Fatal fallout
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/21/fatal-fallout/
What a secret report reveals about British nuclear weapons tests – veterans claimed they were harmed by the fallout, report Christopher R. Hill and Jonathan Hogg for The Conversation
“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”
McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.
McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.
For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.
Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.
In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.
It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.
The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.
The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.
‘Factually inaccurate’
Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.
However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.
Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”
In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”
Russia’s Financial Crisis Casts a Shadow Over Central Asia’s Nuclear Future
By Eurasianet – Jul 20, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Russias-Financial-Crisis-Casts-a-Shadow-Over-Central-Asias-Nuclear-Future.html
- Rosatom is cutting its investment program by nearly 50% and reducing operating costs amid worsening economic conditions.
- The spending cuts raise concerns about delays to planned nuclear projects in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
- Both Central Asian countries are increasingly exploring alternative nuclear partners, including China and the United States.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may soon have to rethink their plans to develop nuclear energy. Rosatom, the Russian nuclear entity that has agreements to build nuclear plants in both Central Asian nations, is experiencing major financial difficulties.
Alexei Likhachev, Rosatom’s boss, has announced the entity is cutting its investment program by nearly 50 percent this year due to “poor economic conditions.” Likhachev also said Rosatom would strive to slash operating costs by 10 percent within the next 18 months.
“We immediately abandoned a number of projects or shifted the deadlines for their implementation to a later date, guided by several criteria, the main of which is efficiency in the horizon until 2030, that is, more profit and revenue per ruble of investment,” Likhachev was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency.
The company’s troubles are widely linked to the Kremlin’s ongoing campaign in Ukraine, which has generally sapped Russia of its financial strength. International sanctions have also hampered Rosatom.
Likhachev did not specify which projects are being slashed or delayed. Kazakhstan awarded Rosatom a contract in 2025 to build the Central Asian state’s first nuclear power plant on the shores of Lake Balkhash. Since then, the project has been hit by delays and disputes, which many observers suspected were linked to Rosatom’s difficulties in obtaining financing. Likhachev’s announcement raises further doubts that the project can meet a tentative completion deadline in the mid-2030s.
Rosatom also has a preliminary agreement in place to build small-scale nuclear plants in Uzbekistan. Company officials in early 2026, seeking to dispel Uzbek worries about financing, offered to expand the deal to create a nuclear cluster. Likhachev’s announcement is likely to stoke further skepticism in Tashkent.
Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have alternatives to Rosatom. Astana already has an agreement in place for a Chinese company to build two nuclear plants in the country. And both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have expressed interest in working with the United States to develop small modular nuclear plants.
Rosatom, historically a cash cow for the Russian government, is not the only major Russian entity experiencing financial woes. The stock price of the energy giant Gazprom has tanked over the past three months, and the company’s market capitalization now stands at a mere $25 billion.
European Investment Bank Approves €800 Million For Cernavodă-1 Nuclear Plant Refurbishment
By David Dalton, 20 July 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/european-investment-bank-approves-eur800-million-for-cernavoda-1-nuclear-plant-refurbishment-7-1-2026
Romania also pushing ahead with plans for two new large-scale units at site
The European Investment Bank (EIB) has approved €17.4bn ($19.8bn) in financing to strengthen Europe’s energy autonomy, including an €800m loan for the refurbishment and life extension of one of two reactors at Romania’s Cernavodă nuclear power station.
The EIB said the financing, which covers Unit 1, is for key component replacements and system upgrades, enabling a new cycle of reliable and safe operation.
It said Cernavodă, Romania’s only commercial nuclear power station, generates around 20% of the country’s electricity.
combined €620m with a banking syndicate led by J.P. Morgan to advance the refurbishment of Cernavodă-1 and preparatory work for Cernavodă-3 and -4.
It also signed two agreements with subsidiaries of France’s EDF related to key projects for the Cernavodă-1 refurbishment.
In December 2024, Nuclearelectrica signed the main engineering, construction, and procurement contract to extend the life of Cernavodă-1 at a cost of about €1.9bn. The contract is with a consortium of four companies, comprising Canada’s AtkinsRealis, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and Italy’s Ansaldo Nucleare.
In September 2023, Canada announced €1.8bn in export financing to Nuclearelectrica towards the construction of the two new plants at Cernavodă.
Germany To Join French Nuclear Exercise, Deepening ‘Counter-Russia’ Deterrence
by Tyler Durden, Sunday, Jul 19, 2026 – https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-join-french-nuclear-exercise-deepening-counter-russia-deterrence
In the latest development related to what some analysts have called the ‘new Cold War’ and nuclear saber-rattling between Russia and the West, Germany and France are planning a major nuclear exercise later this year.
The atomic drills were announced Friday, after a joint top-level meeting of the French and German governments near Cologne. “Alongside this work on a shared doctrine, German conventional forces will this year take part in a nuclear exercise of the French military,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz unveiled.
He detailed while at a press event alongside French President Emmanuel Macron that a “strategic steering group” established by the leading European allies would continue looking at deterrence in the future, with an eye on Russia.
“This is complementary to our nuclear participation and deterrence within NATO, which we still hold to,” he added. He also previewed “a maneuver in the autumn held on the initiative of France” – while speaking of the Ukraine war.
“We will clarify together what form exactly this participation will take,” he said.
France is newly positioning itself at the forefront of nuclear deterrence for Europe, a role that the United States has long assumed, and currently still does.
According to some of Macron’s statements at the same event: “Patriotism, yes; nationalism, never. At a time when Europe is rearming, to think that each of us separately accumulating capabilities is the way history is going is absurd.” More details have been offered in the following:
Mr Macron and Mr Merz began the defence council at Nörvenich air base beside a French Rafale and a German Eurofighter – a symbolic backdrop after the aircraft designed to replace them was scrapped.
Nuclear deterrence offers one field where the strained partnership can still move forward.
German troops would play a conventional supporting role and would not control French weapons. Berlin will also help develop radar and space-based systems for detecting ballistic and hypersonic missiles.
Currently the United States and the UK, which both maintain nuclear arsenals, form the core of NATO’s nuclear deterrence strategy. While France also possesses nuclear weapons, it does not yet participate on a leadership level in NATO’s nuclear planning group. The US military also contributes F-35, refueling aircraft, and other support planes.
Russia has not infrequently held its own strategic drills over the course of the last several years of war in Ukraine. It has also become the ‘new normal’ for Russia and Europe to hold rival conventional war games, amid threats, warnings and ongoing miliary flexing.
A Contract for Difference for nuclear lifetime extension for Sizewell B – a nice save for the nuclear industry?
Jérôme à Paris, Jul 22, 2026
A few days ago, the British government announced the extension of the production life of the 1.2 GW Sizewell B nuclear power plant for 20 years, from 2035, and that included the fact that the electricity produced will be sold under a CfD at a price of 70.50 GBP/MWh (in 2025 prices, to be indexed). ……….
it is proper that the power also be sold to ratepayers at a fixed price. The existence of the CfD will also allow the owners to achieve a lower cost of capital (possibly through limited-recourse financing, but in any case through more favorable corporate funding as such a revenue line underpins their balance sheet), ensuring that the price achieved could be more competitive….
Secondly, this puts the production cost risk on the operator (EDF in this case, with Centrica having a 20% stake), as they will have to deliver power at a fixed price, irrespective of what they need to spend to keep the plant running (I have not checked if they can wiggle out of the contract by stopping production earlier in case it becomes too costly to run, but I see that this would have other likely consequences, including reputational, for the operator in any case).
The third point is that this puts a very visible price tag to nuclear plant lifetime extension. There’s often the blithe assumption that existing plants can continue to run at a very low cost. This reminds everybody that it is not the case, and existing plants definitely have ongoing operating costs – and older plants have significant heavy maintenance, refurbishment and safety costs to manage. The price level proposed here can be seen as attractive for baseload decarbonated power, but it’s certainly not low or the most competitive available these days.
The big question is whether the price is actually the right one. There can only be rather limited competition for nuclear lifetime extension CfDs, so one must consider the temptation for the operator to pad its costs and ask for a price that ensures as profitable an operation as possible (I presume that the price level was negotiated on the basis of detailed cost assumptions provided by the operator and checked by the regulator and experts). There is also the risk that the operator could ask later on for relaxation of safety or other standards in order to lower its ongoing costs (including possibly via the direct or indirect threat to stop operations.
Against that is the fact that the nuclear industry cannot afford to show that it is materially less competitive than alternatives, in particular than offshore wind, the renewable sector with the most similar characteristic as nuclear (large capacity plants, higher capacity factor). If the ask price for extension is barely competitive against new-build offshore wind, what would that say about new-build nuclear? Hinckley Point negotiated a CfD a decade ago, which EDF is not very happy with, even though it is already quite a bit higher (it was 89.5 GBP/MWh for 35 years (rather than 20), indexed from 2012, which means its current level is 131 GBP/MWh, and we’re still some years before operations), given all the cost overruns experienced in the meantime……………………………….. https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/a-cfd-for-nuclear-lifetime-extension
Von der Leyen paints target signs on Europe with Ukraine drone pact
This is not sleepwalking into war. The European elites’ eyes are wide open and crazed.
The European Union has officially joined the war effort against Russia. This week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed a “historic pact” with Ukraine to integrate the production of combat drones to strike Russia.
According to Euronews reporting, the pact also envisages the joint production of ballistic missiles.
This scaled-up war effort will be funded by the €90 billion loan that the EU is releasing to Ukraine. A bill that will be paid for by generations of European taxpayers.
Von der Leyen was greeted in Kiev by Ukraine’s unelected martial-law president, Vladimir Zelensky. That makes two people who do not have a democratic mandate making decisions that are driving Europe to all-out war with Russia. Von der Leyen is a political appointee. She is not elected by popular ballot. Formerly, she was Germany’s Minister of Defense, and not a particularly bright one either. Dogged by corruption scandals and abuse of power over procuring Covid-19 vaccines from Big Pharma, von der Leyen is an exemplar of “failing upwards.”
On her 11th visit to Kiev since the conflict escalated in February 2022, von der Leyen declared that the “tide is turning” in the NATO proxy war against Russia. She was referring to the increase in long-range air strikes on Russian territory and the release of €90 bn to fund the war.
In a public speech, she brazenly announced that the European Union was explicitly allied with Ukraine as a participant in the war.
“In Europe, we already have huge technological and industrial capacity that can be deployed. And we have safe and secure production sites that can help to scale up,” von der Leyen said.
She added: “But we do not have that battle-tested knowledge and expertise that Ukraine has forged. So the point I am making is that we need to combine our strengths. Together, we can work on joint production.”
The innovation, which von der Leyen and her NATO planners presumably think is ever-so smart, is that European countries will produce munitions that are “safe” from Russian retaliatory strikes. The drones and missiles will be transported to Ukraine, from where they can be launched to hit deep into Russian territory to target the capital, Moscow, and take out oil industrial facilities all over the country. In recent months, NATO-backed Ukrainian drones have killed hundreds of Russian civilians. Von der Leyen’s pact with Ukraine is giving a green light to intensify this terror campaign.
But it’s von der Leyen’s arrogant sense of impunity that is astounding and should be viewed as deeply disturbing. She apparently assumes that European countries can serve as an arsenal of weapons for Ukraine to attack Russia. Yet, in her view, Russia is not permitted to take retaliatory action against the EU (and NATO) as a participant in the war. This is insanely reckless and stupid.
Of course, the European Union, NATO, and the United States have been participants in the proxy war against Russia since their coup in Kiev in 2014 to install and weaponize a NeoNazi regime. That background of weaponization and ideological programming culminated in war erupting in 2022. The Collective West has supplied an estimated $400 billion to prop up the regime since 2022, has supplied NATO mercenaries and advisors, as well as providing targeting logistics and operational expertise for long-range missiles.
Ukraine has also signed bilateral military pacts with individual EU countries, such as Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Britain has signed a One Hundred Year Defense Pact. All of these arrangements provide weapons, warplanes, drones, and missiles.
However, the EU support that von der Leyen unveiled this week is a commitment from the entire 27-nation EU bloc to join the war on an industrial scale.
In April this year, the Russian Ministry of Defense published a list of European companies and their locations that it said were partners in Ukraine’s war effort. Russia said that these sites could henceforth be considered legitimate targets for retaliation. So far, Russia has refrained from directly striking any EU or NATO state. But how long this Russian restraint will last is a pressing question in the light of increasing provocation by the EU and NATO.
Von der Leyen has taken to describing the Ukrainian regime as a “net provider of security for Europe.” This is to supposedly justify European citizens enduring economic hardship as public monies are funnelled to the corrupt regime.
This week, on cue for the drone deal and fusing of the EU and Ukrainian economies, Zelensky reshuffled his Cabinet for the second time in only a matter of months in an attempt to give the impression that he was cleaning up notorious corruption. Prime Minister Yulia Syrvydenko was sacked because she was close to Zelensky’s former Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, who was forced to quit owing to a massive corruption scandal involving military procurement. In his latest clean-up act, Zelensky made the mistake of sacking Defense Minister Myhailo Federov, sparking public protests in Kiev and other cities. Federov, who had only been in the job for six months, was seen as an earnest reformer. His efforts riled military commanders, such as Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, who want the graft gravy train to continue running. No surprise that Zelensky backed the old guard to stay in place, especially as the €90 bn EU freight car is soon to arrive in Kiev.
Indeed, the tide is turning, but not in the way that delusional von der Leyen imagines. Russian forces on the ground are wearing down the last NATO-backed Ukrainian defenses while ramped-up Russian air strikes are destroying drone-making centers in Kiev and other cities.
That is why the EU and NATO are innovating a new tactic of removing drone production sites from Ukraine and seemingly out of Russia’s reach by stationing these sites in European nations. The implicit idea is that the EU can scale up the war effort safely without suffering any consequences.
The Russophobic EU leadership is driving Europe to war against Russia, as Professor Richard Sakwa commented this week in an interview with Glenn Diesen. The decisions are being made autocratically without any democratic mandate. Effectively, the EU has become a dictatorship for war. Another manifestation of this was seen at the Bastille Day parade in Paris on July 14, when NATO troops joined French and Ukrainian regiments in a unified show of belligerence towards Russia.
And brain-dead bureaucrats like Ursula von der Leyen on her €400,ooo a-year salary are happily painting target signs across European nations.
This is not sleepwalking into war. The European elites’ eyes are wide open and crazed.
New Swiss nuclear plants could put thousands of renewables jobs at risk
If nuclear power stations were to be authorised again in Switzerland, this would have a negative impact on employment in the construction and renewable energy sectors.
July 19, 2026 , https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/energy-transition/new-swiss-nuclear-plants-could-put-thousands-of-renewables-jobs-at-risk/91767485
A recent study by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) suggests that thousands of jobs are at risk. According to the authors of the study, simply lifting the ban on the construction of new nuclear power stations, without any other measures, would put between 5,800 and 9,500 jobs at risk in the photovoltaic and construction sectors over the next five years. Over the next ten years, the number of jobs at risk could rise to as many as 10,600.
The construction of a new nuclear power station would create new jobs but, as Switzerland would have to acquire the necessary expertise and technology from abroad, such a project would not even come close to offsetting job losses in the photovoltaic and construction sectors, according to researchers at the ZHAW.
The study states that “an energy and climate policy focused on renewable energy and building renovation is better not only from an environmental perspective, but also in terms of employment”. The ban on the construction of new nuclear power stations provided for in the Federal Act on Nuclear Energy “not only safeguards the strategy of investing in renewable energy, but also protects local jobs in Switzerland”.
In Switzerland, the construction of new nuclear power stations is currently banned, but the Swiss government and parliament are in favour of overturning the ban. At the end of June, however, a broad coalition of opponents launched a referendum against this decision. Swiss voters will likely be able to decide whether to lift the ban in February 2027. In 2017, the Swiss citizens voted against the construction of new nuclear power stations by approving the Energy Strategy 2050 with 58% of the vote.
Jacobs to assist in planning of UK SMR projects
In May, the company (Jacobs) was selected by GBE-N to provide
environmental services for potential SMR nuclear development at its Oldbury
site. Jacobs said that its work, with a multidisciplinary team including
AtkinsRéalis and AECOM, would cover terrestrial and marine environments,
environmental assessments, Habitats Regulations Assessment and “associated
activities to inform future potential planning, design and permitting
decisions”.
World Nuclear News 21st July 2026 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/jacobs-to-assist-in-planning-of-uk-smr-projects
Crunch time for the nuclear lobby’s biggest lie (Small Modular Nuclear Reactors)?
22 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/crunch-time-for-the-nuclear-lobbys-biggest-lie-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/
There could be a big drama now, about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors sort of not really going to happen in the UK. But I don’t think so. The nuclear lobby is adept at twisting a negative outlook into a sorta positive one. And I’m sorry to say, but I think that Andy Burnham might just co-operate in this process.
At the moment, the UK, and the world, are waiting for the UK’s new progressive poster boy, Andy Burnham, to declare his policies on all sorts of things. His general theme is “left of centre”, socially progressive, with the emphasis on economic reform – “business-friendly socialism”. Most likely, Burnham’s approach to the big issues of climate and nuclear will be a cautious “business-as usual.” Those who are deeply concerned about climate and nuclear issues can hardly blame him. Unfortunately, the reality is that Burnham could never have got where he is now, if he bucked the prevailing system, with Labour now a kind of weaker Tory party.
At the moment, the UK, and the world, are waiting for the UK’s new progressive poster boy, Andy Burnham, to declare his policies on all sorts of things. His general theme is “left of centre”, socially progressive, with the emphasis on economic reform – “business-friendly socialism”. Most likely, Burnham’s approach to the big issues of climate and nuclear will be a cautious “business-as usual.” Those who are deeply concerned about climate and nuclear issues can hardly blame him. Unfortunately, the reality is that Burnham could never have got where he is now, if he bucked the prevailing system, with Labour now a kind of weaker Tory party.
What has this got to do with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
Well, as I have written before, the global nuclear lobby now depends on the UK to kick off the new nuclear renaissance, with a fleet of small nuclear reactors in the UK, as promised by the previous Prime Minister with his Great British Energy – Nuclear. The stated purpose is to provide the UK soon, with cheap, plentiful, clean, climate-friendly, proven technology, safe, community-welcomed, waste-free, peaceful electricity. In that statement there are already 10 lies. Of all those lies, I would say that “soon” is the biggest whopper of them all.
SOON
The most “exciting” SMR plan, that of Poland-based SGE (Synthos Green Energy), promises 14 SMRs in operation by 2034. That would provide about the same amount of electricity as one large nuclear reactor. However, SMRs that each provide 300 MW would provide very much more – but then they would have to be larger, and no longer qualify as “small”. Either way, that would be only a beginning – many, many more SMRs would be needed to meet the UK’s electricity needs. And, let’s not forget – the coming wave of data farms for artificial intelligence is going to probably double that need.
So, even in the most optimistic scenario, SMRs are not going to cut the mustard for showing the world that soon Small Modular Nuclear Reactors will power a nation. Of course the promise of “soon” also relates to the claim that SMRs are needed for action on climate change. Clearly, they are going to be irrelevant, too late for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas we have renewable energy right now. And of course, but rarely mentioned – energy efficiency, energy conservation – the really effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions.
CHEAP
The next biggest whopper about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is the statement that they would be cheap. Here we get into the minefield of deliberate obfuscation about the financial facts. The cost of building SMRs is likely to be astronomic, and the only practicable way is to build them en masse. That would mean that the company building them would need to have big orders, not just for one or two reactors. Big orders bring with them a heap of problems. Like an IKEA cupboard, these “modular” items are all the same – if you buy a whole lot of them they’d better all work out perfectly – no chance really to just try out one. Buyers are reluctant, and so are investors.
Of course, the argument will be that SMRs will provide cheap electricity. Well that absolutely would necessitate economies of scale. That was the reason that the idea of small reactors was abandoned in the past. Simply, a large reactor producing a huge amount of electricity has got to produce it more efficiently and cheaply. The proponents of SMRs never talk about the accompanying costs – insurance, the security staff required, the transport and disposal of toxic long-lasting wastes. The truth is, those proponents absolutely know that their product is in fact very expensive. And that is why the subservient corporate media consistently baffle us with convoluted arguments that minimise the cost to tax-payers. They know damn well that the only way that SMRs could possibly be developed is by government funding. Keir Starmer backed a Rolls Royce plan that would be blatantly funded by the tax-payer. The SGE plan purports to be privately funded, but it’s tangled up with various government-funded schemes.
These were 2 lies – but there are 8 more to go.
Plentiful? – well, apart from Russia and China’s 2 duds – SMR’s don’t actually exist – quite the reverse of plentiful.
Clean? They are still part of a dirty production system, starting from uranium mining, with its workers exposed to radiation, and its piles of radioactive tailings.
Climate-friendly? There is a whole chain of steps from mining through to waste disposal that involve fossil fuel energy.
Proven technology? Well, they don’t even exist.
Safe? SMRs can’t melt down in the same way as big reactors, but still contain radioactive material, a target for theft, terrorists or military attacks Can still have accidents releasing radiation.
Community-welcomed? This really is a big one, with a lack of proper consultation on plans – There’s strong resistance from some local groups, such as Radiation Free Lakeland.
Peaceful? The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors.
Wastes? Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Now that Starmer, with his big promises, has gone, it’s probably no longer up to the UK’s Prime Minister to lead the global charge on small nuclear reactors. Andy Burnham has to negotiate the whole troubled energy scene, try to be progressive, placate the fossil fuel lobbies, and the nuclear lobby. He has been very quiet on nuclear policy, but he is committed to the existing defence and AUKUS nuclear agreements. So for “peaceful” nuclear, he’s most likely to go for a compromise – SMRs, supporting just a few, rather than the much-touted “fleets” of them.
So, no doubt the USA will take up the torch – One Year After Executive Orders, U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance is in Full Swing.
The media is awash with the wonder of new nuclear reactors, in concert with the AI data farm boom. The few voices who call for restraint, and point out the problems, are drowned out by the cacophony of handouts from the companies promising SMRs, handouts faithfully regurgitated by the corporate media, and by those universities which have bought into the propaganda.
There are the many good, decent people, whose living depends on their work within the uranium-nuclear-defence industries. And communities that are caught up in the nuclear industry, and its associated government bonuses. And many professionals, especially journalists, who, if they paused to look at the whole picture, might see the folly and the danger and the lies, of this so much touted technology. And of course, politicians who would be out of a job if they opposed the sacred cows of new energy and nuclear defence. So the whole SMR juggernaut moves on, bit by bit, and has itself become one big lie.
Ceases to be a nuclear power’: The high-stakes deal the new UK PM inherits
SBS News, 21 July 2026 By Yasmine Alwakal
Andy Burnham has inherited a major AUKUS commitment with Australia. Whether Britain can deliver it is another question
IN BRIEF
- On Monday, former Manchester mayor Andy Burnham succeeded Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister.
- Experts say the change in leadership could impact the UK’s investment in defence but is unlikely to impact AUKUS.
Labour leader Andy Burnham has become the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister in a decade — but experts say it remains unclear how the former mayor of Greater Manchester will approach the country’s most important strategic partnership with Australia.
Newly departed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer suffered a high-profile split with his defence secretary, John Healey, over a perceived failure to properly fund the department.
Burnham now inherits Starmer’s £298bn ($573b) defence spending commitment over the next four years, £4.7b ($9b) of which is unfunded and will need to make up part of Burnham’s first budget.
Experts have said that, while Burnham is unlikely to renegotiate the AUKUS agreement, defence is likely to play a central position in the new UK leader’s job description, given the growing threat of Russia to NATO members.
Jennifer Parker, a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute, told SBS News that policymakers in Australia will be watching Burnham’s approach to foreign affairs closely.
“I think there are broader questions about the implications of Andy Burnham’s views on defence and the defence investment plan in the UK … [but] in many ways, AUKUS is critical for the UK,” Parker told SBS News.
The UK, alongside Australia and the United States, entered into trilateral AUKUS security agreement in 2021.
The deal is divided into two key pillars: Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability and the development and delivery of advanced capabilities such as underwater drones.
In July 2025, Australia also entered into a bilateral agreement with the UK dubbed the Geelong Treaty. The 50-year agreement enables the cooperative design, building, operation, sustainment, and disposal of nuclear-powered submarines known as SSN.
Will Burnham deliver on the UK’s AUKUS commitments?
Since 1968, the UK has been a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is recognised as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Parker said since the end of the Cold War the UK has operated ballistic missile submarines called SSBNs:
“Now, you need to have SSN’s — attack submarines — to be able to protect your ballistic missile submarines. AUKUS, for the UK makes designing, building and operating SSN’s cheaper. So, it makes it easier.”
That’s why she believes the UK, whether led by current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer or the incoming Burnham, will continue to uphold its AUKUS commitments.
“If the UK can’t achieve AUKUS … the long-term impact is quite significant in terms of the UK ceases to be a nuclear weapons power. Which really changes its global status.”
According to the Australian government, the UK will deliver its first SSN’s by the late 2030s. Defence Minister Richard Marles said the first class of Australian-built submarines is intended to enter service by the early 2040s…………………………………………………………………..
Parker from the Lowy Institute also believes the Australian government will watch to see if the UK takes “strides” to address what she described as capability constraints facing UK submarine industrial bases………….
“As much as I’m confident they’ll make it [AUKUS] work, whether they’ll make it work within the stated time frames is genuinely an open question.”
The UK’s defence committee has launched an inquiry into its military resilience and preparedness. It follows a July report by its defence ministry, which found that 47 out of 49 major defence projects in the UK were delayed or over budget.
In a statement, Dan Jarvis, the newly appointed defence secretary, said:
“Many projects had been announced with insufficient or no funding at all. The consequences were profound: limited availability of warships and aircraft, an army facing a recruitment crisis, morale weakened and renewal of our nuclear deterrent delayed.” https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/andy-burnham-aukus-submarine-deal-australia/j38e9qzzf
UK’s nuclear plants face risks of AI-powered cyber-attacks and insider threats
17 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/uks-nuclear-plants-face-risks-of-ai-powered-cyber-attacks-and-insider-threats-17-07-2026/
Civil nuclear power plants in the UK now face cyber-attacks enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI) and insider threats, according to the government’s National Risk Register 2026.
The National Risk Register (NRR) is the annual, public-facing version of the government’s National Security Risk Assessment, it “includes a summary of all but the most sensitive, classified risks,” according to Cabinet Office minister of state Darren Jones.
Jones informed parliament and the public of the publication of the 2026 edition of the NRR in a written ministerial statement on 14 July.
The NRR attracts attention because it explains the government’s assessment of the likelihood and severity of a broad range of risks, including terrorism, cyber threats, geopolitical and diplomatic risks, accidents and systems failures.
The 2026 edition covers 95 risks. Of relevance to the civil engineering and infrastructure sector, “cyber-attack water infrastructure” was added as a new risk to reflect learning “from reported cyber-attacks targeting the water sector,” the NRR said.
It also added, “accidental damage on the National Gas Transmission Network – to explore damage to the gas transmission network as a result of agricultural digging.”
In her foreword to the 2026 NRR, Cabinet Office security minister Angela Eagle said: “This government is committed to sharing risk information as openly as possible, to support all those working to build the UK’s resilience with their planning, preparation and response activity.
“Greater transparency also means that people can scrutinise our assessments, and challenge us to do things differently when needed.”
She added: “A whole of society approach is required to increase resilience; therefore, I encourage all risk and resilience professionals to consider the risks in this publication, and join our collective endeavour to make the UK more prosperous and secure.”
While the 2025 edition included “conventional attack” and “cyber-attack” against civil nuclear as two distinct risks, the 2026 edition removed the cyber-attack risk profile and instead covered cyber risks facing civil nuclear into “malicious attack: civil nuclear”, in its “state threats” grouping.
Within the new malicious attack: civil nuclear profile, the NRR 2026 said: “AI can automate the process of launching cyber-attacks, making them faster, more efficient and lower the barrier for entry.”
Reacting to the 2026 NRR, cybersecurity firm e2e-assure CEO Rob Demain told NCE: “Nuclear plants have always planned for physical threats and human error. What’s new is the assumption that the attacker may already have a way in, that someone with legitimate access can do real damage without ever needing to break down a fence.
“AI is exacerbating the threat. The National Risk Register itself says AI can automate attacks, making them faster, cheaper and easier to attempt without much skill.
“Elsewhere it goes further, describing how AI makes fake messages harder to spot and helps attackers find weaknesses faster. That’s a very different risk to plan for, than a lone bad actor.”
Demain added: “For the people who design, build and maintain this infrastructure, the message is simple: security can no longer be something bolted on afterwards, or left entirely to IT.
“It has to be built into how these sites operate, day to day, alongside the safety systems engineers already take for granted.”
Also responding to the “malicious attack: civil nuclear” risk profile, an EDF spokesperson told NCE: “As the risk from cyber-attack on UK critical national infrastructure continues to evolve, EDF continues to further refine its defences, with horizon scanning for developing threats and a constant series of system improvements to make it harder for those attempting to damage our systems.
We note that the National Risk Register does not propose a scenario of a safety risk but one that ‘results in a disruption to normal operations until investigations have demonstrated nuclear safety and security critical systems remain unaffected’, and that ‘the disruption is not a direct result of the attack’.”
Demain told NCE earlier in July that critical national infrastructure assets are now more at risk of cyber-attacks due to the deployment of newer, more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools like Anthropic’s Mythos.
The Forgotten Jewish Movement That Rejected Zionism.
By Nadege Bizimungu, The Tea with Myriam François, Jul 21, 2026
Jewish mass movement that rejected the idea of a Jewish state ever existing was, for much of its history, more popular than Zionism. Here’s why almost nobody has heard of it.
Poland in the 1930s had the largest Jewish population in Europe, and the single most popular party among Jewish voters there wasn’t Zionist. It didn’t want a Jewish state at all.
It ran schools, published newspapers and even organized armed militias to defend Jewish communities. According to an analysis of Bund election results published in the Yiddish studies journal In geveb, the party won roughly 38 percent of the vote for Jewish parties in the last Polish municipal elections before the war, more than any single Zionist party, though the combined Zionist lists narrowly edged it out overall. Its members were fiercely opposed to Zionism and thought it was a fantasy, and they said so bluntly and often.
That party was the Jewish Labour Bund. Today, few people know its name, but at its peak it was one of the most important Jewish political movements in Europe. Its existence challenges a common idea about Jewish history: that Zionism was the only response to antisemitism. For decades, millions of Jews supported a different vision. They believed the answer was not a new country, but fighting for equality where Jews already lived.
The Bund was founded in October 1897, when thirteen young Jewish Marxists met secretly in an attic in Vilna, then part of the Russian Empire. That’s the same year Theodor Herzl convened the first Zionist Congress in Basel. Zionism argued that Jewish safety required leaving Europe and building a state. The Bund argued the opposite: stay, and fight for equality where Jews already lived, in solidarity with non-Jewish workers and socialist movements. The Yiddish word for this was doikayt, “hereness,” and it rejected the idea that Jewish life needed a single homeland at all.
The party grew fast, and contemporaries noticed. The Menshevik theorist Georgi Plekhanov reportedly called Jewish workers “the vanguard of the labor army in Russia.” Historian Bertram Wolfe later described the Bund as the largest and best organized body of workingmen inside the Russian empire. By 1906 its membership had reportedly reached around 40,000, briefly making it the biggest socialist organization in the empire, and by interwar Poland it had built an entire subculture: youth movements, sports clubs, a network of secular Yiddish schools. Jack Jacobs’s research on the interwar Bund treats it as a genuine mass institution, not a fringe faction.
None of this was naive pacifism. Bund militias organized armed self-defense against pogroms and antisemitic gangs on the streets of interwar Warsaw, decades before “Jewish strength” became coded as an Israeli idea. When the Nazis invaded, Bundists fought in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first urban revolt against Nazi occupation anywhere in Europe. One of its fighters, a Bundist teenager named Lusiek Blones, was thirteen years old.
The rivalry between Bundists and Zionists ran deep, and it was rooted in a real disagreement about what antisemitism demanded of Jews. Bundists argued that if European governments were insisting Jews were foreign and should leave, then Zionism, by proposing that Jews do exactly that, was conceding the antisemites’ premise rather than refuting it. Zionists saw it differently: as a response to the repeated failure of emancipation and assimilation to protect Jews anywhere in the diaspora. After the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain backed a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, Bundists increasingly viewed Zionism as bound up with imperial power rather than freed from it, a colonial project underwritten by the same empires that had failed to protect Jews in the first place.
The Bund wasn’t beaten in that argument, though. It was murdered. The Holocaust wiped out the working-class Jewish communities that had sustained the party for half a century. Historian David Slucki has documented how the postwar Bund never came close to rebuilding its prewar scale, plateauing at just a few thousand members worldwide by the late 1950s. Daniel Blatman’s research on the Bund’s final years in Poland, from 1939 to 1949, traces a parallel political defeat: Stalinist repression, including the 1942 murder of Bundist leaders Henryk Erlich and Victor Alter by Soviet secret police, finished what the Nazis had started.
Zionist institutions in Palestine, meanwhile, survived the war intact. In her new book, Here Where We Live Is Our Country, artist and journalist Molly Crabapple, whose account of the Bund this piece draws heavily on, argues that Zionist organizations controlled much of the rations, housing, and paperwork in the displaced-persons camps after the war, and used that leverage to funnel traumatized survivors toward Palestine. A movement with no population left to organize couldn’t compete with one that still had territory, infrastructure, and international backing behind it.
That imbalance is also why the Bund disappeared from memory rather than from relevance. It lost its people, not its argument, and a movement without survivors to carry its institutions forward simply stops being written about, no matter how large it once was.
The premise Zionism was built on, that Jewish safety requires a Jewish ethnostate, is now facing its sharpest public challenge in decades. Nearly three years into Israel’s war on Gaza, which the UN and earlier findings from Amnesty International and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have described as genocide, support for Israel has fallen sharply, including among Jews themselves. Younger American Jews are significantly less likely than older generations to see support for Israel as central to Jewish identity, while nearly half of American Jews under 35 now say they would support a single binational state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians. In Britain, young Jews who identify as anti-Zionist or non-Zionist now roughly match those who identify as Zionist.Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, a longtime critic of his own government, has called this the “beginning of the end of the Zionist project,” pointing to internal political fracture, international isolation, and economic strain as evidence.
For Crabapple, this shift is also personal. She spent seven years writing Here Where We Live Is Our Country, much of it while Israel’s campaign in Gaza was underway. in an interview on Democracy Now!, she said there was something almost unbearable about reconstructing the destruction of Warsaw’s Jews while watching a country invoke the Holocaust to justify what was happening in Gaza. “It broke me,” she said, “in probably ways that I have difficulty expressing.”
What this history suggests, isn’t a clean answer to the hardest questions about what a just political future looks like after decades of occupation and violence. It’s something narrower, and maybe more useful: proof that at the exact moment Jewish nationalism was taking shape, a mass, organized, genuinely popular Jewish movement existed that rejected the idea that Jewish liberation had to come at another people’s dispossession. It didn’t lose that argument. It was destroyed by fascism, the Holocaust, and Stalinist repression, and its ideas went down with it, not because they were wrong, but because there was no one left alive to keep making the case.
New energy policy for Burnham?
The soon to be UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is being portrayed as a ‘new broom’ that could, or might, adopt better polices in all areas. Well, what about the energy sector? It’s in a mess, economically, driven by high fossil gas prices, with retail electricity prices at an all-time high, despite renewable energy doing well (65 GW so far) with its wholesale price mostly being low. It’s in a mess technologically, at risk of undermining the crucial next stage of its important renewables programme by diverting cash to support major high-cost nuclear and fossil carbon capture and storage projects.
Both of these programme involve multi-billion funding. The much delayed Hinkley Point nuclear plant may end up costing £40-50bn, inflation adjusted, when it finally gets completed, probably in 2030. Its follow-on project, Sizewell C, may not do much better, despite promises about learning from Hinkley, and despite the investment risks being met by a consumer levy. There are already construction issues. A late 2030s start up at best? By then we might also be seeing some outcomes from the very speculative funding for small modular reactors and even maybe some results from the even more speculative fusion funding, with £2.5bn set aside for it.
Is any of that good value for money? Will it deliver anything useful on time? On past performance, it’s very uncertain. Same for the £21.7 bn Carbon Capture and Storage programme, the full cost of which has been put at possibly up to £264bn by 2050. CCS is basically an attempt to allow us to keep burning fossil fuel. Is that sensible? Or for that matter the controversial Drax wood pellet combustion plant– it got £1bn in subsidies last year. Burning imported wood from forests does not seem to be a very sustainable option…
There are arguably so many more worthy projects, for example in green hydrogen production and storage, a vital new area for expansion. Heat storage linked to local heat networks too. To be fair, some of these ideas are now getting a bit of funding. For example, pioneering green hydrogen producer ITM Power has received £86.5 m from Great British Energy and DESNZ. It will be used to expand ITM’s electrolyser production at its Sheffield plant to 1GW p.a. But we need more like that for the rapid expansion of short and long duration storage. Freed from drain of endless nuclear and carbon capture diversions, we could also accelerate the newer renewables, like tidal stream turbines, via expansion of the Contacts for Difference (CfD) system. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What next? Hinkley Point C is about half-built, so a lot of capital has already been sunk in it, but there are yet more billions scheduled to be spent on it. Burnham is unlikely to be willing to halt it (he is, it seems, pro-nuclear) but he might be persuaded to ditch Sizewell C, work on which has hardly started.
And the big proposed CCS programme too, so as to release further billions. To soften the change of policy, he could keep some small projects going (an SMR perhaps, or a CCSU project) as ‘insurance’ options, much as some renewables were treated in the past (including, at one stage, offshore wind) when nuclear was seen as the main new UK energy option.
More or less everyone, except some deadhead Reform supporters, now see renewables as that. The only debate seems to be on what backup might be needed. Large inflexible nuclear plants are not much use at that, nor are costly CCS fossil gas plants, while SMRs are as yet uncertain in terms of cost and viability.
But we don’t need any of this to deal with variable renewables. Storage, large and small scale, is part of the answer, along with improved transmission and flexible demand management plus smart grid systems, so as to balance local variable demand and variable supply efficiently.
We have to build a new system and that will inevitably be costly, although, arguably, not as much as trying to keep the old system going with dubious supply choices and carbon fixes. For example, on the basis of its latest LCOE data, Lazard says ‘Despite rising and inflationary cost pressures across all generation technologies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidised basis’.
And economic cost is not the only issue. For example, if built, Sizewell C will produce around 40,000 kg of plutonium in its spent fuel over its 60-year lifespan. Plutonium has a half-life of around 25,000 years, with SMRs, if they ever work, also adding to the pile. Is that what we want to bequeath our far-off descendants? Along with other long-lived nuclear wastes?
That’s a big challenge. Andy Burnham has made some commitments on energy and climate, but only so far mostly in a limited and cautious way. Will he now come up with something more radical? We will have to wait to see. Meanwhile, the latest data show that over 70% of DESNEZ expenditure is now nuclear related…
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/new-energy-policy-for-burnham.html?m=1
Witness- A visit to Donald Morrison, a chief witness in the case of Willie McRae
I took a trip to Benbecula to visit Donald Morrison, a chief witness in
the case of Willie McRae, a prominent Scottish lawyer who was found dying
of a bullet wound in a car that had gone off the road in 1985. Donald was
the last person to see Willie McRae alive and whenever I have spoken to him
on the phone about this, he has always urged me to visit. The case has been
bugging me and so eventually I decided to take him up on the invitation.
McRae was an SNP politician, activist-lawyer and anti-nuclear campaigner.
On a misty April night 41 years ago, his car went off a quiet road – it
must have been going at speed – and came to rest 90 feet away. It was
spotted by an eagle-eyed accident investigator and his wife the next
morning at ten am. They glimpsed the car, which was partially hidden by a
gully, turned back to check on it and found Willie unconscious but still
breathing.
Neither they nor the other passers-by they flagged down, who
included a doctor, nor the paramedics, nor the nurses who received McRae at
the hospital noticed a bullet wound. However, an MRI scan after McRae was
transferred to Raigmore revealed that he had been shot. The authorities
later said that McRae had committed suicide by shooting himself in the
temple. But it seems unbelievable that all of the professionals who cared
for him would have failed to wash the blood away and see a bullet wound if
it was in his temple. A nurse who treated McRae came forward later and said
that there was a small entry wound under the hairline at the back of his
neck.
This is much more consistent with an attempted covert murder than
suicide. Donald was a beat policeman who walked the streets of the centre
of Glasgow, sometimes chatting in Gaelic to other Highland cops. He had
frequent interactions back then with McRae, because of a series of
break-ins at his office
Jackie Kemp 18th July 2026, https://substack.com/home/post/p-207141868
World warned of ‘nuclear apocalypse’ after drone kills nuclear plant engineer in Ukraine
Russia has warned of ‘nuclear apocalypse’ after a drone strike allegedly carried out by Ukraine killed the chief engineer at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest nuclear facility
Daily Star, Will Stewart Russia Correspondent and Adam Cailler Senior reporter and MSN lead, 16 Jul 2026
Russia has warned of a “nuclear apocalypse” following an alleged Ukrainian assassination of a senior engineer at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Alexander Yakovlev, 46, was killed in a drone attack between the facility and the nearby town of Enerhodar.
He was travelling in a service vehicle and perished alongside his driver, according to Russian reports. Yakovlev served as the chief engineer at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest. Ukraine’s Mirotvorets website had branded him a “traitor to the motherland” and an “accomplice to terrorists and Russian occupiers.”
Through his work for the Russians following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, he stood accused of “collaboration in the form of assisting the occupiers in committing acts of nuclear terrorism and blackmail”. Following the occupation of this section of Zaporizhzhia region, he obtained Russian citizenship.
Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, denounced the incident without explicitly naming Ukraine or Russia. The killing “represents an unacceptable attack on the plant and its management, seriously threatening nuclear safety.”
He demanded an “immediate end” to all strikes “on or near nuclear sites.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declared: “This is a crime of the Kyiv regime that Grossi must finally see – we demand a clear statement condemning this killing from the relevant international bodies, first and foremost the IAEA.”
Alexei Likhachev, the head of Rosatom, stated: “We expect the IAEA to respond promptly, concretely, and clearly to this tragedy.” Russian forces took control of the plant in southeastern Ukraine during the initial weeks of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine………
Russian authorities initiated a criminal investigation into the killings. Ukraine has yet to respond.https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/world-warned-nuclear-apocalypse-after-37438323
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (268)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
