nuclear-news

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

Complaint to the Editor of the Narwhal

SMRs are not small, and they are not modular. No one is building SMR components in a factory – please check the spin OPG gives you. They are still enormous, although a lot of the bulk is hidden underground.  What OPG has done to try to cut construction costs and time is cut some safety systems (see the Canadian Environmental Law Associations submission on this).

Angela Bischoff, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, 28 Feb 26

Hello Narwhal Editor,

We just read Fatima Syed’s recent piece on SMRs and we’re shocked. This piece demonstrates zero effort to come to terms with what SMRs really are, or their impacts. Instead, we get a bunch of puffery from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the Ontario government. 

SMRs are not small, and they are not modular. No one is building SMR components in a factory – please check the spin OPG gives you. They are still enormous, although a lot of the bulk is hidden underground.  What OPG has done to try to cut construction costs and time is cut some safety systems (see the Canadian Environmental Law Associations submission on this).

There are a few reasons SMRs are all talk and little action. In most cases, it is old technology repackaged into a slightly smaller size at the expense of much lower energy output per dollar spent. Many of the companies touting “new” SMR technology are trying to reboot old ideas (molten salt, breeder reactors) that were discarded long ago as unworkable. In most cases, these companies lack the capital or the expertise to get their projects off the ground, as New Brunswick has discovered at significant public cost.

To make these reactors “modular” we would have to be building thousands every year. That’s just not about to happen with the cost and complexity of nuclear technology. They are never going to be “Lego kits” no matter what nuclear PR people tell you – it’s just embarrassing that you would take that statement at face value. That idea has been thoroughly debunked even by promoters of nuclear energy, many of whom would prefer to keep the focus on large reactors

Of course, manufacturing at scale has already happened with solar, wind and batteries because these components really can be produced at mega factory scale (actual factories exist!). Nuclear reactors remain hand crafted projects like a custom-made suit and are equally expensive (and hard to fix) because of that. It’s no surprise to us that the Darlington rebuild is running 25% over budget due to the discovery of worn-out components that OPG didn’t anticipate needing to fix.

As the 2025 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) notes “The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term ‘Potemkin village’ as ‘an impressive facade or show designed to hide an undesirable fact or condition.’ The state of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) today might well be described as a Potemkin Village. Even as the evidence for the high costs and the long timelines for potential future construction becomes clearer, and what is most on display are numerous announcements about future SMRs, usually held out for some time in the 2030s, the industry, politicians, investors, and, last but not least, the media continue to portray SMRs as an indispensable and sure way to solve the climate emergency crisis…”

The WNISR goes on to thoroughly debunk the notion that SMRs are a viable energy or climate solution and provides an in-depth explanation of why renewables plus storage are now simply unbeatable on costs, speed, climate, and reliability. Please read and report on it.

The Narwhal has been a valuable source of in-depth reporting on key environmental issues, so it is mystifying why it would choose to publish what is essentially an “advertorial” promoting Ontario’s misguided enthusiasm for nuclear technology and particularly SMRs. Not speaking to anyone who could address the myths being put forward by OPG and the Ontario government is simply shocking. Taking their statements at face value without making any effort to verify information, even more so. There are many credible nuclear critics in Ontario and Canada that could give counter arguments to OPG’s corporate spin, yet you included none.

We have come to expect a much more thoughtful approach to journalism than this from your publication.

Thanks for your attention.

Angela Bischoff, Director, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, CleanAirAlliance.org

March 5, 2026 Posted by | Canada | Leave a comment

France arrests activists blocking ship over alleged Russia uranium links

Police arrested four Greenpeace activists on Monday for blocking a cargo ship in France that they alleged was transporting uranium from Russia for the country’s nuclear power plants. 

By:RFI, 02/03/2026 ,
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-arrests-activists-blocking-ship-over-alleged-russia-uranium-links-ukraine-war

Around 20 protestors carrying signs reading “Stop toxic contracts” and “Solidarity with Ukrainians”, blockaded the Mikhail Dudin at the northern port of Dunkirk early on Monday morning, to prevent it from unloading its cargo, a journalist from French news agency AFP observed.

French authorities then arrested four individuals, Dunkirk police told AFP, adding that the blockade was lifted around 9am local time.

Greenpeace has repeatedly accused France of maintaining ties with Russia’s state-owned energy company, Rosatom, despite President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

Activists, some on kayaks, had impeded the ship while a large banner stretched across the lock read, “Uranium: EDF loves Putin” – a jab at the French state-owned energy giant.

In 2018, France’s EDF signed a 600-million-euro deal with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for reprocessed uranium from French nuclear power plants to be sent to Russia to be converted and then re-enriched before being reused in power production.

Rosatom has the only facility in the world – in Seversk in Siberia – capable of carrying out key parts of the conversion of reprocessed uranium to enriched reprocessed uranium.

“This trade, which indirectly fuels Putin’s war, must stop,” said Pauline Boyer, an energy campaigner for Greenpeace France on Monday.

The environment group alleges it has “on numerous occasions” observed the Mikhail Dudin unloading Russian natural and enriched uranium in France.

An AFP analysis of Global Fishing Watch tracking data shows the Mikhail Dudin has made more than 20 round trips between Dunkirk and the Russian ports of Vistino, Ust-Luga and Saint Petersburg since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February, 2022.

The Baltiyskiy-202 – another vessel that Greenpeace alleges has transported uranium between France and Russia – has completed more than 15 round trips during the same period.

Both sail under the Panamanian flag and are owned by companies registered in Hong Kong, according to the International Maritime Organisation’s register.

EDF did not immediately respond to AFP’s request for comment.

In 2022, France ordered EDF to halt its uranium trade with Rosatom when Greenpeace first revealed the contracts in the wake of Russia’s invasion.

But in March 2024, Jean-Michel Quilichini, head of the nuclear fuel division at EDF, said the company planned to continue to “honour” its 2018 contract.

France in March 2024 said it was “seriously” looking at the possibility of building its own conversion facility to produce enriched reprocessed uranium.

AFP analysis of French customs data shows that in 2025, France imported at least 112 tonnes of enriched uranium and its compounds from Russia, accounting for a quarter of total purchases by volume – a level stable compared to 2024.

These imports however fell significantly between 2022 and 2024.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | France, legal | Leave a comment

Nuclear flashpoints to fallout

Devonport doesn’t just work on operational nuclear submarines, it is also a ‘graveyard’ for retired ones. Twelve out of the 16 decommissioned submarines at Devonport are still carrying their fuel – effectively a stockpile of nuclear waste.

New Internationalist 1st Jan 2026

Could the threat of nuclear war be closer than ever? Amy Hall explores how we got here and the pathways out of the crisis.

If you want to get a nuclear-powered submarine refitted, repaired or refuelled in Britain, there is only one place to go – Devonport dockyard in Plymouth, the biggest naval base in Western Europe.

Running across more than six kilometres of waterfront, the dockyard has been part of the landscape for generations. It dominates the western edge of the South West England city, encased by high fenced walls, security cameras and warning signs about police dogs and potential arrest for ‘unauthorized activity’.

The main refit and maintenance area is owned and operated by British defence company Babcock International, which in 2024 made $1,273 million in revenue from nuclear weapons work. In 2025, it celebrated a 51 per cent surge in profit.

But Plymouth itself has not seen the same boost. ‘Most of the money generated goes out of the city,’ says local campaigner Tony Staunton, who is also the vice chair of the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Authorities say that Devonport generates around 10 per cent of Plymouth’s income, but neighbourhoods next to the dockyard remain among the poorest five per cent in the country.

Devonport doesn’t just work on operational nuclear submarines, it is also a ‘graveyard’ for retired ones. Twelve out of the 16 decommissioned submarines at Devonport are still carrying their fuel – effectively a stockpile of nuclear waste.

Over the last 30 years, at least 10 serious radioactive leaks have been documented at Devonport, and chemicals like plutonium, americium and tritium have been found on the Plymouth coastline, including at a wildlife reserve close to the dockyard. Staunton says he has met former dockworkers with cancer who are convinced that their illnesses date back to the time they worked at Devonport, but a ‘culture of secrecy’ about any negative impact of the docks pervades over this military city.

Local authorities have taken steps to prepare for a serious radiation leak at the dockyard, which is within a residential area. An investigation by Declassified UK found that in 2018 the Ministry of Defence distributed 60,900 iodine tablets to schools, emergency services and healthcare settings in local areas.


Nuclear-powered submarines are not only able to carry warheads; they are an essential part of the nuclear warfare infrastructure. And, as the British government jumps with both feet into the nuclear arms race, Devonport is key. The facility is set to receive £4.4 billion (just over $5 billion) in government investment over the next 10 years.

In 2024 the UK spent a larger percentage of its military budget (13 per cent) on nuclear weapons than any other country. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review described them as ‘the bedrock of the UK’s defence and the cornerstone of its commitment to NATO and global security’.

The race is on

As the world becomes more insecure, nuclear-armed states are reaffirming commitments to the most destructive weapons humans have developed. During the first six months of 2025, five nuclear-armed countries were engaged in military hostilities or outright war. And, after decades of decline, the trend of more retired nuclear warheads being dismantled than new ones being deployed looks set to be reversed.

Nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states (US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) have been busy modernizing and growing their arsenal. Over the past five years global spending on nuclear weapons increased by just over 32 per cent, with the US and UK’s spending rising by 45 and 43 per cent respectively between 2019 and 2023. One year of global nuclear weapons spending could feed 45 million people in danger of famine for 13 years…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered ‘low-yield’ by modern standards. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) estimates that casualties from a major nuclear war between the US and Russia would reach hundreds of millions. The use of less than one per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenal could disrupt the climate and threaten two billion people with starvation.

Escalations in global conflict continue despite the existence of nuclear weapons. ‘This concept of nuclear deterrence is really a faith belief system – that having nuclear weapons is necessary to make sure they’re not used,’ says Alicia Sanders-Zakre, policy and research coordinator at ICAN. ‘As long as this theory continues to hold value within the political establishment of nuclear armed states, it’s not possible to get rid of nuclear weapons.’……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Today, as the British government itself admits, ‘the future of strategic arms control … does not look promising’. But civil society has got behind the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which makes acquiring, proliferating, deploying, testing, transferring, using and threatening to use nukes illegal.

‘TPNW is really significant,’ explains Sanders-Zakre. A nuclear-armed state joining it must agree to a time-bound programme for eliminating its arsenal https://newint.org/arms/2026/nuclear-flashpoints-fallout

March 5, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Labour panned as nuclear project ‘to cost more than Scotland’s block grant’

 THE SNP have hit out at the projected costs for the Labour Government’s
flagship nuclear project. It comes after EDF pushed back the start-up of
the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant again, pushing up the final bill.


The French state energy company said the plant was now expected to cost £35bn
in 2015 prices — or almost £49bn at today’s prices. The project was
costed in 2016 at £18bn at the then-current prices. The SNP have now hit
out at Labour and the party’s push for more nuclear, highlighting that
the Scottish Government’s block grant from Westminster was £47.6 billion
in 2025/2026 – less than the new projected cost.

The SNP have opposed the
creation of new nuclear plants and are able to use planning policy to block
developments, despite energy policy being largely reserved to Westminster.
The Scottish Government instead wishes to focus on renewable developments,
with Scotland’s last nuclear plant, Torness, set to be decommissioned in
2030.

 The National 2nd March 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25900166.labour-nuclear-project-to-cost-scotlands-block-grant/

March 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Mendacious Rationales: The Lies Behind Operation Lion’s Roar

The difference here is that neither the US nor Israel are willing to commit ground forces. They will kill key leaders and figures across the Iranian regime, leaving an inchoate resistance against the clerics to seize the day. I

1 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/mendacious-rationales-the-lies-behind-operation-lions-roar/

Many in the United States would scarcely identify the difference between Iran and Iraq, both countries based on ancient civilisations so chronologically distant as to be fiction. If not Marvel, it’s not marvellous. But another fiction came into play towards the end of February as the United States and Israel reprised their role as world rogues and crockery breakers by attacking Iran for a second time in less than a year in a joint campaign called Operation Lion’s Roar and Epic Fury. Following the vulgar playbook on regime change used against Iraq in 2003 by the US-led forces, a variation of the same theme is being used against Iran.

The difference here is that neither the US nor Israel are willing to commit ground forces. They will kill key leaders and figures across the Iranian regime, leaving an inchoate resistance against the clerics to seize the day. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently been killed, with US President Donald J. Trump calling him “one of the most evil people in history.” Israel also claims that the opening strikes killed seven senior defence and intelligence officials, including Khamenei’s top security advisor Ali Shamkhani, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Mohammad Pakpour, Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh and the chief of Iranian military intelligence Saleh Asadi.

The February 28 statement from Trump posted on Truth Social as an 8-minute video declared that the objective of the attack was “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” This was curious given the previous US-Israeli attacks in June 2025 that had apparently “obliterated the regime’s nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” Then efforts were supposedly made on his part to seek a deal to prevent Iran ever pursuing nuclear weapons. “We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. Again they wanted to.”

In this haze of confusion, Trump had concluded that Tehran had, after all, decided to “rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.” Their missile industry would be razed, the navy annihilated, the proxies crippled. Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard would receive total immunity if they laid down their weapons, “or you will face certain death.” As for the unspecified “great proud people of Iran,” they should stay sheltered as the bombing continued. When done, the government “will be yours to take.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement also confirmed the objective of ending “the threat of the Ayatollah regime in Iran.” That regime had domestically repressed its citizens, “instilled fear in the peoples of the region,” created a global terror network, “invested enormous resources to develop atomic bombs and tens of thousands of missiles intended, as it defined it, to erase Israel from the map of the world.” They armed “terrorist proxies.”

Even more stridently, and fanatically than Trump, Netanyahu restated those themes of existential threat and untrustworthiness so characteristic of the wicked Persian. Despite “a decisive blow” being struck against the regime and its proxies last June, “the wounded predator has not ceased its attempts to recover, for the same purpose, to destroy us.” (Evidently not that decisive, then.) Having stated every year for years that Iran would develop the means to destroy Israel within a short time, he came up with another fictional twist: not only were the tyrants “plotting to rebuild their nuclear and missile capabilities,” they were also placing them “underground, where we cannot reach them. If we do not stop them now, they will become invulnerable.”

The tissues of lies in both statements are impressive and incorrigible. Operation Midnight Hammer had seemingly not obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities, suggesting they had been ineffectual, indulgent or incompetent. And why bother keeping the US-Iranian dialogue on Teheran’s nuclear program going if a military solution proved inevitable? For a President who boasts about his ability to make deals, few are being brokered of late.

Both Israel and the US used the same verbal formulae as before: exaggerate the capabilities of Iran to build consensus for an illegal war; exaggerate a military prowess of such biblical force that simply does not exist. Again, there are too many chilling parallels to the pattern followed by the George W. Bush administration leading up to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq in March 2003. Imminent threats were very much part of the hysterical argot then in justifying the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Needing justifications plucked out of thin air, the US government sought propping evidence from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Tony Blair duly supplied the infamous 2002 dossier with the chilling claim that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so. (This nicely supplemented the fabricated claim that Saddam Hussein was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program with the purchase of 500 tonnes of yellowcake uranium powder from Niger.) The key official behind the dossier, the diligent arms expert David Kelly, committed suicide in despairing disgust, having been ordered to include the 45-minute claim. No such weapons were ever found, and a central rationale of the invasion collapsed. The United States, UK, Australia and a motley crew of coalition members were found to be brigands.

There will, no doubt, be some cheer within Iran at these strikes, notably from the young who have suffered at the hands of a clerical, authoritarian regime. Washington’s allies will snivel with coerced approval citing the brutality of Iran’s regime while ignoring breaches of international law they are condoning. (Australia’s response was particularly despicable.) The Shia-Sunni division will be tested, with various US bases and military assets already struck in the Gulf States by a regime trying to survive. The United Nations will continue being treated like a bed-ridden dowager whose influence was from another day, conduct more contemptible even than 2003 when many Western states did, at the very least, show solidarity in rejecting the use of force by the United States and its allies in the absence of a Security Council resolution. In the meantime, American diplomats who open their frontier-stretched mouths claiming interest for peace and negotiations should make everyone reach for the gun.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Tulsi Gabbard’s Own Testimony Resurfaces as Iran War Narrative Escalates

the public record now contains two different emphases from the same official — one under oath, the other amid mounting calls for confrontation.

February 28, 2026  by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/tulsi-gabbards-own-testimony-resurfaces-as-iran-war-narrative-escalates/

As Washington intensifies rhetoric around Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, past sworn testimony from Tulsi Gabbard is resurfacing — and raising uncomfortable questions.

According to a recent Newsweek report, Gabbard testified under oath before Congress in March 2025:

“Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program Khamenei suspended in 2003.”

That statement directly contradicts the renewed claims now circulating in Washington and Tel Aviv suggesting Tehran is on the verge of weaponization.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern amplified the contradiction in a pointed public message addressed to Gabbard:

“Dear Tulsi Gabbard: You testified under oath in March 2025: ‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program Khamenei suspended in 2003.’ By your silence now you let yourself become just another female being used.”

The comment underscores growing frustration among critics who argue that intelligence assessments are being selectively interpreted — or politically repurposed — amid escalating U.S.–Israel military action against Iran.

Gabbard later claimed her March testimony was “taken out of context” — though how a direct, sworn statement before Congress could be misinterpreted remains unclear. The words were unambiguous: Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and had not reauthorized the program suspended in 2003.

Yet by June, her tone had shifted.

In subsequent remarks, Gabbard suggested Iran’s nuclear advances posed a growing threat and emphasized enrichment levels and regional escalation rather than the absence of an active weapons program. The pivot — subtle but significant — mirrored the broader shift in Washington’s messaging as tensions intensified.

Whether this reflects new intelligence, political pressure, or strategic recalibration is anyone’s guess. What is clear is that the public record now contains two different emphases from the same official — one under oath, the other amid mounting calls for confrontation.

The 2003 Suspension

The reference in Gabbard’s testimony points to Iran’s halt of its structured nuclear weapons program in 2003, a conclusion long reflected in U.S. intelligence assessments. Even at the height of tensions during prior administrations, intelligence agencies maintained that while Iran expanded uranium enrichment, there was no conclusive evidence of an active weapons program.

That distinction — between enrichment capacity and weaponization intent — has historically marked the dividing line between diplomatic engagement and military confrontation.

Silence Amid Escalation

Gabbard’s earlier statement now stands in tension with the current political climate. Critics argue that if intelligence conclusions have not fundamentally changed, then public silence from officials who previously acknowledged those assessments contributes to a dangerous narrative drift toward war.

Supporters of a harder line against Tehran counter that Iran’s enrichment levels and regional posture justify aggressive containment regardless of formal weaponization status.

But the broader question remains: if sworn testimony established that Iran was not actively building a bomb, what has changed?

As bombs fall and rhetoric sharpens, that question may prove more consequential than any single tweet.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid ‘Criminal Aggression’ by US, Israel

 February 28, 2026 By Jake Johnson for Common Dreams, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/iran-demands-emergency-united-nations-action-amid-criminal-aggression-by-us-israel/

As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against “criminal aggression” and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.

The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday’s attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent “a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security,” reads the ministry’s statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began “in the midst of a diplomatic process.”

“The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war,” the statement continues. “Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy’s military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority.”

Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli “aggression against Iran” in a social media post, calling the assault a “violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force.”

“All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order,” Saul added.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance relaunched amid concerns over new projects planned for Wales

02 Mar 2026, https://nation.cymru/news/welsh-anti-nuclear-alliance-relaunched-amid-concerns-over-new-projects-planned-for-wales/

A coalition of peace, environmental and social justice organisations has relaunched the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance (WANA), calling for what it describes as energy sovereignty and a democratic, community-led debate on the future of Welsh energy.

The relaunch took place on March 1, with WANA bringing together groups including CADNO (Cymdeithas Niwclear Oesel), CND Cymru, the Low-Level Radiation Campaign, the Low-Level Radiation and Health Conference, No Nuclear Llynfi, PAWB (People Against Wylfa-B), Stop Hinkley and Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities.

First established in 1980 by a broad coalition that included former MP Paul Flynn, CND Cymru, the Central Wales Energy Group, farmers and environmentalists, WANA served as a vehicle for anti-nuclear campaigning for decades. Its work was later dispersed among individual organisations during a period of relative calm. With nuclear energy and defence projects once again high on the political agenda, campaigners say the time is right to revive the alliance.

ADVERT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

Altura Advertising

WANA says it will focus on promoting what it calls “true renewable” energy generation while highlighting concerns around nuclear power and its links to military infrastructure.

A number of nuclear-related projects are currently proposed or under development in Wales. In November, the UK Government announced that Wylfa had been selected as a pilot site for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). Texas-based firm Last Energy has also set out plans for SMRs at the former Llynfi Power Station site between Maesteg and Bridgend. Other projects linked to the AUKUS alliance, including radar capability and submarine development, are expected to involve sites in Pembrokeshire and Cardiff. Nuclear development has also been suggested at locations including Aberthaw and Trawsfynydd.

WANA argues that decisions around these projects have often proceeded without sufficient input from Welsh communities. It says Wales has a long history of industrial exploitation, citing the decline of coal mining and heavy industry and more recent job losses in Port Talbot as examples of communities left behind after economic extracti

The alliance has published a manifesto calling for a “nuclear power and weapons free, sustainably powered, and peaceful Wales”. It raises concerns about public spending, the cost-of-living crisis, the climate emergency and what it describes as a lack of energy sovereignty. It also calls for greater debate around the links between civil and military nuclear programmes and for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales.

A WANA spokesperson said the alliance aims to bring campaigners together to challenge what it sees as the risks and costs of nuclear development.

“The cost of nuclear is too high, the build-times too long, and the waste question remains unanswered,” they said. “Wales must engage in a debate about our energy future, including community control and benefits.”

March 4, 2026 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Conservationists challenge effectiveness of £700 million fish safety system.

“EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”

Anthony Hawkswell March 1, 2026, https://angling-international.com/2026/03/01/conservationists-challenge-effectiveness-of-700-million-fish-safety-system/

The developer of the UK’s largest nuclear power station – close to one of the country’s most popular sea fishing venues – has claimed that it will have more fish protection than any other structure of its kind in the world. 

EDF Energy, which is building the £46 billion Hinckley Point C power station on the River Severn Estuary in the Southwest of England, is spending £700m to install three fish protection systems, including a ‘fish disco’, a British developed innovation that is said to deter marine life from the reactor.

It says that a pioneering British-developed Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) system has been successfully installed at Hinkley Point C, marking a major breakthrough in aquatic safety and environmental stewardship.

However, leading conservationists and politicians say that the company is downplaying the environmental risks to the River Severn Estuary. EDF’s claim that the AFD system is both effective and proportionate in cost is fiercely disputed by environmental groups and a coalition of over 60 MPs.

EDF Energy claims that Hinkley Point C leads the globe with three advanced fish protection measures: the AFD, plus state-of-the-art intake heads and a comprehensive fish recovery and return system. Combined, these initiatives represent a £700 million investment in marine conservation and set a new benchmark for the sector.

The ADF, developed by Fishtek Marine, employs ultrasound technology to guide fish away from danger zones near water intakes. Recent sea trials, led by Swansea University, have demonstrated the system’s high effectiveness in reducing fish mortality rates. Dr Emily Carter, Senior Researcher at Swansea University, commented, “Our results show a significant reduction in fish approaching intake areas, confirming the technology’s value for large-scale applications.”

EDF says these findings suggest that further compensation measures, such as additional artificial saltmarsh habitats, may not be necessary. “Local communities stand to benefit from the enhanced marine environment, with reduced disruption to fish stocks supporting both commercial and recreational fisheries,” said EDF.

Regulatory approval for the system was secured following a thorough application process with the Marine Management Organisation………………………………………………..

However, in a strongly worded open letter delivered to government regulators, England’s foremost nature organisations and dozens of Members of Parliament challenged EDF’s portrayal of the AFD’s efficiency and expense. The signatories argue that EDF’s own data misrepresents the true scale of fish losses likely to occur without full-scale deterrent measures, and they point to independent evidence suggesting the company has underestimated both the ecological and economic case for robust fish protection

Matt Browne, of The Wildlife Trusts, said: “EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”

Browne highlighted that the Wildlife Trust’s recent analysis found the proposed deterrent would leave millions of fish vulnerable each year, including species vital to both commercial and recreational fishing.

A recent publication by the Wildlife Trusts exposes significant shortcomings in the Nuclear Regulatory Review process, revealing that key assumptions about fish behaviour and the resilience of the population were misrepresented or omitted. The report details how EDF’s own studies failed to account for cumulative impacts on migratory species and ignored alternative, more effective mitigation options. These findings have intensified calls for a comprehensive reassessment of the project’s licensing condition.

Natural England, the government’s statutory adviser on the natural environment, has reiterated the Severn Estuary’s status as a legally protected site under international and domestic law. The agency emphasises the estuary’s crucial role as a nursery for diverse fish species and migratory birds, warning that any failure to implement proven fish deterrent technology risks breaching conservation obligations and undermining decades of habitat restoration.

As the debate intensifies, the angling community, conservationists and policymakers are united in demanding greater transparency and government accountability. There are mounting calls for an independent review of EDF’s environmental claims and the immediate adoption of best-available fish protection technology.

“The future health of the Severn Estuary, and the integrity of the UK’s environmental standards, now hangs in the balance,” said Natural England.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

UN nuclear watchdog says it’s unable to verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment

By  STEPHANIE LIECHTENSTEIN, AP News, February 28, 2026

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has not allowed the United Nations nuclear agency access to its nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States during a 12-day war in June, according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Friday by The Associated Press.

The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency stressed that it “cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities,” or the “size of Iran’s uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities.”

Iran has four declared enrichment facilities, but the report warned that because of the lack of access, the IAEA “cannot provide any information on the current size, composition or whereabouts of the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran.”

The report stressed that the “loss of continuity of knowledge … needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.”

Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the IAEA and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003. The U.S. is seeking a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.

Highly enriched material should be verified regularly

The IAEA reported that Iran had informed the agency in a letter dated Feb. 2 that normal safeguards were “legally untenable and materially impracticable,” as a result of threats and ”acts of aggression.”

The confidential report also said Friday that Iran did provide access to IAEA inspectors “to each of the unaffected nuclear facilities at least once” since June 2025, with the exception of a power plant at Karun that is under construction.

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

IAEA joined Geneva talks

The IAEA reported on Friday that Grossi attended negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on Feb. 17 and Feb. 26 in Geneva at which he “provided advice” on the verification of Iran’s nuclear program. The report said that those negotiations are “ongoing.”

Thursday’s talks, the third round this year under Omani mediation, ended without a deal, leaving the danger of another Mideast war on the table as the U.S. has gathered a massive fleet of aircraft and warships in the region.

An Omani official said lower-level technical talks would continue next week in Vienna, the home of the IAEA. The agency is likely to be critical in any deal.

Iran says it is not pursuing weapons and has so far resisted demands that it halt uranium enrichment on its soil or hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Similar talks last year between the U.S. and Iran about Iran’s nuclear program broke down after the start of the war in June. Before then, Iran had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity. https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Exiled Iranian Denounces War: ‘The People Will Suffer, Not Gain!’

by ScheerPost Staff, 28 Feb 26, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/exiled-iranian-denounces-war-the-people-will-suffer-not-gain/

Behrouz Farahani, a political analyst and opponent of the Islamic Republic living in exile, condemned the US and Israeli military attack on Iran. Speaking to Middle East Eye about how Iranian opposition figures who also oppose the war are responding, he said:

“In this situation, we oppose both sides. This war is between an international imperialist power, the US, and its regional ally, Israel, on one side, and the reactionary regime of Iran on the other. We are against both sides and against this war.”

He added that opponents of the Islamic Republic who reject foreign intervention are mobilizing:

“We are calling for an immediate ceasefire and are organising anti‑war protests. This war will bring nothing but misery to the Iranian people. As we have seen before, its only result will be more pressure on ordinary people. This war will not help the Iranian people in their struggle against the Islamic Republic. Especially when one side is Israel and the other side is Trump.”

“When we have a president like Trump, who has openly said that his main concern is money, it is clear that this attack has nothing to do with improving life in Iran or helping its people,” Farahani said. “One of the main reasons for this war is that the Islamic Republic does not serve America’s economic interests in the region or globally.”

He stressed that this critique does not imply any support for Tehran:

“This does not mean that because the Islamic Republic is in conflict with American interests, it is a progressive or anti‑imperialist force. Not at all. Just as the Taliban in Afghanistan was a deeply reactionary force despite being in conflict with the United States, the Islamic Republic is also a reactionary force that has now been attacked by international imperialism and its regional ally.”

Farahani’s comments underscore what many critics argue is the real motive behind the escalation: a broad, opportunistic effort by the United States and Israel to secure regional dominance, energy access, and geopolitical leverage under the guise of confronting Iran.

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Trump Advisers Wanted Israel To ‘Attack Iran First’ For Better Optics: Politico

by Tyler Durden, Friday, Feb 27, 2026 , https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-advisers-want-israel-attack-iran-first-better-optics-politico

Politico is out with a crazy story on Thursday, but which will make sense to those following the trajectory of US foreign policy over the past couple decades plus.

Senior US officials want Israel to strike Iran before Washington launches a renewed assault in order to build domestic backing for war. Advisers to President Donald Trump are “privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike,” the outlet writes, citing two people familiar with the discussions.

“The calculus is a political one – that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first,” Politico continues.

The subtext here is that American troops would likely come under retaliation in whatever form such a serious escalation takes. Currently the US is drawing down troops from bases immediately in harm’s way, including reportedly in Qatar and Bahrain.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” one person familiar with the discussions said.

The mood in Washington is said to be that nuclear negotiations with Iran appear increasingly unlikely to succeed – despite some ‘positive’ headlines out of Geneva – and that “the primary question is becoming when and how the US attacks.”

The Politico report suggests Tucker Carlson has assessed it exactly right when days ago he complained, “What I really object to, what makes me mad, is when American leaders, whose job it is to represent Americans, are more loyal to a foreign country than they are to their own.”

Indeed the outlet goes so far as to emphasize that “There’s a high likelihood of American casualties. And that comes with lots of political risk” – according to the words of one of the officials interviewed for the story.

Once again the decision-makers are on the brink of throwing American troops under the bus for the sake of another bloody regime change war. They might heed the words of one soldier who over a decade ago expressed that the troops themselves are sick of the pointless ‘forever wars’..

Trump himself of course campaigned on starting no new wars, especially in the Middle East. Ironically he’s been bragging about ending seven conflicts globally, while standing on the brink of provoking and ordering a new large-scale war breaking out across the whole Mideast region.

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture

Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.

The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.

If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.

By Hanieh Jodat , Truthout, February 24, 2026

As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.

Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.

Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval……………………………………………………………………………………………..

A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.

And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. …………………………………………………………………………………

Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.

This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability…………………………………………………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/a-war-with-iran-would-not-be-a-one-off-event-but-a-disastrous-ongoing-rupture/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=3e2745821e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_02_24_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-3e2745821e-650192793

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelenskyy says he’d accept nuclear weapons from UK, France ‘with pleasure’

TRT World, 28 Feb 26

Ukraine’s president said no such proposals had been made, but added he would consider the offer, after Moscow accused UK and France of seeking to equip Kiev with a nuclear bomb.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that he has not been offered nuclear weapons by the UK or France, but stressed that he would accept such an offer “with pleasure.”

“With pleasure, but I didn’t have propositions. But with pleasure,” Zelenskyy said in an interview with Sky News, an excerpt of which was shared by Ukrainian media outlets, including the RBC-Ukraine news agency, when asked about Russian claims that Ukraine is “trying to get a nuclear weapon via Britain and France.”

“No, it’s not happening,” Zelenskyy went on to say on Friday, commenting on if such a thing would take place.

Earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service accused the UK and France of actively working to provide Kiev with a nuclear bomb.

It claimed that Britain and France believe that, by possessing nuclear weapons, Ukraine would be able to secure more favourable terms for ending the war, which entered its fifth year on Tuesday……………………….https://www.trtworld.com/article/50ba4f9b6505

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | 1 Comment

No to uranium mining in Greenland

February 27, 2026, by IPPNW – International Physicians fot the Prevention of Nuclear War

[Ed. note: Niels Henrik Hooge works with NOAH, the Danish branch of Friends of the Earth. He is also closely associated with Greenland’s No to Uranium Association (URANI? NAAMIK) in Nuuk. Patrick Schukalla, IPPNW Germany’s policy advisor on energy and climate, spoke with Hooge in February about the role of Greenland’s uranium resources and other subsurface wealth, and the potential threats to the territory during this period of geopolitical tension.]

PS: Although Greenland is currently on everyone’s mind, little is being learned about the island itself, its people or the Arctic ecology. Instead, the focus is on the geopolitical desires of others, both imagined and real. You have been working against large-scale mining in Greenland for a long time and have achieved significant political successes in this area. Could you tell us about that?

.NHH:………………………………………………………………….. . Denmark, which for centuries was in full control of Greenland, has made no attempts to integrate Inuit culture into the rest of Kingdom. Another striking fact is that private ownership of land does not exist and land cannot be bought or sold. You can own buildings, but not the ground. The paradox here is that you now have some of the biggest and greediest industrialists in the world trying to control property that so far has been collectively owned. This is really a clash of opposite cultures.

PS: The last time we spoke was in 2021, ahead of the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow. We discussed uranium mining and the false claims made by the industry and some governments under the slogan ‘Nuclear for Climate’. IPPNW is PS: committed to a world without nuclear threats. This includes calling for an end to uranium mining. What role does uranium play in Greenland and in your campaigns today? 

NHH: Since 2021, when the Inuit Ataqigiit party came into power, there has been a ban on uranium mining. Inuit Ataqatigiit is mainly an ecological party and I guess to some extent you could compare it to the German Greens, because it is also a mainstream party. Until 2013, the ban had existed for a quarter of a century, but it was lifted on the request of the Australian mining company, Energy Transition Minerals (ETM, formerly known as Greenland Minerals Ltd., GML), which threatened to abandon the big Kvanefjeld uranium and rare earths mining project, if ETM could not exploit the uranium deposit.

 Under GML’s ownership, the controversial project has been at the forefront of the public eye for more than a decade, and the mining project and uranium mining in general have been a major factor in the formation of at least five government coalitions since 2013. When the uranium ban was lifted, Greenlandic and Danish NGOs, including NOAH, started to cooperate to have it reinstated. Particularly, I want to emphasize our collaboration with URANI? NAAMIK, Greenland’s anti-uranium network, which played a crucial role in mobilising the public against uranium mining. Although this type of mining now is banned, the anti-uranium campaign cannot stop completely. Mining companies are lobbying the Trump administration and its associates in the private sector to intervene and changes in Greenland’s political community could fundamentally affect the status of uranium mining.

…………………………………………………………………………………….. PS: If European governments are now trying to satisfy the US without Greenland being annexed, are you worried that regulations will be weakened and the protection of the Arctic environment will be compromised?

NHH: Yes, unfortunately this is a real risk and it could start a race to the bottom. On one hand, EU’s Arctic Environment and Sustainability Strategy implies that oil, coal and gas should no longer be extracted in Arctic areas. On the other hand, EU has adopted a policy under the European Critical Raw Materials Act of fast-tracking mining projects even if they do not have support from the local population and show signs of flawed permitting or inadequate environmental impact assessments………………………………………..

PS: What are your next steps, and what would you like your friends and partners in other European countries and beyond to do?


NHH: Currently, URANI? NAAMIK and NOAH are campaigning to have mining companies which have played a role in getting the Trump administration to try to annex Greenland screened and if necessary, banned for security reasons. Furthermore, there is now a majority in the Greenlandic population to rejoin the EU as a member state, and obviously it would make sense, if EU institutions and the European NGO community started to prepare for this eventuality. In NOAH’s opinion, it would imply a conception of a European Arctic policy that includes an offer to support the Greenlandic government in protecting and preserving Greenland’s natural resources.

This could become a lighthouse project for Greenland, the Danish Kingdom and the EU, putting environmental protection on the global agenda. If mineral extraction is completely or partially abolished, the Greenlanders should of course be compensated financially. The European Parliament has supported the idea of an Arctic nature protection area in the past, using the Antarctic Treaty as a model. The idea is backed by 141 environmental organizations, including some of the largest in Europe and the world. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/02/27/no-to-uranium-mining-in-greenland/

March 3, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, opposition to nuclear, Uranium | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »