nuclear-news

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

Nuclear site given more time to fix safety breach

Jason Arunn Murugesu, BBC News, North East and Cumbria, 4 Apr 25,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkgxdddmlyo

A nuclear site which breached hazardous substance regulations has been given more time to figure out how best to protect workers.

Last year, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) served two improvement notices on Sellafield Ltd, near Whitehaven, Cumbria, after it “failed to manage the risks of working with nickel nitrate and to prevent or adequately control exposure of workers to this hazardous substance”.

The breaches did not compromise either nuclear or radiological safety, the ONR said.

Sellafield Ltd said it had completed one improvement notice and “significant progress” had been made on the other. It has until September to come up with a solution.

Used in the treatment of effluent, nickel nitrate is not radioactive but is a hazardous substance and could cause harm to the health of a worker exposed to it.

To mitigate these risks, operations involving the chemical should be conducted in a glovebox to protect workers from any harmful health effects.

However, contamination was found outside the glovebox area at a Sellafield facility, which resulted in workers potentially being exposed to the chemical, the ONR previously said.

A poorly designed and maintained glovebox appeared to have contributed to the situation, it added.

‘Technical challenges’

Sellafield Ltd was required to complete a nickel nitrate risk assessment by the end of October, and to “prevent or adequately control” the exposure of workers to nickel nitrate by March.

However, the ONR said “technical challenges” had come to light regarding the exposure of workers to the material and it would now give the nuclear plant until 30 September to come up with a solution.

Hygiene controls would remain in place in the facility, monitored by an occupational hygienist, until full compliance with both improvement notices was achieved, the ONR explained.

April 6, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Millom nuclear waste plans ‘currently detrimental’ to locals.

Proposed plans for a nuclear waste dump in Millom have been described as
‘detrimental’ for one of the town’s estates. Members of the community were
invited to attend a Town Council meeting at the end of last month to
discuss the construction of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) near
Haverigg. Residents of the Bank Head housing estate, which sits alongside
the proposed site, asked for support from the local authority, with a
particular concern on the impact of house prices in the area.

A spokesperson from Millom Town Council said: “[We continue] to have a
neutral stance and support the principle that residents will have the final
say if they wish to be the future host community for a GDF. “Whilst this
could be the biggest economic opportunity for the area since iron ore was
found at Hodbarrow, we cannot deny that the way the current Area of Focus
has been drawn on the map by NWS is currently detrimental to the residents
of the Bank Head estate.

“We do not believe at this early stage of the
investigation that any of our residents should be impacted in the way the
Bank Head estate currently is, with local estate agents reporting that they
have had no requests for viewing homes on this previously popular
estate.” A campaign group, Millom and District Against the Nuclear Dump,
argued that the majority of locals were ‘resoundingly’ against the GDF.

 Whitehaven News 4th April 2025 https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/25060423.millom-nuclear-waste-plans-currently-detrimental-locals/

April 6, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Hegseth Orders Pentagon To Focus on Preparing for War With China Over Taiwan

In an internal memo, Hegseth called China the ‘sole pacing threat’

by Dave DeCamp March 30, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/30/hegseth-orders-pentagon-to-focus-on-preparing-for-war-with-china-over-taiwan/

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March ordering the Pentagon to put its focus on preparing for a war with China, a nuclear-armed power, by “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The Post didn’t publish the full memo, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance, but said it “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

The Pentagon has considered China the top “threat” facing the US since the first Trump administration, but the Post report said the memo is “extraordinary in its description of the potential invasion of Taiwan as the exclusive animating scenario that must be prioritized over other potential dangers — reorienting the vast US military architecture toward the Indo-Pacific region beyond its homeland defense mission.”

The report said that the guidance from Hegseth says the Pentagon’s force planning construct “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies.”

Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”

The memo reflects the Trump administration’s policy toward Europe and calls for NATO allies to take a “far greater” burden sharing. The document says that the US is unlikely to provide substantial support to Europe if Russia’s military advances in the region, saying the US will only provide nuclear deterrence.

The memo also calls for the US to pressure Taiwan to increase military spending “significantly.”

For years now, the US military has been openly preparing for war with China despite the risk of nuclear escalation. It has done this by expanding military bases in the Asia Pacific, building alliances, and increasing support for Taiwan. While being done in the name of deterrence, these steps have only increased tensions in the region, making conflict more likely.

The Post report says that Hegseth’s plans to prepare a “denial defense” of Taiwan include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.” His memo also calls for increasing the defenses of US troop positions in the region and establishing more weapons stockpiles.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

It’s Official: Ukraine Conflict is British ‘Proxy War’

The investigation’s most striking passages highlight London’s principal role in influencing and managing Ukrainian – and by extension US – actions and strategy in the conflict. Both direct references and unambiguous insinuations littered throughout point ineluctably to the conclusion that the “proxy war” is of British concoction and design

As this journalist has exposed, Ukraine’s Kursk folly was a British invasion in all but name. London was central to its planning, provided the bulk of the equipment deployed, and deliberately advertised its involvement. As The Times reported at the time, the goal was to mark Britain as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – would follow suit, and “send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.”

Kit Klarenberg,  Global Delinquents, Apr 02, 2025

On March 29th, the New York Times published a landmark investigation exposing how the US was “woven” into Ukraine’s battle with Russia “far more intimately and broadly than previously understood,” with Washington almost invariably serving as “the backbone of Ukrainian military operations.” The outlet went so far as to acknowledge the conflict was a “proxy war” – an irrefutable reality hitherto aggressively denied in the mainstream – dubbing it a “rematch” of “Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.”

That the US has since February 2022 supplied Ukraine with extraordinary amounts of weaponry, and been fundamental to the planning of many of Kiev’s military operations large and small, is hardly breaking news. Indeed, elements of this relationship have previously been widely reported, with White House apparatchiks occasionally admitting to Washington’s role. Granular detail on this assistance provided by the New York Times probe is nonetheless unprecedented. For example, a dedicated intelligence fusion centre was secretly created at a vast US military base in Germany.

Dubbed “Task Force Dragon”, it united officials from every major US intelligence agency, and “coalition intelligence officers”, to produce extensive daily targeting information on Russian “battlefield positions, movements and intentions”, to “pinpoint” and “determine the ripest, highest-value targets” for Ukraine to strike using Western-provided weapons. The fusion centre quickly became “the entire back office of the war.” A nameless European intelligence chief was purportedly “taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his NATO counterparts had become” in the conflict’s “kill chain”:

“An early proof of concept was a campaign against one of Russia’s most-feared battle groups, the 58th Combined Arms Army. In mid-2022, using American intelligence and targeting information, the Ukrainians unleashed a rocket barrage at the headquarters of the 58th in the Kherson region, killing generals and staff officers inside. Again and again, the group set up at another location; each time, the Americans found it and the Ukrainians destroyed it.”

Several other well-known Ukrainian broadsides, such as an October 2022 drone barrage on the port of Sevastopol, are now revealed by the New York Times to have been the handiwork of Task Force Dragon. Meanwhile, the outlet confirmed that each and every HIMARS strike conducted by Kiev was entirely dependent on the US, which supplied coordinates, and advice on “positioning [Kiev’s] launchers and timing their strikes.” Local HIMARS operators also required special electronic key [cards]” to fire the missiles, “which the Americans could deactivate anytime.”

Yet, the investigation’s most striking passages highlight London’s principal role in influencing and managing Ukrainian – and by extension US – actions and strategy in the conflict. Both direct references and unambiguous insinuations littered throughout point ineluctably to the conclusion that the “proxy war” is of British concoction and design. If rapprochement between Moscow and Washington succeeds, it would represent the most spectacular failure to date of Britain’s concerted post-World War II conspiracy to exploit American military might and wealth for its own purposes.

………………………………………………………………….. the British “had considerable clout” in Kiev and hands-on influence over Ukrainian officials.

This was because, “unlike the Americans,” Britain had formally inserted teams of military officers into the country, to advise Ukrainian officials directly. Still, despite Kiev failing to fully capitalise as desired by London and Washington, the 2022 counteroffensive’s success produced widespread “irrational exuberance”. Planning for a followup the next year thus “began straightaway.” The “prevailing wisdom” within Task Force Dragon was this counteroffensive “would be the war’s last”, with Ukraine claiming “outright triumph”, or Russia being “forced to sue for peace.” 

……………………………………………………………………….Even Task Force Dragon’s Lieutenant General Donahue had doubts, advocating “a pause” of a year or more for “building and training new brigades.” Yet, intervention by the British was, per the New York Times, sufficient to neutralise internal opposition to a fresh counteroffensive in the spring. The British argued, “if the Ukrainians were going to go anyway, the coalition needed to help them.” Resultantly, enormous quantities of exorbitantly expensive, high-end military equipment were shipped to Kiev by almost every NATO member state for the purpose.

The counteroffensive was finally launched in June 2023. Relentlessly blitzed by artillery and drones from day one, tanks and soldiers were also routinely blown to smithereens by expansive Russian-laid minefields. Within a month, Ukraine had lost 20% of its Western-provided vehicles and armor, with nothing to show for it. When the counteroffensive fizzled out at the end of 2023, just 0.25% of territory occupied by Russia in the initial phase of the invasion had been regained. Meanwhile, Kiev’s casualties may have exceeded 100,000.

‘Knife Edge’

The New York Times reports that “the counteroffensive’s devastating outcome left bruised feelings on both sides,” with Washington and Kiev blaming each other for the catastrophe. A Pentagon official claims “the important relationships were maintained, but it was no longer the inspired and trusting brotherhood of 2022 and early 2023.” Given Britain’s determination to “keep Ukraine fighting at all costs”, this was bleak news indeed, threatening to halt all US support for the proxy war.

………………………………… Ukraine’s calamitous intervention in Russia’s Bryansk region was a “foreshadowing” of Kiev’s all-out invasion of Kursk on August 6th that year. The New York Times records how from Washington’s perspective, the operation “was a significant breach of trust.” For one, “the Ukrainians had again kept them in the dark” – but worse, “they had secretly crossed a mutually agreed-upon line.” Kiev was using “coalition-supplied equipment” on Russian territory, breaching “rules laid down” when limited strikes inside Russia were greenlit months earlier.

As this journalist has exposed, Ukraine’s Kursk folly was a British invasion in all but name. London was central to its planning, provided the bulk of the equipment deployed, and deliberately advertised its involvement. As The Times reported at the time, the goal was to mark Britain as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – would follow suit, and “send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.”

Initially, US officials keenly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion……………………………..

However, once Donald Trump prevailed in the November 2024 presidential election, Biden was encouraged to use his “last, lame-duck weeks” to make “a flurry of moves to stay the course…and shore up his Ukraine project.” In the process, per the New York Times, he “crossed his final red line,” allowing ATACMS and Storm Shadow strikes deep inside Russia, while permitting US military advisers to leave Kiev “for command posts closer to the fighting.”

Fast forward to today, and the Kursk invasion has ended in utter disaster, with the few remaining Ukrainian forces not captured or killed fleeing. Meanwhile, Biden’s flailing, farewell red line breaches have failed to tangibly shift the battlefield balance in Kiev’s favour at all. As the New York Times acknowledges, the proxy war’s continuation “teeters on a knife edge.” There is no knowing what British intelligence might have in store to prevent long-overdue peace prevailing at last, but the consequences could be world-threatening. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/its-official-ukraine-conflict-is

April 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Another significant show of confidence’ in Sizewell C, – making the total of taxpayers’ money going into the project a staggering £6.4bn)

The government has confirmed that £2.7bn promised to the Sizewell C
project in the Autumn Budget is now available. The Department of Energy
Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said the money will be drawn down by the
project company according to spending plans agreed with the government. The
sum – available under what is called the Devex (development expenditure)
scheme -is in addition to £1.2bn which was made available to the project
since July last year. (making the total of taxpayers’ money going into the
project a staggering £6.4bn).

 East Anglian Daily Times 4th April 2025
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25065158.another-significant-show-confidence-sizewell-c/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | 2 Comments

TRUMP’S PURSUIT OF A UKRAINIAN PEACE: Early Results and Future Prospects

Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, April 4, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump and his new and internationally inexperienced administration have been in hot pursuit of a ceasefire and peaceful resolution of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. The pursuit has laid bare the false promise of an end to the war on the administration’s first or even one-hundredth day as previously advertised. This is no business deal. This the hardball world of international politics, national power and interests, ancient and not-so-ancient local and international resentments, grievances, betrayals, and hatreds. Despite what may seem as a disappointing complications and the inevitably longer timeline for the arrival of any prospective ceasefire or conclusive peace, significant early progress was made, and the stumbling blocs that have appeared were to be expected and can be overcome with time and the further deterioration of Ukraine’s position on the battle fronts, which is inevitable.

There has been some confusion among observers and the public regarding the process, with issues such as NATO expansion tied to a ceasefire in some minds. This is a subject for a final treaty, not a ceasefire, which is needed to allow peace talks to proceed more smoothly, niot to mention ending the bloodshed and destruction. The ceasefire agreement must not be conflated from peace treaty negotiations. A ceasefire will, therefore, take at least several, if not many months. This is not least of all because of the need to resolve what Russian President Vladimir Putin called “nuances” – organizational measures needed to implement a full-fledged ceasefire.

While agreement, violated albeit, has been achieved on a month-long ceasefire regarding energy infrastructure, the two sides are very far apart regarding any treaty. Putin’s 4 goals for Russia’s ‘special military operation (SMO) contradict directly Zelenskiy’s demands for security guarantees and the return of all territory annexed or occupied by Russia. Again, these are problems to be addressed under any peace treaty. The ceasefire must be fully implemented before any treaty can be addressed in any robust fashion. 


Trust-building is desperately needed, especially between Russia and Ukraine and can develop as partial agreements are made, complied with, and yield new agreements. Recent history and a long cultural tradition of security vigilance in Russia and in part inherited by Ukraine, the apposition of Russian nationalism and more rabid Ukrainian ultras-nationalism and neofascism, and, most importantly, the exacerbating factor of outside interference in Ukraine and Russian-Ukrainian relations by the U.S., Europe, and NATO create a matrix of distrust between all the parties, including the ostensible mediating side, the U.S., which is the lead combatant on the NATO side of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. The last point undermines the peace process from the start, and depending on how that process develops could end in many in Moscow, already being suspicious, coming to see the entire process as a ruse to hold off a Russian victory, viewing Trump’s America as ‘playing the good cop’, while Zelenskiy and Europe continue the war.

The ceasefire is evolving into four distinct elements — energy infrastructure, sea, air, and land ceasefires – to comprise the overall ceasefire prospectively. The full ceasefire could be achieved by mid-summer but more a more realistic target is before the end of the year……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Trump has levers to push the parties towards peace. For the Ukrainians, he can withhold intelligence and weapons supplies. For the Russians he can delay or threaten to forego rapprochement or various aspects of it: sanctions relief, trade agreements, and renewed cooperation regarding the world’s various conflicts. Pres. Trump’s “Liberation Day” 20 percent tariff on EU goods might be adjusted depending on Brussels’ compliance with American wishes for sanctions relief for Russia. Otherwise, the EU is positioned to scuttle BSI 2.0. Indeed, Russia’s 10 percent tariffs and 0 percent on Russia can be adjusted depending on where pressure needs to be applied.

In sum, there are a host of problems that will take months of concerted effective diplomacy led by the U.S. as things stand now. But the Trump administration is short of seasoned diplomats and experienced foreign and security policy experts. We have a long, hard way to go before peace reigns in Ukraine. https://gordonhahn.com/2025/04/04/trumps-pursuit-of-a-ukrainian-peace-early-results-and-future-prospects/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

  Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) rejects intervenors’ Palisades “zombie” nuke reactor restart petition & hearing request

March 31, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/aslb-rejects-intervenors-palisades-petition-hearing-request/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJb8IBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUI-Ts2_T9B3gIRG0gqC6X5YA6QiXdFZmRzx_2Rrj7VotgN7tfLIdp0y5A_aem_zNePcdLiZVSia6c3bnJ4zg

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety (sic) and Licensing Board (ASLB) has struck again. Per usual, the three-administrative law judge panel (formerly known as hearing examiners) has rejected all contentions re: health, safety, security, and the environment raised by an environmental coalition, denying hearings on the merits. Such rulings reflect the ASLB’s very well earned kangaroo court reputation. Not only is the NRC staff captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, but so too is NRC’s ASLB.

See the 71-page ASLB ruling, here.

The coalition — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, and Three Mile Island Alert of Pennsylvania — did get the NRC ASLB to acknowledge its legal standing, although the NRC staff sought to block most of the groups. Some of the members/supporters who provided legal standing to the groups opposed by the NRC staff for establishing legal standing happen to live within less than a mile of the Palisades atomic reactor, and thus are very much in harm’s way.

Attorneys Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, and Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, serve as the coalition’s legal counsel. Coalition expert witnesses include Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds, as well as Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, a world renowned advocate for renewable energy as the most time- and cost-effective pathway to climate mitigation. This means nuclear power is an opportunity cost, significantly hampering desperately needed reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, as soon as possible.

The coalition has resisted Holtec International’s scheme to restart the nearly 60-year old “zombie” atomic reactor at Palisades nuclear power plant since the get-go, on April 20, 2022, when Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer first floated the trial balloon of indefinite, continued operations, a month to the day before previous owner Entergy permanently shut down the reactor. Palisades was designed in the mid-1960s, and ground was broken on its construction in 1967.

Such a restart of a closed for good atomic reactor is unprecedented. It is also unneeded, insanely expensive for the public, and extremely risky. Palisades has been an atomic lemon since it was fired up in 1971, and is now dangerously age-degraded, after 51 years of problem-plagued operations, and three years of neglect by Holtec of safety-significant systems, structures, and components, such as the now dangerously degraded steam generator tubes. Holtec neglected steam generator tube maintenance for two years (2022-2024), a “rookie error” according to the coalition’s expert witness, Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds. But this rookie error, Gundersen, points out, could result in a catastrophic reactor core meltdown, if and when NRC allows Holtec to restart Palisades with mere BAND-AID fixes on the breakdown phase steam generator tubes.

The coalition will appeal the ASLB’s absurd ruling to the commissioners of the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once the NRC Commissioners rule against us too, we will have exhausted all administrative remedies. At that point, we will file an appeal to the federal courts.

Although the ASLB has rejected all previous coalition contentions, the three-judge panel did not terminate the licensing proceeding. This is because the coalition amended certain contentions, and introduced new ones, based on the recent publication, in late Jaunary 2025, by NRC staff of a draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact regarding the “zombie” reactor restart scheme.

However, on March 28, 2025 — the 46th annual commemoration of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown in Pennsylvania — both the NRC staff, as well as Holtec International, opposed all of the coalition’s new and amended environmental contentions, as well.

The coalition will continue to defend its amended and new environmental contentions at every opportunity, as well. Our deadline to do so is later this week.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Global warming is ‘exposing’ new coastlines and islands as Arctic glaciers shrink .

 Retreating glaciers created 2,500km of “new” coastline and 35
“new” islands in the Arctic between 2000 and 2020, according to a new
study. The research uses satellite images of more than 1,700 glaciers in
Greenland, Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, Russian Arctic, Iceland and
Svalbard.

The findings show that 85% of these glaciers retreated over
2000-20, revealing 123km of new coastline per year on average. The study,
published in Nature Climate Change, links the acceleration in glacier melt
to warmer ocean and air temperatures.

 Carbon Brief 1st April 2025 https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-warming-is-exposing-new-coastlines-and-islands-as-arctic-glaciers-shrink/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | ARCTIC, climate change | Leave a comment

Hinkley C nuclear power station site teaches A Level students about “clean” energy !!

By John Thorne  Wednesday 2nd April 2025 ,https://www.wellington-today.co.uk/news/hinkley-c-nuclear-power-station-site-teaches-a-level-students-about-clean-energy-780053

A LEVEL students from Bridgwater and Taunton College (BTC) explored the UK’s clean energy future during an educational tour of the under-construction Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.

The trip was an opportunity for students studying subjects such as business, economics, mathematics, physics, and chemistry to witness first hand one of Europe’s most significant infrastructure projects.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Germany’s  Conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU)  mulls reactivation of nuclear power plants

 Germany’s Conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party is
considering restarting six of the country’s recently deactivated nuclear
power plants. According to newspaper Handelsblatt on April 1, a new working
paper of the CDU’s parliamentary group demanded an investigation on
whether a reactivation of the power stations was technically possible and
economically feasible. If the current owners of the plants in question –
energy companies E.On, RWE and EnBW – were not willing to restart the
reactors themselves, a State-owned enterprise reportedly could take over
ownership of the infrastructure.

 Brussels Signal 2nd April 2025 https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/04/germanys-cdu-mulls-reactivation-of-nuclear-power-plants/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Meltdown: the toxic culture that helped destroy the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC)

Dan Hayes•28.03.2025, Sheffield Tribune

Complaints about bullying were made as far back as 2018. Why did the University of Sheffield turn a blind eye?

“This is a diary of events in note form and to be clear I have never felt the need, in 30 years of employment, to create such a record.” 

That opening line was penned by Carl Hitchens in 2018. Hitchens, the former head of machining at the Nuclear AMRC, sent me the diary in place of a conversation. He told me he just couldn’t face reliving such a painful period.

The Nuclear AMRC was set up in 2009 with a simple mission: to help UK manufacturers win work in the civil nuclear sector. As well as research and development into nuclear technologies, the centre also worked with British firms to help them design and build components that could be used in nuclear power plants. Ostensibly part of the University of Sheffield, the Nuclear AMRC enjoyed a large degree of autonomy from its parent organisation.

As we found in our piece last year, the Nuclear AMRC never found its task easy. Continuing concerns about the safety of nuclear energy, the government’s refusal to commit to its future, and newer technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) all created a challenging environment to navigate. Despite this, all indications are that, in its early days, the Nuclear AMRC was a fairly happy ship.

So how did something that was meant to put South Yorkshire at the centre of a generational transformation of the UK energy sector fall apart in a few short years? How did the Nuclear AMRC go from being touted as a huge growth success story, to being all but shut down? Carl Hitchens’ diary — and the recollections of his colleagues — are now allowing us to answer that question……………………………………..(subscribers only) https://www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/meltdown-the-toxic-culture-that-helped-destroy-the-nuclear-amrc/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

What really happened in Bucha? The questions Western media won’t ask

By Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union – https://www.rt.com/russia/614967-what-really-happened-in-bucha/ 2 Apr 25 [illustrations]

The narrative on an event from three years ago is under scrutiny. Here’s a closer look at the evidence

On the first day of April in 2022, shocking videos began circulating on Ukrainian social media, showing the streets of Bucha, a town in Kiev region, strewn with dead bodies.  The “Bucha massacre” quickly became one of the most widely discussed and controversial chapters of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Western media immediately accused the Russian army of mass killings, while Vladimir Zelensky declared that these acts were not only war crimes but a genocide against his country’s people.

However, a closer look at the situation raises numerous questions. An analysis of video footage, satellite images, and eyewitness accounts reveals significant inconsistencies that cast doubt on the official narrative adopted by Kiev and its Western allies. This article explores why it appears the so-called “Bucha massacre” has been fabricated.

What do we know

Bucha, with a population of 40,000 people, found itself on the front lines from the first days of the Ukraine conflict. To the north of Bucha lies the village of Gostomel, home to the strategically important Antonov Airport, where Russian paratroopers landed on the morning of February 24, 2022. This group soon joined the main Russian units advancing from Belarus.

In the days that followed, fierce battles broke out around Bucha as Russian troops attempted to establish a foothold in the town and push toward Irpin, a large suburb of Kiev. Nevertheless, the area remained under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and territorial defense units.

Between March 3 and 5, Russian forces entered Bucha from the side of the village of Vorzel, setting up a base at a glass factory and along the southern outskirts of the city. From then on, Bucha became a transit point and rear base for Russian troops engaged in combat near Kiev.

On March 29, following a round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin announced a significant reduction in military activity around Kiev and Chernigov.

By March 30, Russian forces began withdrawing from Kiev Region due to the shifting priorities of the military operation.

However, just days after their retreat, shocking footage emerged that stunned the whole world.

When Ukrainian soldiers entered Bucha, international media outlets began publishing photo and video evidence of murdered civilians. Vladimir Zelensky and his team quickly accused Russian troops of committing mass murder, labeling it an act of genocide.

“This is genocide. The annihilation of an entire nation and people,” Zelensky declared on CBS’s Face the Nation. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitri Kuleba called on the G7 countries to impose immediate “new devastating sanctions” against Russia, including imposing a complete embargo on Russian oil, gas, and coal, closing ports to Russian vessels, and disconnecting Russian banks from the SWIFT system.

The Russian Foreign Ministry denied any involvement in civilian deaths. Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov said that the images showed “signs of forgery” and manipulation.

From the beginning, the narrative surrounding the “Bucha massacre” was full of inconsistencies and peculiarities, many of which remain unclear to this day. 

Timing discrepancies

Among the key arguments that cast doubt on the Ukrainian narrative of mass killings in Bucha are the timing discrepancies.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has consistently stated that all Russian units had left Bucha by March 30, 2022.  This claim is supported by local authorities. On March 31, Bucha Mayor Anatoliy Fedoruk recorded a video message confirming the withdrawal of Russian forces but did not mention any mass killings or bodies. In the background of the video, the streets appear clear, and there are no signs of corpses or destruction. At the same time, Ukrainian MPs and military personnel were in Bucha, yet none of them reported seeing dead bodies. Local residents did not mention any mass shootings either. 

The first images of the bodies emerged only on April 1-2, a couple of days after Ukrainian military personnel and activists entered the city. This raises questions about the timing and circumstances surrounding their deaths: if Russian troops left Bucha on March 30, how could evidence of the killings have come to light only several days later?

Analysis of video footage from the scene further shows that many bodies appear too “fresh” to have been lying there for over a week. Forensic experts point out that signs of decomposition should have manifested much earlier if the deaths truly occurred in mid-March. Photos and videos provided by Ukrainian and Western media show signs (such as drying skin in certain areas) that suggest death likely took place just hours or a day before the images were captured.

Controversial satellite images and social media data 

On April 1, 2022, Maxar Technologies released satellite images dated March 19, allegedly showing bodies on Yablonskaya Street in Bucha. These images were cited by Ukrainian and Western media as key evidence of mass killings supposedly carried out by Russian forces.

However, these images are highly questionable. Independent researchers have noted that the images may have been manipulated or backdated.

Firstly, the March images from Maxar, published by The New York Times, are of very low quality compared to the February photos. This complicates analysis and raises suspicions of manipulation. The objects depicted in the images cannot be unequivocally identified as bodies, so claims about corpses that have been there for a long time rely solely on Western media reports and have not been independently verified. The images could have been altered or backdated to suggest that the bodies had been on the streets since March.

Secondly, the weather conditions captured in the videos do not match the meteorological data for the dates specified in Western media reports. This discrepancy indicates a possible mismatch in the timing of the recordings.

Thirdly, Maxar Technologies has close ties to US government structures, raising concerns about a potential bias and the use of its data for propaganda purposes.

Alexey Tokarev, who has a PhD in political science, and his team from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations conducted an analysis of media coverage, social media, and Telegram channels related to Bucha, and uncovered an intriguing pattern: there were no mentions of bodies on Yablonskaya Street prior to April 1. While there were reports of destruction, prisoners, and fighting, there was no information regarding mass killings.

“If we are to believe the Western media, the town has been full of corpses since April 1, and according to a leading American newspaper, even earlier – since March 11. So why is it that in a video captured by the Ukrainian police on April 2, which features 14 civilians, no one mentions any bodies or mass executions? The nearly eight-minute-long video shows nine different locations in the small town, but we don’t see a single corpse,” Tokarev says.

Discrepancies in visual evidence

The videos and photographs released by the Ukrainian side reveal numerous inconsistencies that suggest a possible staging. For instance, in one case, we see Ukrainian soldiers moving bodies between takes, while in another video, a “corpse’s” hand noticeably twitches. These signs indicate that the individuals depicted were not actually dead.

The Investigative Committee of Russia reported that the bodies did not display signs of having been outside for an extended period – there were no corpse marks and uncoagulated blood in wounds – casting doubt on the official Ukrainian narrative. Experts also noted the absence of shrapnel or explosive damage near the bodies, further contradicting claims of mass shootings.

Additionally, many victims, judging by photos, wore white armbands – a symbol typically associated with pro-Russian civilians. This suggests that Ukrainian forces might have targeted individuals suspected of “collaboration”, i.e., cooperating with Russian troops, and then accused the other side of the murders.

Moreover, in the initial days following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Bucha, a curfew was imposed, restricting locals from venturing into the streets. This created suitable conditions for the potential fabrication of events.

Eyewitness accounts and questionable sources


Adrien Bocquet, a French volunteer and journalist who was in Kiev Region during intense fighting, claimed that he personally witnessed Ukrainian forces staging mass killings in Bucha.

He recounted seeing bodies being brought into the city and arranged on the streets to create the impression of “mass deaths”. “When we drove into Bucha, I was in the passenger seat. As we passed through the city, I saw bodies lying on the roadside, and right before my eyes, people were unloading corpses from trucks and placing them next to those already on the ground to amplify the effect of mass casualties,” he said.

“One of the volunteers who had been there the day before – let me emphasize that this is not something I observed myself, but what I heard from another volunteer – told me he saw refrigerated trucks arriving in Bucha from other cities in Ukraine, unloading bodies and lining them up. From this, I realized that these were staged incidents,” he stated.

According to Bocquet, volunteers were prohibited from taking photos or videos.

Interestingly, in June 2022, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine stated that many claims made by former Ombudsman for Human Rights in Ukraine Lyudmila Denisova, including those related to the events in Bucha, were not accurate. “Law enforcement officials tried to carry out their own investigation. They went through all medical reports, police statements, and data on the deceased, attempting to find cases (…). However, all this work proved futile,” reported the news outlet Ukrainskaya Pravda.

Russian military correspondents, including Aleksandr Kots, have also referred to the so-called Bucha massacre as fake.  Kots, who visited Bucha in February and March 2022, said “It’s not hard to verify what I’m saying. A forensic examination would determine the time of death of those poor people and align it with NATO’s objective monitoring data, which clearly indicates when Russian troops withdrew. But that’s if you’re looking for the truth. And who in the West wants that?”

Motives and geopolitical context

The story of the Bucha massacre emerged at a time when both the Ukrainian and Russian sides, albeit with varying degrees of optimism, were reporting progress in ceasefire negotiations.

“The Ukrainian side has become more realistic regarding issues related to Ukraine’s neutral and non-nuclear status, but the draft agreement is not ready for top-level discussions,” said Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian delegation and an aide to the President of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian negotiator David Arahamiya noted that the document was ready, and the two presidents could meet and discuss it. 

However, following reports of the “Bucha massacre,” Zelensky withdrew from the peace talks.

The incident in Bucha became a pivotal moment that not only derailed peace negotiations in Istanbul but also intensified Russia’s diplomatic isolation in the West, led to the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and tighter sanctions, and resulted in Ukraine receiving additional military aid from NATO states. 

Without presenting sufficient evidence, Western media spread the narrative of the “atrocities” committed by Russian forces. This suggests that the events in Bucha may have been used as a propaganda tool.

To date, no independent investigation has confirmed the accuracy of Ukraine’s accounts. Additionally, a complete list of casualties and the circumstances surrounding their deaths has yet to be made public.

Analyzing timing discrepancies, satellite images, video footage, eyewitness accounts, and Ukraine’s motives suggests that the events in Bucha may have been fabricated or politically exploited.

Despite the extensive media coverage of the “Bucha massacre,” Ukraine’s official narrative raises many questions and demands an independent inquiry. Ukraine has failed to conduct a thorough investigation or provide any coherent explanation as to why Russian soldiers would kill innocent civilians. The argument of Russia’s deep-seated hatred and brutality towards Ukrainians simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, since no similar tragedies have been documented during the course of the conflict. Instead, the “massacre” has become part of a media campaign aimed at dehumanizing Russian soldiers and portraying them as occupiers.

Bucha stands as one of the key propaganda symbols in the anti-Russia campaign. However, a closer examination of the evidence reveals numerous unanswered questions that officials prefer to avoid. An independent investigation could shed light on the true circumstances, but given the ongoing information war, it is unlikely to happen soon.

By Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union

April 4, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Hegseth Circulated Secret Pentagon Memo On Preparing For War With China

by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Apr 01, 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hegseth-circulated-secret-pentagon-memo-preparing-war-china

Over the weekend The Washington Post revealed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March which ordered the Pentagon to prioritize its war-planning focus on potential future conflict with China.

The memo, called the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

It’s nothing new that the Pentagon considers China a ‘top pacing threat’ – but it does confirm that the Trump administration would likely be willing to go to war in the event of a mainland invasion of the self-ruled island.

The memo interestingly presented a strategy of “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, to refocus efforts on top nuclear-armed rivals. 

The Pentagon’s force planning and new focus “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies” – according to the report.

Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”

The memo urges NATO allies take on a “far greater” burden-sharing on defense, and puts Europe on notice in the event of greater threats from Russia:

Hegseth’s guidance acknowledges that the U.S. is unlikely to provide substantial, if any, support to Europe in the case of Russian military advances, noting that Washington intends to push NATO allies to take primary defense of the region. The U.S. will support Europe with nuclear deterrence of Russia, and NATO should only count on U.S. forces not required for homeland defense or China deterrence missions, the document says.

A significant increase in Europe sharing its defense burden, the document says, “will also ensure NATO can reliably deter or defeat Russian aggression even if deterrence fails and the United States is already engaged in, or must withhold forces to deter, a primary conflict in another region.”

As for Taiwan specifically, it lays out ways the Pentagon intends to help its ally bolster defenses, short of outright entering any direct conflict.

WaPo and others have said the Heritage Foundation think tank is the driving force behind the strategic ideas presented in the memo.

Hegseth’s plans specify a “denial defense” of Taiwan – according to the memo – which will include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.” 

April 4, 2025 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Democracy should not be an April Fools’ Day Joke!


 NFLA 1st April 2025

At a time when, across the Atlantic and in Europe, democracy seems to be increasingly challenged and in peril, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities finds it incongruous and worrying that undemocratic practices can be discovered nearer to home when it comes to plans to locate a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Cumbria.

The GDF would be the eventual repository for Britain’s high-level legacy and future radioactive waste.

Cumberland Council replaced three existing Councils – Allerdale District Council, Copeland District Council and Cumbria County Council – with their powers and resources being subsumed into the new unitary authority.

During the period of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, Councils were invited to express an interest in participating in investigations for a site for a deep repository in West Cumbria. After four years of involvement, Cumberland’s predecessor Cumbria County Council vetoed the process, when in January 2013, the Council’s Cabinet voted to withdraw its support.

At that time, Council leader Eddie Martin explained the rationale behind the decision: “Cabinet believes there is sufficient doubt around the suitability of West Cumbria’s geology to put an end now to the uncertainty and worry this is causing for our communities. Cumbria is not the best place geologically in the UK and the government’s efforts need to be focused on disposing of the waste underground in the safest place, not the easiest. Members have remained concerned throughout on the issue of the legal right of withdrawal if we proceed to the next stage.”[i]

The County Council’s decision trumped the continued support for the process shown by the lower Allerdale and Copeland District Councils, and so it effectively ended the process at the time.

In the latest attempt to bring a GDF to Cumbria, Allerdale and Copeland again choose to support Nuclear Waste Services, with both Councils becoming the Relevant Principal Local Authorities which are necessary to keep the process going.

Although the County Council was the biggest amongst the three former Councils merged into the new unitary authority, Cumberland Council ignored its opposition and instead chose to ape the position taken by the two lower district councils; this despite the fact that Nuclear Waste Services had already withdrawn from Allerdale citing ‘insufficient’ suitable geology and that Copeland was only taken into the GDF process by the Council’s Executive of only FOUR senior Councillors, including some holding appointments on the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group which are renumerated by Nuclear Waste Services. The whole Council was not asked to agree.

Now campaigners at Radiation Free Lakeland have launched a petition calling on Cumberland Council to convene a belated special meeting of the Full Council where Councillors can debate and then vote upon whether to continue to remain engaged with the process of investigating sites for a GDF in Mid- and South-Copeland and to remain represented on the two Community Partnerships. Should most Councillors vote against engagement and representation, in either Mid- or South-Copeland, then the process in that area would cease and NWS would withdraw.

In the third area under consideration for a GDF, the Theddlethorpe Search Area in Lincolnshire, the Leaders of both Relevant Principal Local Authorities, East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, have recommended to their Executives that they should withdraw. The East Lindsey District Council Executive meets tomorrow (2 April) to decide upon the issue. The decision of Lincolnshire County Council must follow the elections held for that body on 1 May. If both recommendations are accepted and are backed by Councillors on their respective Scrutiny Boards, the process will end. This is what happened at South Holderness where the East Riding of Yorkshire Council overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the process.

The Radiation Free Lakeland sponsored petition reads:………………………………….. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/democracy-should-not-be-an-april-fools-day-joke/

April 4, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

If the Europeans are serious about peace, they should invite Zelensky to fewer meetings.

the inability of Europe’s leaders to hold a meeting without inviting President Zelensky of Ukraine. He appears, in his cargo pants and black sweatshirt, to be treated like royalty.

because Zelensky attends every major European meeting now on the war effort, his narratives dominate the agenda of the day, whether or not the host agrees.

the inability of Europe’s leaders to hold a meeting without inviting President Zelensky of Ukraine. He appears, in his cargo pants and black sweatshirt, to be treated like royalty.

because Zelensky attends every major European meeting now on the war effort, his narratives dominate the agenda of the day, whether or not the host agrees.

Ian Proud, March 30, 2025,https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/03/30/if-europeans-serious-about-peace-they-should-invite-zelensky-fewer-meetings/

Putin sees that the U.S. is trying to intermediate in talks, rather than simply taking sides with Ukraine.

President Zelensky now attends every major European meeting of Heads. While perhaps understandable, that means the agenda gets hijacked by Ukrainian demands and limits Europe’s ability to play an impartial role in peace talks.

European leaders met again in Paris on 27 March to discuss ideas for a coalition of the willing, specifically, a group of European nations that would be willing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a future peace process.

That meeting produced no new breakthroughs and the co-hosts, President Macron of France and Prime Minister Starmer of Britain, held separate press conferences at the end. Yet again, it wasn’t possible to reach a consensus on the controversial topic of using frozen Russian assets for reconstruction in Ukraine, given the significant legal and financial risks around this.

No new determination was reached on the controversial notion of deploying western ‘reassurance’ troops to Ukraine in the future. Some European countries including Greece and Italy have made it clear that they see this as an unworkable and dangerous step. Unworkable, because the deployment of, essentially, NATO troops to Ukraine, will almost certainly face resistance from Russia. Dangerous because, even the most optimistic western commentators are talking about a deployed European force of 30,000 troops, which is tiny when set against the 600,000 Russian troops thought to be in Ukraine right now

But there is a deeper problem as well. Proposals to deploy troops to Ukraine, however unworkable and dangerous, are addressing the wrong question. The United States and, indirectly, the NATO Secretary General, have admitted that Ukraine’s desire to join the military alliance is now off of the table. The Paris summit would have better focussed on the detail of what security guarantees for Ukraine might look like as part of any peace deal. This might be along the lines of an Article 5 type of commitment by willing European states, as recommended by the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni.

Leaders like Macron and Starmer also can’t claim the threat of a military force is merely a tactic to put pressure on Russia to strike for peace, given the proposed force’s limited size and the reality that it would take months, at the current rate of progress, for troops to arrive in Ukraine, if they ever did.

Yet again, this talks to Europe’s inability to fight wars by committee. Big meetings in Paris give European leaders their moment to say the right things, express solidarity and offer every type of support short of assistance. But, and fundamentally, events like the Paris Summit offer no new ideas and inject no new energy or momentum into efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.

In fact, in terms of the substance, these events have become a distraction from and a delaying tactic to, real peace.

A contributing factor, it seems to me, is the inability of Europe’s leaders to hold a meeting without inviting President Zelensky of Ukraine. He appears, in his cargo pants and black sweatshirt, to be treated like royalty. And, of course, it may be understandable that people feel a sense of solidarity with Ukraine at a time of war and feel a personal affinity to Zelensky.

But the question remains, what role does Zelensky play at these talks?

Clearly, he arrives with his own ‘asks’ and a package of narratives to deploy during his many press engagements in Europe. These include the need to impose more sanctions on Russia, that Europe should force Putin to make peace, that only strengthening Ukraine with more weapons will help. You’ve probably heard these lines countless times before because they are aggressively deployed by every Ukrainian official and media outlet.

As Ukraine is fighting Russia on the battlefield, I understand their need to pursue an aggressive public communications posture as part of their wider war effort, including to prop up morale at home. In Zelensky’s shoes, I might pursue a similar tactic. And yet, the lines he advances, on sanctions and applying pressure on Russia all appear, most likely, to extend the war, not end it.

And because Zelensky attends every major European meeting now on the war effort, his narratives dominate the agenda of the day, whether or not the host agrees.

So, during his press conference in Paris, and following Zelensky’s script, Starmer said that the west should impose more sanctions on Russia as part of efforts to force President Putin to make peace. This despite the fact that eleven years after the first sanctions were introduced, Russia’s economy still outperforms those in Europe. (Indeed, this week the UK Office of Budget Responsibility halved its estimate of UK economic growth in 2025 from 2% to 1%.) Or that, with Russia still retaining the upper hand on the battlefield in Ukraine, imposing further sanctions now will merely, and self-evidently, discourage President Putin from agreeing any peace deal.

An extremely small potential package of sanctions relief on the Russian Agricultural Bank hangs in the balance, despite the US agreeing with the Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Saudi this week to unlock the Black Sea deal. President Macron has said that there can be no sanctions relief until there is complete peace. The European Commission Press Spokesperson has said that sanctions can’t be removed until the compete withdrawal of Russia troops in Ukraine, a position that clearly hasn’t been discussed or agreed with other EU Member States.

These British, French and wider European pronouncements might be well-meaning, but they are usually unhelpful. On top of the already challenging bureaucratic straitjacket on Europe making a constructive input into peace talks, the presence of Zelensky at all of their meetings inevitably drags them towards agreeing and promoting his agenda.

And, of course, it also means that Russia does not see Europe as an independent actor in any peace talks, as it has become an extension of Ukraine and unable to adopt an impartial position. Not least as European leaders seldom, if ever, engage directly with President Putin.

That’s why Putin has been open to engaging in peace talks with Trump, because he sees that the US is trying to intermediate in talks, rather than simply taking sides with Ukraine. Zelensky has now ‘insisted’ that Britian and France should be represented at any future peace talks for Ukraine. In truth, if Starmer and Macron want to play a more prominent role in the process, they should invite Zelensky to fewer meetings.

April 4, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »