a nine week strike at Crescent from late 1972 to early 1973, but Kerr-McGee got its way. Silkwood and her co-workers went back to work in February 1973 under a contract that was worse than the one they had before the strike. This defeat for the union set the stage for a vote on whether to decertify the OCAW as the bargaining agent for the workers in October 1974.
Kerr-McGee was also vindictive. The Grants local believed that Kerr-McGee’s uncompromising stance was directly connected with the union’s successful efforts in 1971 to get the State of New Mexico to reduce the allowable radiation exposure in the mines, which was a proven cause of lung cancer in the miners. At Crescent, the exposures were far worse than in the mines because plutonium was much more radioactive than the radon gas found in the uranium mines. Thus, if Silkwood’s local union managed to win the decertification election in October 1974, it would still need all the leverage imaginable in order to obtain a decent new contract in November 1974 without going on a lengthy strike.
I had known Silkwood during this tumultuous period of her life. We first met on September 27, 1974, when she came to Washington, DC to meet in person with the AEC with her fellow local union leaders Jack Tice and Gerald Brewer. We saw each other again on October 10, 1974, when the OCAW arranged for an educational session for the members of her local union on the health effects of exposure to plutonium. The last time I saw her was on November 8 and 9, 1974, in Oklahoma City, when she was being interviewed by the AEC after her plutonium contamination and I was arranging for her medical care.
In March 2023, I set to work to see if I could answer the still unanswered questions about what had happened to Karen Silkwood in 1974. Here is what I found.
The Events Leading up to November 9th
When we met in Washington, DC on September 27, 1974, Silkwood and Brewer, who worked in the plant’s laboratory where quality checks were run, described a multi-faceted effort by Kerr-McGee to speed up production by shipping plutonium fuel rods which should have been rejected. According to Silkwood and Brewer, the results of quality control checks were being manipulated. Anthony Mazzocchi, the OCAW’s legislative director, and I had never encountered such an effort by any manufacturer. Our first instinct was that if the OCAW was going to make an accusation against Kerr-McGee on its manipulation of such quality control checks, such a charge needed to be documented, or no one would believe our claim.
Even though Brewer had brought his personal notes that identified specific welding samples, rods and pellet lots that had passed quality control checks when they should have been failed, it was Silkwood who volunteered to assemble the documentation upon her return to Oklahoma. Brewer didn’t have any company documents that contained any incriminating data or statements. This is what Silkwood offered to find.
Within ten days of her arriving back in Oklahoma, Silkwood called me on October 7th and described the information that she had amassed to date. On October 10th we met at an educational session sponsored by the local union to inform the members about the hazards of plutonium. She told me that she was still collecting records. The contract negotiations were set to begin on November 6th. The contract expiration date was December 1, 1974. On October 30th, we made arrangements for her to meet with reporter David Burnham of The New York Times on November 13th in Dallas.
It is well documented that Silkwood was found to be contaminated at work with plutonium on Tuesday, November 5, 1974, and again at work the next day. However, there were no leaks or exposures at work that could have accounted for the contamination on either day. After being decontaminated on November 6th, she was instructed to report directly to the Health Physics (HP) office upon her arrival at work the next day, and not go into any work areas where there was any potential for exposure. Health physics is the science and practice of radiation protection.
On Thursday, November 7, 1974, Silkwood did as she was instructed and came directly to the HP office after parking her car and walking in the door. She was very hot (heavily contaminated with plutonium) and the urine and fecal samples that she was carrying with her were very hot as well. It was evident to the HPs that the source of her contamination was off-site. Her car was first checked but it was clean of any contamination.
Silkwood and the HPs then went to her apartment and discovered that it was contaminated. Kerr-McGee started the process of decontaminating it and discarding her possessions. The AEC was notified.
Karen called me and asked me to come down from Washington. She was quite upset and told me that she had no idea whether she was going to live another day. She called her mother and told her that she thought that she was dying from radiation. Her boyfriend, Drew Stephens, reported that Silkwood arrived at his home that night “crying and shaking.”
As for the meeting with Burnham, I assumed that all bets were off. First, if Silkwood lived, I thought that she would be bedridden or at least far too ill to travel or engage in meetings. I also assumed that whatever Kerr-McGee documents that she had collected were now back in Kerr-McGee’s hands. As of November 7th, Kerr-McGee had complete control over her apartment and everything in it. She couldn’t store such documents at the plant. They must have been in her home. She could have easily called off the meeting and no one would have questioned her decision.
I arrived in Oklahoma City the next day, November 8th. Silkwood’s short life was dissected in back to back interviews of her by the AEC investigators, by the AEC’s medical consultant, and by Kerr-McGee’s medical consultant, Charles Sternhagen, MD. She cried often. Her skin was so raw from the decontamination treatments that she told us that her tears were burning the skin on her face.
Plans were made for Silkwood to be examined by Sternhagen the next day, November 9th, at Oklahoma City’s Baptist Hospital. Additional arrangements were made for Silkwood, her roommate Sherri Ellis, and Drew Stephens to fly to New Mexico on November 10th for two days of testing at the AEC facility in Los Alamos.
On November 8th, I was surprised when Silkwood made it clear that she still had her documentation against Kerr-McGee and that she still wanted to go forward with the planned meeting with Burnham on November 13th. To accommodate her upcoming trip to New Mexico, we moved the site of the meeting to Oklahoma City. Burnham agreed.
Throughout this time period, beginning on the evening of November 5th, and lasting for the next five days, Silkwood was required to collect all of her urine and fecal voidings into sample jars that were part of a kit prepared by the HPs. The kit was placed on a shelf in a hallway approximately 30 steps from the HP office, a location that all employees passed on entry to and exit from the plutonium plant. It was labeled with her name and badge number. It consisted of four one-liter plastic bottles in a cardboard carrying box. Silkwood was instructed to pick it up on her way out of the plant.
The urine and fecal samples that Silkwood brought with her to the plant on the morning of November 7th were heavily contaminated with plutonium that was not the result of Silkwood’s exposure to, inhalation of, or excretion of this highly radioactive substance. Rather, the plutonium had been intentionally placed into the sample containers. They had been “spiked.” Moreover, on November 7th, the spiked plutonium had evidently gotten out of the sample container and contaminated Silkwood’s apartment.
Plutonium is a special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It is an intense emitter of alpha radiation and can be made into a nuclear weapon. As described at the trial by Dr. John Gofman, sixteen billionths of a gram of plutonium will release two thousand alpha particles per minute. The half-life of plutonium-239, one of the isotopes that Silkwood was handling, is 24,300 years. Plutonium is poorly excreted from the body. It can be readily taken into the lung and absorbed during inhalation. According to Gofman, when these plutonium particles get into the lung, they are “hitting right through the cells of the lung with two and a half million times the energy that you would get from a carbon burning.”
The Atomic Energy Commission had the responsibility for making certain that plutonium could not leave Kerr-McGee’s nuclear fuel fabrication plant in any unauthorized manner. It was evident that the AEC safeguards had failed. Yet, the AEC never attempted to determine the identity of the perpetrator, nor did it ever penalize Kerr-McGee for its failure to protect this weapons-grade material.
On December 16, 1974, the AEC investigators signed off on their report of Silkwood’s contamination. They admitted that their “investigation did not reveal exactly how the contamination occurred.” The agency’s report did indicate that the spiking of Silkwood’s samples had begun earlier than first believed and also continued after November 7th.
At some point between October 15 and 22, 1974, and again on October 31, 1974, Silkwood used urine sample kits that had been spiked. In addition, the fecal sample kit that Silkwood used on Saturday, November 9, 1974, at the Baptist Hospital when she was undergoing an examination by Dr. Sternhagen, contained an extraordinary amount of insoluble plutonium. The fact that the spiking of the samples began in October and continued through November 9th is significant.
On October 16, 1974, Silkwood and her union achieved an upset victory. On that day, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducted the decertification election. In September 1974, more than 80 hourly workers had signed a petition to the NLRB to have the OCAW decertified as their collective bargaining agent. On October 16th, the union only had 30 dues paying members. But the union won the “decert” by a vote of 80 votes for the union and 61 votes for no union.
Silkwood was an outspoken advocate of both maintaining union representation and taking precautions to protect the workers from plutonium contamination caused by the company’s poor handling practices. In the laboratory section where Silkwood worked, 19 out of the 21 hourly workers opposed the union. Even after the decert vote, the lab workers circulated a petition that was submitted to the company and the union on November 6th. The petition demanded that the lab workers be excised from the union’s jurisdiction and be placed on salaried status. But the petition was too little and too late. Under the NLRB rules, the decert election was the only opportunity for the workers to vote the union out.
In this plant handling radioactive materials, there was another way to silence a union activist. If a worker’s urine or fecal samples indicated potential contamination, the worker is deemed “hot” and is restricted from working in areas where there is potential exposure. At Kerr-McGee, a sample result greater than 10 disintegrations per minute is cause to “[i]mpose work restrictions that prevents [the] individual from entering any radiation area.”
Kerr-McGee’s normal handling of such samples allowed for a delay between the collection of the sample and receipt of the results. Normal, routine samples, where no contamination was expected, were analyzed for Kerr-McGee by an outside testing company. The collection, mailing, and routine analytical process typically consumed a month or more between the collection date and the date when the results were received. Thus, on November 5th, the results of the samples provided by Silkwood in mid and late October were not known. Negotiations between the OCAW and Kerr-McGee on a new contract were set to begin on November 6th.
When Silkwood was found to be contaminated while working in the lab on the evening of Tuesday, November 5th, the investigators could not find any source for the exposure. The deposition and trial testimony of Kerr-McGee’s HPs convinced me that they had properly tested both the gloves and the glovebox at which Silkwood was found contaminated and could not find any leaks.
On November 5th, Silkwood had arrived at the plant at 1:20 PM. She was carrying with her a routine urine sample that she had voided earlier that day at home. She handed in the sample at the HP office before proceeding to her work area. Because it was routine, this sample was not checked when it arrived at the plant. Weeks later this sample was reported as hot, containing 27,000 disintegrations per minute per 100 milliliters of urine. The AEC designated this sample as “spiked,” the same label that was applied to the two prior urine samples that were provided in October.
During the AEC’s interrogation in my presence on November 8th, Silkwood stated that she checked herself twice on November 5th, at 3:15 PM and again at 5:30 PM, and did not find any contamination. Only after working in a glovebox and testing herself at 6:30 PM did Silkwood discover the contamination.
During this late afternoon period, after the day shift workers had left, very few people remained in the lab. It would have taken only seconds for another lab worker to walk by the glovebox and, by using a syringe (which were plentiful in the lab), eject a tiny dab of plutonium into the recesses of the glove, where Silkwood would soon place her hands and forearms. Kerr-McGee estimated that the entire amount of plutonium involved in all of Silkwood’s contamination from October through November 1974 was “about the amount of a No. 8 shot, which is smaller than the head of a pin.”
The identity of the workers present in the lab during the late afternoon of November 5th could have been easily determined by Olson. Yet he never subjected any of them to an interview as to their animus to Silkwood and the union, or as to their activities on November 5th
The Sample at Baptist Hospital
Olson also failed to investigate the spiked fecal sample that Silkwood provided at the Baptist Hospital on Saturday, November 9th. This sample provides the most compelling evidence that Silkwood could not have been spiking her samples.
By November 9th, Silkwood’s life was in tatters. She had been exposed to plutonium and inhaled it. She didn’t know how much was in her. She didn’t know whether she would soon become ill from the effects of acute radiation exposure. Even though she had been decontaminated at the plant for the third time on the morning of November 7th, and checked again on November 8th by the AEC investigators with Geiger counters, Silkwood felt that she was radioactive and that she was exhaling plutonium particles. She was placing all of her tissues from blowing her nose into a plastic bag.
The process of being decontaminated was horrifying. Wayne Norwood, Kerr-McGee’s Health and Safety Manager, was present in the HP office on November 6th and described at trial what Silkwood underwent in order to remove the “fixed” contamination from her skin:
Her and Mr. Fine went into the first aid room area there at the wash basin and proceeded to decontaminate the fixed area. They used a de-con solution of clorox and water, which is 25 percent clorox with a little Tide thrown in for sudsing to remove it. That removed part of the contamination.
There was still some left that was even more stubborn. So, we applied potassium permanganate to that, and normally applied several applications and wait for each application to dry. So, it takes some time to wait between applications, and then we used sodium bisulfite to remove the potassium permanganate, which removed the fixed contamination.
Not mentioned by Norwood is that the mixture of Tide and Clorox was applied to Silkwood’s skin with a vegetable brush.
She had no place to live. Kerr-McGee’s HPs dressed in moon suits and breathing through respirators were in her apartment, going through all of her possessions, testing them for plutonium contamination, and if they were contaminated, tossing them into 55 gallon drums for disposal as radioactive trash. She was under intense scrutiny from Kerr-McGee and the AEC. Even the local news media was camped outside her motel room at the Holiday Inn. Yet, Kerr-McGee argued at the trial that throughout this time period she continued with her “scheme” to spike her samples.
At around 6:00 PM on November 9th, Silkwood met with Dr. Sternhagen at the emergency department of the Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City. She had complained of constipation and Sternhagen had advised her to take a laxative. It had the desired effect. Silkwood assumed that the hospital would have a kit for the collection. But none was available.
She had been driven to the hospital by Drew Stephens. Since she knew that she was on a total collection, they had brought a sample kit with them in the trunk of his car. Drew went out to his car in the parking lot, retrieved the sample kit, brought it into the hospital, and handed it to Silkwood. Silkwood used the kit in the examining room at the emergency department.
Gerald Sinke was Kerr-McGee’s Coordinator for Radiation Health and Safety. He told Olson that he had responsibility for auditing the health physics program at the plant and writing health physics procedures. He had accompanied Sternhagen to the hospital. Sinke took possession of the kit from Silkwood. Sinke locked the kit in the trunk of his car. But before he left the hospital, he checked Room 8 of the emergency department for contamination with a survey meter. He found none.
On November 10th, Sinke took the fecal samples to the plant and examined them through the exterior of the containers using a wound counter which measures gamma radiation. He told Olson that he was “surprised that they were highly contaminated.” He even returned to the emergency department at the Baptist Hospital to check again with survey meter to make sure that it wasn’t contaminated. These surveys were again negative. But no effort was made by Sinke or by anyone else with Kerr-McGee to track down Silkwood or Stephens, determine the origin of this fecal kit, and confiscate the remaining kits that they had.
On Monday, November 11th, Sinke drove Silkwood’s sample directly to Kerr-McGee’s Technical Center at 3301 NW 150th Street in Oklahoma City. There, the sample was analyzed by Garet Van De Steeg, a PhD radiochemist who had been heading up Kerr-McGee’s radiochemistry program since 1972. Van De Steeg’s function, in the event of a release of plutonium, was “to analyze the urine and fecal samples from the employees on a rush basis to provide the company with as rapid information as possible regarding any potential contamination of the individual.”
Van De Steeg was interviewed by Olson on April 2, 1975. Olson recorded the interview on a FBI form FD-302, which is used by FBI agents to memorialize their interviews and report their results. The contents of a FD-302 are meant to be used for potential court testimony and are supposed to be truthful. Olson dictated the FD-302 the following day, April 3, 1975.
Van De Steeg told Olson that there was “an extremely high amount of radioactive material” in the fecal sample. Olson wrote, “[t]here was a total of twenty micrograms in the sample he saw.” Van De Steeg concluded, with respect to the fecal samples provided by Silkwood earlier on November 7th and then on November 9th at the Baptist Hospital, that “it does not appear to him that the plutonium seen in these two samples was ingested.”
Van De Steeg’s analysis is definitive proof that Silkwood never spiked her samples. Kerr-McGee argued that she did it to embarrass the company, but after November 7th Kerr-McGee was already embarrassed and under intense investigation by the AEC. Kerr-McGee had violated its license with the government. If Silkwood had thought that she could spike her samples without hurting herself, the events of November 7th demonstrated that she had miscalculated. By November 7th, Silkwood knew that her life, as well as the lives of her friends and lovers, were now in danger from the plutonium contamination spread throughout her apartment.
Van De Steeg made his observations on Monday, November 11th. Silkwood had already left for New Mexico the previous day, but was scheduled to return on Tuesday, November 12th. Based on Van De Steeg’s findings, Kerr-McGee should have moved immediately to confiscate and analyze any unused sample kits in Silkwood’s possession. Such action was never taken.
But Kerr-McGee did confiscate Van De Steeg’s handwritten record of his observations. In his deposition, Van De Steeg testified that after Bill Silkwood filed his lawsuit, his lab notebook containing his notes on Silkwood’s samples was removed from his lab and was never seen again.
Norwood, Kerr-McGee’s Health and Safety Manager, also drew similar conclusions about Silkwood’s November 9th fecal sample. On March 26, 1975, Olson recorded an interview with Norwood in a FD-302. Norwood told Olson that the evidence suggested that “one of the containers furnished by STEPHENS to SILKWOOD was contaminated prior to her voiding therein.” Norwood further advised Olson “that the containers utilized by SILKWOOD had been furnished to her by DREW STEPHENS who got the containers from his car.”
On June 5, 1975, Olson interviewed Drew Stephens for the third time. By this time, Olson knew that Silkwood had not used a bathroom at the hospital, but rather she had provided the fecal sample in an examining room of the emergency department. It would have been highly unlikely that Silkwood could have spiked a sample there, assuming that she was engaging in such conduct, as a hospital staff member could have walked into the room at any time. The sample container that Stephens took out of his car must have been already spiked.
There is no record of Olson asking Stephens about the origin of this kit. The interview is totally silent on the subject. Rather, Stephens repeated his earlier statement to Olson, that he “still does not feel that KAREN would have knowingly contaminated herself nor does he feel that KAREN would have spiked her urine and fecal samples.”
Another Lab Employee Likely Caused Silkwood’s Contamination
I submit that another employee of Kerr-McGee, with access to plutonium at the plant, must have intentionally contaminated Silkwood’s urine and fecal sample kits beginning in October 1974. Such criminal conduct violated the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. There has never been an arrest.
One month after interviewing Van De Steeg, Olson interviewed Gerald Brewer, Silkwood’s closest confidant at the plant and the only other lab worker who supported the union. Brewer was one of the three members of the local union leadership committee, along with Silkwood and Jack Tice, who met with Mazzocchi and I, in Washington, DC on September 27, 1974.
While both Silkwood and Brewer had witnessed the quality control procedures in the lab being compromised, Brewer brought notes to the meeting that identified specific welding samples, rods and pellet lots that had passed quality control checks when they should have been failed. Brewer also described the improper practice of another lab analyst who used a felt-tipped pen to touch up photographic negatives taken of weld samples. Both Kerr-McGee and the US Energy Research and Development Administration ultimately confirmed Brewer’s allegation that this lab analyst had improperly touched up the negatives. In real life, Brewer was far removed from the country bumpkin as he was portrayed in Mike Nichols’ and Nora Ephron’s movie, Silkwood.
On May 5, 1975, Olson interviewed Brewer. As recorded by Olson in a FD-302, Brewer stated that “it would be very possible that some unknown employee who disliked SILKWOOD and her union activities, may have acted on his own without the knowledge of the company and in so doing, spiked SILKWOOD’s urine samples and contaminated SILKWOOD’s apartment.” On June 18, 1975, Olson sent this FD-302 to FBI headquarters in Washington where it was reviewed. There is no record that the Bureau directed Olson to follow up on Brewer’s suggestion, nor is there any indication that Olson attempted to determine which employees disliked Silkwood and her union activity.
In 1975, Olson was a FBI Special Agent, assigned to the Oklahoma City Field Office, having served as a Special Agent of the FBI since September 1961. The contamination investigation was deemed a “Special” by the FBI. Due to this designation, Olson was required to prepare daily and weekly summaries of his investigative efforts which were forwarded to FBI Headquarters. According to Olson, the results of his investigation were set forth on internal FBI reports which were reviewed by his supervisor, George C. Robb. These reports were then forwarded to Andrew J. Duffin, supervisor of Atomic Energy Desk, Intelligence Division, at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC. Olson has further asserted that his reports “were forwarded by the FBI to the Internal Security Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice for review to determine whether there had been violations of the federal laws.”
On April 26, 1976, Jacque Srouji testified before Congressman John Dingell’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Small Business. Srouji enraged Dingell and his staff with her testimony implying that she, as a journalist from Tennessee, due to a “special relationship” that she had with the FBI and specifically with Olson, was able to obtain access to Olson’s entire file. That file, of course, was being sought by Dingell’s committee and the FBI had denied them access to it. Srouji’s testimony was highly successful in derailing Dingell’s investigation into Silkwood’s contamination. Two years later, Srouji was equally successful in diverting Sheehan and causing him to spend scarce time and funds on depositions, hearings and motions that went nowhere.
Srouji did focus Dingell’s attention onto Olson. The FBI resisted providing Olson for public testimony. Ultimately, Attorney General Edward Levi intervened and arranged for Olson to be interviewed privately by the Subcommittee counsel, but on the record and under oath. The interview occurred on May 7, 1976, but the transcript was not published by the Subcommittee until 1977.
Olson testified that he had “thoroughly studied and understood how one would obtain the kits.” According to Olson, the workers obtained the urine and fecal sample kits on a “random” basis from a storage area on the “clean” side of the men’s and women’s locker rooms. Thus, Olson testified, the “likelihood of people being able to predict a particular kit to Silkwood was very remote” and that Silkwood’s name would only be “applied to the kit after–by the employee after donation.”
Olson lied to the Subcommittee while under oath. Olson never interviewed Kerr-McGee’s HPs who reported that they had issued specific urine and fecal sampling kits to Silkwood. Even the AEC report did not support Olson’s testimony. In its December 16, 1974 report on Silkwood’s contamination, the AEC stated that on November 5th:
[a] urine kit and a fecal kit were prepared for her use by a health physics technician and she was requested to begin a total collection program which was to last for the next five days. Between 9 and 10 p.m. these kits, which bore a label with her name and badge number, were placed on a shelf situated for this purpose in the hallway leading to the air lock through which all personnel must pass.
The Subcommittee counsel had this AEC report as well. Their failure to stop Olson at this point and use the AEC report to cross-examine him is inexplicable.
At trial, under direct examination by Bill Paul, counsel for Kerr-McGee, Norwood further confirmed that Olson’s testimony was erroneous:
Q. Now, who writes in the name, the badge number, the location, and so on?
A. The health physics technician.
Q. And on November 5th that was Mr. Fine who did that, who testified here earlier, isn’t that so?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. Then the kit is issued to the employee?
A. Yes, sir.
After 1974, Kerr-McGee moved the shelf with the marked sample kits to an area within the view of the plant guards.
Ten days after Olson’s testimony, on May 17, 1976, the FBI Intelligence Division issued the following report in order to close out their investigation into Silkwood’s contamination:
Intensive investigation into the contamination incidents resulted in no evidence being found that would definitely prove that Silkwood was contaminated accidentally, purposefully by her own hand or purposefully by someone else without her knowledge. Indications are however that she purposefully contaminated herself in an attempt to discredit KMC [Kerr-McGee Corporation]. These indications are a result of the fact that Silkwood was uncooperative in the submission of body samples for analysis and the fact that many of her samples indicated that they had been “salted” and were not the result of normal bodily functions. A thorough review of this case fails to locate any possible loop holes.
That was it. No explanation was provided for how “the fact that many of her samples indicated that they had been ‘salted’” supports the Bureau’s conclusion that she did it. By the time that the FBI got involved, it was already established that the samples had been spiked. Rather, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had asked the FBI to determine the who, how, and why of the spiking.
On January 12, 1977, the majority and minority counsels to Dingell’s Subcommittee issued a joint statement “that the FBI did not conduct an encompassing investigation, and this has resulted in continuing problems.” Remarkably, the Subcommittee counsels acknowledged that the “Silkwood investigation of this Subcommittee ends not with a bang, but a whimper.”
The Missing Documents
I am convinced that Silkwood had some form of documentation on quality control when she left the Hub Café in Crescent about 7:00 PM on the night of November 13th. Co-worker Jean Jung was the last person to see Silkwood alive and talk to her. For several months, Silkwood had confided in Jung that she was gathering information on the poor safety conditions and the falsification of the quality control checks.
Jung stated in a subsequent affidavit that she noticed Silkwood carrying a “brown manila folder filled with papers, about an inch thick.” Silkwood also had a “reddish-brown spiral notebook about 8 by 10 in size.” Jung noticed that some of the papers in the folder “were quite heavy — almost like cardboard — and smaller than typewriter paper.” According to Jung, they “looked to me like they might be photographs.” Jung further described some of the papers as “yellow, apparently from a yellow tablet.”
Silkwood then told Jung that there was one thing she was glad about, that she had all of the proof concerning the health and safety conditions in the plant, and concerning falsification of records. As she said this, she clenched her hand more firmly on the folder and the notebook she was holding. She told me she was on her way to meet Steven Wodka and a New York Times reporter at the Holiday Inn Northwest to give them this material.
None of the material described by Jung ever got to me. Silkwood left the Hub Café shortly after 7:00 PM. By 7:30 PM she was dead.
Seven miles south of Crescent, Silkwood, in her 52 horsepower, 1600 pound, 1973 Honda Civic, went off the left hand side of the two-lane highway, traveled approximately 255 feet on the grass adjacent to the road’s shoulder, flew through the air over a culvert carrying a small stream, and then hit a concrete wingwall head on. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) estimated that her car was traveling about 40 to 45 miles per hour at the moment of impact. The collision crumpled the front-end of her car. The impact pushed the firewall, dashboard, and steering wheel of the car into the driver’s compartment. The windshield flew out. The car landed on its driver’s side into the red mud of the stream. The steering wheel pinned Silkwood to the ceiling of the car. She died instantly.
The first three people who arrived at the scene of the accident were John Trindle, James Mullins, and Dalton Ervin. Trindle was interviewed on January 29, 1975 by Kerr-McGee’s security department. When Trindle saw the wreck, he drove to a gas station and called the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. He returned to the wreck site. According to Kerr-McGee’s report of this interview,
TRINDLE stated while he was in the creek near the wrecked car assisting, he noticed some scattered papers and the victim’s purse on the ground in front of the wreck. He said he did not bother thesearticles and they were gathered up by the patrolman and placed in the wrecked car.
Mullins and Ervin confirmed Trindle’s observation to Kerr-McGee’s investigators.
Rick Fagan was the officer for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol who responded to Trindle’s call. On November 19, 1974, Fagan told Jim Reading, the head of Kerr-McGee’s security, that his original inspection of the interior of the vehicle revealed a red notebook and two bundles of paper, 8-½ x 11, in the vehicle. His second inspection of the vehicle was with the AEC inspectors in Crescent, Oklahoma, where the vehicle had been stored after the accident. At this time, these papers and notebook was checked for contamination and proved to be negative. During this inspection, he noted the contents referred to the Kerr-McGee operations and labor negotiations at the Cimmaron facility.
Eight days later, on November 27, 1974, Fagan was interviewed by Olson. According to Olson’s FD-302, Fagan said that he observed on the “rear seat there were two stacks of paper approximately one-half inch thick each which contained papers relative to Kerr-McGee – Union Bargaining Session.” Fagan also said that he saw “a thin spiral notebook, red in color, approximately nine inches by eleven inches in size.”
More than four years later on February 20, 1979, Fagan was deposed by Sheehan. Fagan testified that when he arrived at the crash site at 8:15 PM on November 13th, he didn’t recall seeing any documents scattered around the crash nor did he recall ever picking up documents around the car and putting them back in the car. Fagan did recall that he saw a “red notebook” in the car.
It is difficult to reconcile the recollections of Jung, Trindle, Mullins, and Ervin with Fagan. Fagan claims that two stacks of paper remained resting on the rear seat of the car when he arrived at the crash site. Such an observation would defy the law of physics. Fagan had estimated that Silkwood’s Honda was traveling at 40 to 45 miles per hour when it hit a concrete wall head on. Anything unrestrained that was sitting on the rear seat would have continued moving forward at 40 to 45 miles per hour until it hit something else. Even the windshield of the car flew out. In addition, according to Fagan and confirmed by other eyewitnesses, the car came to rest on its left hand, driver’s side, in the mud created by the stream flowing through the culvert. It would have been difficult for papers resting on the back seat to have remained in two stacks.
During the afternoon of November 14th, the day after the accident, Bill Silkwood authorized the garage, to which the Honda had been towed, to release all of Silkwood’s possessions in the car to Stephens and me. In these materials, there was no “reddish-brown spiral notebook about 8 by 10 in size” as described by Jung, nor “a thin spiral notebook, red in color, approximately nine inches by eleven inches in size” as described by Fagan. None of the documents concerned quality control. Rather, they were all connected with the company-union bargaining sessions for a new contract. In addition, all of the documents released to us were clean. None of them were dirtied by any mud from the crash site.
In his deposition, Fagan testified that earlier that day, at about 1:00 AM on November 14th, he met a Crescent police officer and three men who said that they were with the AEC at Sebring’s garage in Crescent where the car had been towed. The AEC also confirmed that it sent two representatives to Sebring’s garage that night, but that the third person was with Kerr-McGee, not the AEC. Olson ultimately determined that this third person was Kerr-McGee’s Gerald Sinke. All three surveyed Silkwood’s automobile for contamination, but none was found.
According to Fagan, it took about 15 to 20 minutes for them to check the car for “radiation.” Fagan testified that “they handled the documents in her car” and checked them with Geiger counters. Such checking for plutonium contamination, if done properly, would have required every piece of paper to be individually surveyed. To the extent that there were Kerr-McGee quality control documents in the wreck, as well as the red or reddish-brown notebook that was seen by both Jung and Fagan, Sinke had the opportunity to remove them during the wee hours of the morning of November 14th.
Silkwood poorly portrays the real Silkwood
Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, the renowned “father” of the science of health physics, has characterized Silkwood as one of the worst cases of plutonium contamination. At the trial, he testified that the Kerr-McGee plant “was one of the worst operations” that he had ever studied because of the “wanton disregard for the health and safety of the employees” and “a burning desire and motivation to put production first.” Morgan found that Silkwood “had a terrific insight and realized that plutonium was extremely hazardous material, and it was very much to her credit that she did all she could to bring this to the attention of the authorities, not only for her own protection but for her fellow-employees.”
There is much speculation as to what drove Karen Silkwood to speak up at the plant and talk back to the Kerr-McGee management. In the movie, Silkwood, she was wrongly portrayed by Meryl Streep as a careless, chain-smoking, and apolitical woman, who was living in squalor and who was consumed by a lonely fight against the world. At age 28, Silkwood was already the mother of three children. At bottom, she cared about the lives of her friends and co-workers at the plant and channeled that care about others into activism. In a phone conversation with me on October 7, 1974, these instincts were apparent. She told me that
in the laboratory we’ve got 18 and 19 year old boys, you know, 20 and 21. I mean and they didn’t have the schooling so they don’t understand what radiation is. They don’t understand, Steve, they don’t understand.
Her union, however, did understand what she was trying to do, but we should have done more. We should not have allowed her to leave the Hub Café alone that night for the drive to Oklahoma City. We should have met her there.
Suzanne Gordon wrote in Ms. Magazine that the real Karen Silkwood “died defending her trade union and coworkers against a powerful employer—one whose lax practices threatened not only its employees, but also the community and possibly the entire nation.” It was a privilege to have known her.
Blinken Lied To Congress About Israeli War Crimes Because He Knows He’ll Get Away With It
Caitlin Johnstone, Sep 25, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/blinken-lied-to-congress-about-israeli?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=149377307&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
As Israel butchers hundreds of civilians in its latest attacks on Lebanon, leaked documents have surfaced revealing that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken knowingly lied to congress about Israel’s siege warfare against civilians in Gaza.
ProPublica’s Brett Murphy, who has been covering aspects of this story for months, has a new article out titled “Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, Two Government Bodies Concluded. Antony Blinken Rejected Them.” In it we learn that both USAID and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration produced two separate reports this past spring concluding that Israel was deliberately blocking much-needed humanitarian aid from Palestinian civilians in Gaza, which under US law should have led to the suspension of US weapons supplies. Blinken dismissed these findings, as did the rest of the headless cohort known as the Biden administration.
Days after receiving these reports, Blinken delivered a statement to congress that he knew to be false, saying, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”
This was a lie. Blinken’s own people were telling him Israel was obstructing aid, but he lied to congress about it in order to ensure that Israel would keep receiving the weapons it needs to keep killing Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.
This is what happens when you don’t prosecute your war criminals. Blinken lied to congress that Israel wasn’t assessed to have been blocking aid when both USAID and the State Department’s refugees bureau had indeed assessed that the Israeli government is doing precisely that, because he knew he’d never be jailed for lying in facilitation of horrific war crimes.
Blinken has watched George W Bush’s entire cabinet not only walk free but continue to have high-profile careers in government, punditry, think tanks and the military-industrial complex, when they all should have been caged for two decades now. He watched CIA officials like Michael Hayden lie to congress about the agency’s torture program without ever facing any consequences. He watched Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lie to congress about the NSA’s surveillance program without ever facing any consequences. He knew he could lie to congress about some of the worst atrocities his nation has ever participated in because he knew there would never be any consequences for this.
None of the world’s worst people are in prison, but if you ever did anything to try to bring them to justice yourself you’d spend the rest of your life behind bars, or be executed. The law doesn’t exist to protect ordinary people from the worst of our society, it exists to protect the worst of our society from ordinary people.
It’s worth noting here that while powerful men in Washington break the law and lie in facilitation of mass atrocities, the US is executing Black men without evidence of their guilt. The state of Missouri just executed a man named Marcellus Williams despite objections from prosecutors, jurors, and the victim’s own family due to a lack of solid evidence that he actually committed the murder he was convicted of. Days earlier, Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah was executed in North Carolina despite the key witness in his case recanting his testimony against him.
Both men were Black, and both men were Muslim. As men with white skin lie with impunity to help butcher brown-skinned civilians in the middle east, I personally find this noteworthy.
This has been going on a long time. In 1902, the renowned attorney Clarence Darrow said the following in a speech to inmates at the Cook County Jail in Chicago:
“Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world.”
It’s just as true in 2024 as it was in 1902.
Assange to Testify at Council of Europe

The freed publisher will appear in person in Strasbourg on Oct. 1 to address the Council of Europe, WikiLeaks said today.
September 24, 2024, By Joe Lauria, Consortium News
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who was released from prison in June, will address the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France on Oct. 1 after he was granted Status as a Political Prisoner by a rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), WikiLeaks said today.
It will be the first time Assange will speak in public since his hearing in U.S. federal court on the North Mariana islands in June, at which he was granted his release after a plea deal.
Assange will give evidence before the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which will meet from 8.30am to 10am at the Palace of Europe, WikiLeaks said.
It follows the PACE inquiry report into Assange’s case, written by Rapporteur Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir.
“The report focuses on the implications of his detention and its broader effects on human rights, in particular freedom of journalism,” WikiLeaks said in a press release published on X. “The report confirms that Assange qualifies as a political prisoner and calls on the UK [to] conduct an independent review into whether he was exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Ævarsdóttir called Assange’s case a “high profile example of transnational repression.” Her report “discusses how governments employ both legal and extralegal measures to suppress dissent across borders, which poses significant threats to press freedom and human rights,” said WikiLeaks.
Still Recovering
Assange is “still in recovery following his release from prison,” it said. He will travel to France because of “the exceptional nature of the invitation and to embrace the support received from PACE and its delegates over the past years”………………………………………………………. more https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/24/assange-to-testify-at-council-of-europe/
‘Obvious Conflict of Interest’: Report Reveals 50+ US Lawmakers Hold Military Stocks


“It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world,” said one critic.
Brett Wilkins 12 Sept 24, https://www.commondreams.org/news/members-of-congress-who-own-defense-stock
At least 50 U.S. lawmakers or members of their households are financially invested in companies that make military weapons and equipment—even as these firms “receive hundreds of billions of dollars annually from congressionally-crafted Pentagon appropriations legislation,” a report published Thursday revealed.
Sludge‘s David Moore analyzed 2023 financial disclosures and stock trades disclosed in other reports and found that “the total value of the federal lawmakers’ defense contractors stock holdings could be as much as $10.9 million.”
Melanie D’Arrigo, @DarrigoMelanie
Over 50 members of Congress, who vote to approve the military budget and approve the sale of weapons, own up to $10.9M in military contractor stocks. Military contractors have also donated $29M this year to election campaigns. That isn’t national defense. That’s corruption.
According to the report:
The spouse of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, holds between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of shares in each of Boeing and RTX, as well as holdings in two other defense manufacturers. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), another Defense Appropriations subcommittee member, holds up to $50,000 in the stock of Boeing, which received nearly $33 billion in defense contracts last year. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Sen. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) holds up to a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of stock in RTX…
The most widely held defense contractor stock among senators and representatives is Honeywell, an American company that makes sensors and guiding devices that are being used by the Israeli military in its airstrikes in Gaza. The second most commonly held defense stock by Congress is RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, the company that makes missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome, among other weapons systems.
All 13 senators whose households disclosed military stock holdings voted for the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, which, as Common Dreams reported, allocated a record $886.3 billion for the U.S. military while many lawmakers’ constituents struggled to meet their basic needs.
“It is an obvious conflict of interest when a member of Congress owns significant stock investments in a company and then votes to award the same company lucrative federal contracts,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, told Sludge.
“Whether or not the official action is taken for actual self-enrichment purposes is beside the point. There is at least an appearance of self-enrichment and that appearance is just as damaging to the integrity of Congress,” Holman added. “This type of conflict of interest is already banned for executive branch officials and so should be for Congress as well. The ETHICS Act would justly avoid that conflict of interest by prohibiting members of Congress and their spouses from owning stock investments altogether.”Holman was referring to the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, introduced earlier this year by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
In the House of Representatives—where the 2024 NDAA passed 310-118, with the approval of over two dozen members who own shares in military companies—House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul’s (R-Texas) household owns up to $2.6 million in General Electric, Oshkosh Corporation, and Woodward shares. Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), who sits on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, owns as much as $100,000 worth of Boeing and General Electric stock.
Other House lawmakers with potential conflicts of interest include Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who owns Leidos shares worth as much as $248,000; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who owns up to $100,000 worth of RTX stock; and Rep. Patrick Fallon (R-Texas), a member of the Armed Services Committee who holds Boeing stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
“Every American should take a long, hard look at these holdings to conceptualize the scope of Congress’ entanglement with defense contractors,” Public Citizen People Over Pentagon advocate Savannah Wooten told Sludge. “It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world.”
“Requiring elected officials to divest from the military-industrial complex before stepping into public service would create a safer and more secure world from the outset,” she added.
FBI Sued For Withholding Files On Assange And WikiLeaks

Kevin Gosztola, Sep 12, 2024, https://thedissenter.org/fbi-sued-for-withholding-files-on-assange-and-wikileaks/
“With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people,” Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent.
The civil liberties organization Defending Rights and Dissent sued the FBI and United States Justice Department for withholding records on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
“For nearly a decade and a half, we’ve been trying to get at the truth about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks,” declared Chip Gibbons, the policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent.
Gibbons added, “With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people.”
On June 25, 2024, U.S. government attorneys submitted a plea agreement [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after Assange agreed to plead guilty to one conspiracy charge under the U.S. Espionage Act.
Assange was released on bail from London’s Belmarsh prison, where he had been jailed for over five years while fighting a U.S. extradition request. He flew on a charter flight to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory where a plea hearing was held.
The plea agreement marked the end of a U.S. campaign to target and suppress Assange and WikiLeaks that spanned 14 years and first intensified after WikiLeaks published documents from U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning that exposed crimes committed in U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as U.S. complicity in human rights abuses in dozens of countries around the world.
“As soon as we began publishing newsworthy stories about US war crimes in 2010, we know the US government responded to what was one of most consequential journalistic revelations of the 21st century by spying on and trying to criminalize First Amendment-protected journalism,” stated WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Hrafnsson continued, “While WikiLeaks has fought for transparency, the U.S. government has cloaked its war on journalism in secrecy. That’s why Defending Rights & Dissent’s lawsuit is so important, as it will help unmask the FBI’s efforts to criminalize journalism.”
On June 27, Defending Rights and Dissent requested [PDF] “all records created, maintained, or in the custody of the FBI that mention or reference: WikiLeaks; Julian Assange.”
The FBI separated the request into two requests—one for files mentioning “WikiLeaks,” one for files mentioning Julian Assange. And by August 19, the organization was informed by the FBI that it would take around five and a half years (2,010 days) to “complete action.”
Previously, on June 22, 2021, Defending Rights and Dissent submitted a nearly identical request. It took the FBI two years to respond and notify the organization that the documents could not be provided because there was a “law enforcement” proceeding that was pending against Assange.
The FBI became involved in pursuing an investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks in December 2010.
In 2011, FBI agents and prosecutors flew to Iceland to investigate what they claimed was a cyber attack against Iceland’s government systems. But as Iceland Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson told the Associated Press in 2013, it became clear that the FBI agents and prosecutors came to Iceland to “frame” Assange and WikiLeaks.
The FBI was interested in interviewing Sigurdur Thordarson, a serial liar and sociopath who embezzled funds from the WikiLeaks store and sexually preyed on underage boys. As I recount in my book “Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange,” Thordarson subsequently became an FBI informant or cooperating witness.
“When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police,” Jónasson added.
A little more than a year before the U.S. government’s prosecution against Assange collapsed, the FBI approached three journalists who had worked with Assange but had a falling-out with him. Each refused to help U.S. prosecutors further their attack on journalism.
“The decision to respond to reporting on U.S. war crimes with foreign counterintelligence investigations, criminal prosecutions, and dirty tricks continues to cast a dark shadow over our First Amendment right to press freedom,” Gibbons said.
Gibbons concluded, “We will work tirelessly to see that all files documenting how the FBI criminalized and investigated journalism are made available to the public.”
Federal Conflict Rules Would Have Barred New Brunswick, Ontario Cabinet Ministers from New Corporate Posts, Expert Says

The ENERGY MIX, Mitchell Beer September 12, 2024
Two former provincial cabinet ministers would have been barred by conflict of interest legislation from the senior positions they’ve taken with engineering services and nuclear energy giant AtkinsRéalis if they’d been in federal politics, an expert in government and corporate ethics has concluded.
Former New Brunswick natural resources minister Mike Holland and Ontario energy minister Todd Smith both left their positions over the summer and signed on with Montreal-based AtkinsRéalis within a couple of weeks of quitting politics. Holland resigned from cabinet in late June and was appointed as Atkins’ director of business development for North America in early July. Smith quit in mid-August and was hired as vice-president, marketing and business development for Atkins subsidiary Candu Energy two weeks later……………………………………………………
Holland’s and Smith’s career moves are permitted by New Brunswick’s and Ontario’s conflict of interest rules, respectively. Both provinces set 12-month bans on activities like direct lobbying after a former official leaves office, but do not bar other employment with a company that does business with the official’s former government.
……………………………………………… Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said neither official would have been allowed to make the move if they’d been serving in the federal cabinet. And Smith would have been barred by Ontario rules if he had been working as minister’s staff, rather than as minister.
A Preceding Transaction
“At the federal level you wouldn’t be allowed to do what they did,” Conacher told The Energy Mix.
“There’s a preceding transaction, a negotiation they provided advice on. They were both quoted in AtkinsRéalis’ news release.”
That was a reference to an April 13, 2022 release in which Candu Energy and Saint John, New Brunswick-based Moltex Energy announced a “strategic partnership to advance the development and deployment of next-generation Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear technology in Canada,” including a “first of a kind” installation in New Brunswick. In that release, Holland and Smith both showed up as early boosters for the partnership.
“New Brunswick welcomes investment in clean energy, especially as it builds on the province’s established core of expertise in nuclear technology,” Holland said. “This agreement contributes not only to the growth of long-term, high-quality jobs in New Brunswick’s energy sector; it also recognizes the leadership role of both Moltex and the province in advancing the next generation of nuclear technology.”
“I’m thrilled to welcome this new partnership between Moltex and SNC-Lavalin that builds our provincial energy industry, one renowned for its talented work force and strong nuclear supply chain,” Smith added. “This partnership enhances our clean energy advantage and reputation as a global hub for SMR expertise, making Ontario an even more attractive place to do business and create jobs.”
The release cited Candu Energy as a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin, the politically connected but often deeply troubled global firm that eventually rebranded as AtkinsRéalis in September, 2023. But not before it set up Candu Energy by acquiring key commercial nuclear contracts, intellectual property, and personnel from federally-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in 2011.
‘You’re Never Allowed’
Neither Holland nor Smith would have been allowed to join AtkinsRéalis if they were bound by the federal Conflict of Interest Act, Conacher told The Mix.
“You’re never allowed to act on behalf of any person or organization connected with something you were involved with in government. It’s not 12 months. It’s never. You’re never allowed,” Conacher said.
“And then secondly, you’re not allowed to give advice to anyone using confidential information,” he added. That amounts to a blanket restriction because “they learn things every day that are not disclosed,” which means all the advice a former cabinet official gives is based on confidential information.
“How do you unknow what you know and then give advice pretending you don’t know what you know? It’s impossible.”
That concern doesn’t apply in New Brunswick or Ontario, and Conacher said New Brunswick’s conflict of interest rules are the weaker of the two. In mid-August, Holland was listed in the federal lobbying registry as an AtkinsRéalis senior officer whose lobbying activities represented more than 20% of his duties.
Other Ways to Be Useful
But direct lobbying isn’t the only way, or even the most useful way, a former cabinet minister can help out a new corporate employer.
If a provincial ban applies only to lobbying, “you just don’t make the representation,” Conacher explained. “You give strategic advice to the company’s lobbyists on who they should be talking to, who’s the real decision-maker in cabinet, and what you should be saying to make something go through smoothly or get some extra benefit, like a subsidy or a [deadline] extension without any penalty. And that’s why they’re hired—because they have that inside knowledge.”………………………… https://www.theenergymix.com/exclusive-federal-conflict-rules-would-have-barred-new-brunswick-ontario-cabinet-ministers-from-new-corporate-posts-expert-says-old/
Rich countries silencing climate protest while preaching about rights elsewhere, says study

Report says governments in global north increasingly using draconian measures while criticising similar tactics in global south
Matthew Taylor, Tue 10 Sep 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/10/climate-rights-report-draconian-measures-protest
Wealthy, democratic countries in the global north are using harsh, vague and punitive measures to crack down on climate protests at the same time as criticising similar draconian tactics by authorities in the global south, according to a report.
A Climate Rights International report exposes the increasingly heavy-handed treatment of climate activists in Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US.
It found the crackdown in these countries – including lengthy prison sentences, preventive detention and harassment – was a violation of governments’ legal responsibility to protect basic rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association.
It also highlights how these same governments frequently criticise regimes in developing countries for not respecting the right to protest peacefully.
“Governments too often take such a strong and principled view about the right to peaceful protest in other countries – but when they don’t like certain kinds of protests at home they pass laws and deploy the police to stop them,” said Brad Adams, director at Climate Rights International.
Across Europe, the US and the UK, authorities have responded to non-violent climate protests with mass arrests and draconian new laws that have resulted in long prison sentences. In some instances those who have taken part have been labelled as hooligans, saboteurs or ecoterrorists by politicians and the media.
Senior human rights advocates and environmental campaigners have raised concerns about the crackdown and called on governments to protect the right to non-violent protest.
“These defenders are basically trying to save the planet, and in doing so save humanity,” Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, told the Guardian last year. “These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments and corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power and economics.”
The escalating climate crisis has resulted in record-breaking temperatures around the world in 2024, driving food shortages, mass movements of people and economic hardship – as well as deadly fires and floods.
But the report found that rather than taking urgent measures to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels and halt ecological collapse, many relatively wealthy countries have instead focused on those trying to stop those raising the alarm by taking part in protests and civil disobedience.
“You don’t have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech,” said Adams. “Instead of jailing climate protesters and undermining civil liberties, governments should heed their call to take urgent action to address the climate crisis.”
The report’s authors highlighted several examples of developed countries lauding the importance of the right to protest on the international stage at the same time as undertaking harsh and punitive crackdowns at home.
Welcoming a UN report in July this year, the UK government said: “These rights [to peaceful assembly and protest] are essential to the functioning of society, providing a platform for citizens to advocate for positive change. Nonetheless, civic space is increasingly contested as authoritarian governments and actors, who feel vulnerable to scrutiny and accountability, seek to silence dissent.”
Tuesday’s report also found:
- Record prison sentences for non violent protest in several countries including the UK, Germany and the US.
- Preemptive arrests and detention for those suspected of planning peaceful protests.
- Draconian new laws passed to make the vast majority of peaceful protest illegal.
- Measures to stop juries hearing about people’s motivation for taking part in protests during court cases, which critics say fundamentally undermines the right to a fair trial.
Climate Rights International called on democratic governments around the world to halt the authoritarian crackdown and protect people’s rights to protest.
“Governments should see climate protesters and activists as allies in the fight against climate change, not criminals,” said Adams. “The crackdown on peaceful protests is not only a violation of their basic rights, it can also be used by repressive governments as a green light to go after climate, environmental, and human rights defenders in their countries.”
Boris Johnson goes into business with Steve Bannon, Charlotte Owen and a uranium entrepreneur

Owen, who was elevated to the House of Lords last year at the age of 29, now has a plum job despite having no energy sector experience.
by Jack Peat, 2024-09-09, https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/boris-johnson-goes-into-business-with-steve-bannon-charlotte-owen-and-a-uranium-entrepreneur-382535/
Boris Johnson has been added as the director and co-chairman of Better Earth, a company that lists Charlotte Owen, Steve Bannon and a uranium entrepreneur among its staffers.
Better Earth was incorporated by Amir Adnani in December last year and now includes a high-profile roster of employees, including a former prime minister, a controversial media strategist and Britain’s youngest peer.
Adnani, a Canadian citizen of Iranian heritage, is the director of a network of offshore companies based in the British Virgin Islands and is president and CEO of Uranium Energy Corp, a US-based mining and exploration company, championed by former Donald Trump adviser Bannon.
On 1st May, Companies House filings reveal that “the Rt Hon Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson” was added as a director and co-chairman, shortly followed by Charlotte Owen – now Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge – who joined the company to work alongside him despite having a lack of energy sector experience.
Headquartered in a serviced office building in Sevenoaks, Better Earth describes itself as an “energy transition company”.
Its website, which is currently under construction, says it will “work directly with national governments and regions that are seeking both inward investment and/or to reduce their emissions ahead of 2030”.
In 2022, just days before leaving office, Johnson announced a £700 million investment in the controversial Sizewell C reactor stating the country needed to “Go nuclear, go large!”.
At the time, Caroline Lucas, the then Green MP and former party leader, described Sizewell C as “massively costly, achingly slow and carries huge unnecessary risks”.
Among those who cheered the Sizewell C investment was Adnani. He excitedly posted the announcement on his Twitter account: “Boris Johnson plans to sign off on new £30bn nuclear plant in his final week in power! #uranium.”
Adnani has appeared at least twice on former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, and on one occasion told him that his ambition was to achieve “full spectrum energy dominance”.
Doesn’t sound scary at all!
Democracy Dumped in Cumbria.. Nuclear Dump Under the Irish Sea Here We Come?! UNLESS….

On By mariannewildart
Today’s BBC news item features Councillor David Moore enthusing “it’s (Sellafield) the biggest employer in the area”. He adds: “I think that’s why conversation here’s different. We’re already the hosts of the waste. And we all want to find it a safer location.” Councillor Moore is of course very keen on new wastes arriving at Sellafield.
What today’s BBC news article on nuclear waste fails to state is that Councillor David Moore was one of only 3 (I know!) “executive councillors” who took the decision to put Cumbria in the frame for an unprecedented deep sub-sea nuclear dump by agreeing to the “Community Partnership” with Nuclear Waste Services in the plan to “deliver a Geological Disposal Facility.” In doing so Councillor Moore failed to declare his fiscal interests in the nuclear industry by dint of his paid membership of various nuclear bodies (monies recieved totalling over £100,000) and his spouse’s employment.
A police complaint was made about this ongoing failure to declare interests but Cumbria police after over a year of obfuscation and delays decided that there was no offence. Cumbria police have essentially given the green light to those in public office not to declare fiscal interests in decisions they make on industrial developments.
We have asked for sight of Cumbria Police’s reasons for failing to take Councillor David Moore to task over his failure to declare interests but to no avail. It is clear that Councillor Moore was told by Cumbria Police that no action would be taken against him long before we were told. And we were only told after saying we would make an official complaint against the length of time the Police’s decision was taking.
We have sent off another email today asking for sight of Cumbria Police’s justification for not taking any action against David Moore – not even a slap on the wrist it appears for what is a criminal offence. Meanwhile Councillor David Moore, who has put Cumbria once again in the frame for a nuclear dump, is the ‘go to’ voice of the “community” for the mainstream media.
Something is very wrong here.
oday’s email to Cumbria Police’s Disclosure Unit:
Dear Disclosure Unit
We do not appear to have had full answers from you regarding Cumbria Police’s decision not to prosecute Councillor David Moore’s failure to declare nuclear interests when taking nuclear decisions with Copeland Borough Council. David Moore is quoted on today’s BBC News as a Councillor and member of the GDF Partnership. The news item does not mention that David Moore was one of only three councillors who voted to go forward with GDF Partnership while recieving monies from the nuclear industry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx6e2x0kdyo
?What Date was Councillor David Moore told of the decision that he had committed no criminal offence when making Council decisions on nuclear by neglecting to disclose monies from the nuclear industry and that fact that his wife works for ……..
On behalf of over 30 people signing a letter of complaint against Cllr David Moore, I request sight of the “comprehensive review of the police investigation that was undertaken and the outcome that no further action is to be taken because there is no evidence of any criminality.”
In particular I request sight of justifications for overturning the Localism Act in the case of Cllr David Moore
http://publicsectorblog.practicallaw.com/first-conviction-of-a-councillor-under-the-localism-act-2011/
The original letter of complaint was written in 2022 – the length of time the police took to reply to us and then take a decision (to take no action) is scandalous.
For all links including the original letter check out Lakes Against Nuclear Dump
Victoria Nuland, former US deputy secretary of state, confirms West told Zelensky to abandon peace deal

Comment: Nuland confirms what was already known. The reason the conflict is ongoing is because the US wanted it to be so.
https://www.rt.com/news/603708-ukraine-istanbul-us-nuland/ 9 Sept 24
Ukraine-Russia talks fell apart after Kiev asked foreign backers for advice, the former US deputy secretary of state has said.
The US, UK and other backers of Ukraine told Kiev to reject the deal reached at the 2022 Istanbul peace talks with Russia, former US under secretary of state Victoria Nuland has said.
In an interview with Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar, former editor-in-chief of the liberal news channel Dozhd, which aired on Thursday, Nuland was asked to comment on reports that the peace process between Moscow and Kiev in late March and early April 2022 collapsed after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Ukraine and told Vladimir Zelensky to keep fighting.
“Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on,” she said of the deal being discussed by the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Türkiye’s largest city.
The proposed agreement included limits on the kinds of weapons that Kiev could possess, as a result of which Ukraine “would basically be neutered as a military force,” while there were no similar constraints on Russia, the former diplomat explained.
“People inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart,” Nuland said.
The veteran diplomatic hawk, who during her time in the State Department was renowned for her hostility towards Russia, quit the post of under secretary of state for political affairs in March this year. Nuland played a key role in the violent Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, which toppled Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovich.
During the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, she called for deeper US involvement in the conflict and advocated for Ukraine to be armed with increasingly sophisticated weapons. However, in February, the 63-year-old essentially acknowledged the failure of her longstanding policy of containing Moscow, telling the CNN that modern Russia had turned out to be “not the Russia we wanted”
During her conversation with Zygar, Nuland confirmed that both Moscow and Kiev were eager to seek a diplomatic solution a month after the outbreak of the fighting.
“Russia had an interest at that time in at least seeing what it could get. Ukraine, obviously, had an interest if they could stop the war and get and get Russia out,” she said.
US officials “were not in the room” during the talks in Istanbul, only offering Kiev “support” in case it were needed, she claimed.
Putin said last week that the only reason the Istanbul deal failed was because of “the wish of the elites in the US and some European nations to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” adding that Boris Johnson served as the messenger to quash the peace process.
The negotiations in Türkiye yielded a draft agreement, which would have ended the hostilities, Putin recalled. Kiev was willing to declare military neutrality, limit its armed forces, and vow not to discriminate against ethnic Russians. In return, Moscow would have joined other leading powers in offering Ukraine security guarantees, he stressed.
According to the Russian leader, talks with Kiev are still possible, but can only happen “not on the basis of some ephemeral demands but on the basis of the documents that were agreed and actually initialized in Istanbul.”
-
Archives
- January 2026 (246)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS






