nuclear-news

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

Central Asia celebrates 20 years as a nuclear-weapon-free zone

By Nargiz Shekinskaya, 30 April 2026

Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan was once the Soviet Union’s primary testing ground for nuclear weapons. Today, in an age of rising nuclear threats, the Semipalatinsk Treaty – which saw a group of Central Asian countries renounce nuclear weapons in 2006 – is more relevant than ever.

The accord, which brought together Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, enshrines the voluntary commitment of these States not to develop, acquire, test or deploy nuclear weapons.

“Nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) are not only historical achievements but also living instruments of regional security, non-proliferation and nuclear risk reduction,” says Christopher King, Chief of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch at the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).

Nations bound together

He notes that the Central Asian zone stands as an example of effective regional cooperation, bringing the five countries under a legally binding commitment.

“Such zones contribute to transparency, confidence-building and risk reduction, and they can help maintain a practical bridge between regional security concerns and global non-proliferation and disarmament architecture,” Mr. King adds.

First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Yerzhan Ashikbayev, who is leading the country’s delegation at the 2026 review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, also believes that its significance extends far beyond the region.

“The contribution of the Semipalatinsk Treaty to ensuring security not only in Central Asia but also beyond its borders, is undeniable,” he says. 

According to the diplomat, the creation of the zone reflects a shared commitment by the countries of the region to strengthen peace, stability and security, and to overcome the legacy of nuclear testing.

Commitments questioned

Today, amid growing geopolitical tensions, some experts question the durability of such agreements. However, Mr. Ashikbayev disagrees. “On the contrary, in such critical periods the zone demonstrates that its existence is a positive factor,” he argues. Kazakhstan, he added, remains committed to multilateral diplomacy, with the further development of the zone forming part of that policy.

The Central Asian experience is drawing interest in other regions of the world but, as Ashikbayev pointed out, the establishment of such zones must be a sovereign decision of the States concerned. 

At the same time, the legacy of the nuclear past continues to be felt today, particularly around the former Semipalatinsk test site, but rehabilitation programmes are under way.

A modern oncology centre has been established, and parts of previously restricted territories are, following a thorough assessment, gradually being returned to economic use. 

The Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

  • Mr. King and Mr. Ashikbayev took part in a round table organised by Kazakhstan at UN Headquarters on Wednesday, marking the 20th anniversary of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.
  • Participants discussed how the agreement contributes to strengthening international security in an increasingly unstable global environment.
  • The event took place on Tuesday, on the margins of the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, currently underway at UN Headquarters.
  • The event was recorded and can be seen on UN WebTV.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

The following treaties form the basis for the existing NWFZs:

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Kazakhstan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“We are waiting for Nuclear Waste Services to Come Up with Recommendations on Siting….”

Marianne Birkby, May 02, 2026, https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/we-are-waiting-for-nuclear-waste

“We are waiting for Nuclear Waste Services to Come Up with Recommendations on Siting….”

But meanwhile ‘we are already building new nuclear reactors which would produce even hotter nuclear wastes. Hot nuclear wastes are in the pipeline for which there is no “away” in blatant disregard of the Flowers Report: “There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future.”

Well it is safe to say that not only is there reasonable doubt that a method exists as no country has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they can contain high level wastes indefinitely without repackaging – but there is also no where NO WHERE willing to be the ultimate nuclear guinea pig in the UK. Unless that is you count the four members of Copeland now Cumberland Council that said on behalf of the region, ‘hey yes let’s sacrifice the safety of Cumbria and her neighbours for nuclear £bungs’.

Good on Wera Hobhouse LibDem MP for Bath for asking the questions.. Click for video on facebook

May 5, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Inside the bizarre race to secure Earth’s nuclear tombs

Our generation must find a way to bury the waste very deep to avoid radioactive pollution or exposure to people and animals up to one million years into the future.”

With nuclear energy production increasing globally, the problem of what to do with the waste demands a solution. But where do you store something that stays dangerous for thousands of years?

Jheni Osman, Science Focus, May 1, 2026

Uniformed guards with holstered guns stand at the entrance and watch you lumber past. Ahead lies a wasteland of barren metal gantries, dormant chimney stacks and abandoned equipment.

You trudge towards the ruins of a large, derelict red-brick building. Your white hazmat suit and heavy steel-toe-capped boots make it difficult to walk. Your hands are encased in a double layer of gloves, your face protected by a particulate-filtering breathing mask. Not an inch of flesh is left exposed.

Peering into the building’s gloomy interior, the beam from your head torch picks out machinery and vats turned orange with rust. On a wall nearby, a yellow warning sign featuring a black circle flanked by three black blades reminds you of the danger lurking inside.

Apart from the sound of your own breathing behind your mask, the only thing you can hear is the crackling popcorn of your Geiger counter.

This is what entering the Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant is like for nuclear researchers, including Tom Scott, professor of materials at the University of Bristol and head of the UK Government’s Nuclear Threat Reduction Network.

Prydniprovsky was once a large Soviet materials and chemicals processing site on the outskirts of Kamianske in central Ukraine. Between 1948 and 1991, it processed uranium and thorium ore into concentrate, generating tens of millions of tonnes of low-level radioactive waste.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, Prydniprovsky was abandoned and fell into disrepair.

“The buildings are impressively awful and not for the faint-hearted,” says Scott. “As well as physical hazards, such as gaping holes in the floor, there’s no light or power. And obviously there are radiological hazards. Until very recently, the Ukrainian Government didn’t have a clue what had gone on at the site, so there were concerns about the high radiation levels and ground contamination.”…………………………………”

Scott and his team are known as industrial nuclear archaeologists, and they’re working to find, characterise and quantify the ‘legacy’ radioactive waste at sites around the world.

“High-level radioactive waste gives off a significant amount of radioactivity, sufficient to make humans sick if they get too close,” he says. “Some of this waste will be dangerously radioactive for very long periods of time, meaning that it needs to be physically kept away from people and the environment to ensure that no harm is caused.”

But finding legacy waste like this, which has been amassing since the 1940s, is only part of the challenge. Once it’s been found, it has to be isolated and stored long enough for it to no longer pose a threat. And that’s not easy.

“Currently we’re storing our high-level wastes above ground in secure, shielded facilities,” Scott says. “Such facilities need to be replaced every so often because buildings and concrete structures can’t last indefinitely.”

Safely storing the nuclear waste that already exists is only the start of the problem, however. With the world moving away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon alternatives, nuclear energy production is set to increase, which means more waste is going to be produced – a lot more……………………………………………………

Safe spaces

In the UK, most nuclear waste is currently sent to Sellafield, a sprawling site in Cumbria, in the north-west of England, with about 11,000 employees, its own road and railway network, a special laundry service for contaminated clothes and a dedicated, armed police force (the Civil Nuclear Constabulary).

Sellafield processes and stores more radioactive waste than anywhere in the world.

But more hazardous material is on the way, much of which will come from the new nuclear power station being built at Hinckley Point in Somerset. To keep pace, experts have been hunting for other, much stranger, disposal solutions.

t’s a challenge for nuclear agencies all around the world. All sorts of proposals have been put forward, including some bizarre ideas like firing nuclear waste into space. (The potential risk of a launch failure showering the planet with nuclear debris has silenced that proposal’s supporters.)

So far, the most plausible solution is putting the waste in special containers and storing them 200–1,000m (660–3,280ft) underground in geological disposal facilities (GDFs). Eventually, these GDFs would be closed and sealed shut to avoid any human intrusion.

These ‘nuclear tombs’ are the safest, most secure option for the long-term and minimise the burden on future generations.

“In the UK, around 90 per cent of the volume of our legacy waste can be disposed of at surface facilities, but there’s about 10 per cent that we don’t currently have a disposal facility for. The solution is internationally accepted as being GDFs,” says Dr Robert Winsley, design authority lead at the UK’s Nuclear Waste Services.

“We estimate that about 90 per cent of the radioactive material in our inventory will decay in the first 1,000 years or so. But a portion of that inventory will remain hazardous for much longer – tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years.

“GDFs use engineered barriers to work alongside the natural barrier of stable rock. This multi-barrier approach isolates and contains waste, ensuring no radioactivity ever comes back to the surface in levels that could do harm.”

But how do you keep that radioactivity in the ground? Radioactive waste is typically classified as either low-, intermediate- or high-level waste………………………………………………………………………………..

Rock solid

The hunt is also on to find facilities with bedrock that can withstand events such as wars and natural disasters (‘short-term challenges’, geologically speaking). Sites that won’t change dramatically over the millennia needed for nuclear waste to no longer pose a risk.

“A misconception is that we’re looking for an environment that doesn’t change, but the reality is the planet does change, very slowly,” says Stuart Haszeldine, professor of carbon capture and storage at the University of Edinburgh.

“Our generation must find a way to bury the waste very deep to avoid radioactive pollution or exposure to people and animals up to one million years into the future.”

To achieve this, the site ideally needs to be below sea level. If it’s above sea level, rainwater seeping down through fractures in the rock around the site might become radioactive and eventually find its way to the sea.

When this radioactive freshwater meets the denser saltwater, it’ll float upwards, posing a risk to anything in the water above.

Another challenge is predicting future glaciations, which happen roughly once every 100,000 years. During such a period, the sort of glaciers that cut the valleys in today’s landscape could form again, gouging new troughs in the bedrock that might breach an underground disposal facility.

“Accurate and reliable future predictions depend on how well you understand the past,” says Haszeldine.


“Typically, repository safety assessments cover a one-million-year timeframe, and regulations require a GDF site to cause fewer than one human death in a million for the next million years. Exploration doesn’t search for a single best site to retain radioactive waste, but one that’s good enough to fulfil these regulations.”

Hiding places……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Hide and seek

But even after you’ve found a suitable site and buried the radioactive material safely inside it, you still need to warn future generations about what’s hidden inside.

The trouble is, even if humans are still around in a million years’ time, there’s no guarantee the languages our ancestors speak, or the symbols they use, will be anything like those of today…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/inside-the-bizarre-race-to-secure-earths-nuclear-tombs

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, wastes | Leave a comment

‘Fish disco’ not enough to protect nature at nuclear plant, says green quango

Natural England demands new salt marshes be created before Hinkley Point C can open

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is facing fresh
delays as a green quango demands extra nature protections on top of a
controversial “fish disco”. Natural England has told developer EDF that
existing plans to stop aquatic life in the Severn Estuary from being sucked
into the Somerset plant’s cooling pipes will not be enough to satisfy
environmental rules.

The company had proposed using £700m of special
equipment to ward off fish, including a bespoke underwater loudspeaker
system which campaigners have called the “fish disco”. EDF provided new
research data to regulators in February following promising trials of the
technology, formally known as the acoustic fish deterrent, by university
scientists.

But in recent weeks, Natural England is understood to have
claimed that further protections are necessary, such as the creation of new
salt marshes to boost fish populations in the area. The quango is refusing
to sign off the plant until new plans are set out and approved.

It has prompted concern that Hinkley’s targeted 2030 opening date is now
effectively impossible to deliver, owing to the time it will take to win
approval for and build the new salt marshes. Sam Richards, the chief
executive of Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, said: “Hinkley
Point C is already the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
“It also has more fish protection measures than any reactor built
anywhere in the world. “For Natural England to now demand even more
mitigation – regardless of the wider impact on the project and for
minimal added benefit to nature – shows just how out of touch with
reality they really are. “This out of control quango has become a direct
threat to Britain’s energy security.”

 Telegraph 2nd May 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/05/02/fish-disco-not-enough-to-protect-nature-at-nuclear-plant/

May 4, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

US to give $100 million to repair damaged Chornobyl nuclear shelter, Kyiv says

By Reuters, April 30, 2026, Reporting by ​Max Hunder Editing by David Goodman

The U.S. will give $100 million towards repairs ​of the vast radiation containment ‌dome at the Chornobyl plant in northern Ukraine, site of ​the world’s worst atomic ​accident in 1986, after the ⁠dome was damaged by ​a Russian drone, Kyiv’s energy ​minister, Denys Shmyhal, said on Wednesday.

One of Chornobyl’s four reactors exploded ​in 1986 and is ​now enclosed by a shelter to contain ‌the ⁠lingering radiation. A Russian drone hit that structure in February last year.

In a ​post on ​Telegram, ⁠Shmyhal said funding for repairs of the ​dome, at an estimated ​cost ⁠of 500 million euros ($584.95 million), was discussed with international ⁠partners ​at a recent ​conference about the plant.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Rosyth councillor Brian Goodall wants public consultation.

29th April, By Ally McRoberts, Content Editor, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26063183.rosyth-councillor-brian-goodall-wants-public-consultation/

THE UK Government’s refusal to give local residents a say in Trident nuclear submarines coming to Rosyth has been slammed as “disgusting and undemocratic”.

Local SNP councillor Brian Goodall was fuming that a request for a public consultation on the move, which he said would require “radiation shelters” and iodine tablets for people who live in the town, has been sunk.

He said: “The UK Government are effectively saying we won’t ask the Scottish public if we should do this because we know they’d say no.”

Cllr Goodall added: “The MoD confirmed at a previous meeting of the area committee that these nuclear submarines may have nuclear missiles on board when they come into Rosyth.

“This not only presents massive additional health and safety concerns but also makes Rosyth even more of a target for rogue nations and international terrorist groups.”

The next generation of Trident nuclear submarines is the Dreadnought class and a contingent dock is to be in place at Rosyth Dockyard by 2029.

The vessels are to be maintained at Faslane but a temporary home is needed in Fife, and the UK Government have provided £340 million to help “bridge the gap”, as the site on the Clyde won’t be ready until the mid 2030s.

In December the MoD told local councillors they would not reveal if any of the subs that need repairs or maintenance at Rosyth will be carrying nuclear warheads.

In February, at the South and West Fife area committee, Cllr Goodall submitted a successful motion asking the convener to write to the Secretary of State of Defence, requesting that the public are consulted on plans to “potentially bring nuclear weapons” to the dockyard.

Opponents have argued that maintaining nuclear-powered subs and storing nuclear weapons are entirely separate – and that nuclear warheads are not kept onboard when a sub goes in for maintenance.

This week Cllr Goodall said: “The UK Government, through the MoD, have now responded to the request for them to hold a public consultation on their plans to bring nuclear fuelled, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines to Rosyth Dockyard, and their response is as predictable as it is disgusting and undemocratic.”

He said the letter from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, “not only confirms their refusal to consult with local residents on their plans, it also admits that public safety, while a major concern, is not the main priority of the MoD”.

Cllr Goodall went on: “These submarines will still have their nuclear fuel onboard, unlike the decommissioned subs that are already at the dockyard, so there will need to be additional emergency plans put in place, including arrangements for radiation shelters for some local residents and to distribute potassium iodide tablets to the local population.

“The communities around the dockyard should be allowed to have their say on this and the campaign for a public consultation will go on.”

The work on the Dreadnought class would be in addition to the submarine dismantling project at the dockyard, which is cutting up an old nuclear sub, Swiftsure, and removing the radioactive waste left within it.

There are another six decommissioned subs laid up at Rosyth – and 15 at Devonport – and although no decision has been made, Babcock are recruiting for more people to work on the dismantling project.

Cllr Goodall has also expressed concern about the Swiftsure demonstrator scheme, arguing that work to remove the reactor should not go ahead as it’d be cheaper not to do so and there was nowhere safe to store the radioactive waste.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Charles III and Britain’s pathological obsession with Russia

British political class has had a pathological obsession with Russia for nearly two centuries, and has been scheming to wage wars against her at least since the Crimean War of 1853. In all cases, Britain is always eager to lead such wars from behind and incite other powers to do the actual fighting. One of the most blatant examples was their weaponizing of Hitler’s Germany in preparation for the largest ever invasion force in 1941, counting over 3.8 million troops. This was not really a “German invasion” as our historical curriculum suggests; it was a German-led invasion.

Yesterday, Charles III called for World War III, echoing the 1945 “Project Unthinkable” Britain’s obsession with waging war on Russia is now a mortal danger to all of us.

Alex Krainer, Apr 30, 2026, https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/charles-iii-and-britains-pathological?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1063805&post_id=195907312&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

 On Monday, 27 April, Britain’s king Charles III came to Washington for a four-day state visit to the United States hosted by President Donald Trump. His “majsesty,” is also known to his fans as late Jimmy Saville’s BFF and the brother of Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF Andrew, formerly known as prince.

Yesterday, Charles graced the joint session of U.S. Congress with an inspiring speech during which he found it appropriate to call on his American audience to get on with the business of World War III already. Thus spoke his majesty:

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people.”

Glorifying wars of the past, particularly Afghanistan, and invoking NATO Article 5 which was “needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” was a naked call for the United States to commit to war against Russia: another great war on the European continent.

Given that the last two World Wars resulted in some 70 million casualties, one would think that the king’s warmongering would prompt U.S. elected representatives to tar and feather the British royal and run him out of town on a rail, but of course, one would be wrong. King’s call for World War III elicited an enthusiastic standing ovation from the politicians, otherwise passionately supportive of the ‘no kings’ protests in their country.

Britain’s incurable Russia derangement

British political class has had a pathological obsession with Russia for nearly two centuries, and has been scheming to wage wars against her at least since the Crimean War of 1853. In all cases, Britain is always eager to lead such wars from behind and incite other powers to do the actual fighting. One of the most blatant examples was their weaponizing of Hitler’s Germany in preparation for the largest ever invasion force in 1941, counting over 3.8 million troops. This was not really a “German invasion” as our historical curriculum suggests; it was a German-led invasion.

The 3.8 million strong invasion force (which grew to six million within its first year of fighting) was sourced from nearly all European countries. Soviet Union repelled that invasion at a cost of 27 million casualties. One in 9 Russians died and almost every Russian family lost someone in that war. When it became clear that the invasion had failed and that Hitler’s army would be defeated, British Joint Planning Staff thought up “Project Unthinkable”: a new&improved plan to attack Russia.

The document was submitted to Winston Churchill on 22 May 1945 (it is available at this link) proposing a surprise attack against Russia, planned for July 1, 1945 by the combined UK and the US forces, supported by the Polish and German troops. The project’s political objective was to submit Russia “to our will”:

“A quick success might induce the Russians to submit to our will at least for the time being; but it might not. … if they want total war, they are in the position to have it.”

The “elites” in London were dreaming up a new war against Russia even as World War 2 was still raging and the Soviet Union was finishing off Hitler’s Wehrmacht at the Eastern front. Britain was ostensibly allied with the USSR at that time, but the king and the cabal, as Winston Churchill named it, were secretly rooting for Hitler.

A total war is necessary

Britain’s Joint Planning Staff advanced two hypotheses: (1) that “a total war is necessary,” and (2) that “a quick success would suffice to gain our political objective.” However, the quick victory in a surprise attack might only yield a temporary result. A lasting one would require victory in a total war:

“The only way we can achieve our object with certainty and lasting results is by victory in a total war.”

However, this “total war,” as they well understood, would have to be a very long term project:

To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilisation of manpower to counteract their present enormous manpower resources. This is a very long term project and would involve: the deployment in Europe of a large proportion of the vast resources of the United States; and the re-equipment and reorganization of German manpower and of all the Western allies.

It would be interesting to know what made the Joint Planning Staff believe that they could reorganize German manpower together with the “vast resources of the United States?” Whatever it was that they knew, they concluded that, “the only thing certain is that to win it would take us a very long time.”

Exactly how long was unclear, but perhaps it was the time needed to organize some form of a North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, to dismember the USSR and to weaponize at least one of its former republics, like Ukraine, as a battering ram to wield against Russia.

High cabal… has made us what we are

Two years after formulating “Project Unthinkable,” the British government drafted the “Fundamentals of Our Defence Policy,” reaffirming that, “The most likely and most formidable threat to our interests comes from Russia,” and that, “Ensuring that we have the active and early support of the United States of America and of the Western European States” was essential.

Well, as the war in Ukraine is now clearly headed for the same result as Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa,” active support of the United States of America is now quite urgent, and this is why king Chuck was busy charming his American audience to revive Project Unthinkable.

The king’s speech and his kingdom’s foreign policy over decades suggest that their obsession with waging a total war against Russia remains all consuming for the British political class. This poses a mortal danger to the whole world by now, and we can be sure their obsession won’t stop with a speech: furious lobbying and influence campaigns will be unleashed, perhaps only requiring a well-orchestrated false flag attack attributed to Russia.

If they are successful in their endeavor, we can expect a nuclear war. Recall, last year we learned that the UK was/is willing and ready to help Ukraine build a nuclear weapon. The criminal insanity of it is truly hard to fathom, calling to mind Winston Churchill’s cryptic quip upon learning about the allies’ brutal bombardment of Rotterdam: “Unrestricted submarine warfare. Unrestricted air bombings – this is total war… Time and ocean and some guiding star and high cabal have made us what we are.”

May 2, 2026 Posted by | history, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

‘I miss our land. Chernobyl broke us’: The families who lost their homes after world’s worst nuclear accident

For 40 years, the residents of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus have grappled with the devastating effects of the world’s worst nuclear accident. They tell Alex Croft about the day that their lives were changed forever

25 April2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyl-40-years-family-reel-hostages-b2963417.html EXCELLENT PHOTOS

lena Maruzhenko remembers her mother sobbing when Soviet police told them to evacuate their home in the village of Korogod in northern Ukraine.

Just 12km away, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had exploded, sending a shaft of blue light into the night sky and throwing clouds of radioactive material into the surrounding area.

Local authorities told Olena and their mother that they would only need to leave their home for three days. They had no idea that the worst nuclear disaster in history had unfolded.

“We believed we would definitely return,” Olena recalls to The Independent as the world marks the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

“The 26 April, 1986, is a date that is forever etched in my memory with black sadness. We could not imagine leaving our homes without knowing where to go.”

Olena and her mother were among 350,000 people who were evacuated from the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Hundreds of buses were sent to ferry workers from Pripyat, an industrial city created to house workers from the nearby plant located around 100km north of Kyiv.

The disaster began when reactor number 4 at the power plant exploded at 1.23am, after a test went catastrophically wrong.

In the days that followed, a massive and uncontainable release of radioactive material spread across Europe. Firefighters and workers were exposed to lethal radiation as they attempted to contain the blaze. Thousands of animals were mercifully slaughtered as residents were evacuated from nearby towns.

The Soviet government sought to downplay the scale of the accident.

In the 40 years since Chernobyl, thousands of people have suffered devastating health consequences due to high radiation exposure, including thyroid cancer.

Vast areas were contaminated by the radiation, devastating the region’s environment. Luscious green forests turned a reddish brown, while vital soil for agriculture was polluted for decades.

Korogod was once a town surrounded by forests, rivers and lakes that provided rich sources of mushrooms, berries, fish and herbs sold in bustling local markets. After the disaster, it became a grey and decrepit ghost town in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, a 30km area restricted to human habitation.

The official Soviet death toll, given in 1987, was 31. But after including those who suffered lasting health effects, the toll is significantly higher.

The husband of Natalia Dykun, another resident of Korogod, was one such person. He was diagnosed with cancer after the disaster and eventually died from the disease.

“We became hostages of the Chernobyl disaster,” she says. “The treatment did not help and he died very young. In almost every house near us, someone from the family began to get sick, and later almost every family lost a relative to cancer.”

Natalia was 28 at the time of the explosion. She recalls the silence from the Soviet authorities causing “great harm”, with residents “completely unprotected, both morally and physically”.

Most residents from the towns near Chernobyl only truly understood the scale of what had happened when they discovered new towns were being built to house them.

Natalia says she was “devastated” to see a new village being built in an open field with “no forest or water nearby”. Her home used to be surrounded by nature.

Olga Mikhalova was only 15 when she learned she would never be returning home. “The accident and evacuation changed us forever,” she says.

“Family ties were broken, neighbourly ties. We would not wish this on anyone.”

Olena, who was living with strangers in the aftermath of the tragedy, watched the news in tears when she found out new homes were being built. “I still dream of my village, my native house. I miss our land. The Chernobyl accident broke us.”

Slavutych, a planned city on the western bank of the Dnieper River, still houses around 20,000 people. It was built for those evacuated from the abandoned city of Pripyat, perhaps the most famous of those evacuated after the explosion. Chilling images of Pripyat, including its haunting abandoned fairground, are an enduring symbol of the lives and communities lost in just a matter of hours.

“When we realised that we would not return home, it was very difficult for us, the young, to come to terms with this, and it was even more difficult for the older generation,” says Olga. “This is a tragedy for many generations.”

As war rages in Ukraine, with Russian forces playing fast and loose around Chernobyl and the southern Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, experts have told The Independent that we are closer than ever to another nuclear disaster.

For those who have suffered the most catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident, this is unthinkable.

“As a person who survived the evacuation, I feel especially acute anxiety when war touches nuclear facilities,” Olena says. “This causes fear and incomprehension, why humanity, having had such an experience, is taking risks again.”

Natalie fears for the future generations. “This irresponsibility of the enemy and the risks for the surrounding world of a repeat of the disaster are very frightening and we are in constant stress and fear. We are no longer afraid for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren.

“Irresponsibility and insecurity in relation to nuclear energy and infrastructure is a crime before the whole world.”

May 2, 2026 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Inside Chornobyl: 40 years after disaster, nuclear site still at risk.

Sat 25 Apr 2026 , Guardian,

In February 2025, a cheap Russian drone tore through Chornobyl’s confinement shelter. Workers warn the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident is not safe yet.

The dosimeter clipped to your chest ticks faster the moment you step off the designated path inside the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. Step back, and it slows again – an invisible line between clean ground and contamination.

Above rises the “new safe confinement” (NSC) – the largest movable steel structure ever built, taller than the Statue of Liberty, wider than the Colosseum, its arch curving overhead like an aircraft hangar built for giant planes.

Completed in 2019 at a cost of $2.5bn (£1.85bn) and funded by 45 countries, the NSC was built to shield the world from what lies beneath it. It sits at the heart of a vast exclusion zone, a radioactive landscape the size of Cyprus, largely abandoned by humanity. Stray dogs roam the plant in packs – workers advise against petting them.

Inside is “the sarcophagus” – a grey concrete tomb erected in just 206 days to cover the ruins of reactor No 4, which exploded on 26 April 1986 in the worst nuclear accident to date.

Up close, the sarcophagus looks almost makeshift – massive slabs stacked like giant building blocks, rust streaking the joins. Inside, 180 tonnes of nuclear fuel and four to five tonnes of radioactive dust remain trapped.

The NSC was constructed to buy time: to allow the unstable sarcophagus to be dismantled safely over decades, while shielding against the consequences in case it collapses.

What its funders did not anticipate was a war – Chornobyl was occupied in the first weeks of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine – much less a drone strike on the facility three years later.

In the north-west corner of the roof, a temporary patch marks where a cheap $20,000 Russian drone tore through the structure on 14 February 2025, punching a hole in the arch and compromising the very function the arch was built for.

“If the sarcophagus collapses, over a hundred tonnes of nuclear fuel would be released into the air,” said the plant’s director general, Serhii Tarakanov.

A full repair is required within four years, Ukrainian officials and western experts say, or the NSC’s 100-year lifespan can no longer be guaranteed. It is estimated to cost up to €500m (£432m) – money that Ukraine’s cash-strapped government has not yet found.

Meanwhile, war continues in Ukraine, and Russia has repeatedly launched drones and missiles along flight paths near the Chornobyl nuclear plant, raising the risk of another disaster.

On the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster, one of the world’s most vulnerable sites remains under threat…………………………………………………………………………..

Should the sarcophagus collapse – whether from a strike, structural failure or age (built for 20 years, now standing for 40) – experts say it would release another cloud of radioactive particles into the air with no safeguard to contain it.

“The collapse of the sarcophagus would primarily be an enormous hazard for those working at the Chornobyl plant and set back dealing with the disaster for many more years,” said Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace.

Beyond the financial costs and the war, there is the question of how the repairs of the confinement shelter are done at all. High radiation levels directly above the damaged section mean workers can legally spend no more than about 20 hours a year in that zone before hitting their annual dose limit.

“Workers will be able to perform their assignment there for a few hours, if not just a few minutes at a time,” said Tarakanov, adding that the work would require about 100 qualified construction workers operating in short rotations at height on a curved, contaminated surface……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 the exclusion zone’s isolation offers no protection from the war.

The plant has experienced four total blackouts since October 2024 caused by Russian strikes on the electricity grid, each requiring emergency diesel generators to keep the spent fuel cooling systems running.

Additional air defences and soldiers have been brought in, said Vadim Slipukha, the deputy director general for security at the site, though the threat has not gone away, he said. Even an unintentional strike from a drone knocked off course by electronic warfare could trigger a collapse of the sarcophagus.

“We are begging the international community to understand,” said Tarakanov. “There is a real risk of a new incident. It could happen any night, any day.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/25/chornobyl-power-plant-at-risk-amid-russia-

May 2, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Dangerous and expensive, nuclear power is a dead end for Scotland

By George Baxter

 I’ve been through every argument that the nuclear industry
makes promoting new nuclear power stations – but scratch the surface and
they just melt through the floor. New nuclear is fundamentally not needed –
numerous studies, including by Stanford University and renowned energy
modellers at LUT show that the UK, and indeed most, if not all, other
countries can meet their energy needs with 100% renewables.

Politicians’ fears about the wind and sun and the rain and the waves and tides being
unable to meet all our needs are misplaced. Renewables, energy storage,
energy efficiency and flexible power with a modern upgraded grid can do it
all – cheaper, quicker, safer and a hell of a lot cleaner, and create many
more thousands of jobs.

The cost of nuclear power is eye-watering. Look at
Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – nearly £100bn to build them both with
massive delays and cost -over-runs. That is enough to install a 5kWh
battery in every one of the 28 million homes in Britain, and leave £44bn
for other things. Combine that with solar and every home becomes a power
station with its own ‘baseload’.

Alternatively, £100bn could fund planned
upgrades to the grid needed to facilitate large and small renewables, twice
over. The Coire Glas pumped hydro storage project in the Highlands could be
built 50 times over. £100bn spent on a nuclear-free transition could be
revolutionary.

What a renewables-based system needs is flexible power,
energy storage and a smart, modern grid. Surplus renewable electricity
could also be used to generate ”green hydrogen” to generate electricity
on calm, dull days. It could also be used to power heavy transport and
industry.

Battery systems, including compressed air and pumped storage
hydro, alongside vehicle-to-grid technology, can all be parts of the
bedrock of energy security and an energy system that would be cooking with
green power 24/7.

Nuclear does nothing to help any of this. Indeed, it is
worse, it directly causes wind and solar plants to be switched off when
green power is plentiful, because nuclear is so inflexible. Not only does
nuclear cost an arm and a leg, it adds cost to the consumer for renewables


We only have to look at the recent history of nuclear power to see how
dangerous and polluting it is. Fukushima remains a slow motion disaster for
Japan as they scramble to deal with millions of gallons of radioactive
water and melted reactor cores. Chernobyl’s 40-year anniversary this week
is another timely reminder, that when things go wrong, they can go very
wrong.

At least when a wind turbine breaks down you don’t need an exclusion
zone for decades and mass public health measures – you just get some
engineers with a crane and some spanners to go fix it.

And despite what the
‘nuke, baby, nuke’ lobby says, there is no solution for the waste yet,
other than to store and guard the most highly radioactive cores for
hundreds of years to cool down out of the way somewhere. That’s the
solution!

The hype about Small Modular Reactors is just that, hype. In
fact, the only two operational SMRs are in China and Russia, and both have
been beset by delays and cost increases. The economies of scale are lost,
and studies have shown that they produce more highly radioactive waste for
the same generating capacity than their slightly larger cousins.

These projects are pure spin, a clever wheeze by industry lobbyists intended to
promote nuclear acceptability – small, click and collect, a kind of
middle-aisle at LIDL feel to it. In the words of energy expert Amory Lovins
on SMRs: “This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift
from selling products to harvesting subsidies.”

The Rolls Royce SMR –
chosen by Great British Energy-Nuclear to be built at Wylfa in North Wales
– is a 470MW reactor, not much smaller than the two Torness reactors, which
are about 600MW each. And then there is the fuel – uranium ore is needed
and we don’t have any, (and the mining of it is handily missed out in
nuclear promotional graphics comparing its land use to renewables, which
also fail to point out that the land around solar arrays and turbines can
still be used for traditional purposes).

Mind you, there is some
recoverable uranium ore on the Orkney mainland – and when it was proposed
to dig it up to use it at Dounreay last century, all hell broke loose and
Orcadians stopped it by popular protest. So we would have to rely on
imports of this global commodity – a market that is dominated by Russia and
associates.

Pete Roche of SCRAM put this well when commenting on a recent
poll indicating only 14% of Scots thought we should focus on uranium
fuelled nuclear reactors for our long term energy security needs:
“Relying on a uranium-fuelled nuclear future is like jumping out of the
oil and gas frying pan and into a nuclear fire – it makes no sense and
Scots seem to get that.”

We should just get on with building a country
that is a renewable energy powerhouse so that future generations can look
back and thank us for choosing a green, clean and sustainable energy route.
Nuclear is NOT a natural partner with renewables, indeed, it is a delaying
tactic, holding back rapid decarbonisation, and adds extra and unnecessary
cost to a renewables-based energy system.

Herald 29th April 2026, https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/26064131.dangerous-expensive-nuclear-power-dead-end-scotland/

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

Deadly strike by Ukraine at Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant as chilling warning issued

An employee has been killed in a drone attack carried out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation has said.

Mirror Joe Smith News Reporter,  27 Apr 2026,

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued an urgent warning after a deadly attack at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation said a driver was killed by a drone strike in an operation carried out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The Rosatom corporation said an employee at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant died this morning. The Russian agency said the strike was a “great tragedy” and added that attacks on the nuclear plant “pose a threat not only to people but also to security as a whole”.

Meanwhile the IAEA’s Director General said in a statement today that strikes on or near nuclear power plants (NPPs) can endanger nuclear safety and “must not take place”.

The IAEA statement said: “IAEA has been informed by the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant that a drone strike this morning killed a driver at its transport workshop in the vicinity of the plant site.

“Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi reiterates that strikes on or near NPPs can endanger nuclear safety and must not take place. The IAEA’s team on the site will look into the incident and continue to monitor the situation.”

In a separate statement Russian agency Rosatom, which has controlled the plant since it was captured by Russian forces, said: “A Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employee has been killed in a strike by the Ukrainian Armed Forces

“Today, a driver was killed as a result of a strike by a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone on the premises of the transport workshop at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.”

The plant bosses called the man’s death “a terrible and irreplaceable loss,” adding that “employees of the nuclear industry must not be targeted.” They continued: “Any attacks on the Zaporizhzhia NPP pose a threat not only to people but also to security as a whole. It is a blow to life and to the future……………………. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-ukraine-37074915

May 1, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

40 years after Chernobyl, Stasi files reveal scale of Soviet misinformation

For decades, researchers, political leaders and advocacy groups have worked to uncover the story of the explosion

Lauren Cassidy The Conversation, Monday 27 April 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyl-disaster-anniversary-secret-stasi-files-b2965335.html

On April 26, 1986, Soviet engineers at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were conducting a safety test. Doomed by a fatal design flaw and pushed to the limit by human negligence, reactor 4 exploded amid an attempted shutdown during a routine procedure, setting off a chain of events that ultimately released radioactive material hundreds of times greater than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Although the accident occurred north of Kyiv, Ukraine, near the border with Belarus, radioactive fallout was soon detected throughout northern and central Europe. Yet the Soviets did what they could to prevent the spread of information that would reveal the true horror of what had occurred.

For decades, researchers, political leaders and advocacy groups have worked to uncover the story of the explosion. While science has allowed us to understand the circumstances of the explosion itself, it has taken much more work to uncover the layers of mismanagement, negligence and misinformation that resulted in human suffering, ecological disaster and economic damage.

One of the problems is that many of the official Soviet records of the event, such as the KGB files, are located in Moscow and are inaccessible to all but a few Russian government agencies.

But there is a partial workaround: Because East Germany was a Soviet satellite state and not a full member of the Soviet Union, official documents remained in the country after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1991, after the reunification of Germany, the German government passed a law allowing for the declassification of certain files from the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police and intelligence service. These files can now give us further insight into the mismanagement of Chernobyl, since the East German Stasi and the Soviet KGB were in communication on the matter.

I have spent the past three years reading Stasi files and researching the creation of misinformation in the former Eastern bloc, meeting with Stasi archivists in Berlin and viewing the original archival rooms in the former Stasi headquarters.

Looking at formerly top secret communication between the KGB and Stasi, it is clear that despite publicly insisting everything was under control, both intelligence agencies knew the explosion was absolutely devastating. They kept detailed records of hospitalizations, casualties, damaged crops, contaminated livestock and radiation levels.

But only the very top officials in East Germany and the Soviet Union had access to these numbers. The main fear for both the KGB and Stasi was not the radiation that would harm affected populations but the damage done to their respective countries’ reputations.

Controlling the message

Handling the press was a top priority.

In the Soviet Union, top government officials created their own briefings for the media to be published at precise dates and times. In a set of classified documents that one government official bravely saved and later published, the concreteness with which the lies were devised is apparent. It documents Mikhail Gorbachev, then-leader of the Soviet Union, saying in a Politburo meeting with top government officials: “When we inform the public, we should say that the power plant was being renovated at the time, so it doesn’t reflect badly on our reactor equipment.”

Later in the same meeting, another senior Soviet official, Nikolai Ryzhkov, suggests that the group prepare three different press releases: one for the Soviet people, one for the satellite states and another for Europe, the U.S. and Canada.

In East Germany, the Stasi reports mirrored this messaging. Although top officials are briefed on the presence of radioactive contaminants, the formerly classified Stasi files reiterate that the public is to be told that “absolutely no danger” is present. East German media, controlled by the state, then disseminated this information to the public.

The problem for the East German state was that by the mid-1980s, a lot of people were able to pick up Western TV and radio signals. Many recognized that their own government wasn’t telling them the truth. However, they also knew that Western media would take any chance they got to disparage the Eastern bloc. The result was that many people knew that they weren’t being told the truth, but they weren’t sure exactly what the truth was.

Much of the East German and Soviet propaganda at that time was designed to confuse and cast doubt, not necessarily to fully persuade. The idea was that enough conflicting information would tire people out.

Downplaying economic concerns

One of the Stasi’s major concerns following the disaster was the economic damage that was sure to affect East Germany. Once people began to learn of the radioactive fallout over much of Europe, they grew fearful of their own produce and dairy products.

Children began refusing to drink milk at school, while people frequently asked produce vendors whether their products were grown in a greenhouse or outdoors. On the whole, people stopped buying many of these products.

With an excess of these goods, the East German government needed to devise a plan to continue to make money off potentially contaminated goods. The Stasi’s solution was to increase export of these goods to West Germany.

In the formerly classified files, Stasi officials claim that exports would spread out the consumption of radioactive products, so that no one would consume unsafe levels of contaminated meat and produce.

The problem for the East Germans was that West Germany quickly amended their regulations for border crossings from East to West. Vehicles emitting certain levels of radiation were no longer allowed across the border. As a response, the lower-ranking Stasi workers were required to clean radioactive vehicles themselves. In doing so, the state was knowingly risking the health and safety of its own officials.

The East German food export plan was modeled on a similar one proposed by the Soviet government. The Soviet strategy, however, was not to export contaminated goods abroad but rather to send contaminated meat products to “the majority of regions” in the Soviet Union “except for Moscow.”

How disinformation proved an Achilles’ Heel

When the Stasi was founded in 1950, many of its employees genuinely believed in the East German cause.

Having witnessed the horrors of Nazi Germany, many older Stasi workers saw the East German state as the answer to creating a just and equitable society. By the 1980s, however, this sentiment had grown rare. Instead, many Stasi workers viewed their jobs as means to a decent income and privileged government treatment.

As a result, many Stasi workers had grown disillusioned and dispassionate.

It was little surprise, then, that the Stasi put up little resistance when protesters stormed their headquarters in 1990, months after the Berlin Wall fell. While there are many factors in the demise of the communist bloc, the way the East German and Soviet governments handled the aftermath of Chernobyl contributed greatly to the growing popular sentiment against each regime.

In East Germany, the disinformation campaign after the nuclear disaster only strengthened the message that the state did not have its people’s best interests in mind and that it was willing to sacrifice their health and well-being in order to maintain a certain image.

May 1, 2026 Posted by | Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

The Buzz About Chornobyl, 40 Years Later. How Do We Tell the Bees?

April 26, 2026, , by Ann McCann, https://www.nirs.org/the-buzz-about-chornobyl-40-years-later-by-ann-mccann/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=b8cab31a-e1b5-41e6-9e5a-3ff568976c1b

No, the bees in the Chornobyl exclusion zone (CEZ) are not mutated–in the visual ways we think of–nor are they glow-in-the-dark. They didn’t turn into giant, killer bees, and they don’t light up green at night. But what they did do was begin to produce fewer and fewer queens. A lot fewer, “with upper estimates of a 30-45% reduction compared with unexposed colonies (Raines).” When fewer queens are produced, fewer bees are produced, period. With fewer queens laying eggs and building colonies, the population struggles to sustain itself within the CEZ.

On the surface and from the outside, it appears that nature is “flourishing” within the CEZ. Large mammal populations appear abundant, and many use the CEZ as evidence for the utopic idea that there has been reclamation of the Earth in the zone’s time without human interference. While this idea certainly feels hopeful outside of the context of a nuclear disaster, it is simply not what it seems. “Wild” dogs roam the CEZ, which are not so wild at all, but actually descendants of the pets left behind in the evacuation after the meltdown. Larger mammals like boars and bears have taken over the area in the exclusion zone simply because there are no humans, can be no humans, around the zone to keep them at a distance as human-populated areas do. And there indeed appears to be a higher diversity rate among bee species in the exclusion zone, but again, this is not as it seems. Researchers correlate this to the abandoned farmlands that have now been overturned to wildflower meadows, creating more resources for diversity, but not necessarily for the long-term health of any species. Similarly, scientists who have studied the population effects of the contamination believe that “higher numbers [of animals in the area] may reflect the fact that there are fewer competitors or predators for these species in highly radioactive areas (Mousseau).” 

Additionally, among the various species in the area, a number of ill effects are consistently documented, including cataracts in their eyes, smaller brains, tumors on their bodies, and reproductive issues such as a low sperm count and even complete infertility (Møller, et al). None of which, in my own estimation, bodes well for the idea of an ecological utopia in the aftermath of nuclear contamination. And this is not even mentioning the fact that many scientists believe we don’t see mutations in the fauna of the area (yes, those kinds of mutations) because most mutations, unsurprisingly, wouldn’t exactly help an animal live long enough to be consistently documented by researchers. Which isn’t to say deer are being born with two heads or that fish are growing legs and walking out of the water, all before scientists are miraculously able to see them. What it does imply, however, is that when there are genetic mutations or effects from radioactive contamination that cause, for example, a stunted immune system or a malformed part of the body, at best, the animal is simply not going to thrive long enough to reproduce and continue that mutation. At worst, these animals are born, suffer, and die of their biological weaknesses, whether through predation or through the failings of their own bodies.

If we do not see this as a mirror to ourselves, what happens to those humans exposed to radioactive contamination, be it in the form of a nuclear accident, nuclear terrorism, or the waste produced by mining and power generation? Scientists are now getting long-term data on this exact question. Stated by science researcher, the late Alexey V. Yablokov, “observations of both wild and experimental animal populations in the heavily contaminated areas [of the CEZ] show significant increases in morbidity and mortality that bear a striking resemblance to changes in the health of humans–increased occurrence of tumor and immunodeficiencies, decreased life expectancy, early aging, changes in blood and the circulatory system, malformations, and other factors that compromise health.” Once again, these findings do not seem to bode well for the idea of ecological revitalization in the aftermath of nuclear disaster, so why do we keep racing toward a future full of nuclear reactors that do not glow green as they do in cartoons, but should be lit up bright red–a stoplight, a warning sign? We do not need our communities sitting as tinder boxes of fodder for the next long-term study on the effects of radiation.

It’s additionally worth noting that the dangers of the radiation from Chornobyl didn’t stop after the initial meltdown. Nuclear sites are notorious war targets, as we’ve seen in just the last several years. In 2022, Russian forces attacked and gained control of the Chornobyl site–an exclusion zone intended to minimize risks to human life for the hundreds of years it will remain a radioactive contamination site–damaging the new containment structure and setting it on fire for several days, releasing unknowable amounts of continued radioactive contamination.

I’m going to bring us back to our apiary lesson. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for beekeepers and their families to inform the bee colony, to “tell the bees,” of major events, including births, marriages, and deaths. It was even believed that if a hive was not told of someone’s death, the colony would either die itself or abandon the hive. It seems that there is a race between a world that has seen the aftermath of disaster and is charging, headfirst, back into the flames, and the slow death of the CEZ bees. If we put any stock into that old folk-belief, I wonder then, what happens when there are simply no bees left to tell? 

Works Cited

Mousseau                    Professor of Biological Sciences, Timothy A. “At Chernobyl and Fukushima, Radioactivity Has Seriously Harmed Wildlife.” The Conversation, 3 Oct. 2025, theconversation.com/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlife-57030.

Møller, Anders Pape, et al. “Chernobyl birds have smaller brains.” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 2, 4 Feb. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016862.

May 1, 2026 Posted by | environment, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Starmer’s Talking Points: King Charles III Visits Washington

29 April 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark https://theaimn.net/starmers-talking-points-king-charles-iii-visits-washington/

He can hardly be blamed for being given the brief by his Prime Minister. King Charles III is in the United States on a repair job, playing diplomatic handyman and mender for Sir Keir Starmer and the US-UK alliance so long regarded as special. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of American independence, it was easy to forget that the British, despite losing its American colonies, gained some vengeance through the exploits of Major General Robert Ross, who, on August 14, 1814, burned down the White House, the Capitol building, and an assortment of other government facilities.

The US President Donald Trump has made it clear that alliances are only special if they serve his bullying and selfish needs, transient and fickle as they are. Otherwise, the whole notion of an alliance can be allowed to go by the wayside or stung into decay by venomous statements on social media. The UK’s ambassador to Washington, Christian Turner, who replaced the disastrously appointed Peter Mandelson in February, has even gone so far to suggest that the term “special relationship” be scrapped as dated and musty. The phrase, he unguardedly told a group of British students visiting that month, was “quite nostalgic” and “quite backwards-looking,” encumbered with “baggage.” Instead of leaving it at that, Turner proceeded to offer the only exemplar in the US diplomatic inventory that might count, whatever the baggage. “I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the United States – and that is probably Israel.”

Any ruffles arising from that leaked audio has been seemingly contained. On the occasion of this state visit Trump was cordial, even sprightly. “The Americans have had no closer friends than the British,” he declared on April 28. The same language was spoken, the same values shared, the “warriors” of the two nations having “defended the same extraordinary civilization under the twin banners of red, white, and blue.”

Before a joint sitting of Congress, Charles delivered a speech filled with the usual solecisms on the US political system, not to mention a few on his own. The US Congress is hardly a “citadel of democracy created to represent the voice of all American people, to advance sacred rights and freedoms,” being the republican vision of slave owning plantation owners who were nervous about the mob and ever keen to keep them at bay with a dampening system of checks and balances. The “revolutionary” notions of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were to be kept on a firm leash. And while the United Kingdom has democratic pretensions, it exercises power through that mysterious political and legal construction known as the Crown. In a short note for the Spectator in October 1959, the conservative, at times reactionary novelist Evelyn Waugh made an abundantly clear point: “Great Britain is not a democracy. All authority emanates from the Crown.” All figures of note from judges and bishops to the Poet Laureate “exist by the royal will.” Elections are, rather, “a very hazardous process” to select ill-chosen advisors.

Starmer, as advisor-in-chief, clearly fed the monarch a rather odd assortment of dishes to temper and placate the businessman tyrant trainee. Lay it heavy with the friendship issue, talking of that “bond of kinship and identity” that is “priceless and eternal.” Accept that disagreements can happen between close allies (“no taxation without representation”, for instance, stirring the anger of the American colonists). “Ours is a partnership born out of dispute, but no less strong for it.” When the countries found ways to agree “what great change is brought about – not just for the benefit of our peoples, but of all peoples.”

A fig leaf of soothing assurance was offered to US lawmakers and the Trump administration. The UK, recognising “that the threats we face demand a transformation in British defence,” was swelling the defence budget, “the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War.” The defence of Ukraine, not high on Trump’s list but very much top of the Starmer summit, also warranted a mention.

Damnably foolish things can be said about defence, that area of spending scandalously exempt from the usual, fiscal scrutiny reserved for welfare budgets and services. And Charles was not spared the Starmer talking points about joint efforts to build F-35 fighter jets and pursuing “the most ambitious submarine program in history, AUKUS.” AUKUS was being pursued “in partnership with Australia, a country of which I am also immensely proud to serve as sovereign.”

AUKUS continues to warp the imagination of its executors, distort military planning, and, importantly, make the most telling demands on Australia, the junior yet, in some ways, most essential partner in the relationship. For one thing, it remains the most duped and witless of the three, having made staggering concessions to both the US and UK in terms of military real estate and investment. Despite turning Australia into a garrison state invigilating over the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific, the agreement makes no guarantee that the Royal Australian Navy will ever receive Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines it does not need, let alone any assurance that it will exercise control over their use and command.

The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, published on January 26, does much to scupper suggestions that Australian sovereignty would ever be a serious consideration, given an analysis of the “benefits, costs, and risks compare[d] with those of an alternative of procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs that are already planned to be operated under Pillar 1.” Even as these doubts are being expressed, the Australian taxpayer continues to invest in the US submarine industrial base.

Obsessed by the deterrent value of such boats against China, the nail-biting worry in the Pentagon and Congress is that any transfer from a navy that remains tardy in meeting the set target of 2 SSNs a year will blunt potency. “Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict.” Such considerations would have been unlikely to feature in Starmer’s mind when mulling over the details of the King’s speech. The British PM has shown himself to be stunningly short on political judgment and incapable in making sound decisions. However polished the performance by Charles in Washington, it may not be enough to save his prime ministership.

May 1, 2026 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

More costs for Europe in the never-ending effort to keep Chornobyl safe.

 An agreement was signed with the EBRD for EUR30 million (USD35 million) of
funding for the initial phase of restoration work on the giant arch-shaped
New Safe Confinement shelter, which covers the initial shelter, which was
hastily built in 1986 and encases the wreckage of unit 4. The NSC was
damaged by a drone strike in February last year during the ongoing
Russia-Ukraine war, and assessments have put the cost of restoring it to
its full design function at about EUR500 million.

 World Nuclear News 27th April 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/funding-pledge-and-tributes-paid-at-conference-marking-chernobyl-anniversary

May 1, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries