nuclear-news

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

Why Nuclear Power in Scotland is not Needed, Economic, Wanted or Safe

John Drummond in conversation with Energy Scotland’s John Proctor and Leah Gunn Barrett

Leah Gunn Barrett, Dear Scotland, Jul 24, 2025

Last evening, John Proctor of Energy Scotland and I were guests on The Nation Talks podcast with John Drummond. We discussed why more nuclear power in Scotland should be a non-starter. It’s notNeeded, Economic, Wanted or Safe. And yet English Labour – from Kid Starver to Viceroy Murray to Anus Sarwar – are rabidly pro-nuclear, pushing this costly and dangerous energy source onto Scotland without our consent.

The video link to the programme is below. I’ve also provided notes below that I used to prepare, many taken from my previous posts.

Why Nuclear power is being pushed onto Scotland

The Corporate Nuclear Lobby has conducted one of the most aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns of all energy sources. It pushes politicians and the public to support nuclear based on sketchy information and outright lies which aren’t challenged in the Scottish media.

The nuclear industry is funding lobby group Britain Remade, which launched a campaign to lift the ban on new Scottish nuclear power at a May 1 meeting in Dunbar, near the Torness power plant. English Labour’s Scotland manager Anus Sarwar accused the SNP of depriving Scotland of billions in investment and thousands of jobs, which is a lie. This is the same dude who wouldn’t save Grangemouth and its 500 jobs, after vowing he would.

And Viceroy Murray is pushing nuclear, even removing his name from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge.

English Labour is bankrolled by the nuclear lobby. Tony Blair is one of its biggest beneficiaries and cheerleaders. The Nuclear Energy Association loved his Institute’s 2024 pro-nuclear power report.

Nuclear power subsidises nuclear weapons production

Here’s the dirty little secret – the UK Government needs nuclear power. Without it, there’d be no nuclear weapons programme, the flaccid UK’s national virility symbol.

All the processes of the nuclear fuel cycle – uranium mining, refining and U-235 enrichment – are used for both civilian and military purposes; the UK Capenhurst facility makes nuclear fuel for both reactors and Trident submarines; and nuclear reactors create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen), which is necessary for nuclear weapons.

A 2017 University of Sussex study found that the costs of the Trident programme would be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy, from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. Consumers, bearing the costs of uneconomic nuclear power, are also subsidising nuclear weapons that don’t even work! The Trident delivery system has failed two tests in a row, in 2016, and 2024. Despite these fiascos, the UK government insists that Trident “remains the most reliable weapons system in the world.”

Westminster won’t allow the southeast of England to be polluted by these nuclear rustbuckets so has confined them to “north Britain.” Nor will it tell its northern colony how badly they’re polluting the land and water. In 2017, the MoD stopped publishing annual reports from its internal watchdog, after the reports for 2005-2015 flagged “regulatory risks” 86 times. It has also blocked Scotland’s environment agency from releasing information about radioactive pollution from the Clyde nuclear bases at Faslane and Coulport for the last ten years.

Scots are getting the mushroom treatment – kept in the dark and fed a load of shite.

I. Nuclear is Not Needed – Renewables are far cheaper and safer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

So, English Labour is trying to force onto Scotland plants that aren’t even commercially viable. It’s regurgitating the marketing hot air from a desperate industry that’s frantically funding pathetic careerists like Sarwar, Starmer and the Viceroy who are pushing this crap.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. • With no solution to nuclear waste, the UK is starting a new nuclear building program which will worsen the waste problem and result in vastly increased radioactivity from spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes which will have to be stored indefinitely at vulnerable sites scattered around the UK coast.

The UK won’t give up on its never-ending quest to screw Scotland. It has stolen our oil and gas and now our renewables, and now is trying to force us to accept not needed, not economic, not wanted and not safe nuclear power.

Please sign the petition calling on the Scottish Administration to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to give Scots the tools to exercise their sovereignty and the ability to say NO to nuclear. https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/why-nuclear-power-in-scotland-is

July 26, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Time to Step Up – Campaigner calls on MP to challenge decision to give fusion indemnity over accident liabilities

Renowned nuclear campaigner, and friend to the Nuclear Free Local
Authorities, Dr David Lowry has just written to his local Member of
Parliament calling on her to challenge ministers over their pledge to
provide an absolute indemnity over costs incurred by a nuclear fusion pilot
plant being built in the Midlands should there be ‘incidents involving
nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion
activities relating to the STEP programme.’

In a written statement issued
to Parliament just prior to MPs leaving for the summer recess, Minister for
Climate – and seemingly defacto Nuclear Minister – Kerry McCarthy –
announced that this latest financial ‘get out of jail free’ card for the
nuclear industry would be ‘remote and uncapped’. The assumption by the
Treasury – and therefore by taxpayers – of any liability is Ms McCarthy
insists necessary to ‘address the gap in the insurance market’ which
rather suggests that no-one in the commercial insurance market is prepared
to take on the risks associated with this nascent technology.

NFLA 22nd July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/time-to-step-up-campaigner-calls-on-mp-to-challenge-decision-to-give-fusion-indemnity-over-accident-liabilities/

July 26, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

The inside story of how America sent nuclear weapons to Britain

Nukewatch UK explains how it tracked the bombs being flown across the Atlantic.
American nuclear weapons with three times the power of the Hiroshima bomb
were transported to England last week, new evidence suggests. The arsenal
is under the control of president Donald Trump and could be used without
British approval.

Our team at Nukewatch UK observed a special flight
carrying the bombs as it landed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk on 17 July,
having tracked its journey and monitored radio messages. The transport
plane, a giant C-17 Globemaster (flight number RCH4574 or Reach 4574) had
taken off from Lewis–McChord base in Washington state two days earlier.

 Declassified UK 22nd July 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-inside-story-of-how-america-sent-nuclear-weapons-to-britain/

July 25, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EDF not repeating its costly Hinkley nuclear blunder – for Sizewell C, the UK tax-payers will cop the costs.

 In response to the Government’s announced funding plan to build new EPR
reactors at Sizewell, Dr Douglas Parr, Policy Director for Greenpeace UK,
said: “The UK’s unswerving loyalty to the one energy source that
consistently increases in price remains undimmed by our cost of living
crisis.

At a time when much cheaper renewables and storage, grid
improvements and a decoupling from gas would do so much more to reduce
energy costs, this announcement is testament to both the lobbying skills of
the nuclear industry, and a blind optimism from the government when it
comes to building atomic infrastructure that actual experience seems
incapable of shifting.

The only significant difference between the slowly
unfolding economic blunder of Hinkley C and the forthcoming economic
disaster of Sizewell C is that Hinkley’s predictable construction
problems, delays and cost overruns were borne by EDF. EDF know they can’t
afford to make that mistake again, and so this time those costs will be
borne by you, the British public.”

 Greenpeace 22nd July 2025, https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/press-centre/

July 25, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

East Suffolk Council Statement following Sizewell C Final Investment Decision announcement

East Suffolk Council 22nd July 2025, https://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/news/sizewell-c-final-investment-east-suffolk-council-statement/

A statement from Cllr Tom Daly, East Suffolk Council’s Cabinet Member for Energy Projects, following confirmation by the government of Final Investment Decision for the construction of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station:

“East Suffolk Council acknowledges today’s decision by government on the Final Investment Decision for the Sizewell C new nuclear power station promoted by Sizewell C Co at Sizewell, Suffolk. Final Investment Decision is a key financial milestone for the project and follows on from the announcement of a further £14.2bn funding announced as part of the government’s Spending Review in June. The project will now proceed with certainty. 

“The project was granted development consent by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in 2022 and formally commenced in January 2024. Construction is expected to take approximately nine to 12 years. At this time, the technological development of renewables and the market situation will be such that the case for a massive inflexible nuclear provision will be, at best, unclear.

“East Suffolk Council recognises the continued challenges this will bring to East Suffolk’s communities as a result of the scale of construction works associated with the development, alongside other planned energy infrastructure development in East Suffolk. The Council will continue to work with the project promoter and all key stakeholders, seeking a coordinated and strategic approach to the delivery of energy infrastructure projects in East Suffolk. 

“East Suffolk Council believes that renewable energy, like offshore wind and solar, provides a better long-term answer to the energy security and carbon reduction future of the UK. ESC requests that alongside this significant investment in large scale nuclear, similar investment will come forward for community energy initiatives and domestic insulation, to help meet our climate commitments in the climate crisis, and to support our communities with unaffordable energy prices.”

July 25, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

 Sizewell C’s Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the line (- with the public purse)

 “This much-delayed Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the
line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors,
will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns. Even so, UK households
will soon be hit with a new Sizewell C construction tax on their energy
bills. It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed,
that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost
doubled to an eye watering £38 billion – a figure that will only go up.
Given that Ministers claimed not to recognise the cost was close to £40
billion is there any wonder there is so little trust in this project?”

 Stop Sizewell C 22nd July 2025,
https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/finalinvestmentdecision?e=326ee81c22

July 25, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Why Starmer’s nuclear power push raises cancer fears

The UK is investing £14.2bn in a new Sizewell plant and £2.5bn in small nuclear reactors. In 1942, the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in Missouri, US, was
processing uranium for the first atomic bomb. It ran out of space for its
radioactive waste and moved it to an open air storage site near Coldwater
Creek, north of St Louis.

More than 80 years later, Harvard University has
found that communities living near the creek, a tributary of the Missouri
River, have an elevated risk of cancer. The findings, released this week,
showed a dose-response effect, with those nearest the water having a far
higher chance of developing most cancers than those living farther away.

Researchers say it highlights the dangers of exposure to even small amounts
of radiation over time. They say governments must be cautious when building
new nuclear sites near towns and villages. The public was first alerted to
the possibility that nuclear plants could be causing cancer when an ITV
documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases
between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield. While
less than one case should have been expected in such a small community,
researchers found seven youngsters suffering from the condition. Residents
feared that radioactive discharges may be to blame and the Committee on
Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) was set up to
investigate.

Investigations by Comare did show that rates of two types of
childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were significantly higher
than expected, and researchers found a similar cluster at Thurso near
Dounreay. However, researchers did not find raised rates in other villages
near Sellafield and Dounreay, leading them to think that something else was
causing the rise, potentially local infections which are known to trigger
cancer in some cases. The investigators theorised that an influx of workers
moving to Seascale and Thurso to work in the nuclear industry might have
exposed local residents to new infections, sparking a rise in childhood
cancer rates. Viruses such as Epstein-Barr are thought to be linked to
cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

 Telegraph 19th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/19/why-starmers-nuclear-power-push-raises-cancer-fears/

July 25, 2025 Posted by | health, UK | Leave a comment

Ed Miliband admits Sizewell C cost has almost doubled to £38bn

 New power station approved despite costs almost doubling from an estimate made five
years ago. Ed Miliband has admitted Sizewell C will cost at least £38bn to
build as he gave final approval for the construction of the nuclear power
station. The Energy Secretary took the final investment decision on the
controversial power station on Tuesday.

The site will take at least a decade to build. The Government confirmed the project will cost £38bn in 2024 prices, or £39.3bn once inflation since then is factored in. The
total is almost double the £20bn estimate given by the government and
developers EDF in 2020.

Sizewell C will be part-funded by a new levy on
household electricity bills called the Regulated Asset Base. The aim is to
pay the construction costs as they are incurred rather than borrow and then
pay decades of interest. Mr Miliband has claimed this levy will add only
£12 a year to the average household bill, but his claim is being treated
with scepticism by critics who point out that almost all major nuclear
projects suffer massive delays and cost overruns.

 Telegraph 22nd July 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/22/miliband-gives-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-the-green-light/

July 25, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

On the hook! Taxpayers to foot much of £38 billion bill for Sizewell C farce.

“It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.


 NFLA 22nd July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/on-the-hook-taxpayers-to-foot-much-of-38-billion-bill-for-sizewell-c-farce/


As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signals the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant with today’s approval of the Financial Investment Decision,[i] it is notable that the estimated cost of building the UK’s latest nuclear white elephant has already almost doubled to £38 billion.

Taxpayers will be on the hook for billions, as Ministers have failed to secure the full private sector funding that they desperately wanted and as France has reined in its own commitment.

The UK government’s stake is now 44.9%, whilst Amber Infrastructure (7.6%), Centrica (15%), EDF Energy (12.5%), and La Caisse (20%) will also take stakes. The National Wealth Fund – the government’s principal investor and policy bank – is also making its first investment in nuclear energy.

Interestingly, although much was made of continued French Government involvement through its sole ownership of EDF, President Macron cannot have been very impressed with the hospitality he received on his recent visit to the UK as the French subsequently reduced their stake to 12.5%. Originally both the UK and French Government had each committed to taking a near 20% stake.

The previously published official cost for the project was £20 billion, with the plant expected to be generating in the mid to late 2030s. But sceptics never believed the claimed £20 billion figure and they placed little faith that the delivery date will be met given that Sizewell C is largely a remake of her older sister, Hinkley Point C, which is massively over budget and behind schedule.

This plant under construction in Somerset is now expected to cost £46 billion to complete, and it will be delivered up to six years late; but at least in the case of Hinkley Point C it is French-state owned EDF Energy that must stump up the extra cash.

Clearly some prospective investors baulked at the cost unknowns and project risks of the Suffolk white elephant, and Alison Downes, Director of Stop Sizewell C, said that consequently the latest project had “only crawled over the line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors, will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns”.

Whitehall and industry insiders have previously revealed to the press that the £20 billion only represented half the true cost and Julia Pyke, Sizewell C’s Managing Director had conceded that the earlier £20 billion cost estimate failed to account for inflation or risk.

In Sizewell C’s media release today, Ms Pyke revealed the price hike:

“Our plan is to deliver Sizewell C at a capital cost of around £38bn. Our estimate is the result of very detailed scrutiny of costs at Hinkley Point C and long negotiations with our suppliers. It has been subject to third-party peer review and has been scrutinised by investors and lenders and has been subject to extensive due diligence as part of the financing process. A capital cost of £38bn represents around 20% saving compared with Hinkley Point C and demonstrates the value of the UK’s fleet approach.”[ii]

In response, Ms Downes added: “It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.

Also commenting, the Chair of a second local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), Jenny Kirtley, said,

“This decision is a financial and environmental disaster for the UK and a betrayal of future generations.

“We are in a climate crisis that needs immediate action, yet this government has chosen to squander billions of public funds on a project that will not be operational until the late 2030s and has already seen a staggering 90% uplift in cost over the last 5 years.

“At nearly double the original £20bn price tag, a figure still being touted by joint managing director Julia Pyke until recently, how can anyone believe that £38bn Sizewell C will provide ‘value for money’ for consumers and taxpayers. The scale of potential exposure of public funds to the Sizewell C project is revealed as a staggering £54.589 billion in the government’s Financial Investment Decision subsidy scheme[iii].

“So much for claims made by EDF and government that there would be huge cost savings from ‘lessons learned’ from the Hinkley Point C build.

“In TASC’s view, the cost of this risky project can only increase as there are still many unresolved issues, including the recently revealed hidden sea defences which were not included by EDF in the 2020 DCO planning application even though EDF knew they would be needed in 2017.[iv] Future generations will have the responsibility to protect the Sizewell C site until the late 2100s and are depending on us to get it right.”

Although disappointing, the news was not unexpected by campaigners. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are therefore confident that they shall soon pick themselves up and continue the fight, and we shall stand alongside them as the battle continues.

July 24, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US nuclear weapons ‘on UK soil’ for first time in 17 years.

Flight from New Mexico to RAF Lakenheath believed to have dropped off B61 nuclear bombs that can be carried by Britain’s new F-35A fighter jets

 The US has stationed nuclear weapons in Britain for the first time in
nearly 20 years for potential deployment on a new squadron of British jets,
analysts have said. A transport plane was tracked on Thursday during a
ten-hour flight from Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, the US Air
Force’s main nuclear storage site, to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.

Analysts said that the route taken by the C-17 transport looked like a “one-way
drop-off” and meant that it was likely that the UK was hosting US nuclear
weapons for the first time since 2008. The US and the UK declined to
comment.

 Times 21st July 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/us-nuclear-weapons-uk-soil-first-time-17-years-wvgz8m6wl

July 24, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Investment decision to be made on Sizewell C nuclear.

 The UK government is expected to reach a final investment decision on the
Sizewell C nuclear power plant on Tuesday. “We are in constructive,
commercially sensitive negotiations with a range of potential investors as
part of the equity raise process,” a spokeswoman for the Department for
Energy Security and Net Zero told Energy Voice in an emailed statement.

“A final investment decision will be made following the conclusion of the
process, which we are targeting for this summer.”

The Financial Times reported that the price tag for the planned nuclear power station in
Suffolk, a replica of Hinkley Point C, will hit £38 billion including
equity and debt. Ministers will reportedly unveil the cost of the project
by the parliamentary recess on Wednesday.

Campaign pressure group Together
Against Sizewell C (TASC)’s chair Jenny Kirtley said: “What
right-minded government would commit billions of public funds to a project
that has already seen a staggering 90% uplift in cost over the last 5
years? “This government and Sizewell C Limited both denied recent build
cost estimates of £40bn for Sizewell C stating there would be a 30%
reduction from Hinkley Point C’s costs due to ‘lessons learned’ so,
why would anyone believe government claims that £38bn Sizewell C will
provide ‘value for money’ for consumers and taxpayers?”

The group has called for a value-for-money assessment of the project to be independently
audited to establish what cost provisions have been included for
“unresolved issues”, including sea defences that were not in EDF’s
original development consent order application.

The main developer on the project, EDF, has reduced its equity stake in the project to 12.5%, valued at about £1.1bn, Energy Voice reported this month. British energy supplier
Centrica is expected to take a 15% stake in the nuclear power plant.
According to a report in Les Echos, Amber Infrastructure and Canadian fund
la Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec (CDPQ) now plan to take a
stake of between 25% and 30% in the project.

Reports suggest that a
consortium led by Brookfield Asset Management pulled out of its bid to take
a 25% stake in Sizewell C at the last minute. Greencoat Schroders, which
had entered the round with Brookfield, has also exited the bidding,
according to a separate report. This latest reshuffle would leave the UK
government with an implied minority stake of as little as 42.5%.

 Energy Voice 22nd July 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/576815/investment-decision-expected-on-sizewell-c/

July 24, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Centrica really can’t lose at Sizewell

 Centrica’s £1.3 billion investment in Sizewell C guarantees substantial returns, even with cost
overruns. Now we know what Ed Miliband means by his “golden age of
nuclear” — golden for the companies putting their money into Sizewell
C. Yes, reactor projects have a habit of blowing up private investors. But
maybe not this one. It looks more like an exercise in transferring risk to
consumers and the taxpayer.

 Times 22nd July 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/centrica-really-cant-lose-at-sizewell-k33brftl2

July 24, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Ukrainian bots want the BBC to endorse war crimes

Social media trolling takes a new and sinister turn

Ian Proud, Jul 23, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/ukrainian-bots-want-the-bbc-to-endorse?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=168976248&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

On 18 July I made a post on social media platform X in response to a BBC report entitled ‘Kill Russians, win points: is Ukraine’s new drone scheme gamifying war?’ It produced a spectacularly dark backlash from the Ukrainian bot community.

The BBC report explored a Ukrainian military scheme in which its soldiers could claim points for kills by First Person View (FPV) drones and use those points to buy the most preferred military technology in an ‘Amazon for war’.

While Paul Adams, the BBC diplomatic correspondent, touches briefly on the moral challenges that this scheme presents, he was clearly impressed.

‘The e-points scheme is typical of the way Ukraine has fought this war: creative, out-of-the-box thinking designed to make the most of the country’s innovative skills and minimise the effect of its numerical disadvantage.’

‘Points for kills. Amazon for war. To some ears, it might all sound brutal, even callous. But this is war and Ukraine is determined to hold on. By fighting as effectively, and efficiently as it can.’

Every day, military personnel on both sides of the conflict are killed by drones and other military technologies. That is why I have consistently called for the war in Ukraine to be ended through diplomatic means and is why I continue to do so.

The problem I had with the article was its heading – about killing Russian soldiers using drones – was accompanied by a photograph of a soldier (one might presume, Russian) with his back turned to the First Person View on screen with his hands in the air, suggesting surrender. I found this juxtaposition, on UK state-owned media, deeply troubling.

One might easily gain the impression by the headline and the photograph combined that the soldier’s fate was death. And if that was so, then that would constitute a war crime.

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts

One cannot know the fate of the soldier and whether he is killed or taken prisoner. And the article goes on to point out that Ukrainian soldiers can claim higher points for encouraging a Russian soldier to surrender, though does not point out how this would be possible with an armed drone.

It is certainly the habit of the western media to churn out clickbait headlines in a bid to maintain waning public appetite for a war that Ukraine is losing and which Europe is funding at enormous expense.

However, it sets a dangerous precedent if the UK state-owned broadcaster is producing articles that infer war crimes are taking place and implicitly endorse the means of that happening.

I therefore included in my post a poll which asked people to vote on:

Do you want the BBC through its reporting implicitly to endorse war crimes and show images purporting to or giving the impression of the circumstances leading up to a war crime taking place?

I don’t have a huge X following, but my post garnered 20,000 votes over three days with over 90% of those who voted responding ‘no’, specifically that appearing to endorse war crimes in media reporting was wrong.

As I didn’t mention a specific country, some people argued that the allegation might also be levelled at BBC reporting of IDF atrocities in Gaza.

However, on 21 July my post was seized on by very-obviously-Ukrainian bots flinging all sorts of insults in my direction, such that I spent several hours blocking and reporting offensive content on my feed.

In a very short space of time, my account was swarmed by a blizzard of insults and false accusations, including of being an asset of the KGB (sic!).. being a Putin apologist, sucking Russian dicks and being a paedophile who uses teenage Russian prostitutes.

I was added to hate ‘Lists’ that x members keep, such as ‘nazi whore cowards’ and ‘vatniks’ (Russian propagandists).

All very annoying and intended to discredit me en-masse. But as Glenn Diesen joked when we spent some time together in Tblisi, in early June, ‘if you wanted to be popular, you should have sold ice creams’.

When one expresses a personal view on such an emotive topic as this pointless war in Ukraine, you are likely to get attacked from one direction or the other, or even both. However, some made more disturbing comments that can only be interpreted as threats of causing me physical harm.

Many made generalised comments about how any Russian solider in Ukraine should deserve such a fate (to die while surrendering) and so on. However, this was not the most sinister aspect of the response to my post.

In addition to voting that the BBC should not implicitly endorse war crimes, the other option was to vote for: ‘Please endorse war crimes’.

353 people voted in the poll before I closed my post to public comments. 213 people voted in favour of the BBC endorsing war crimes through its reporting of Ukraine. That’s right, just over 60% of, one assumes, mostly Ukrainian or Ukraine-supporting voters, endorses the BBC endorsing war crimes, in this context committed by Ukraine.

Herein the central truth of this and all wars; that they generate intense hatred of the other. That hatred fires the bloodlust that drives war crimes in any theatre of conflict. No war is free of war crimes. British, French, American, Russian and, yes, Ukrainian, service personnel have been documented as having committed war crimes, together with those of many other countries.

War reduces humanity to the darkest depths of depravity in which the most unconscionable acts are justified on the basis of defeating the hated other. Forgive me for believing that the BBC should not be glorifying that, even if implicitly, or encouraging others to do so.

I would far sooner they were pushing for a negotiated settlement to this terrible war.

July 24, 2025 Posted by | media, UK, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Oxford fusion pioneer risks running out of cash within months

First Light scrambles for funding despite Labour promise to invest £2.5bn in nuclear
research. A British nuclear fusion pioneer has warned it risks running out
of cash within six months as it races to raise millions of pounds in
funding to secure its future. First Light Fusion, which is based in Oxford,
is in talks with investors to raise £20m after burning through tens of
millions of pounds to develop its novel fusion technology. The start-up,
founded in 2011, had sought to develop what it called “projectile
fusion”, developing a giant gas-powered gun that would fire a 5p-sized
projectile at extreme speeds into a fuel source, sparking a fusion
reaction. However, the company abandoned plans to build a prototype reactor
earlier this year as it struggled to raise funds.

 Telegraph 20th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/20/oxford-fusion-pioneer-running-out-of-cash/

July 22, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Pay danger money to communities impacted by nuclear projects, say NFLAs

 The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have called on government ministers to
make the operators of nuclear plants pay their neighbouring communities
‘danger money’ to properly compensate them for living with the risk.

The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero has just concluded a
consultation on plans to introduce a mandatory scheme obliging energy
generators to pay community benefits. The amount of money payable annually
would be based on one of two models, the potential generating capacity of
the plant or the actual amount of electricity generated.

Ministers would make the scheme applicable to nuclear plants, as well as larger renewable
energy projects, but the NFLAs want them to factor in a premium on payments
made by nuclear operators to reflect the potential for accidents, the
environmental contamination caused during their operations, and their
legacy of deadly radioactive waste. We also want nuclear plants to make
payments through their lifecycle, including during the period of
decommissioning and waste management after closure.

 NFLA 18th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/pay-danger-money-to-communities-impacted-by-nuclear-projects-say-nflas/

July 22, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »