‘Fish disco’ not enough to protect nature at nuclear plant, says green quango
Natural England demands new salt marshes be created before Hinkley Point C can open
Matt Oliver, Industry Editor
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is facing fresh
delays as a green quango demands extra nature protections on top of a
controversial “fish disco”. Natural England has told developer EDF that
existing plans to stop aquatic life in the Severn Estuary from being sucked
into the Somerset plant’s cooling pipes will not be enough to satisfy
environmental rules.
The company had proposed using £700m of special
equipment to ward off fish, including a bespoke underwater loudspeaker
system which campaigners have called the “fish disco”. EDF provided new
research data to regulators in February following promising trials of the
technology, formally known as the acoustic fish deterrent, by university
scientists.
But in recent weeks, Natural England is understood to have
claimed that further protections are necessary, such as the creation of new
salt marshes to boost fish populations in the area. The quango is refusing
to sign off the plant until new plans are set out and approved.
It has prompted concern that Hinkley’s targeted 2030 opening date is now
effectively impossible to deliver, owing to the time it will take to win
approval for and build the new salt marshes. Sam Richards, the chief
executive of Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, said: “Hinkley
Point C is already the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
“It also has more fish protection measures than any reactor built
anywhere in the world. “For Natural England to now demand even more
mitigation – regardless of the wider impact on the project and for
minimal added benefit to nature – shows just how out of touch with
reality they really are. “This out of control quango has become a direct
threat to Britain’s energy security.”
Telegraph 2nd May 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/05/02/fish-disco-not-enough-to-protect-nature-at-nuclear-plant/
Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash
SCHEERPOST, April 26, 2026
Kevin Heath had hoped there would be solar panels by now on his family farm in southeastern Michigan, roughly 50 miles outside Detroit.
About six years ago, he agreed to lease part of his land for a solar project. It would help him pay off debt and keep the farm in the family, he said. But the opportunity was thwarted when, in 2023, following pushback from some local residents, his township passed an ordinance that banned large solar projects from land zoned for agriculture.
In the fight over solar development, Heath said he was bombarded by just about every argument from critics — including claims that solar fields are a health hazard. “I’ve heard them say that, but I’ve never heard anybody prove that,” Heath said.
“The health and safety issue,” he added, “that is just a joke.”
Michigan has big prospects in solar farming — measured by the expected growth in the capacity of its farms to add electricity directly to the grid. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of the nation’s new capacity from this type of solar farm is planned this year for four states, including Michigan. The others, with their hot deserts and big-sky plains, seem more obvious: Texas, Arizona and California.
To some, in Michigan and beyond, this growth feels dangerous. They pressure public officials to stop, stall or otherwise complicate new solar projects with an array of arguments that now go beyond just land use to include public health.
There is little reputable evidence to back their claims. But health concerns have helped power a solar backlash that undercuts efforts to broaden energy sources even as customer costs are rising.
Restrictions on solar development are proliferating nationwide, “often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears,” including ones that involve “potential environmental and human safety risks,” according to an article published late last year in the Brigham Young University Law Review.
To generate electricity, solar projects harvest energy from the sun. “And that’s really not that different from what a field of corn or alfalfa does,” said Troy Rule, the Arizona State University law professor who authored the article. “In fact, arguably, it’s even more environmentally friendly.”
Still, a state board in Ohio rejected an application for a solar project last month, citing local opposition, even though its staff initially said it met all requirements. Along with other concerns, according to the board, opponents “testified about the potential impacts on the health of residents.”
A bill in Missouri would halt commercial solar projects in the state, including those under construction, through at least 2027, as a state agency develops new regulations. The bill’s emergency clause says this is “deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety.”
And, on the eastern edge of Michigan, St. Clair County adopted a novel public health regulation last year that set limits on solar development and battery storage. The move was encouraged by the county’s medical director who, in a memo, warned of the threat of noise, visual pollution and potential sources of contamination. Some local residents have long pressed leaders to act, saying that intrusive noise could worsen post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments.
Public officials don’t always examine the validity of health claims, according to Rule. And local deliberations rarely compare the impact of solar farms to common agricultural practices, which can lead to runoff from fertilizers and herbicides, for example, or waste lagoons from concentrated animal feeding operations.
People have many reasons for taking issue with large-scale solar development, said Michael Gerrard, an environmental lawyer and founder of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. But as for the feared health impact, he said, “there’s no basis for that.”
“People try to come up with a rationale to justify their dislike of things they dislike for other reasons,” Gerrard added.
President Donald Trump’s administration, meanwhile, is adding to the skepticism that renewable energy is worthwhile. Among other moves, it’s phasing out federal tax credits for the solar and wind industries.
It all takes a toll on the effort to build out solar infrastructure. Last year, new solar installations in the U.S. dropped by 14%.
Fear vs. Science
Large solar developments can transform hundreds, or even thousands, of acres of rural land, paneling them with crystalline silicon and tempered glass.
It’s a big change, and people have questions.
Locals worry that electromagnetism and even glare can pose a health risk. They wonder if toxic materials could leach into the soil and contaminate groundwater, if not while the solar site is operational, then some decades in the future, when it reaches the end of its life. That certainly has been the case with orphaned oil wells, which also were built with promises of safety.
But researchers point out that the most common types of panels have only small amounts of such materials, if any. They are encased and unlikely to leach into the soil. Rather than sitting in landfills when a site is decommissioned, most of the materials used in solar panels can be recycled (though the process can be costly).
Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road Renewables, which has pursued renewable energy projects in several states, has fielded a range of concerns over the years — from how soil could be contaminated to the possibility of electromagnetic fields causing cancer.
“Those questions, in just about every case, have an answer,” Adair said. “There is rigorous academic study, and there are examples of projects that have been operating.”
While the future farmability of the land is often a concern, many researchers — and farmers — say that a solar lease will help preserve it.
With proper planning on the front end, equipment can be removed from a decommissioned solar site and green space restored, said Steve Kalland, executive director of the NC Clean Energy Technology Center, which, along with its partners, provides technical assistance to local governments in the Carolinas.
And a person’s exposure to the electromagnetic field, or EMF, from a solar farm is roughly the same as what they would encounter from ordinary household appliances, according to researchers. EMF levels also decrease rapidly with distance.
Chronic exposure to noise is also a recurring complaint from critics. In challenging a proposed project from Adair’s company in Morrow County, Ohio, one woman said in a brief to the state siting board that she was troubled about how noise from the facility might affect people with neurological noise sensitivities, including her daughter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Intense Battles in Michigan
In Michigan’s St. Clair County, it isn’t just a number of residents who are worried about large solar facilities. The Health Department’s medical director echoed their concerns.
In two memos to other county officials, Dr. Remington Nevin said that large solar sites are a public health risk for the area’s predominantly rural residents. The state’s solar standards, he wrote, weren’t enough to protect them from “environmental health hazards, the spread of sources of contamination, nuisance potentially injurious to the public health, health problems, and other conditions or practices which could reasonably be expected to cause disease.”
Any detectable tonal noise, he added, must be considered an unreasonable threat to public health. He recommended new regulations.
The county administrator at the time, Karry Hepting, noted that Nevin’s initial memo “does not address the question or provide support for what are the potential health/environmental risks,” according to internal emails provided to ProPublica. “It appears we will need to hire an outside expert to get the level of detail and supporting data necessary to consider potential next steps,” she added. Hepting said that she’d begun researching prospects.
But County Commissioner Steven Simasko — now the county board’s chair — wrote in an internal email that he accepted Nevin’s medical opinion “as a good standard for the protection of the public health of our citizens” and disagreed with the need for outside input.
Simasko told ProPublica in an email that he believed it wasn’t the role of the administrator to get involved in a public health matter, and that he objected “to essentially paying for a second public health medical opinion” more to Hepting’s liking.
Hepting, who has since retired from her post at the county, disputed Simasko’s depiction of her motivations in a message to ProPublica. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” she wrote. “It had nothing to do with shopping for a different opinion. Mr. Nevin’s initial memo did not address the initial question posed by the Board. It did not state what the health risks were and what negative health impacts exist. It basically said it’s a risk because he said so.”
To legally justify the adoption of health regulations, Nevin said in his second memo, it wasn’t necessary for his department “to prove, with a precise scientific or medical rationale, that eligible facilities pose an unreasonable threat to the public’s health.” Instead, expert opinion, public comment and the consent of the local government were reason enough, he wrote.
In the end, county officials were persuaded to act. The commissioners approved the Health Department’s new policy for solar energy and battery facilities, including a nonrefundable $25,000 fee to cover the cost of reviewing a proposed project. It also said that policy violations were punishable by up to six months in prison.
An electric utility promptly sued, and a solar company joined the case. The Health Department, they argued, has no authority to issue what are, in effect, zoning regulations. What’s more, they said in legal filings, the county can’t override the solar standards established by the state………………………………………………..
Solar capacity in Michigan continues to grow, despite local pushback, but so far, only 2.55% of the state’s electricity comes from solar. In Ohio, it’s nearly 6%, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. In Texas, it’s nearly 11%. Michigan is requiring electricity providers to reach an 80% clean energy portfolio by 2035, and 100% by 2040.
Michigan has more local restrictions on renewable energy than any other state, according to the Sabin Center. “Practically nowhere in the country has seen more conflict” about where to allow large solar farms that add electricity directly to the grid than rural Michigan, according to a 2024 article in the Case Western Reserve Law Review authored by a Sabin Center senior fellow………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/26/unfounded-health-concerns-are-powering-a-solar-backlash/
Why Expanded Plutonium Pit Production is Wrong.
30 April 26, https://nukewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Primer-Pit-Production-is-Wrong.pdf
The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is aggressively expanding the production of plutonium pits, the radioactive cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons. Their production has been the choke point of resumed industrial-scale U.S. nuclear weapons production ever since a 1989 FBI raid investigating environmental crimes shut down the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver.
In 1996 production was transferred back to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico, but capped at no more than 20 pits per year. In 2018 NNSA declared it would produce at least 30 pits per year at LANL and 50 per year at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. NNSA now plans to produce up to 205 pits every year for the new arms race.
| Expanded plutonium pit bomb core production is wrong because: |
| • No future production is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing, tested stockpile. New pits are for new nuclear weapons designs, specifically the W87-1 ICBM and the W93 sub-launched warheads. New designs can’t be tested under the global testing moratorium, thereby perhaps degrading stockpile confidence. Or the U.S. could resume testing, after which other countries would surely follow. • There are existing, lasting pits. An expert 2006 study showed most pit types have minimum lives over 100 years and those that don’t have clear fixes. A 2012 study reaffirmed that. Pits are now around 43 years old. More than 15,000 existing pits are already stored at NNSA’s Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX. • Pit production is NNSA’s most expensive program ever, with $5 billion to be spent over each of the next six years and at least $60 billion over the next 20 years. However, the independent Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found that NNSA has no credible cost estimates. • The rad waste problem: The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) is demanding that DOE prioritize LANL’s Cold War wastes for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico instead of new plutonium pit bomb wastes. NMED is also requiring DOE to look for a new out-of-state dump. In short, there is no certain path for the safe disposal of future radioactive bomb wastes. • LANL’s existing limited pit production capability should be sufficient should stockpile problems arise in the future. It should not be expanded. Pit production at SRS should be vigorously opposed because it could be scaled up way beyond LANL for the new nuclear arms race. In addition, DOE is legally required to remove plutonium from South Carolina, not add plutonium because of pit production • LANL’s pit production facility is outdated and unsafe: Known as “PF-4,” it is 48 years old, not designed for mass production, and has a long history of nuclear safety infractions. Moreover, DOE is “deferring” comprehensive cleanup at the Lab until pit production is done (which in effect means never). • DOE ordered a “special assessment” of NNSA’s troubled pit production program scheduled for completion in mid-December 2025. It is being covered up and should be immediately released. • Planned plutonium pit production for the next 50 years violates the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty’s requirement for nuclear weapons states to enter into negotiations leading to disarmament. • NNSA illegally pursued expanded pit production without completing required National Environmental Policy Act review. However, it is being forced to do so by co-plaintiffs’ (including NukeWatch) successful lawsuit. Hearings for a draft Pit Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are being held this May. We strongly encourage concerned citizens to fully participate. |
State Dept. spills the beans…’Bibi made Trump do it’
“the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally”
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 28 Apr 26
Apparently, State Dept. legal advisor Reed Rubinstein didn’t get Trump’s memo to erase Israel’s major involvement in Trump’s failed war on Iran.
It’s bad enough the war is a complete failure, accomplishing none of Trump’s objectives while precipitating global economic decline. If stopped today, it would take months to fully restore the economic calamity engulfing the world. Further delay, currently conducted by Trump desperately seeking an off ramp, spells economic catastrophe.
As horrendous as Trump’s war is, it wasn’t even his idea. Trump was simply following orders from his real boss, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On February 11, Netanyahu arrived at the White House with Mossad Director David Barnea. They encouraged if not demanded invasion. The Netanyahu-Barnea tag team argued Iran would collapse within a couple of days from a combination of assassinating Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei, massive bombing, Mossad-fomented civil unrest and ground incursions by Kurdish fighters. Not surprisingly, the opposite occurred. The Iranian people rallied around their government in as existential battel to the death. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz choking off a fifth of world oil supply and inflicted massive damage on Israel and US Gulf States bases with thousands of missiles. The Netanyahu-Barnea presentation was a blizzard of lies Trump swallowed whole in spite of Intelligence assessments to the contrary.
Trump blundered into the biggest military disaster in America’s 250 years. But he refuses to tell the truth Netanyahu made him do it because he must maintain the fiction the war is necessary to protect the Homeland from an imaginary Iranian nuke fired from an imaginary Iranian ICBM. Gifting Netanyahu with a favor to obliterate his arch enemy Iran is not in the US rulebook for allowing 13 US servicepersons killed and over 400 injured in furtherance of a lost war.
Of course anyone following the war knows the sordid truth. Under pressure Trump blatantly lied: “Israel never talked me into the war with Iran. The results of Oct. 7th, added to my lifelong opinion that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I watch and read the FAKE NEWS Pundits and Polls in total disbelief. 90% of what they say are lies and made up stories, and the polls are rigged, much as the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged.”
But Rubenstein punctured that fiction with this public statement: “As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the UN Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense,”
Good grief. Trump launched a failed criminal war blowing up the world economy because he had to enable an ally rid itself of an imaginary threat. Trump forgot Diplomacy 101 which teaches Allies don’t let allies launch criminal wars, much less take the lead in that murder and mayhem.
Reining In The Pentagon – Can the Military-Industrial Beast Be Tamed?
On the campaign trail in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to drive the “war profiteers” and “war mongers” from Washington, suggesting that they like wars because “missiles cost $2 million each,” while bragging that, in his first term in office, “I had no wars.”
the Golden Dome concept is so delusional that it barely merits a detailed critique
Another reason AI-driven weapons may not be as cheap as advertised is that Luckey, Thiel, and their merry band of unhinged techno-optimists want to eliminate virtually any oversight of their activities.
we really don’t need ever more new weaponry that kills even faster. We need to stop the killing
William D. Hartung, SCHEERPOST, April 28, 2026
Right at this moment, we are witnessing an unprecedented shift of resources from domestic investments in the United States to the military-industrial complex (aka the war machine). The only comparable period in our history was the buildup to World War II, when the United States confronted a powerful adversary in Nazi Germany with designs to control not just Europe, but the world. The current buildup is breathtaking in scope and will certainly prove devastating in its impact — not just on this country’s foreign and domestic policies but also on the economic prospects of average Americans.
When, in 2023, my colleague Ben Freeman and I first conceived of our book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, we viewed it in part as a cautionary tale about just how high the Pentagon budget might rise in the years to come (absent pushback from Congress and the taxpaying public). By the time our book came out in November 2025, however, the Pentagon budget had already topped the $1 trillion mark and, only recently, President Trump has proposed to instantly add another $500 billion to that already staggering figure and to do so in a single year’s time. And imagine this: such a proposed increase alone is higher than the total military budget of any other nation on Earth. Mind you, the current high levels of spending have already underwritten a provocative, unnecessary intervention in Venezuela and a region-wide war in the Middle East, and the larger costs of all this in human lives and damage to the global economy are guaranteed to shape the lives of the rest of us globally for years to come.
To add insult to injury, the Pentagon announced that it would seek a $200 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for its war on Iran, which has spread across the Middle East. That $200 billion would have been in addition to the $1.5 billion proposed for the Pentagon’s future budget. According to an analysis by Pentagon budget expert Stephen Semler, the Iran war, which started on February 28th with Israeli and U.S. air strikes on that country, cost the United States more than $28 billion just in its first two weeks. And to put that in perspective, $28 billion is more than three times the Trump administration’s proposed annual budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (at a time when the climate crisis and the need to head off future pandemics are essential to the health and security of all Americans). Worse yet, it’s all for a completely senseless war that should never have been started.
As President Trump alternates between engaging in negotiations to end the war and threatening to wipe Iran off the map — or even just walking away to bomb another day — there are reports that the supplemental budget request to pay for the war on Iran will shrink from the proposed $200 billion to $98 billion. And that $98 billion will include other things in addition to war costs, including disaster relief and aviation modernization.
The Garrison State and the Reign of the War Profiteers
On the campaign trail in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to drive the “war profiteers” and “war mongers” from Washington, suggesting that they like wars because “missiles cost $2 million each,” while bragging that, in his first term in office, “I had no wars.”
And his rhetoric as the ultimate champion of peace has continued during his second term, even as he has indeed launched reckless wars guaranteed to fill the coffers of the “war profiteers” he railed against on the campaign trail. He has, however, also pledged to help the weapons industry quadruple production of the same sort of “$2 million bombs” he decried during the campaign, plus — even better for the arms makers — missile interceptors that cost up to $12 million each. Worse yet, the demands of the current war on Iran, coupled with support for Israel’s war on Gaza and Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself from Russia, have left the Pentagon and the giant weapons corporations complaining that, if the U.S. doesn’t radically increase its production of artillery shells, bombs, and missiles, the cupboard could soon be bare.
Of course, filling that cupboard again to the tune of staggering sums of money is exactly the wrong solution. The answer to the current munitions shortage is not to further supersize this country’s arms manufacturing base, but to refrain from supplying the weapons used by Israel to commit genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, or to fuel unjustified wars like the current conflict with Iran. The best policy to prevent such stocks of military equipment from running low would, of course, be a more discriminating approach to military aid and a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy and war-making (writ large).
Washington should, in fact, put diplomacy first and only engage in military action if there is a genuine threat to the United States itself. We need a smarter policy toward military procurement and military strategy, not the garrison state with its “military-industrial complex” that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than six decades ago.
In addition, of course, the Pentagon needs to shift its procurement strategy toward producing more reliable weapons at a more reasonable cost, while avoiding unnecessary complexity so that they can be made more rapidly and spend more time ready to be used and less time down for maintenance. Such a formula was a watchword of the bipartisan congressional military reform caucus of the 1980s, which at one point included more than 100 members of Congress and helped roll back the extremes of the military buildup launched by President Ronald Reagan.
The Diminishing Economic Returns of Pentagon Spending
In a detailed forthcoming study for the Transition Security Project and in her own writings, investigative journalist Taylor Barnes of Inkstick Media has charted the diminishing returns from Pentagon spending. Despite a soaring Pentagon budget, direct jobs in arms production are now one-third of what they were 30 years ago, down from three million then to 1.1 million now, according to the arms industry’s own trade association. Unionization rates in the arms production sector are also down sharply, with some big weapons firms like Northrop Grumman having unionization rates of less than 10%. In keeping with that trend, Lockheed Martin moved the production of its F-16 fighter — a staple of foreign arms exports — to the anti-union state of South Carolina.
Even worse, many states provide special tax breaks and other subsidies to attract or keep weapons factories — and that’s on top of the hundreds of billions the industry receives in federal tax dollars. In Utah, the state government staunchly refused to reveal how many jobs Northrop Grumman had promised in return for state subsidies, with one official claiming it would “compromise” the interests of the company to do so. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman’s work on the Sentinel, the newest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), has been a poster child for dysfunctional weapons development, with the estimated cost of the program as a whole growing by 81% in just a few years. Part of the problem was that Northrop Grumman somehow managed to ignore the fact that its new missile would be too large to fit in existing silos, creating the need for further costly new construction efforts.
The spending of scarce tax revenues goes to ICBMs that former Secretary of Defense William Perry once labeled “one of the most dangerous weapons we have.” After all, a president might literally have only minutes to decide whether to launch them on being warned of a potential enemy attack, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war prompted by a false alarm. And there have been many false alarms and nuclear accidents in the nuclear age (even if not yet an actual nuclear attack loosed on the world), as meticulously documented in Eric Schlosser’s essential book Command and Control.
Then there’s the Golden Dome missile “defense” system, a fantasy of President Trump’s that, in reality, could never provide the promised “leakproof” protection against weaponry ranging from ICBMs and hypersonic missiles to low-flying drones. By now, more than 40 years after President Ronald Reagan promised a perfect defense against ICBMs in his 1983 “Star Wars” speech, it should be all too obvious that such a leakproof shield is physically impossible, since enemy ICBMs with nuclear warheads would come in at 15,000 — and no, that is not a misprint! — miles per hour and could be surrounded by large numbers of decoy balloons that would be indistinguishable from a warhead when floating in space. There could be hundreds of such incoming warheads in a full-scale nuclear attack. To even have a chance of intercepting all of them, a defensive system would have to devote as many as 1,600 interceptors to take down incoming missiles. An analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute estimates that a full-blown effort to build a comprehensive Golden Dome shield could cost $3.6 trillion just to construct.
In fact, the Golden Dome concept is so delusional that it barely merits a detailed critique, though many such analyses are available. A more reasonable way to deal with it would, of course, be ridicule.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Another reason AI-driven weapons may not be as cheap as advertised is that Luckey, Thiel, and their merry band of unhinged techno-optimists want to eliminate virtually any oversight of their activities, whether through independent testing of their new systems or measures to prevent price gouging by unscrupulous contractors. At present, the motto of the military tech sector is “trust me.” I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to have someone minding the store, so that the tech billionaires don’t simply rob us blind.
Of course, what would it mean if Silicon Valley could deliver cheaper, more deadly advanced weaponry? After all, artificial intelligence systems were indeed used in recent times to accelerate targeting during Israel’s genocidal war on the people of Gaza, and they have been used in President Trump’s disastrous assault on Iran. And neither of those situations has yet had a happy ending. But that’s the point. The truth is we really don’t need ever more new weaponry that kills even faster. We need to stop the killing. And that means blunting the political influence of the warmongers and war profiteers that Donald Trump criticized on the campaign trail in 2024 and then so warmly embraced as president.
And to put all of this in grim perspective, he is now presiding over perhaps the most corrupt, incompetent, repressive regime in the history of this republic. And worse yet, some of his most dismal policies — like unstinting support for Israeli aggression — have, sadly enough, had bipartisan backing in Washington. In short, he has taken what were already some of the worst American policies and accelerated them, even as he destroys positive aspects of the government like the U.S. Agency for International Development’s provision of food, clean water, and public health services abroad or any further engagement in constructive international institutions.
Among other things, he is now narrowing America’s foreign policy options by dismantling civilian tools of statecraft, while doubling down on military approaches that haven’t “won” a war in this century (or the second half of the last one either). Meanwhile, the economic damage and humanitarian costs are spreading globally, including to his own supporters.
The challenge now is to build a movement that not only turns back Trump’s policies, but gets at the underlying economic, political, and cultural forces that have kept the United States in a permanent state of war for so long, while robbing us of opportunities to build a better, more peaceful, tolerant, and just future. Given the pace of destruction and chaos being visited upon us, it’s important to act now and continue to do so until we build enough power to rein in the war machine and begin creating actual structures of peace. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/28/reining-in-the-pentagon-2/
‘Spring 2026’ Flotilla Sets Sail From Sicily To Break Gaza Blockade.
April 28, 2026 , https://english.palinfo.com/news/2026/04/27/362011/
The “Spring 2026 mission,” part of the Global Sumud Flotilla, set sail on Sunday from the Italian island of Sicily, aiming to break the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip and deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinians.
According to flotilla sources, the vessels had arrived in Sicily on 23 April after departing from Barcelona on 12 April. They were later joined by additional boats and activists from across Italy, particularly through the ports of Syracuse and Augusta.
The number of participating vessels rose to 65 boats at the Augusta marina before completing final departure procedures. The flotilla then began sailing gradually into the Mediterranean Sea in coordinated stages during the afternoon.
While at sea, the flotilla was joined by a vessel affiliated with Greenpeace, which expressed support for the mission.
As the boats departed the port, activists chanted “Free Palestine” and lit flares, bidding farewell to one another with the phrase “See you in Gaza.”
Turkish activist Ali Deniz, who joined the flotilla from Barcelona, described the atmosphere as highly energized. “There is great enthusiasm here, just as we saw in Spain,” he said, expressing confidence that the flotilla would reach Gaza’s port and meet children there.
Italian activist Martina said the Palestinian people continue to demonstrate strong resilience, adding that participants see their role as serving the Palestinians.
She criticized governments for failing to act, noting that activists decided to mobilize independently with a large number of vessels.
German activist Tom, one of the youngest participants at 19, said his motivation stemmed from what he described as his country’s complicity in what is happening in Palestine.
He stressed that injustice and human rights violations are unacceptable, adding that he believes a genocide is unfolding in plain sight, which compelled him to take action.
US to give $100 million to repair damaged Chornobyl nuclear shelter, Kyiv says
By Reuters, April 30, 2026, Reporting by Max Hunder Editing by David Goodman
The U.S. will give $100 million towards repairs of the vast radiation containment dome at the Chornobyl plant in northern Ukraine, site of the world’s worst atomic accident in 1986, after the dome was damaged by a Russian drone, Kyiv’s energy minister, Denys Shmyhal, said on Wednesday.
One of Chornobyl’s four reactors exploded in 1986 and is now enclosed by a shelter to contain the lingering radiation. A Russian drone hit that structure in February last year.
In a post on Telegram, Shmyhal said funding for repairs of the dome, at an estimated cost of 500 million euros ($584.95 million), was discussed with international partners at a recent conference about the plant.
Rosyth councillor Brian Goodall wants public consultation.
29th April, By Ally McRoberts, Content Editor, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26063183.rosyth-councillor-brian-goodall-wants-public-consultation/
THE UK Government’s refusal to give local residents a say in Trident nuclear submarines coming to Rosyth has been slammed as “disgusting and undemocratic”.
Local SNP councillor Brian Goodall was fuming that a request for a public consultation on the move, which he said would require “radiation shelters” and iodine tablets for people who live in the town, has been sunk.
He said: “The UK Government are effectively saying we won’t ask the Scottish public if we should do this because we know they’d say no.”
Cllr Goodall added: “The MoD confirmed at a previous meeting of the area committee that these nuclear submarines may have nuclear missiles on board when they come into Rosyth.
“This not only presents massive additional health and safety concerns but also makes Rosyth even more of a target for rogue nations and international terrorist groups.”
The next generation of Trident nuclear submarines is the Dreadnought class and a contingent dock is to be in place at Rosyth Dockyard by 2029.
The vessels are to be maintained at Faslane but a temporary home is needed in Fife, and the UK Government have provided £340 million to help “bridge the gap”, as the site on the Clyde won’t be ready until the mid 2030s.
In December the MoD told local councillors they would not reveal if any of the subs that need repairs or maintenance at Rosyth will be carrying nuclear warheads.
In February, at the South and West Fife area committee, Cllr Goodall submitted a successful motion asking the convener to write to the Secretary of State of Defence, requesting that the public are consulted on plans to “potentially bring nuclear weapons” to the dockyard.
Opponents have argued that maintaining nuclear-powered subs and storing nuclear weapons are entirely separate – and that nuclear warheads are not kept onboard when a sub goes in for maintenance.
This week Cllr Goodall said: “The UK Government, through the MoD, have now responded to the request for them to hold a public consultation on their plans to bring nuclear fuelled, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines to Rosyth Dockyard, and their response is as predictable as it is disgusting and undemocratic.”
He said the letter from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, “not only confirms their refusal to consult with local residents on their plans, it also admits that public safety, while a major concern, is not the main priority of the MoD”.
Cllr Goodall went on: “These submarines will still have their nuclear fuel onboard, unlike the decommissioned subs that are already at the dockyard, so there will need to be additional emergency plans put in place, including arrangements for radiation shelters for some local residents and to distribute potassium iodide tablets to the local population.
“The communities around the dockyard should be allowed to have their say on this and the campaign for a public consultation will go on.”
The work on the Dreadnought class would be in addition to the submarine dismantling project at the dockyard, which is cutting up an old nuclear sub, Swiftsure, and removing the radioactive waste left within it.
There are another six decommissioned subs laid up at Rosyth – and 15 at Devonport – and although no decision has been made, Babcock are recruiting for more people to work on the dismantling project.
Cllr Goodall has also expressed concern about the Swiftsure demonstrator scheme, arguing that work to remove the reactor should not go ahead as it’d be cheaper not to do so and there was nowhere safe to store the radioactive waste.
Genocide—and Complicity: Washington Insider Says the Word They Avoid
April 29, 2026 , Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/29/genocide-and-complicity-washington-insider-says-the-word-they-avoid/
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has delivered a rare rupture in official Washington’s script: accusing Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza—and acknowledging that the United States is not a bystander, but a participant in its outcome.
Speaking to Bloomberg, Sherman pointed directly to the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing they have driven the devastation in Gaza while fueling wider instability across the Middle East. This is not the language of ambiguity or “both sides”—it is an indictment from within the establishment itself.
More damning still, Sherman underscored the uncomfortable truth at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: Washington’s actions are inseparable from its alliance with Israel. That relationship, she suggested, is no longer politically or morally sustainable without serious reassessment.
Her comments carry unusual weight. Sherman is not an outsider—she helped shape U.S. diplomacy at the highest levels. And her warning comes as global outrage grows over the scale of destruction in Gaza and the mounting civilian toll.
According to Gaza health authorities, at least 817 Palestinians have been killed and 2,296 wounded in reported Israeli violations of a ceasefire agreement since it took effect—figures that continue to climb as the violence grinds on.
International pressure is now building to force a reckoning: calls are intensifying to condition U.S. support for Israel on adherence to international law. The question is no longer whether the world is watching—it’s whether Washington will finally be forced to see what it has helped make possible.
In the full interview, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman—no outsider, but a career diplomat and reliable mouthpiece of empire—did not arrive at the word lightly. She is not a campus protester, not an antiwar dissident, not someone who has challenged the foundations of U.S. power. She is a lifelong architect and defender of it. That is precisely what makes her admission so jarring: Israel, she said, has “in essence created a genocide in Gaza,” and the United States helped pave the road that made it possible.
Let’s be clear—this is not an endorsement of Sherman’s worldview. She has spent decades advancing the very system now producing this devastation. But when even a figure so deeply embedded in that machinery begins to name what is happening, it signals something deeper than dissent—it signals rupture.
This is the moral collapse Washington keeps trying to launder as strategy. Gaza has been demolished, civilians slaughtered, hospitals and homes reduced to rubble, and still the political class hides behind euphemism while the dead pile up faster than the truth can be spoken. Sherman’s words matter not because she stands outside power, but because she doesn’t. They expose what official Washington already knows and refuses to confront: this is not an accident, not collateral damage, not a tragic excess of war. It is the destruction of a people—enabled, armed, and excused by the United States.
When a figure like that uses the word “genocide,” it punctures the careful language Washington relies on to avoid accountability. But it also reveals the limits of insider critique: naming the crime without challenging the structure that enables it. Her words expose a truth the political class already understands—that U.S. power is deeply entangled in this devastation—yet still stops short of confronting what that means. And that is the real indictment: not just what has been done, but how fully it has been absorbed into the logic of empire itself.
US NRC Approves 20-Year Lifetime Extensions For St. Lucie Nuclear Plants
Units 1 and 2 at Florida’s two-unit St. Lucie nuclear power station will
now be able to operate until 2056 and 2063 respectively following a 20-year
lifetime extension by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Plant
operator Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), confirmed that its subsequent
licence renewal application made in 2021 had received the green light from
the NRC. The St. Lucie renewals follow the renewal of FPL’s two-unit
Turkey Point nuclear plant, also in Florida, in 2024.
Nucnet 30th April 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/us-nrc-approves-20-year-lifetime-extensions-for-st-lucie-nuclear-plants-4-4-2026
What are Palantir’s 22 points?
Palantir’s 22 points summarize CEO Alex Karp’s vision for the 21st century, emphasizing national defense, AI, societal order, and a pro-Western ideological stance.
Palantir Technologies released a 22-point summary of CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic on April 19, 2026, outlining the company’s ideological and strategic vision for the 21st century. The manifesto addresses the role of technology, national defense, AI, and societal culture, and has sparked significant debate due to its controversial positions.
Palantir’s 22 Points summarize:
1. Moral Duty of Tech Companies: Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the U.S., and tech elites have an obligation to participate in national defense.
2. Hard Power over Soft Power: The manifesto argues that liberal democracies require hard power, particularly software and AI, to maintain security and influence.
3. AI and Military Deterrence: The atomic age is ending, and a new era of AI-based deterrence is beginning. Palantir emphasizes that AI weapons will be built, and the question is who builds them and for what purpose.
4. National Service: The U.S. should consider reinstating universal national service, moving away from an all-volunteer military.
5. Support for Military Personnel: If a U.S. Marine or soldier requires better equipment or software, the country should provide it, reflecting a commitment to those in harm’s way.
6. Governance and Public Life: Public officials should be treated with tolerance, and society should allow room for human complexity to avoid incompetent leadership.
7. Geopolitical Repositioning: The manifesto calls for reversing the postwar demilitarization of Germany and Japan, warning that current pacifism could shift the balance of power in Asia.
8. Cultural Evaluation: Some cultures are described as producing vital advances, while others are labeled regressive or harmful. The manifesto criticizes “vacant and hollow pluralism” and emphasizes the importance of recognizing cultural contributions.
9. Role of Silicon Valley in Crime and Society: Tech companies should actively address violent crime and societal challenges, rather than remaining passive.
Implications and Controversy
The 22 points have been described as a corporate political manifesto, linking Palantir’s software and AI capabilities to national defense, law enforcement, and immigration control. Critics have labeled it “technofascist” or likened it to a supervillain’s vision due to its advocacy for AI weapons, national service, and cultural hierarchies. Supporters argue it reflects a clear moral and strategic stance for tech companies in global security.
Summary
In essence, Palantir’s 22 points articulate a vision where technology, national defense, and societal order are intertwined, emphasizing AI, military readiness, and a pro-Western ideological framework. The manifesto has generated both praise and criticism, highlighting the company’s unique position at the intersection of tech, politics, and global security.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Says It Won’t Give Up Nuclear Assets In Rare Public Statement
By Sara Dorn, Forbes Staff. Sara Dorn is a Forbes news reporter who covers politics. Apr 30, 2026, https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/04/30/irans-supreme-leader-says-it-wont-give-up-nuclear-assets-in-rare-public-statement/
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei vowed Thursday not to give up the country’s “nuclear and missile capabilities” in a rare statement Thursday—making clear Iran rejects the U.S.’s key demand to end the war.
Key Facts
An anchor on Iranian TV read the statement from Khamenei, who has not appeared or spoken in public since he took over for his father, who was killed in the initial wave of U.S. strikes in February.
Khamenei said Iran would maintain ownership of “all national assets,” including “nuclear and missile technologies,” according to an English translation of his statement published in Iranian state media.
Khamenei vowed Iran would “end the hostile misuse” of the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf region and criticized U.S. military action in the key waterway as a “humiliating failure.”
Khamenei has not appeared or spoken in public since he took over for his father, who was killed in the initial wave of U.S. strikes in February.
Giving up its nuclear weapons and allowing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz are key provisions for the U.S. in agreeing to permanently end the conflict.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has vowed to maintain its naval blockade of vessels coming to and from Iran, telling Axios on Wednesday the maneuver is “somewhat more effective than the bombing” and is “choking” Iran’s economy.
Shortly after Khamenei released his statement, the White House tweeted a previous quote from Trump that said “there will never be a deal unless [Iran] agrees that there will be no nuclear weapons.”
What To Watch For
The Pentagon has prepared plans for new strikes against Iran in an effort to force Iran back to the negotiating table, Axios reported Wednesday, citing two unnamed sources. One of the plans reportedly involves the U.S. taking control over part of the Strait of Hormuz and reopening it to commercial shipping traffic—an operation that could involve ground troops. Trump is expected to receive a briefing on the plan Thursday. He would not comment on any potential military action when he spoke to Axios Wednesday.
Tangent
Global oil prices have skyrocketed since the start of the Iran war, reaching a four-year high of more than $120 a barrel on Thursday. U.S. gas prices also increased 27 cents in the past week, to $4.30 a gallon.
Key Background
The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz has brought negotiations between Iran and the U.S. to a standstill, though the ceasefire between the two countries that took effect on April 30 remains in place. Iran reportedly presented the U.S. with a new plan to reopen the strait on Sunday, contingent on delaying nuclear talks, The New York Times reported, citing three unnamed Iranian officials. The plan would allow Iran to continue tolling ships for passage through the strait. The U.S. hasn’t publicly responded, but officials have repeatedly said Iran must agree to give up its stockpile of enriched uranium and agree to end its nuclear program as part of a deal for a lasting ceasefire.
Charles III and Britain’s pathological obsession with Russia
British political class has had a pathological obsession with Russia for nearly two centuries, and has been scheming to wage wars against her at least since the Crimean War of 1853. In all cases, Britain is always eager to lead such wars from behind and incite other powers to do the actual fighting. One of the most blatant examples was their weaponizing of Hitler’s Germany in preparation for the largest ever invasion force in 1941, counting over 3.8 million troops. This was not really a “German invasion” as our historical curriculum suggests; it was a German-led invasion.
Yesterday, Charles III called for World War III, echoing the 1945 “Project Unthinkable” Britain’s obsession with waging war on Russia is now a mortal danger to all of us.
Alex Krainer, Apr 30, 2026, https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/charles-iii-and-britains-pathological?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1063805&post_id=195907312&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
On Monday, 27 April, Britain’s king Charles III came to Washington for a four-day state visit to the United States hosted by President Donald Trump. His “majsesty,” is also known to his fans as late Jimmy Saville’s BFF and the brother of Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF Andrew, formerly known as prince.
Yesterday, Charles graced the joint session of U.S. Congress with an inspiring speech during which he found it appropriate to call on his American audience to get on with the business of World War III already. Thus spoke his majesty:
“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people.”
Glorifying wars of the past, particularly Afghanistan, and invoking NATO Article 5 which was “needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” was a naked call for the United States to commit to war against Russia: another great war on the European continent.
Given that the last two World Wars resulted in some 70 million casualties, one would think that the king’s warmongering would prompt U.S. elected representatives to tar and feather the British royal and run him out of town on a rail, but of course, one would be wrong. King’s call for World War III elicited an enthusiastic standing ovation from the politicians, otherwise passionately supportive of the ‘no kings’ protests in their country.
Britain’s incurable Russia derangement
British political class has had a pathological obsession with Russia for nearly two centuries, and has been scheming to wage wars against her at least since the Crimean War of 1853. In all cases, Britain is always eager to lead such wars from behind and incite other powers to do the actual fighting. One of the most blatant examples was their weaponizing of Hitler’s Germany in preparation for the largest ever invasion force in 1941, counting over 3.8 million troops. This was not really a “German invasion” as our historical curriculum suggests; it was a German-led invasion.
The 3.8 million strong invasion force (which grew to six million within its first year of fighting) was sourced from nearly all European countries. Soviet Union repelled that invasion at a cost of 27 million casualties. One in 9 Russians died and almost every Russian family lost someone in that war. When it became clear that the invasion had failed and that Hitler’s army would be defeated, British Joint Planning Staff thought up “Project Unthinkable”: a new&improved plan to attack Russia.
The document was submitted to Winston Churchill on 22 May 1945 (it is available at this link) proposing a surprise attack against Russia, planned for July 1, 1945 by the combined UK and the US forces, supported by the Polish and German troops. The project’s political objective was to submit Russia “to our will”:
“A quick success might induce the Russians to submit to our will at least for the time being; but it might not. … if they want total war, they are in the position to have it.”
The “elites” in London were dreaming up a new war against Russia even as World War 2 was still raging and the Soviet Union was finishing off Hitler’s Wehrmacht at the Eastern front. Britain was ostensibly allied with the USSR at that time, but the king and the cabal, as Winston Churchill named it, were secretly rooting for Hitler.
A total war is necessary
Britain’s Joint Planning Staff advanced two hypotheses: (1) that “a total war is necessary,” and (2) that “a quick success would suffice to gain our political objective.” However, the quick victory in a surprise attack might only yield a temporary result. A lasting one would require victory in a total war:
“The only way we can achieve our object with certainty and lasting results is by victory in a total war.”
However, this “total war,” as they well understood, would have to be a very long term project:
To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilisation of manpower to counteract their present enormous manpower resources. This is a very long term project and would involve: the deployment in Europe of a large proportion of the vast resources of the United States; and the re-equipment and reorganization of German manpower and of all the Western allies.
It would be interesting to know what made the Joint Planning Staff believe that they could reorganize German manpower together with the “vast resources of the United States?” Whatever it was that they knew, they concluded that, “the only thing certain is that to win it would take us a very long time.”
Exactly how long was unclear, but perhaps it was the time needed to organize some form of a North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, to dismember the USSR and to weaponize at least one of its former republics, like Ukraine, as a battering ram to wield against Russia.
High cabal… has made us what we are
Two years after formulating “Project Unthinkable,” the British government drafted the “Fundamentals of Our Defence Policy,” reaffirming that, “The most likely and most formidable threat to our interests comes from Russia,” and that, “Ensuring that we have the active and early support of the United States of America and of the Western European States” was essential.
Well, as the war in Ukraine is now clearly headed for the same result as Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa,” active support of the United States of America is now quite urgent, and this is why king Chuck was busy charming his American audience to revive Project Unthinkable.
The king’s speech and his kingdom’s foreign policy over decades suggest that their obsession with waging a total war against Russia remains all consuming for the British political class. This poses a mortal danger to the whole world by now, and we can be sure their obsession won’t stop with a speech: furious lobbying and influence campaigns will be unleashed, perhaps only requiring a well-orchestrated false flag attack attributed to Russia.
If they are successful in their endeavor, we can expect a nuclear war. Recall, last year we learned that the UK was/is willing and ready to help Ukraine build a nuclear weapon. The criminal insanity of it is truly hard to fathom, calling to mind Winston Churchill’s cryptic quip upon learning about the allies’ brutal bombardment of Rotterdam: “Unrestricted submarine warfare. Unrestricted air bombings – this is total war… Time and ocean and some guiding star and high cabal have made us what we are.”
‘I miss our land. Chernobyl broke us’: The families who lost their homes after world’s worst nuclear accident
For 40 years, the residents of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus have grappled with the devastating effects of the world’s worst nuclear accident. They tell Alex Croft about the day that their lives were changed forever
25 April2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyl-40-years-family-reel-hostages-b2963417.html EXCELLENT PHOTOS
lena Maruzhenko remembers her mother sobbing when Soviet police told them to evacuate their home in the village of Korogod in northern Ukraine.
Just 12km away, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had exploded, sending a shaft of blue light into the night sky and throwing clouds of radioactive material into the surrounding area.
Local authorities told Olena and their mother that they would only need to leave their home for three days. They had no idea that the worst nuclear disaster in history had unfolded.
“We believed we would definitely return,” Olena recalls to The Independent as the world marks the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.
“The 26 April, 1986, is a date that is forever etched in my memory with black sadness. We could not imagine leaving our homes without knowing where to go.”
Olena and her mother were among 350,000 people who were evacuated from the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Hundreds of buses were sent to ferry workers from Pripyat, an industrial city created to house workers from the nearby plant located around 100km north of Kyiv.
The disaster began when reactor number 4 at the power plant exploded at 1.23am, after a test went catastrophically wrong.
In the days that followed, a massive and uncontainable release of radioactive material spread across Europe. Firefighters and workers were exposed to lethal radiation as they attempted to contain the blaze. Thousands of animals were mercifully slaughtered as residents were evacuated from nearby towns.
The Soviet government sought to downplay the scale of the accident.
In the 40 years since Chernobyl, thousands of people have suffered devastating health consequences due to high radiation exposure, including thyroid cancer.
Vast areas were contaminated by the radiation, devastating the region’s environment. Luscious green forests turned a reddish brown, while vital soil for agriculture was polluted for decades.
Korogod was once a town surrounded by forests, rivers and lakes that provided rich sources of mushrooms, berries, fish and herbs sold in bustling local markets. After the disaster, it became a grey and decrepit ghost town in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, a 30km area restricted to human habitation.
The official Soviet death toll, given in 1987, was 31. But after including those who suffered lasting health effects, the toll is significantly higher.
The husband of Natalia Dykun, another resident of Korogod, was one such person. He was diagnosed with cancer after the disaster and eventually died from the disease.
“We became hostages of the Chernobyl disaster,” she says. “The treatment did not help and he died very young. In almost every house near us, someone from the family began to get sick, and later almost every family lost a relative to cancer.”
Natalia was 28 at the time of the explosion. She recalls the silence from the Soviet authorities causing “great harm”, with residents “completely unprotected, both morally and physically”.
Most residents from the towns near Chernobyl only truly understood the scale of what had happened when they discovered new towns were being built to house them.
Natalia says she was “devastated” to see a new village being built in an open field with “no forest or water nearby”. Her home used to be surrounded by nature.
Olga Mikhalova was only 15 when she learned she would never be returning home. “The accident and evacuation changed us forever,” she says.
“Family ties were broken, neighbourly ties. We would not wish this on anyone.”
Olena, who was living with strangers in the aftermath of the tragedy, watched the news in tears when she found out new homes were being built. “I still dream of my village, my native house. I miss our land. The Chernobyl accident broke us.”
Slavutych, a planned city on the western bank of the Dnieper River, still houses around 20,000 people. It was built for those evacuated from the abandoned city of Pripyat, perhaps the most famous of those evacuated after the explosion. Chilling images of Pripyat, including its haunting abandoned fairground, are an enduring symbol of the lives and communities lost in just a matter of hours.
“When we realised that we would not return home, it was very difficult for us, the young, to come to terms with this, and it was even more difficult for the older generation,” says Olga. “This is a tragedy for many generations.”
As war rages in Ukraine, with Russian forces playing fast and loose around Chernobyl and the southern Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, experts have told The Independent that we are closer than ever to another nuclear disaster.
For those who have suffered the most catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident, this is unthinkable.
“As a person who survived the evacuation, I feel especially acute anxiety when war touches nuclear facilities,” Olena says. “This causes fear and incomprehension, why humanity, having had such an experience, is taking risks again.”
Natalie fears for the future generations. “This irresponsibility of the enemy and the risks for the surrounding world of a repeat of the disaster are very frightening and we are in constant stress and fear. We are no longer afraid for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren.
“Irresponsibility and insecurity in relation to nuclear energy and infrastructure is a crime before the whole world.”
Inside Chornobyl: 40 years after disaster, nuclear site still at risk.
Sat 25 Apr 2026 , Guardian,
In February 2025, a cheap Russian drone tore through Chornobyl’s confinement shelter. Workers warn the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident is not safe yet.
The dosimeter clipped to your chest ticks faster the moment you step off the designated path inside the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. Step back, and it slows again – an invisible line between clean ground and contamination.
Above rises the “new safe confinement” (NSC) – the largest movable steel structure ever built, taller than the Statue of Liberty, wider than the Colosseum, its arch curving overhead like an aircraft hangar built for giant planes.
Completed in 2019 at a cost of $2.5bn (£1.85bn) and funded by 45 countries, the NSC was built to shield the world from what lies beneath it. It sits at the heart of a vast exclusion zone, a radioactive landscape the size of Cyprus, largely abandoned by humanity. Stray dogs roam the plant in packs – workers advise against petting them.
Inside is “the sarcophagus” – a grey concrete tomb erected in just 206 days to cover the ruins of reactor No 4, which exploded on 26 April 1986 in the worst nuclear accident to date.
Up close, the sarcophagus looks almost makeshift – massive slabs stacked like giant building blocks, rust streaking the joins. Inside, 180 tonnes of nuclear fuel and four to five tonnes of radioactive dust remain trapped.
The NSC was constructed to buy time: to allow the unstable sarcophagus to be dismantled safely over decades, while shielding against the consequences in case it collapses.
What its funders did not anticipate was a war – Chornobyl was occupied in the first weeks of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine – much less a drone strike on the facility three years later.
In the north-west corner of the roof, a temporary patch marks where a cheap $20,000 Russian drone tore through the structure on 14 February 2025, punching a hole in the arch and compromising the very function the arch was built for.
“If the sarcophagus collapses, over a hundred tonnes of nuclear fuel would be released into the air,” said the plant’s director general, Serhii Tarakanov.
A full repair is required within four years, Ukrainian officials and western experts say, or the NSC’s 100-year lifespan can no longer be guaranteed. It is estimated to cost up to €500m (£432m) – money that Ukraine’s cash-strapped government has not yet found.
Meanwhile, war continues in Ukraine, and Russia has repeatedly launched drones and missiles along flight paths near the Chornobyl nuclear plant, raising the risk of another disaster.
On the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster, one of the world’s most vulnerable sites remains under threat…………………………………………………………………………..
Should the sarcophagus collapse – whether from a strike, structural failure or age (built for 20 years, now standing for 40) – experts say it would release another cloud of radioactive particles into the air with no safeguard to contain it.
“The collapse of the sarcophagus would primarily be an enormous hazard for those working at the Chornobyl plant and set back dealing with the disaster for many more years,” said Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace.
Beyond the financial costs and the war, there is the question of how the repairs of the confinement shelter are done at all. High radiation levels directly above the damaged section mean workers can legally spend no more than about 20 hours a year in that zone before hitting their annual dose limit.
“Workers will be able to perform their assignment there for a few hours, if not just a few minutes at a time,” said Tarakanov, adding that the work would require about 100 qualified construction workers operating in short rotations at height on a curved, contaminated surface……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
the exclusion zone’s isolation offers no protection from the war.
The plant has experienced four total blackouts since October 2024 caused by Russian strikes on the electricity grid, each requiring emergency diesel generators to keep the spent fuel cooling systems running.
Additional air defences and soldiers have been brought in, said Vadim Slipukha, the deputy director general for security at the site, though the threat has not gone away, he said. Even an unintentional strike from a drone knocked off course by electronic warfare could trigger a collapse of the sarcophagus.
“We are begging the international community to understand,” said Tarakanov. “There is a real risk of a new incident. It could happen any night, any day.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/25/chornobyl-power-plant-at-risk-amid-russia-
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 