nuclear-news

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

Tribunal says Swahili ban at nuclear firm was discrimination

 An employment tribunal has ordered the taxpayer owned company tasked with
safely decommissioning the UK’s first-generation nuclear power sites pay
more than £10,800 in compensation to a worker who was banned from speaking
Swahili. The Glasgow tribunal found that Nuclear Restoration Services
Limited (NRS) discriminated against Mr K Ruiza after his line manager
instructed him to only speak English while on site. The judge said the
order left him humiliated, distressed and fearful he would lose his job.
The tribunal ruled the company must pay £9,000 for injury to feelings,
plus £1,875.94 in interest, bringing the total award to £10,875.94.

 Herald 26th Jan 2026, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25794684.tribunal-says-swahili-ban-nuclear-firm-discrimination/

January 28, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Anti-climate opinion columns becoming a regular feature in UK newspapers.

Sidhi Mittal,  21st January 2026, https://www.edie.net/anti-climate-opinion-columns-becoming-a-regular-feature-in-uk-newspapers/

Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials were published opposing climate action in 2025, a record figure that shows the scale of the backlash against net-zero policies in the right-leaning press.

Carbon Brief examined editorials published since 2011. These included those written by external columnists and those acting as a publication’s official editorial ‘voice’.

In 2025, it identified 98 editorials rejecting climate action, compared with 46 in support. This was the first year in which opposition overtook support across the 15 years of data.

All 98 editorials opposing climate action appeared in right-leaning titles. The largest contributors were the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, followed by the Times and the Daily Express.

By contrast, almost all of the editorials pushing for more climate action were published in the Guardian and the Financial Times, which have far smaller circulations than several of the conservative papers.

Overall, 81% of climate-related editorials in right-leaning newspapers in 2025 rejected climate action – either overall, or due to specific policy interventions.

Carbon Brief said this marked a sharp change from a few years earlier, when many of the same papers showed increased enthusiasm for climate policy as Conservative governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson introduced the net-zero by 2050 target and backed measures to deliver it.

Right-leaning press drives opposition

The media shift has coincided with political changes on the UK right, according to the research.

Over the past year, the Conservative party has distanced itself from the net-zero target it legislated for in 2019 and from the Climate Change Act.

Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch has stated that she would scrap the Act altogether if elected. This would spell the end of the UK Government’s official climate advisory body and all future carbon budgets.

Reform UK has also been rising in the polls while pledging to “ditch net-zero”. Carbon Brief said the positions taken by right-leaning newspapers tend to reflect and reinforce the politics of the parties they support.

None of the editorials opposing climate action questioned the existence of climate change or the science behind it. Instead, they criticised the policies designed to address it, a position Carbon Brief describes as “response scepticism”.

In many cases, newspapers attacked “net-zero” without mentioning climate change at all.

The report links this to earlier research by Dr James Painter of the University of Oxford, which found that UK newspaper coverage has been “decoupling net-zero from climate change”. This comes despite polling showing majority public support for many of the policies that underpin net-zero and for the 2050 target itself.

Economic arguments dominated the opposition. Carbon Brief found that more than eight in ten of 2025’s editorials rejecting climate action cited cost as a reason, describing net-zero as “ruinous” or “costly” and blaming it for driving up energy bills.

Earlier this month, several national newspapers also gave prominent coverage to a pamphlet from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) on the “cost of net-zero” that misrepresented the work of the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO).

The IEA claimed net-zero costs could exceed £7.6trn, but the figures were based on the flawed assumption that no investment would be made in energy systems if the UK did not have its 2050 climate target.

Critics also say the IEA  mischaracterised NESO’s analysis. Regardless, the pamphlet appeared on the front page of the Daily Express and was reported by political correspondents at the Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph without scrutiny of the underlying energy data.

Miliband under sustained attack

Alongside criticism of policy, newspapers also targeted the Labour Government’s energy security and net-zero secretary, Ed Miliband.

In 2025, UK newspapers published 112 editorials taking personal aim at him, nearly all in right-leaning titles. The Sun alone published 51.

Six in ten editorials opposing climate action used criticism of climate advocates as part of their justification, and almost all of these mentioned Miliband.

Miliband was described as a “loon”, a “zealot” and the “high priest of net-zero”, and accused of “eco insanity” and “quasi-religious delusions”.

Newspapers frequently framed policies as “Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda”, “Mr Miliband’s swivel-eyed targets” or “Mr Miliband’s green taxes”, presenting climate measures as being imposed on the public by the energy secretary. This is despite the fact that many targets and initiatives were kick-started under the Tories.

Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels

Carbon Brief additionally analysed editorials on specific energy technologies.

There were 42 editorials criticising renewable energy in 2025. For the first time since 2014, anti-renewables editorials outnumbered those supporting them.

Cost was the dominant argument, with 86% of critical editorials using economic justifications.

The Sun referred to “chucking billions at unreliable renewables”, while the Daily Telegraph warned of an “expensive and intermittent renewables grid”.

At the same time, right-leaning newspapers continued to support nuclear power despite its high costs. There were 20 editorials backing nuclear energy in 2025, nearly all in conservative titles, and none opposing it.

The Times was the only right-leaning newspaper to publish any editorials backing renewables.

Support for fracking also reappeared. After falling away in 2023 and 2024, there were 15 editorials in 2025 arguing that fracking would be economically beneficial, even as the Government plans to ban the practice permanently.

North Sea oil and gas remained a major focus. Thirty editorials, all in right-leaning newspapers, mentioned the issue, with most arguing for increased extraction while also opposing climate action or renewable expansion.

Related article: Tories invoke fears of electricity blackouts to criticise renewable energy roll-out

January 24, 2026 Posted by | climate change, media, UK | Leave a comment

Why the Nuclear Regulatory Review is flawed – and how itcould turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe.

January 2026, Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts

“…………………………………………………. Large nuclear projects, using potentially risky technology, have potential for significant environmental impacts on sensitive places and so it is right for there to be robust environmental assessments of these projects. The Government has an ambitious programme of nuclear
deployment. It has published a new National Policy Statement for nuclear power.3
It has removed the restriction on new nuclear power to eight sites around the UK. It has said it will aid
the completion of Hinkley Point C, provide additional funding for Sizewell C, and consider one
large new nuclear power plant alongside the deployment of Small Modular Reactors. Due to
their requirements and the types of site needed, nuclear projects have often impacted on
ecologically sensitive areas. The new National Policy Statement on nuclear reiterates the
importance of the Habitats Regulations and the protection of legally protected sites and wildlife.

As part of its efforts to boost nuclear deployment, the Government commissioned John
Fingleton to lead a taskforce review of nuclear regulation. The final report of the Nuclear
Regulatory Review was published in November 2025.
It diagnosed environmental regulations
as a blocker to nuclear deployment and included recommendations to water down those
regulations. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the Government accepts the
principles of the Review, that within three months a plan will be published by DESNZ to
implement the Review, and that its recommendations will be implemented within two years
using legislation.6 Environmental groups are very concerned the recommendations will be
adopted for the nuclear sector using legislation and potentially applied to other types of major
infrastructure.

The Nuclear Regulatory Review is part of a wider pattern of the Government adopting the
arguments of developers to pinpoint where delays are coming from; however, it is inaccurate
and does not represent reality. Research by The Wildlife Trusts already shows that – despite
the headlines and claims by the Chancellor and others – bats and newts, for example, were a
factor in just 3.3% of planning appeals.7 This briefing will highlight how the claims made by the
Nuclear Regulatory Review are similarly short on evidence and, if adopted, will do little to speed
up planning decisions but, instead, will turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe. Many industries
already say that the uncertainty caused by constantly changing regulations holds back
development; the Nuclear Regulatory Review threatens to do just that.

Flaws and Inaccuracies in the Nuclear Regulatory Review
The Review, commissioned by the Government, identifies three major areas for reform: risk
aversion, process over outcomes, and a lack of incentives. The Review also turns nature into a
scapegoat for a failure to deliver nuclear projects.


Recommendation 11 calls for various changes to the Habitats Regulations, including removing
the requirement for compensation to be like-for-like. Recommendation 12 calls for nuclear
developers to be allowed to comply with the regulations simply by paying a fixed sum (an
amount per acre), which would be used by Natural England for nature somewhere else. When it
comes to local planning, The Wildlife Trusts remain concerned with the related idea of
payments for Environmental Delivery Plans as a way for developers to meet their legal
obligations. A strategic approach might be appropriate when it comes to, for example, pollution
impacts, but would not be suitable for irreplaceable habitats or species that cannot re-establish
elsewhere easily.8

Recommendation 19 would remove the duty on Local Authorities to seek and further National
Parks and Landscapes, returning to the old language of “have regard to”. The combination of
these changes would not only substantially weaken protections for nature but would also
introduce significant uncertainty in the nuclear sector and for other sectors about whether
standards and regulations that are bedding in and increasingly becoming well understood are in
fact about to change.


The Review was produced without enough environmental expertise – and this shows. It
contains a number of errors when it comes to environmental evidence, which has led to a
misdiagnosis of the problem and to damaging recommendations about environmental
regulations.


The Review relies heavily on the case study of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is
quick to use the case study to blame nature without examining the actions and decisions of the
developer. A large amount of confusing and misleading information has been issued to the
media and in the Review itself to further this narrative.

Here are some of the facts:

  • Hinkley Point C is on the edge of one of the most highly ecologically protected sites in
    Europe and will draw through a swimming pool’s worth of water every second for 70
    years of operation. This will have enormous impacts on surrounding ecosystems, fish,
    and other species.9
  • A £700 million figure has been widely circulated in the press relating to fish deterrents
    and is quoted in the Review. This is incorrect. The cost of the fish deterrent system is
    £50 million.10
  • EDF themselves unilaterally decided in 2017 not to proceed with the fish deterrent
    system, despite it being a requirement. They then proceeded to apply for permit
    variations, undertake further environmental assessments and initiate a public inquiry to
    attempt to remove the requirement. These developer decisions have caused selfinflicted delays.11
  • Hinkley Point C’s original budget was £18 billion. It has since risen to an estimated £46
    billion. The fish deterrent (at £50 million) comes to just 0.1% of this increased £46
    billion budget. Nearly £30 billion in cost increases for Hinkley Point C have nothing to
    do with nature.12
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Review says (for example) that just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout,
    and 6 lamprey per year would be saved. This deliberately downplays the impact on
    nature. This statement relies on analysis by the developer EDF, who captured fish and
    put trackers on them and used old data from Hinkley B power station. Since then ,a
    more thorough analysis has been completed for the Environment Agency, who have found that 4.6 million adult fish per year being killed is a more accurate number, or 182 million fish in total over sixty years.13 These fish populations are a foundation stone for the wider ecosystem of the Severn Estuary, supporting internationally important migratory bird populations and other species. Many of the fish are rare or endangered. Damage on the scale suggested by the Environment Agency figures could have calamitous impacts on that ecosystem and the economic and social activities that rely on it………………………………………………………………………………

Environmental Damage of Nuclear Regulatory Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Conclusion

The Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations 11, 12 and 19 will harm nature and
biodiversity. They are based on flawed evidence relating to environmental regulations and how
they have been applied. As discussed, the true reasons for nuclear delay lie elsewhere.
Implementing the Nuclear Regulatory recommendations would devastate nature without
speeding up the nuclear planning and delivery process. The Government must reject the three
Nuclear Regulatory Review’s recommendations on environmental regulations and end its
confected war on nature as a barrier to planning.


20th January 2026
Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts and conducted by Matt Williams, https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/WhyTheNuclearRegulatoryReviewIsFlawed_TheWildlifeTrusts.pdf


January 24, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Nature groups question UK’s Fingleton nuclear review

The Engineer, 21 Jan 2026, https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/nature-groups-question-fingleton-nuclear-review

More than a dozen environmental groups and over 60 MPs are questioning the ‘Fingleton recommendations’ set out in the recent Nuclear Regulatory Review.

Led by economist John Fingleton, the Nuclear Regulatory Review made several recommendations designed to ease the path of nuclear development. Among these were proposals to weaken the Habitats Regulations which protect nature sites. But environmental groups, led by The Wildlife Trusts, claim that the review is based on flawed evidence, and that the recommendations could have a catastrophic effect on nature across the UK.

“The dice were loaded from the start – the nuclear review confirms a false narrative that was already being circulated by certain industry lobby groups and think tanks,” said Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts.

“The errors in the review form a clear pattern: repeated exaggeration of the costs of preventing harm to nature – and minimisation of the impact to wildlife of nuclear development without those measures. The fact that no environmental experts served on the panel is a disgrace and the resulting distorted picture obscures the value the natural world delivers for economic stability and net zero.”

A new report from The Wildlife Trusts points to specific examples where it believes the nuclear review falls short. It claims that, rather than £700m, Hinkley C’s much-debated fish deterrent system would actually cost £50m. This is against a total project cost of £46bn, up from an original estimate of £18bn.

The Nuclear Regulatory Review also claims that the fish deterrent system would save just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout and 6 lamprey per year. However, The Wildlife Trusts cites a report from the Environment Agency that suggests up to 4.6 million adult fish per year could be killed per year if no protective measures are put in place.

“There is limited evidence that environmental protections impose undue costs on infrastructure developers,” said Bennet. “In fact, evidence shows that frequently cited examples of expensive mitigation measures originated from developer mistakes and were unconnected to environmental issues. Blaming nature is unacceptable and a way of avoiding accountability.

“The developers of Hinkley C are trying to blame everyone but themselves for their own failure to think about nature from the outset. When developers think about nature too late in the design process, they end up creating bolt-on engineering solutions for ecological problems, which tend to be more expensive and less effective than committing to make infrastructure nature positive from the very start of the designing process. It’s pretty pathetic that the government is now trying to bail out energy infrastructure developers for this failure of commitment and imagination.”

The Wildlife Trusts’ campaign to save the environmental protections that are threatened by the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review is supported by 14 other organisations: Wildlife and Countryside Link, Rivers Trust, Campaign for National Parks, Marine Conservation Society, Plantlife, Buglife, Bat Conservation Trust, Amphibian Reptile Conservation, Badger Trust, Beaver Trust, Bumblebee Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, Open Spaces Society, and Client Earth.   

January 24, 2026 Posted by | environment, opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Britain to extend life of ageing nuclear plants to keep the lights on

Hartlepool and Heysham 1 licenses prolonged to 2030 due to ‘dangerous gap’ in power supplies.

Jonathan Leake, Energy Editor, 21 January 2026 

Two of Britain’s oldest nuclear power plants
could be kept running for an extra two years because of an acute
electricity shortage in the UK. Hartlepool and Heysham 1, owned by EDF,
were due to shut down in 2028, but ministers want to extend the operating
licences to at least 2030 because the UK faces “a dangerous gap” in
power supplies if they shut.

Both have already been operating for 42 years
despite being scheduled to close for safety reasons in 2008. EDF,
France’s state-owned power utility, which operates all five UK nuclear
stations, said it was working to keep the stations operational without
compromising safety. Mark Hartley, from EDF, said: “In November, the UK
Government said that the retirement of these Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors
(AGRs) risks leaving a dangerous gap in Britain’s low-carbon energy
supply. “It is our ambition to generate from the remaining AGR stations
for as long as it is safe and commercially viable to do so, and we will
keep their lifetimes under review to assess whether further life extensions
can be achieved.”

Sizewell B, the UK’s largest nuclear plant, is
already due to operate until 2035, and EDF hopes to extend this to 2055.
Two other stations, Torness and Heysham 2, were originally scheduled to
close in 2023 and have been cleared to generate until March 2030 after EDF
invested £8.6bn in the fleet.

The fate of Heysham 1 and Hartlepool is less
certain and will depend on the results of safety assessments. AGR reactors
contain radioactive uranium fuel pellets surrounded by massive graphite
blocks that absorb the high-energy neutrons emitted by the fuel, thereby
controlling the nuclear reaction.

However, over time, these blocks tend to
crack due to the intense radiation and heat to which they are exposed. Such
cracks have already forced the closure of several other UK power stations.
EDF’s safety assessment will need to be ratified by the Office for
Nuclear Regulation, which will need to approve the extensions as safe.

 Telegraph 21st Jan 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/21/britain-extend-life-ageing-nuclear-plants-keep-lights-on/

January 22, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

US aggression, UK support: The ‘special relationship’

From Iran to Libya, from Panama to Venezuela, there is a history of the UK supporting illegal US military interventions

MARK CURTIS, 12 January 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/us-aggression-uk-support-the-special-relationship/

Forty years ago, US warplanes bombed Libya, attempting to assassinate its leader Muammar Gaddafi. Failing in that task, they managed to kill dozens of civilians in Tripoli, Libya’s capital.

The attacks, which were in response to the bombing of a Berlin nightclub blamed on Gaddafi, were strongly supported by Margaret Thatcher’s government. Indeed, she allowed some of the US jets to take off from bases in Britain.  

In the face of widespread public opposition to the US raid, a defiant Thatcher told parliament it was “a necessary and proportionate response to a clear pattern of Libyan terrorism” and to “uphold international law”.

However, the UN General Assembly, and most world opinion, condemned the attack as a violation of international law. 

But for the British prime minister: “The United States has stood by us in times of need, as we have stood by her. To refuse their request for the use of bases here would have been to abandon our responsibilities as an ally and to weaken the fight against terrorism.”

Fast forward two decades, and we find ourselves in a not dissimilar situation over US attacks on Venezuela. 

UK ministers give their backing to the kidnapping of a foreign head of state amidst a military intervention, condemned in the wider world but supported in Whitehall because of the so-called “special relationship”.

‘Our full support’

It was always thus. Three years after the attack on Libya, the US invaded Panama in December 1989. US aggression killed up to 3,000 people in this instance, and overthrew President Manuel Noriega, who had been on the CIA’s payroll for decades.

The invasion was widely considered to be illegal and in violation of the charters of both the UN and the Organization of American States.

A Foreign Office legal adviser wrote on the day of the invasion that “it is not possible to conclude that the American action was justified in international law”.

This didn’t matter in the British corridors of power. In a private phone call, Thatcher assured US president George W Bush that the intervention “was a very courageous decision which would have our full support”.

In the days that followed, Britain even vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which “strongly deplores” the invasion.

Clinton/Blair double act

A change in leadership in London and Washington made little difference to this pattern in the 1990s when the double act became Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.


In August 1998, Clinton launched a wave of cruise missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for Al Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania earlier that month.

Al Qaeda’s bombings were horrific, killing over 300 people. But while the US retaliation struck terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, its target in Sudan was a pharmaceuticals factory that produced medicines for the country’s population. 

The US claimed the plant was manufacturing chemical weapons but no strong evidence ever emerged for this. 

Amid the controversy, Bill Clinton blocked proposals for a UN investigation into the matter while Tony Blair strongly backed his ally’s attacks — against the advice of some British diplomats reportedly being appalled at them.

It was only a few months later, in December 1998, that Bill and Tony worked even more closely together in a new bombing campaign. 

They authorised four days of air strikes on Iraq, ostensibly to degrade dictator Saddam Hussein’s ability to store and produce weapons of mass destruction (which, of course, never materialised).

The declassified files show that Blair and his closest advisers were consistently informed by UK legal advisers that attacking Iraq would not be lawful. 

The only exception would be if a new UN Security Council resolution were to be passed saying Saddam was in “material breach” of Iraq’s previous commitments – which London and Washington never secured.

In a sign of Blair’s attitude towards legal requirements, he privately wrote at the time that he found his law officers’ legal advice “unconvincing”.

When he announced military action to parliament in November 1998, Blair misled the house by saying: “I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents”.

‘Act of war’

Over 20 years later, it was the turn of Boris Johnson to acquiesce to Donald Trump in an overtly illegal US act of aggression.

In January 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which the US had designated a terrorist organisation.

Washington tried to justify the killing by claiming it had intelligence that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on US interests across the Middle East. 

But a UN report found that the assassination was illegal. Indeed, the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, said it marked a watershed in international law. 

“It is hard to imagine that a similar strike against a Western military leader would not be considered as an act of war, potentially leading to intense action, political, military and otherwise, against the State launching the strike”, she wrote.

By contrast, Johnson defended the US action and said that “we will not lament” Soleimani’s death. He added that “the strict issue of legality is not for the UK to determine since it was not our operation” — precisely what Keir Starmer has just said about Venezuela. 

London’s support for Washington also came in the form of Johnson’s equally belligerent foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who added that the US “had a right to exercise self-defence”.

Bombing Iran

Trump attacked Iran again after Keir Starmer had been in office for nearly a year. In June last year, the US launched air strikes on nuclear-related sites in the country, ostensibly to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear arms programme.

A group of UN experts condemned the intervention, stating: “These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country.” 

Yet Starmer’s response was a rehearsal of his reaction to Trump’s recent kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. The British prime minister failed to condemn the US intervention, instead going along with it by saying it was “clear Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

Similarly, foreign secretary David Lammy was repeatedly asked whether the US attacks were illegal, and refused to say.  

Backing the law by violating it

By the time the US under Trump overthrew the Venezuelan government earlier this month, the UK response was utterly predictable. 

Starmer and other ministers welcomed Maduro’s overthrow, failed to identify it as an obvious violation of international law and even had the audacity to claim they remained strong  supporters of that law.  

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper said in a parliamentary debate on Venezuela that “we will always argue for the upholding of international law”, precisely at a time she was supporting an obvious violation of it.

It was the same with her deputy. A day after telling parliament she welcomed the illegal US removal of Maduro, foreign minister Jenny Chapman told parliament the UK’s “support for international law… is unwavering”. 

Maduro’s kidnapping was strongly condemned by UN experts while its human rights chief, Volker Turk, said it “violates the country’s sovereignty and the UN charter”.

This failed to deter the UK immediately proceeding with military collaboration with Trump’s rogue state. Four days after the kidnapping, the UK provided military support to Washington to help it seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker near the northwest waters of the UK. 

Declassified asked legal experts to comment on Trump’s latest military intervention and many are concluding it is yet another violation. 

The decades-long cycle goes on. The US and UK have long been repeatedly undermining what exists of a rules-based international order – while claiming to uphold it. 

Who knows where it will lead us in terms of future wars and what price will be paid by ordinary people for the world’s leading states creating a global law of the jungle. 

January 21, 2026 Posted by | UK, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Who Needs CO2 to Heat the Planet When You Have Nuclear?

Letter in Westmorland Gazette January 15th 2026, https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/01/19/who-needs-co2-to-heat-the-planet-when-you-have-nuclear/?page_id=1745

Dear Editor

EDF is brazenly heralding the new year with their hype about how much CO2 Heysham’s dodgy old reactors have “saved.’ What they don’t say is that Heysham’s old reactors with their cracked graphite cores have used a vanishingly small amount of the vicious ongoing heat they have produced.

A vicious radioactive heat that will continue to be produced for thousands of years with the proposal to use the Lake District geology as a giant heat sink for this nuclear heat which cannot be turned off. Who needs CO2 to heat the planet when the nuclear industry is heating it up directly at great expense to the public in every way.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

Lakes Against Nuclear Dump (a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign)

January 20, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Miliband’s ‘green energy’ sea cable risks spreading nuclear waste across Orkney

 Miliband’s ‘green energy’ sea cable risks spreading nuclear waste
across Orkney. Project could disturb radioactive particles on the seabed
which were created by the now-decommissioned Dounreay nuclear power plant.
The Orkney Link Transmission Project will enable renewable electricity to
be sent from the Scottish mainland to Orkney via an undersea cable that was
first approved in 2019. The project, overseen by the Department for Energy
Security & Net Zero, has already been criticised by locals for being
unsightly. It has now also emerged that the cable could disturb
“irradiated particles” on the seabed which were created by the
now-decommissioned Dounreay nuclear power plant decades ago. There is a
risk these radioactive particles, including radioactive forms of cobalt,
Americium and niobium, could wash ashore if disturbed. While official
documents state the risk is “extremely small”, the Government has
approved a £20m taxpayer-backed insurance policy to cover the cost of any
possible clean up operation.

 Telegraph 17th Jan 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/17/milibands-green-sea-cable-risk-spreading-nuclear-waste/

January 20, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Fears over plan for ‘biggest data centre cluster on earth’ in Scotland

RESIDENTS in East Ayrshire are growing extremely concerned about whether they will be consulted on a hyperscale data centre that is set to become part of “the biggest cluster in the world”.

 Local concerns come after
it was revealed to residents that the developer of the site, the ILI group,
had never booked any venue for public consultations. Further, both East
Ayrshire Council and the developers set out dates for residents to attend
public consultations that were later cancelled with short notice. Local mum
Lisa Beacham said: “Councillors had been actively telling residents to
make themselves available for these public consultations, but I’ve
received confirmation that there were never any venue bookings made by the
developer.”

 The National 15th Jan 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25766423.east-ayrshire-residents-speak-hyperscale-data-centre/

January 19, 2026 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Challenge to Latest Sellafield Discharges to the Rivers Calder, Ehen and the Irish Sea

  By mariannewildart, on behalf of Lakes Against Nuclear Dump, https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/01/16/still-waiting-for-judge-to-make-decision-on-our-challenge-to-latest-sellafield-discharges/

The hearing on whether our Judicial Review into the challenge of Sellafield’s latest discharges to the rivers Calder and Ehen took place at the end of November.  Incredibly we are still waiting for the decision on whether our Judicial Review can go forward.  In the meantime here is a lovely photo [on original] of Rowbank Farm.

 This is just one of the many farms and grand houses in the once fertile plain between the Lake District mountains and the Irish Sea to be obliterated by Sellafield’s nuclear waste sprawl along the once meandering and braided river Calder.  This photo [on original] along with many more can be found on the Calderbridge and Ponsonby Parish Council website (no endorsement of our challenge by the Parish Council is implied – the photos are in the public domain)

Onwards and Upwards

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

‘Wall of money’ to invest in Scottish nuclear power if Labour win election

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the SNP were saying Scotland was ‘shut for business’.

Danyel VanReenen, Politics Reporter, Jan 15th, 2026

The Prime Minister said the UK Labour Government is ready and willing to invest in nuclear power in Scotland if Anas Sarwar wins the Holyrood election in May.

The current SNP Government has consistently been against the creation of new nuclear power stations north of the border, with control of planning laws giving ministers an effective veto.

Keir Starmer said there is a “wall of money” Labour wants to invest in Scottish nuclear power, but he said the SNP are saying no “for ideological reasons”.

“If there’s a Labour Government in Scotland, we’ll be back the day after the election to make sure that money is translated into good, well-paying jobs in renewables and nuclear,” Starmer said.

“That can’t happen at the moment because the SNP is basically saying ‘we’re shut for business’.”…………………………………………………………………………………………. https://news.stv.tv/politics/wall-of-money-to-invest-in-scottish-nuclear-power-if-labour-win-election

January 17, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Wind is certainly not the only renewable power source in Scotland

 The National 12th Jan 2026, Alexander Potts

I WOULD like to reply to Lyndsey Ward (Letters, Jan 6) to say that it isn’t the SNP that look silly for not wanting nuclear power plants in Scotland, but those who advocate that we build them.

Statistics published last month showed that Scotland produced 115% of electricity by renewables for the previous year (2024/2025). In other words, we produced 15% more than we needed by renewables alone. And yes, we do use other sources to produce electricity when needed. As we export 40% of electricity to England from the above 115% figure, we are certainly way above what our/Scotland’s demands are, so do we actually need more generating capacity?

I of course acknowledge that at times the wind turbines are switched off, but as I have stated, we do have other means to produce electricity. However, I do have to ask Lyndsey why she didn’t mention that we also generate renewable electricity by hydro power, and have been since the 1950s, as well as solar and tidal power? In that respect, Lyndsey has fallen into the same old trap as others in that she assumes we only generate renewables by the one source and that we don’t have back-up facilities.

Lyndsey also forgets to mention one very important fact in Scotland’s renewable project, in that we pump the water back up to the reservoirs at off-peak periods, so the one thing that we aren’t going to run short of is hydro power. In a similar fashion, people assume that solar panels only work in bright light. However, they work when there is a light source available and are producing power from early morning to evening more or less all the time, even in overcast conditions.

Although tidal power is still at the early stages of development, its only drawback is that its doesn’t produce power at slack water periods, which is about two hours per day (two one-hour periods per day). The interesting thing about that, though, is that slack water time is different all around the coast, so the more that potentially come online, the more that minor problem is overcome. As tidal energy production is submerged, then there won’t be visual evidence as with wind turbines………………………………………………………………………. https://www.thenational.scot/business/25756714.wind-certainly-not-renewable-power-source-scotland/

January 16, 2026 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

British Ministry of Defense developing ballistic missile for Ukraine to make “deep strikes into Russia”

 Steven Starr , 13 Jan 26

The missile is only in the developmental stage. The delusional British imagine that Russia will not strike Britain if they pursue this folly.

The UK has formally launched Project Nightfall, a competition to develop a new ground-launched tactical ballistic missile intended primarily for use by Ukrainian forces, while also shaping future British long-range strike programmes.

The government has moved ahead with Project Nightfall, a competitive effort to rapidly develop a ground-launched ballistic missile designed to give Ukraine a long-range strike capability against Russian forces. The programme builds directly on work first disclosed by the UK Defence Journal in December, when the Ministry of Defence published an initial contract notice outlining the requirement.

While the project is being run by the UK, ministers have been clear that the missile is not intended as a near-term addition to Britain’s own arsenal. Instead, Nightfall is designed around Ukrainian operational use, with British industry acting as the developer and manufacturer and the UK Armed Forces positioned as a future beneficiary of lessons learned rather than the immediate end user.

The December notice, published on 9 December 2025, confirmed that the MOD was seeking industry partners to “procure a future tactical ballistic missile through a short-term development programme”. That followed parliamentary confirmation in November that officials were assessing industry feedback ahead of launching a formal competition.

According to the published requirement, Nightfall is one of the most ambitious missile programmes pursued by the UK in decades. The MOD specified a cost-effective, ground-launched ballistic missile with a range greater than 500 kilometres, capable of operating in high-threat and heavily contested environments, including under intense electronic warfare and degraded or denied satellite navigation.

Mobility and survivability are central to the concept. The system is required to support salvo firing from a single launcher, with multiple missiles launched in quick succession before the crew withdraws rapidly. The MOD specified that launch units must be able to leave the firing area “within 15 minutes of launching all effectors”, with each missile reaching its target within approximately 10 minutes of launch.

Scalability is another key requirement. Subject to future contracts, production must be capable of delivering at least 10 missiles per month, with scope to increase output. Designs are also expected to allow future upgrades to range, accuracy and manoeuvrability, while minimising reliance on foreign export controls.

This week’s announcement adds political weight and funding detail rather than altering the core technical requirement. Under the current plan, the government intends to award up to three competing development contracts, each worth £9 million. Each team would be expected to design, develop and deliver three missiles within 12 months for test firings. Proposals are due by 9 February, with development contracts targeted for award in March.

Defence Secretary John Healey framed the programme as a response to continued Russian attacks, saying the UK was determined to place advanced weapons “into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.” In ful, he said:

The missile must be “capable of being safely ground launched from a mobile platform in a high threat tactical environment, navigating to and accurately striking a user-programmed fixed target co-ordinate.” Each effector is expected to carry a conventional high-explosive payload of around 200 kilograms and follow a supersonic ballistic trajectory, with a stated accuracy requirement of striking within 10 metres of a target coordinate for 50 per cent of launches.

Mobility and survivability are central to the concept. The system is required to support salvo firing from a single launcher, with multiple missiles launched in quick succession before the crew withdraws rapidly. The MOD specified that launch units must be able to leave the firing area “within 15 minutes of launching all effectors”, with each missile reaching its target within approximately 10 minutes of launch.

Scalability is another key requirement. Subject to future contracts, production must be capable of delivering at least 10 missiles per month, with scope to increase output. Designs are also expected to allow future upgrades to range, accuracy and manoeuvrability, while minimising reliance on foreign export controls.

This week’s announcement adds political weight and funding detail rather than altering the core technical requirement. Under the current plan, the government intends to award up to three competing development contracts, each worth £9 million. Each team would be expected to design, develop and deliver three missiles within 12 months for test firings. Proposals are due by 9 February, with development contracts targeted for award in March

Defence Secretary John Healey framed the programme as a response to continued Russian attacks, saying the UK was determined to place advanced weapons “into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.” In ful, he said:

“The attacks overnight on Thursday just go to show how Putin thinks he can act with impunity, targeting civilian areas with advanced weaponry. Instead of seriously negotiating a peace, he’s seriously escalating his illegal war. We were close enough to hear the air raid sirens around Lviv on our journey to Kyiv, it was a serious moment and a stark reminder of the barrage of drones and missiles hitting Ukrainians in sub-zero conditions. We won’t stand for this, which is why we are determined to put leading edge weapons into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.”

Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the missiles would “keep Ukraine in the fight” while also strengthening longer-term European security.

“A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine. These new long-range British missiles will keep Ukraine in the fight and give Putin another thing to worry about. In 2026, we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Providing equipment to keep them in the fight today, whilst working to secure the peace tomorrow.”

While the formal launch underscores the government’s intent, the substance of Project Nightfall remains closely aligned with the requirement outlined in December. As that original notice made clear, the MOD still reserves the right to amend or cancel the programme at any stage, stating that “the Authority reserves the right not to award any Contract to any supplier at any stage during the procurement.”

For now, Nightfall represents a rare case of the UK pursuing a ground-launched ballistic missile explicitly for a partner nation’s use, while using the programme to accelerate domestic expertise in deep-strike systems that Britain itself currently lacks.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | UK, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Faslane nuclear base tugboats may be built in China


 UK Defence Journal By George Allison, January 12, 2026

New tugboats intended to support operations at HM Naval Base Clyde, the UK’s nuclear submarine hub at Faslane, may be constructed in China under a major fleet replacement programme, depending on how the contractor applies its global production model.

The vessels form part of the Defence Maritime Services Next Generation programme, under which Serco is replacing a wide range of Royal Navy harbour and support craft. The programme covers tugs, pilot boats and barges used at naval bases across the UK, including Faslane, which hosts the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

Under the current arrangements, the Ministry of Defence pays Serco to provide support services at the Royal Navy’s principal bases, and allows Serco, as the prime contractor, to determine its own supply chain for vessel replacement.

Build locations and Damen’s production model

Damen operates a distributed shipbuilding model, with construction spread across a network of yards in Europe and Asia depending on vessel type and production capacity. The company has historically built a range of smaller commercial and support vessels at yards in China and Vietnam, including certain classes of tugboats, while other workboat types are constructed at European facilities in countries such as Poland and Romania. Final outfitting, integration and delivery preparation are often carried out in the Netherlands or at European partner yards, depending on the contract.

Neither Serco nor Damen has publicly confirmed the specific build locations for individual vessels within the programme. However, Damen’s established production model suggests that some tugboats could be built outside Europe, including at shipyards in China that form part of Damen’s wider manufacturing network……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Not the first time

A similar issue emerged in Australia in 2025, when the national broadcaster ABC reported that a new fleet of tugboats ordered for the Royal Australian Navy had been built in China under a contract awarded to Dutch shipbuilder Damen. The report said certification documents showed the vessels were constructed at Damen’s Changde shipyard in China, before being delivered to Australia under a civilian-operated support arrangement.

In response to the reporting, Australia’s Department of Defence confirmed that the tugboats had been built in China, while stating that they were not commissioned naval vessels and would be operated by a civilian contractor. Defence officials emphasised that sustainment activity would take place domestically and that the vessels were intended for harbour support roles rather than frontline operations…………………….

Wider security context

In a separate but related context, the Ministry of Defence has in recent months issued internal guidance concerning the use of vehicles containing Chinese-manufactured components, amid broader concerns about information security and connected systems. Media reporting has said warning notices were placed in some MoD-leased vehicles advising personnel not to discuss sensitive matters inside them or connect official devices, and that certain vehicles were restricted from accessing sensitive military sites. The measures were described as precautionary, with no publicly confirmed security breach.

Parliamentary questions have also raised wider issues about reliance on overseas-manufactured systems within defence and government operations. Ministers have acknowledged the need to assess potential vulnerabilities linked to global supply chains, while maintaining that decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis and that there has been no evidence of compromise.

Competing views on cost, transparency and social value

Those defending the programme argue that the arrangements reflect commercial shipbuilding norms rather than a deliberate policy decision. They note that hull construction in Asia can reduce costs and production timelines, with final outfitting, systems integration and acceptance carried out later in Europe under established regulatory oversight. Critics argue that the lack of transparency over build locations risks undermining confidence, especially where vessels operate at nuclear sites. They contend that clearer public disclosure is needed on where vessels are constructed and what safeguards apply during the build process.

Louise Gilmour, secretary of GMB Scotland, said the decision to source the workboats overseas represented a missed opportunity to support domestic shipbuilding capacity, particularly at Ferguson Marine, where the union represents the largest section of the workforce. She said the vessels were well suited to the type of work the yard had carried out for generations and argued that contracts of this scale could play a role in sustaining skills and employment in Scotland.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/faslane-nuclear-base-tugboats-may-be-built-in-china/

January 15, 2026 Posted by | China, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Who is to blame for blocking a new ‘golden era’ for nuclear power?

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail

7 January 2026, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/who-is-to-blame-for-blocking-nuclear-power/

Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine

The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.

Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.

So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.

In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.

Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.

7 January 2026

Andrew Blowers tackles this question in the January edition of Regional Life magazine

The mantra that nuclear technology ‘is essential for achieving national security, energy security and Net Zero targets’ proclaimed by the Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Task Force has become the unequivocal, if deeply flawed, basis for government policy. The Government has pledged to ‘turbo-charge the build-out of new nuclear power stations and enter a ‘golden era’ of nuclear power.

Standing in its way are ‘gold-plated’ regulations and community groups like BANNG committed to protecting local environments, ecology and human health. The Task Force Review report just published (December) asserts, entirely without supporting evidence, that ‘The primary barrier’ to revitalising nuclear’s role is ‘systemic failure within the regulatory framework’.

So, here we have a familiar confrontation between energy and economic growth on the one side and environmental protection on the other. We have been here before. Every decade or so a new nuclear revival is promised but, after much huffing and puffing very little materialises. At the beginning of the century Tony Blair declared new nuclear was back ‘with a vengeance. In 2011 eight sites, including Bradwell, were declared ‘potentially suitable’ for new nuclear power plants.

In the event, only one, Hinkley Point, materialised and has become notorious for being too late, promised for 2017 but unlikely to power up until the next decade. Its cost overruns have become legendary. According to the Government, the culprits are environmental regulations and campaign groups who insist that previously agreed audio fish deterrents (AFDs) must be installed to help save millions of fish from becoming entrained and entrapped in the colossal intake and outflow pipes going into the Severn estuary. The developer has prevaricated, proposing cheaper but environmentally destructive methods of abatement. Politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer, have mindlessly mocked the ADF as a ‘fish disco’. It makes one wonder how they might deride oysters from the Blackwater if they stood in the way of nuclear power at Bradwell.

It is not the regulators or we so-called ‘blockers’ who are the main impediment to nuclear. It is the systemic failure of the nuclear industry to produce viable projects such as the much-hyped but non-existent Small Nuclear Reactors; its predictable inability to prevent cost overruns or to meet deadlines; let alone its lack of credible ideas to deal adequately with risk, safety and the management of its dangerous and interminable wastes. Nuclear is an industry that is bound to fail.

Meanwhile the importance of regulations imposed by independent regulators designed to protect people and the environment cannot be overstressed. And the essential role of community groups and councils in seeking to ensure the environmental protection and health and wellbeing of the places they represent is something to be cherished, not denigrated. It is a pity the Government does not see it that way.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries