Does Proximity to Nuclear Power Plants Increase Cancer Risk?
New research finds correlation between disease and living close to a facility
HARVARD GRIFFIN GSAS NEWS, By Kaitlyn Hung, May 19, 2026
uclear power accounts for 18 to 20 percent of electricity generated in the United States. In some places, the share is much greater—over half the energy generated in Illinois, for instance, the country’s sixth-largest state. As demand rises sharply, particularly from AI data centers, the federal government has increased funding, loans, and tax incentives in an effort to increase nuclear capacity, extend operations of existing reactors, and restart retired ones.
Although public support for nuclear energy has surged in recent years, opposition remains strong. The most common reason? Safety concerns. And they may be valid, according to population health scientist Yazan Alwadi, who received his PhD from the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in February 2026, months after receiving a master’s degree in biostatistics in November 2025. Now a post-doctoral researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Alwadi’s work uncovers a link between cancer and proximity to nuclear power plants.
Too Close for Comfort?
In the lab of Petros Koutrakis, Akira Yamaguchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation at the T.H. Chan School, Alwadi investigated whether living close to nuclear facilities impacts a population’s incidence of developing or dying from cancer. The work was motivated by a call from the Department of Public Health in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Community members were concerned about rising cancer cases, and some wondered whether Plymouth’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, decommissioned in 2019, might have contributed to the uptick.
“We get emails from families, saying that big percentages of people they know get cancer. But of course, these are anecdotal, so it needs hard science and statistical evidence to see if that actually happens or not,” Alwadi says.
As an environmental epidemiologist, Alwadi decided to investigate. “We wanted to know, are we going to find an association between the proximity to plants and cancer or not?” Alwadi says. Regardless of the outcome, he would share his findings.
Alwadi conducted a longitudinal ecological study, comparing Massachusetts zip codes’ proximity to the seven nuclear facilities in the vicinity of the state with that zip codes’ cancer incidence over time (provided by the state’s cancer registry). He used proximity as a proxy for exposure because it encompasses multiple routes of dispersal, like air and water. “We know that distance is a proxy for most [exposure routes]. It’s not perfect for any one of them, but a proxy for most,” Alwadi says.
Alwadi discovered a strong association between cancer incidence and proximity to plants for populations over 55 years old living within 5 km of a nuclear power plant. For example, women ages 65-74 living two km away from a nuclear power plant had 2-times higher relative risk of cancer, and men in this age group had 1.75-times higher risk.
To determine whether these results were more broadly generalizable to the United States, Alwadi conducted a similar study comparing nuclear power plant proximity to county-level data on cancer mortality from the US Centers for Disease Control. “We felt that doing [the analysis] nationally would give us enough statistical power to depict effects if they truly exist,” says Alwadi. He discovered that the association he observed in Massachusetts held at the national level, too. “We observe the same association, similar values, same decline of risks with distance across different aggregations, zip codes versus counties . . . for cancers of interest.”
Koutrakis says that his advisee’s research is notable because it is the first series of studies to systematically demonstrate associations between residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer outcomes across multiple settings using large, population-based datasets. “This work fills a critical gap in the literature by providing large-scale, systematic evidence on a question that has remained unresolved for decades.” …………………………………………….
Importantly, while the study shows a robust association between nuclear plant proximity and cancer, the study’s design cannot determine whether that relationship is causal. “Although these are ecological designs that do not establish causality and are very hard to infer causality from their evidence, the systematic results and the consistency of the findings are exactly what you’d expect to find if a true underlying causal effect existed,” says Alwadi. By systematically demonstrating an association, Alwadi’s discovery provides the impetus for more detailed research to understand the nature of the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………… Digging Deeper
Since graduation, Alwadi has continued his work in the Koutrakis lab as a postdoctoral fellow. Today, he tracks the relationship between nuclear facility proximity and cancer within individuals, rather than populations. He says this cohort analysis will provide stronger evidence for the nature of the association by reducing bias and clarifying the temporality of nuclear facility exposure to cancer development.
Ultimately, Alwadi hopes to lead a lab of his own in environmental epidemiology and public health. He’s got a plethora of questions he wants to tackle, so to him, it’s just a matter of time and resources to get the work done. “We see a signal, we keep digging,” he says. https://gsas.harvard.edu/news/does-proximity-nuclear-power-plants-increase-cancer-risk
.
Sizewell C’s financing places more risks on public purse ‘than other electricity projects’
That DESNZ went ahead with the Sizewell C investment decision on the basis that consumers would not benefit until 2064 beggars belief.
New Civil Engineer 20 May, 2026 By Tom Pashby
The financing of Sizewell C has been scrutinised by the National Audit Office (NAO), which found it “places more risks on taxpayers and consumers than other electricity projects” and that benefits to consumers will only outweigh costs after 2060.
In July 2022, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) announced it had secured the final investment decision (FID) for the project on the Suffolk coast, which is expected to produce 3.2GW of electricity.
Achieving the FID meant that investors and the government had agreed the terms on which investment would be put into the project, how returns on investment would work, and what this meant for consumers.
The government confirmed that the project would cost “around £38bn”, nearly double the original £20bn estimate stated by EDF in 2020.
Today’s [20 May] NAO report, simply titled Sizewell C, assessed “the implications of the deal for taxpayers, electricity consumers, and investors, and provides a baseline against which progress can be measured.”
A statement from the NAO, announcing the report, said DESNZ’s “delivery model for Sizewell C places more risks on taxpayers and consumers than other electricity projects, but the Department believes this model has reduced finance costs and will allow the project to be delivered on time and to budget.”
It added that the “novel approach has costs and relies on big assumptions
Once construction at the plant has been completed, the government’s modelling “predicts that the net benefits for consumers could be up to £18bn, primarily delivered through energy bill savings and reduced electricity costs compared to other ways of reaching net zero,” the NAO said.
“However, as a large infrastructure project, DESNZ’s modelling of these benefits shows they will not outweigh the costs to consumers until after 2060.”
The report also assessed the claims by Sizewell C that it will be easier to build because it is largely copying the designs of Hinkley Point C.
The NAO pointed out that Hinkley Point C “is currently expected to cost double its initial projected cost, with a seven-year delay”, and that this “has sparked concerns that these problems may be mirrored in Sizewell C”.
The spending watchdog said DESNZ hoped to avoid repetition of mistakes by “applying the lessons and final designs from Hinkley Point C”, and, as such, “Sizewell C’s plans are already at a much more advanced stage than Hinkley’s were at the equivalent point”.
NAO head Gareth Davies said: “Sizewell C forms a significant part of the government’s plan for a secure and affordable clean energy supply. There has been a concerted attempt to learn from the problems of previous nuclear power construction projects and other large infrastructure schemes.
“This has resulted in a novel financing structure and DESNZ will need to monitor the risks to taxpayers and billpayers closely.”
Public Accounts Committee chair Geoffrey Clifton-Brown commented on the report, raising concerns about the “substantial” risks of Sizewell C, which are being borne by the public.
“Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers. Costs are estimated to be £38.2bn, largely financed by government”, he said.
“While the potential benefits are considerable, they remain uncertain; by contrast, the risks are immediate, substantial and borne by the public. Consumers are already contributing through their electricity bills, and the government has assumed most of the project’s financial risk.”
He added: “Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.
“Although the government has introduced a new delivery and financing model to mitigate these risks, it must now ensure it works in practice through close monitoring, greater transparency to Parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment.”
Reaction to the report..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Steve Thomas gave NCE his reaction to the NAO report, asking, “Is this the best NAO can do after a year of effort?”
He pointed to a line from the NAO press release about the report, which said: “Sharing risk between the investors and taxpayers and consumers appears to have reduced the cost of financing Sizewell C, but the rewards for investors still appear high.”
He said the statement that financing costs had been reduced was “rubbish on two grounds”.
“First, the finance costs are being paid by consumers in the construction period under the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) surcharge. Getting someone else to pay does not reduce them, it just shifts them.
“Second, the finance is being provided by the government National Wealth Fund and the interest rate will be whatever the government tells it to charge, so if finance charges are lower because the interest rate is reduced, that is because the government has imposed the interest rate.”
The press release also said: “Investor financial returns will cost consumers over £4bn but will be justified if they help the project to cut construction costs and speed up delivery times.” Thomas described this as “unclear”.
He said: “If it refers to the 4.8% of the 10.8% real rate of return investors will be given, that will be a gift from consumers to investors, it is an underestimate. Centrica says that of its £3bn equity contribution, only £1.3bn will come from itself, the rest will come from this 4.8% which investors are required to use as equity contribution.
“Centrica euphemistically describes this as ‘RAB Growth’.”
The NAO statement adds that DESNZ assumes “the involvement of private investors is justified, as their expertise will reduce construction costs and speed up delivery.”
In response, University of Greenwich academic Thomas asks: “What expertise does La Caisse, Centrica, NLF have on building nuclear projects? EDF has expertise but that didn’t stop Hinkley, Flamanville, and even Taishan going horribly wrong.”
He also questions the government’s use of £38.2bn as a baseline cost for Sizewell C, describing it as “wrong”, because the lower regulatory threshold cost is £40.5bn, which the government is using as its central estimate.
“£38.2bn is clearly the lower end of the range. A very basic element of project appraisal is to use central estimates, not bottom of the range ones,” he added.
A Stop Sizewell C spokesperson told NCE that the campaign group shares a lot of the NAO’s concerns, and asked for the government to commit to a public, “realistic” completion date for the project.
“The NAO’s report confirms what we already suspected – that ‘big assumptions’ and the ‘significant uncertainty’ of factors underpinning DESNZ’s claimed benefits could easily turn Sizewell C into a financial disaster, with its investors – thanks to RAB – being the only ones who can’t lose,” the spokesperson said.
“As the NAO confirms, households are relying on those investors to produce significant savings and reduce Sizewell C’s construction time to justify the nuclear tax on our energy bills, but we share the NAO’s questions about whether investors can or have the incentives to do this.”
They added: “We had asked the NAO to look at Sizewell C before it reached Final Investment Decision and are dismayed it did not do so, but at least some critical information withheld by the government is now in the public domain.
“We agree with the NAO that DESNZ must provide transparency of forecast cost and schedule for Sizewell C. We call for the government’s promised Sizewell C Strategy and Delivery plan, containing a public, realistic completion date, to be laid before parliament immediately.”
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) also called for the NAO to “carry out a review of the Value for Money assessment supporting the government decision” to pursue Sizewell C.
TASC spokesperson Chris Wilson told NCE: “The NAO report regarding the Sizewell C project confirms that this government’s ideological pursuit of nuclear power is based on hope and belief rather than objective judgement.
“Ignoring all the warnings and project risks, the usual optimism bias regularly expounded by the nuclear industry is there in spades, at the same time negative assumptions are made about the cost of renewables
“That DESNZ went ahead with the Sizewell C investment decision on the basis that consumers would not benefit until 2064 beggars belief.
“The NAO report highlights a stark imbalance in DESNZ’s Sizewell C funding model: the investors are shielded from risk while reaping massive profits, leaving the public purse and electricity consumers to shoulder an unfair and excessive financial burden.”
Wilson added: “A major concern highlighted by the NAO is the lack of incentive for EDF to complete Sizewell C on time and budget – they will get paid to develop and supply major components while receiving a guaranteed return on their investment.
“EDF have been involved in every previous EPR reactor project and all of them have gone woefully over time and budget – they now have the added distraction and priority of building the new EPR2 reactor programme in France. What could possibly go wrong?”
Strike near UAE reactor revives concerns over nuclear plant safety in wartime
Attack marks first time military action has forced a fully operating nuclear power plant to rely on backup generators
Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor, Guardian 20 May 26
A drone strike that cut off external power to a nuclear reactor in the United Arab Emirates this week has revived concerns over the safety of nuclear plants during wartime.
Reactor no 3 at the Barakah nuclear plant lost vital off-site power for about 24 hours after the attack on Sunday, forcing it to rely on emergency diesel generators.
The UAE’s defence ministry said on Tuesday that three drones targeting the plant had originated from Iraqi territory, suggesting a pro-Iranian proxy group was most likely to have been behind the strike.
Two were intercepted, but one got through, causing a fire near a four-reactor plant that supplies the UAE with a quarter of its electricity.
The UAE said the strike hit an electrical generator “outside the inner perimeter”, raising fears it could have hit the switch yard which lies just beyond a wall around the site’s reactors.
It is the first time a fully operating nuclear power plant has had to rely on backup generators as a result of a military attack, at a time when reactors in Ukraine and Iran are also threatened by war.
The UAE’s nuclear safety regulator said the attack did not cause any radioactive material to be released, though it was notable that it had not proved possible to completely defend a critical site from drones.
Experts told the Guardian there should have been sufficient power available from the other three reactors on-site, but this does not seem to have immediately been the case, possibly because of damage to the switch yard, which routes electricity in and out.
On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it had been told by the UAE that off-site power to unit No 3 had been restored “earlier today”, meaning that “the reactor no longer needs emergency diesel generators for power”.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA nuclear watchdog, said nuclear sites and other installations important for nuclear safety must never be targeted by military activity……………………………………..
Though the Geneva conventions, which set out laws of warfare, insist that civilian objects, including nuclear plants, “are protected against attack”, they accept they can be attacked “for such time as they are military objectives” – a loophole that aggressor states have interpreted widely……………………………
There remains concern, however, that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant, which has one working reactor, could either be struck directly or lose external power if US and Israel do renew their bombing……………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/19/strike-near-uae-reactor-concerns-nuclear-plant-safety-iran-war-middle-east
…
The police force protecting our nuclear sites keeps losing classified stuff
Three years ago we revealed a “litany” of security incidents within the police force which guards nuclear plants. They haven’t reduced much since.
Paul Dobson, May 20 2026, https://www.theferret.scot/the-police-force-protecting-our-nuclear-sites-keeps-losing-classified-stuff/
The police force tasked with stopping terrorist attacks at UK nuclear sites dealt with dozens of internal security breaches last year – including a classified laptop going missing, contractors working without proper background checks, and armed officers losing ID cards.
Three breaches involved classified material being lost or stolen outside the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s (CNC) premises – including two police warrant cards, used to identify officers, which were supposed to arrive via courier.
A further nine cases involved the loss of identity passes, including those belonging to armed officers, and two contractors were found to be working without “appropriate” vetting.
Other breaches included confidential material being left inside body armour sent for destruction, a staff member accessing information they were no longer authorised to see, and compromised personal data. There were 35 breaches in total, the CNC reported.
The CNC is the armed police force that protects civilian nuclear facilities across the UK, including Torness and Dounreay in Scotland. The force also escorts nuclear material when it is being transported and guards other “critical national infrastructure” such as gas terminals.
Our findings come after we submitted a freedom of information request to the force. You can read full details of the breaches here.
Opponents of nuclear energy said the UK “cannot afford to be sloppy when it comes to nuclear security” and claimed “very little appears to have been done” to tackle breaches in recent years.
The CNC described the security incidents last year as “minor” and a spokesperson told The Ferret the force “takes action on all incidents and seeks to learn lessons” from them.
Power from Sizewell C will be more expensive than Hinkley Point, says UK watchdog
National Audit Office report says consumers will pay higher
amount for energy from Suffolk project compared to its Somerset
counterpart. Electricity from the Sizewell C nuclear project is set to be
more expensive than power from Hinkley Point, even though the Suffolk plant
is cheaper to build, Britain’s public spending watchdog has said.
Sizewell C is on course to cost about 22 per cent less than Hinkley Point
C, which is being built in Somerset. But the latter has agreed to sell its
electricity at a fixed price, limiting the cost to end users because
developer EDF has to absorb any cost overruns.
A National Audit Office
report published on Wednesday estimates that if construction costs are in
line with forecasts of £38bn-£48bn, electricity from Sizewell C will cost
between £131-£155 per megawatt hour in 2024-2025 prices. This compares to
£129 per MWh for electricity from Hinkley Point C.
The government and a
consortium of developers had regularly highlighted that Sizewell C would be
cheaper to build than Hinkley amid concerns about the cost of the project.
But the NAO report says: “Although Sizewell C should cost less to build
than Hinkley Point C, it is likely that consumers will pay more for
energy . . . because the price of Hinkley’s electricity was set
before its cost over-ran (which has been borne by EDF), and the cost of
borrowing has also increased since then.”
FT 20th May 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/c3bf8b2d-5f9f-4f3a-bd30-e86bb9a320f2
Trump is the joke….. that is no longer funny
While comedians laughed at his rallies, millions of Americans saw something entirely different. They saw somebody attacking a political establishment they already despised.
Trump discovered scandal itself could become a weapon. Every controversy kept him at the centre of public attention
20 May 2026 Roswell, https://theaimn.net/the-joke-that-lost-its-punchline/
In 2015 and 2016, much of the world treated Donald Trump like a political novelty act.
He was loud, theatrical, unpredictable, and impossible to ignore. Commentators laughed at the rallies. Late-night comedians built entire careers around his speeches. Political experts dismissed his presidential campaign as a publicity stunt that would eventually collapse under the weight of its own absurdity.
The assumption shared by many journalists, academics, and political professionals was simple: America would never elect him.
Then America did.
What followed was one of the most extraordinary political transformations in modern democratic history. A man once regarded as a sideshow became the central figure in American politics. More remarkably, he reshaped the Republican Party, dominated the global news cycle for nearly a decade, survived scandals that would have destroyed conventional politicians, lost an election, refused to accept the result, returned to power, and began a second presidency stronger and more experienced than the first.
The joke had become reality.
And now, nobody is laughing.
That shift reveals something deeper than the story of one man. It exposes how badly political institutions, media organisations, and intellectual elites misunderstood both Trump and the conditions that made him possible.
In the beginning, ridicule was seen as sufficient. Trump was mocked endlessly for his speaking style, his exaggerations, his vanity, his midnight meltdowns on Twitter and his disregard for political norms. Satire became the preferred language of opposition because satire is easy when a figure appears ridiculous.
But ridicule can become dangerous when it replaces analysis.
Large sections of the media spent years treating Trump as entertainment rather than understanding him as a symptom of growing political anger, institutional distrust, economic frustration, and cultural division inside the United States. While comedians laughed at his rallies, millions of Americans saw something entirely different. They saw somebody attacking a political establishment they already despised.
Trump understood something many professional politicians did not: people who feel ignored do not necessarily want polished leadership. Sometimes they want disruption. Sometimes they want revenge against systems they believe abandoned them.
His critics often focused on his behaviour while his supporters focused on what his behaviour represented.
That distinction changed American politics.
By the time Trump entered his second presidency, the atmosphere surrounding him had fundamentally altered. The humour remained, but the comfort had disappeared. Even opponents who once treated him as a temporary political accident now understood that Trumpism was not a passing phase. It had become a movement with enormous influence over American institutions, courts, media ecosystems, and foreign policy.
There is also a psychological shift that occurs when a political figure survives everything thrown at them.
Every investigation, scandal, indictment, controversy, and prediction of political death that failed to remove Trump strengthened the perception among supporters that he was being targeted by a hostile establishment. At the same time, every failed prediction weakened public trust in the experts making those predictions.
Eventually, mockery stopped looking powerful.
It started looking ineffective.
History contains many examples of societies underestimating disruptive political figures because they appeared too strange, too vulgar, or too unconventional to succeed. Democracies often assume their institutions are strong enough to absorb any personality. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not.
The danger is rarely the joke itself.
The danger is failing to notice when the audience stops laughing.
Trump’s rise also revealed the growing collapse of shared reality in modern democracies. Americans no longer consume the same information, trust the same institutions, or even agree on basic facts. In that environment, outrage becomes fuel, controversy becomes visibility, and constant attention becomes political power.
Trump mastered that environment better than any modern politician.
Traditional politicians speak carefully because they fear scandal. Trump discovered scandal itself could become a weapon. Every controversy kept him at the centre of public attention. Every attack reinforced his image as a political outsider fighting entrenched power.
His opponents often helped build the mythology they hoped to destroy.
That does not mean Trump is invincible, nor does it mean his critics were entirely wrong. It means modern politics no longer behaves according to old assumptions. The rules changed while much of the political class kept pretending they had not.
And perhaps that is the real lesson.
The story of Donald Trump is not merely the story of one man rising to power. It is the story of institutional complacency, media failure, public anger, and a society increasingly unable to distinguish politics from spectacle.
In 2016, many believed the joke would end.
Instead, the joke outlived the punchline.
…
0
The Nuclear Lie at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy
May 19, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/19/the-nuclear-lie-at-the-center-of-u-s-foreign-policy/
“One country is sanctioned, threatened, bombed, and demonized over the fear of nuclear weapons. The other already has them — and the world is expected to look away.”
Mr. Fish’s cartoon stuck in my head because it cuts straight through the insanity of the entire conversation. One country already has nuclear weapons and the world is told not to talk about it, while another country that still doesn’t have them is treated like an immediate threat to civilization. The more I sat with the image, the more I started digging into the history underneath it — and the hypocrisy only got harder to ignore.
For decades we’ve been told to panic about the country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons while pretending not to notice the country that actually does. Iran gets sanctions, assassinations, bombings, and endless media hysteria over what it might someday build. Israel sits on an undeclared nuclear arsenal outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the political/media class acts like everyone is supposed to politely shut the hell up about it.
Mr. Fish’s cartoon cuts through that theater with a sledgehammer.
Israel has never officially acknowledged its nuclear weapons program, yet experts and watchdog groups estimate it possesses roughly 90 nuclear warheads and maintains one of the most secretive nuclear infrastructures on Earth. Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and international inspectors have never had full access to the Dimona facility believed to anchor its nuclear program.
The roots of Israel’s nuclear program stretch back decades. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1952, and its first chairman, Ernst David Bergmann, openly argued that nuclear weapons would ensure “that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter,” according to the Jewish Virtual Library. As with so much of Israel’s national security doctrine, the trauma and memory of the Holocaust were invoked as a central justification for building and maintaining the program.
Documents show that as far back as 1968, the CIA had already informed President Lyndon B. Johnson that Israel either possessed nuclear weapons or was on the verge of developing them. But instead of confronting the issue publicly, Washington chose silence. President Richard Nixon later struck a secret understanding with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir: Israel would neither officially acknowledge nor test its nuclear arsenal, and in return, the U.S. would back off demands for inspections and oversight. From that point on, one of the world’s worst-kept secrets became official policy — don’t ask, don’t tell.
They weren’t guessing. Even reporting from the 1970s pointed to what U.S. intelligence already knew. As The New York Times later revealed, the CIA disclosed in a 1974 assessment that Israel had already developed nuclear weapons — partly using uranium obtained “by clandestine means.”
Meanwhile, Iran — despite years of sanctions, assassinations, cyberwarfare, and bombing campaigns — remains under constant international scrutiny precisely because it is formally inside the nonproliferation framework. Even members of the U.S. Congress have begun openly questioning the contradiction, warning that America’s policy of “official ambiguity” around Israel’s arsenal makes any coherent nonproliferation policy nearly impossible.
That’s the uncomfortable truth sitting underneath the mushroom cloud in Mr. Fish’s illustration: the issue has never simply been nuclear weapons. It has always been about who is allowed to have power, who is allowed to threaten annihilation, and whose violence is treated as “security” instead of extremism.
The cartoon’s suburban couple staring calmly into apocalypse captures the moral numbness at the center of the debate. Entire populations have been conditioned to panic over hypothetical weapons programs while accepting real arsenals, real occupations, and real mass death as background noise. The danger isn’t only the bomb — it’s the normalization of permanent double standards enforced through military dominance and political silence.
The Council on Foreign Relations directly undercuts the claim that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat. CFR writes that “many foreign policy experts warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East and nearby regions,” and argues that Israel viewed Iran’s potential possession of nuclear weapons as a “major, perhaps existential, threat” — a fear used to justify Israel’s June 2025 attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, followed by the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in February 2026.
But even CFR acknowledges a critical fact often buried beneath the war rhetoric: Iran does not currently possess a nuclear weapon. The organization notes that while Iran has the scientific knowledge and infrastructure to potentially build one fast, there is no confirmed evidence that its leadership has decided to do so.
Adding to that reality, the claim that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat sharply conflicts with decades of U.S. intelligence assessments. The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran halted its structured nuclear weapons program in 2003. Successive American intelligence officials — including former CIA Director William Burns — have repeatedly stated that Iran had not made the decision to build a nuclear bomb. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, including former chief Mohamed ElBaradei, likewise reported finding no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Even Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, recently contradicted the administration’s escalation narrative. In Senate testimony, Gabbard stated that Iran had not rebuilt a nuclear weapons program after the 2025 strikes — directly undercutting claims used to justify continued confrontation and military escalation.
She months later changed of position came after Donald Trump publicly claimed she was “wrong” and insisted U.S. intelligence showed Iran had amassed a “tremendous amount of material” and could build a nuclear weapon “within months.” Of course what has been stated here over and over again Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.
The lie, of course, is that Israel is not treated as a legitimate nuclear and existential threat while Iran — which still does not possess a nuclear weapon — is framed as the ultimate danger. This, of course, is the same logic that has fueled decades of endless war: the claim that Iran could build a weapon someday is treated as justification for permanent aggression today. Yet Iran still does not possess a nuclear weapon — and one reason may be obvious: countries like North Korea learned that once you do obtain one, you become untouchable, while nations without them remain at the mercy of the empire’s next target.
Within the last week, members of Congress have started asking the same question — because who can’t see what’s right in front of our faces anymore? As lawmakers pressed the State Department for transparency over Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, the hypocrisy at the center of U.S. foreign policy became increasingly difficult to ignore.
In a letter sent to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Democratic lawmakers pointed directly to the U.S.-Israel war on Iran as evidence that greater clarity is urgently needed.
“Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East, the risk of escalation by any party to this conflict, and the administration’s planning and contingencies for such scenarios,” the letter, signed by 30 members of Congress, stated. “We do not believe we have received that information.”
The lawmakers also warned that maintaining “official ambiguity” around one state’s nuclear capabilities while threatening war over another’s makes genuine nonproliferation impossible in the Middle East.
“A policy of official ambiguity about the nuclear capabilities of one party to this conflict makes coherent nonproliferation policy in the Middle East impossible,” the letter stated, “for Iran, for Saudi Arabia, and for every other state in the region making decisions based on their perceptions of the capabilities of their neighbours.”
“This initiative is taking place against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran,” said Josh Ruebner of the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project. “One of Trump’s goals for ending this war involves negotiations to lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for an Iranian commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.”
“Members of Congress are right to question why Israel’s development of nuclear weapons gets a free pass while we’re trying to prevent Iran from acquiring them,” Ruebner added.
Of course, throughout the 1970s and ever since, Israeli officials have maintained the same carefully worded line: “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.” It’s a statement built on ambiguity — one that allowed everyone to pretend not to see what was already obvious.
But now, as the world edges closer to what increasingly feels like a third world war and the Doomsday Clock sits nearer to midnight than ever before, the real question is no longer whether these weapons exist. The question is when — and under what leadership — they could be used.
That fear becomes even more dangerous under a U.S. president whose mental fitness has become a serious public concern, and who has repeatedly used apocalyptic rhetoric about “’blown off the face of the earth’” Because if Israel is treated as an undeclared nuclear power beyond accountability, the United States remains the ultimate nuclear superpower — the empire standing behind it with the largest arsenal on Earth.
Remember how all of this started — with an Mr. Fish cartoon forcing us to stare directly at the hypocrisy and madness surrounding nuclear weapons, war, and empire. Thanks for making people think. And here’s his work: The Independent Ink Archive
A national analysis of the impact of proximity to nuclear power plants on lung, breast and colon cancer mortalities in the U.S., 2000–2020
Significance
This national-scale analysis provides new evidence that proximity to nuclear power plants is associated with increased mortality from major cancers in the U.S. The magnitude and consistency of the findings highlight the importance of updated risk assessments, sustained surveillance, and strengthened public health planning for communities living near nuclear facilities.
- Yazan Alwadi,
- Joel Schwartz,
- David C. Christiani,
- Marco Kaltofen,
- Brent A. Coull,
- John S. Evans,
- Yaguang Wei &
- Petros Koutrakis
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (2026) 20 May 2026, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00922-2
Abstract
Background
Nuclear power plants emit low levels of ionizing radiation, an established risk factor for breast, colon, and lung cancers, yet the long-term effects of chronic environmental exposure in U.S. populations remain unclear.
Objective
To evaluate sex- and age-specific associations between proximity to nuclear power plants and mortality from the three most common cancers in the U.S.: breast, colon, and lung cancer.
Methods
We quantified county-level proximity to nuclear power plants using the sum of inverse distances from each residence county’s population-weighted center to all plants within 200 km, updated annually from 2000 to 2020. Cancer-specific mortality data (breast, colon, and lung) from the CDC were analyzed by sex and five age groups (45–54, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84, 85 + ). Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using generalized estimating equations with a Poisson link. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, urbanicity, region, and temporal trends.
Results
Proximity to nuclear power plants was associated with elevated mortality from breast, colon, and lung cancers. From 2000 to 2020, an estimated 39,767 female deaths (95% CI: 9312–69,381), representing 2.01% (95% CI: 0.47–3.50%), and 38,124 male deaths (95% CI: 16,106–59,600), representing 2.33% (95% CI: 0.98–3.64%), were attributable to this proximity. Lung cancer accounted for the largest burden in both sexes, followed by breast and colon cancer in females and colon cancer in males. Mortality risks declined with increasing distance, becoming negligible beyond 50 km.
Significance
This national-scale analysis provides new evidence that proximity to nuclear power plants is associated with increased mortality from major cancers in the U.S. The magnitude and consistency of the findings highlight the importance of updated risk assessments, sustained surveillance, and strengthened public health planning for communities living near nuclear facilities.
Impact
- This study provides the first national assessment of sex- and age-specific mortality from breast, colon, and lung cancers in relation to proximity to U.S. nuclear power plants, revealing consistent patterns not previously demonstrated. These findings fill a major gap in environmental epidemiology and underscore the need for cohort studies, refined exposure assessments, and pathway-specific analyses to strengthen causal interpretation. As nuclear power gains momentum in national energy planning, establishing clearer evidence on potential health impacts is increasingly essential for guiding research priorities and public health preparedness.
As support for Israel declines in the U.S., the ‘Special Relationship 2.0’ is starting to take shape.
This can be presented as an investment in American jobs in partnership with Israel rather than as taxpayer assistance to a foreign government.
Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in Congress have begun calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, but this won’t end the “special relationship” between the two countries. In fact, recent signs suggest it may only deepen U.S. military ties to Israel.
By Mitchell Plitnick Mondoweiss, May 17, 2026
This month, Israel and the United States are expected to begin negotiations on a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would outline the United States’ plans to support Israel after the current MOU expires in 2028. Chances are this will look like a very different conversation than in the past.
In recent months, there’s been a lot of noise around the idea of ending U.S. military aid to Israel. It’s an idea that has long been pursued by Palestine solidarity activists and, in the past, has also been floated by the Israeli right and their fellow travelers, who thought the aid wasn’t worth restricting Israel’s “freedom to act.” But surprisingly, the current proposal to end the annual grant of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel—which makes up most, though not all, of the annual aid package—comes from none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is championed in Washington by South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the biggest hawk in the Senate.
What explains this?
Back in January, the Institute for Middle East Understanding’s Policy Project published a timely and detailed backgrounder on what is actually going on here.
What emerges is a plan to continue aid to Israel in a different form. Instead of sending money to Israel, which they have to spend with American corporations, Congress would appropriate money for joint development and production projects instead. This can be presented as an investment in American jobs in partnership with Israel rather than as taxpayer assistance to a foreign government.
The time to make such a move is now. Israel’s popularity has plummeted, and the once-certain annual military aid package is now up for debate. While the current Congress is still inclined to fund an unimpeded tidal wave of weapons and money to Israel, growing opposition in both parties makes even the near future of such aid uncertain………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/as-support-for-israel-declines-in-the-u-s-the-special-relationship-2-0-is-starting-to-take-shape/
Golden Dome or Golden Scam?
19 May 2026 – A report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,
Back from the Brink, and Physicians for Social Responsibility
On May 19, PSR along with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Back From The Brink, released a new report on the proposed Golden Dome defense system. Organizations hosted a press conference in DC with the Up In Arms campaign, Senator Ed Markey, and Congressman Jim McGovern.
The false promise of strategic missile defense…………………………………….
Will the Golden Dome Protect us?
This brief report looks at what the United States would get from a $3.6 trillion
system that falls short of 100 percent effectiveness. Specifically, it considers what
would happen in a war with Russia if the U.S. had an 80% effective missile
defense system in place. The technology required to shoot down an
intercontinental ballistic missile is much more complex than that used to take out
the relatively primitive short-range rockets used in the current wars in the Middle
East. [3] Given the track record of the last 40 years, an 80% success rate is almost
certainly an unrealistically optimistic goal. But examining this “best case
scenario” sheds important light on the real value, or lack of value, of the Golden
Dome.
If the U.S. were to build a missile defense system that could shoot down 80% of
the current Russian nuclear arsenal, Russia could simply build many more
warheads and decoys to overwhelm this system, or redeploy some of the nearly
three thousand warheads it has put into storage. But for the purposes of this
scenario, we use the more conservative assumption that Russia is financially
unable to do so and simply retargets all its currently deployed warheads at U.S.
cities to exact an unacceptable price in any war with the U.S.
The current Russian nuclear arsenal contains an estimated 1718 deployed
warheads: 430 warheads with the destructive power of 800 kilotons (Kt)—50
times the explosive yield of the Hiroshima bomb, 200 warheads with the power
of 250 kilotons (Kt) , and 1088 100 kiloton (Kt) warheads. [4] There are many
different targeting scenarios Russia could choose to maximize damage with
this arsenal despite the existence ………………………….of the Golden Dome.
Let’s consider one of them.
If the US had the ability to shoot down 80% of all incoming Russian warheads,
then, in order to achieve a 95% probability of hitting a given population center,
Russia would have to target that city with 13 warheads. [5]…………………………………………………………………..
CONCLUSION
The Golden Dome will not protect
the American people. Even if the
system achieved an extremely
optimistic 80% success rate, it
would leave the 132 largest
population centers open to attack
with 75 million Americans in the
zones of total destruction. Such an
attack would also cause global
climate disruption and lead to
famine that would kill 1.4 billion
people worldwide
What the Golden Dome will do is to
squander $3.6 trillion creating a
dangerous, false sense of security.
This is money that could be spent on
education, housing, health care, and
food security– social services that
are currently being cut because we
are told we can’t afford them.
Developing and deploying the
Golden Dome will also exacerbate
the danger of nuclear war by
blocking progress towards nuclear
disarmament and further fueling the
new and destabilizing arms race as
Russia and China build more
weapons to overcome any ability the
Golden Dome has to intercept some
of their current warheads. This is not
a hypothetical concern. U.S.
determination to pursue Star Wars
during the 1980’s derailed the
attempt by Presidents Reagan and
Gorbachev to reach an agreement to
eliminate all nuclear weapons at the
Reykjavik Summit in 1986. [9]
There is no technical fix to the threat
posed by nuclear weapons
We have survived this far into the nuclear era
because, according to former
Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, “We lucked out….It
was luck that prevented nuclear
war.” The United States cannot rely
on our luck lasting forever, and it
cannot rely on a mythical Golden
Dome to protect us. The only way to
confront the growing danger of
nuclear war and to guarantee that
our world is not destroyed by these
weapons is to eliminate them
The United States should enter
negotiations now with the other 8
nuclear armed states for a
verifiable, enforceable agreement
to eliminate all of their nuclear
arsenals according to an agreed
upon timetable. We cannot know
in advance if this effort will
succeed, but we do know what
will happen if we don’t eliminate
these weapons. So there is every reason to try
…………………………………………………….. https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/golden-dome.pdf
The CIA’s Cuba Ultimatum: Regime Change With a Diplomatic Smile
create the crisis, punish the population, scare off investment, then demand political surrender from the government you have spent decades trying to brea. – — force Cuba to bend to Washington’s will.
SCHEERPOST, May 19, 2026.
The CIA did not sneak into Havana this time. It landed in broad daylight.
Peter Kornbluh reports in The Nation that CIA Director John Ratcliffe led a high-level U.S. delegation to Cuba on May 14, delivering what amounted to a blunt Trump administration ultimatum: Washington is willing to “engage” on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes “fundamental changes.”
The message is hard to miss. After decades of sabotage, sanctions, assassination plots, covert operations and economic strangulation, the U.S. is now packaging regime-change pressure as diplomacy. Cuba is facing severe fuel shortages, blackouts and growing hardship — conditions Washington’s policy has helped intensify — while Trump officials tighten sanctions, target foreign investors and float military threats.
This is not diplomacy. It is submission politics.
Kornbluh’s piece lays out the old imperial script in its newest form: create the crisis, punish the population, scare off investment, then demand political surrender from the government you have spent decades trying to break. The CIA’s public trip to Havana may look different from Bay of Pigs secrecy or Operation Mongoose sabotage, but the goal remains painfully familiar — force Cuba to bend to Washington’s will.
The danger now is that economic warfare is being paired with open military signaling. Reports of increased U.S. intelligence flights near Cuba, threats involving aircraft carriers, possible indictments of Cuban leaders and leaked claims about Cuban drones all point toward a familiar pretext-building machine.
Once again, the United States claims to be defending freedom while tightening the noose around an island it has never forgiven for refusing to obey.
The CIA has spent decades trying to overthrow the Cuban government through covert operations, assassination plots, sabotage, and economic warfare — from the Bay of Pigs to Operation Mongoose and countless regime-change schemes. But now Washington isn’t even pretending anymore. CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s very public trip to Havana marks a dangerous new phase in the long U.S. campaign to force Cuba into submission politically and economically.
According to reports, Ratcliffe delivered what was essentially a “do or die” ultimatum from the Trump administration: either Cuba accepts Washington’s demands for change, or the window for diplomacy closes. He reportedly pointed to what happened in Venezuela after Maduro refused to bend to Trump’s threats, making clear the White House is prepared to “enforce its red lines” if Cuba refuses to capitulate.
The timing says everything. Ratcliffe arrived just one day after Cuba publicly admitted the country has effectively run out of fuel. “We have absolutely no fuel oil, and absolutely no diesel,” Cuba’s energy minister said on state television. That crisis didn’t happen in a vacuum. Cutting off Cuba’s access to fuel, electricity, and basic economic survival has become central to Trump’s pressure campaign against the island.
As one analyst put it, previous administrations tried to lure Cuba with carrots. Trump’s strategy is to beat Cuba with a stick until it collapses. And with U.S. military activity escalating around the region, it’s becoming harder to ignore the possibility that Washington is preparing for something even more dangerous if Cuba refuses to surrender to its imperial demands.
Read The CIA Goes to Cuba from Peter Kornbluh at The Nation
Trump Sends CIA Chief — Not Diplomats — To Deliver Cuba Threat
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/19/the-cias-cuba-ultimatum-regime-change-with-a-diplomatic-smile/
From Asia to the Middle East, US Bombs Are a Failed Foreign Policy Choice
The only reliable products of US airpower are devastated civilian populations and suppression of internal movements.
By Christine Ahn , Truthout, May 19, 2026
The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran opened not with a declaration, not with diplomacy exhausted, but with airstrikes.
Among the first confirmed casualties were more than a hundred schoolchildren killed in a strike on their elementary school in southern Iran. Within a month, 850 U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles were used to strike Iran. President Donald Trump has delivered on his promise to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages,” with U.S. and Israeli missiles targeting bridges, pharmaceutical and steel plants, and civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals. The bombing campaign has struck civilian oil infrastructure in Tehran, engulfing a city of 10 million people in toxic black rain. Thousands of Iranians and Lebanese have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs as factories and basic infrastructure have been destroyed.
Washington calls this national security. The historical record calls it something else entirely.
For more than 75 years, the United States has reached for airpower as its preferred instrument of foreign policy — a tool that promises decisive results without the political costs of ground occupation; the illusion that enough bombs, dropped with enough precision, can produce the outcomes that diplomacy did not. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran: the targets have changed, the doctrine has not.
The Failure of U.S. Doctrine
As a Korean American, Cathi Choi of Women Cross DMZ knows this history personally. From 1950 to 1953, during the Korean War, U.S. forces dropped 635,000 tons of bombs and 32,000 tons of napalm, burning 80 percent of North Korean cities to the ground. One year into the war, U.S. Maj. Gen. Emmett O’Donnell testified in the Senate, “There are no more targets in Korea.” More than 4 million people were killed, the overwhelming majority of them Korean civilians. Choi, whose grandfather fled the north during the war, is among millions of Koreans from separated families. The division of the peninsula left an estimated 10 million Koreans cut off from relatives on the other side, unable to exchange phone calls or letters or reunite, with the exception of a few state-sponsored family reunions during periods of détente. Seventy-three years later, the war has only ended in a ceasefire, not a treaty, and the peninsula has remained in a stalemate ever since.
“The Korean War didn’t just leave its mark on the peninsula,” Choi explained. “It left deep scars among divided families, inaugurated the U.S. military-industrial complex, quadrupled the Pentagon budget in three years, and set a course from which Washington has never turned back.” Today, the Trump administration is proposing a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget while slashing investments in diplomacy, development, and domestic programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Meanwhile, 1.2 million land mines are still buried across the world’s most militarized border, keeping Korean families — like Choi’s — separated, and both sides heavily militarized while on the precipice of nuclear war.
Danae Hendrickson, chief of mission advancement and communications at the advocacy group Legacies of War, has spent years documenting what the United States left behind in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam — not as history, but as present danger. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://truthout.org/articles/from-southeast-asia-to-middle-east-us-bombs-are-a-failed-foreign-policy-choice/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=0f6b169c87-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_05_19_09_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-0f6b169c87-650192793
The President of Peace Makes War on the Planet
SCHEERPOST Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch, May 19, 2026
“………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. I almost forgot to mention one more Trumpian set of acts of war, undoubtedly by far the most important and devastating of all: those he’s launched against planet Earth itself. I mean, we’re talking about the president who has done his — and this word couldn’t be more appropriate — damnedest to shut down wind farms of any sort, cut solar energy projects, and expand the burning of fossil fuels in just about every way imaginable, including by opening up 1.3 billion acres (no, that is not a misprint!) of U.S. coastal waters to further oil and natural gas drilling.
New York Times reporter Maxine Jocelow caught this Trumpian moment on Planet Earth perfectly in a recent piece on the “triumphant resurgence in Mr. Trump’s Washington” of climate-change denial. She summed up the Trumpian viewpoint this way: “Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by ‘leftist politicians.’ Fossil fuels are the greenest energy sources. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be harmless.”……………………………………………
There really can’t be any question that this president is distinctly intent on nothing less than making war not just on specific nations like Iran, or on ships in the Caribbean Sea, or on anyone in or near the Strait of Hormuz, but on this very planet in every way imaginable……………………….
Defeat on Land, at Sea, and Anywhere Else Imaginable
Once upon a time, such wildly futuristic madness would have been left to the most dystopian of science-fiction novels — and undoubtedly not very popular ones at that, since such a plot and such a president would (once upon a time) have seemed far too unrealistic even for fiction. But now, thanks to President Donald J. Trump, the United States of America, in addition to all its other warring acts of recent months, is distinctly at war — and there’s no other adequate word for it — with Planet Earth (at least as a habitable place for future versions of us).
Someday, if anyone is still making TV series (since by then they’ll all undoubtedly be AI-created), I wonder if there will be one that young people, along with their parents, would be able to catch called not Defeat at Sea, but something far larger and more definitive like Defeat on Planet Earth. After all, we now have a president of the United States who seems ready not just to make war on Iran, but on more or less everything…………………………………
Trump and crew, while working as hard as they can to launch a thoroughly useless fleet of naval vessels, have also been doing their damnedest to heat this planet to the boiling point. He has literally decided to transform himself into a hell-on-earth president at a moment when renewable energy has beaten out coal as the primary source of energy globally for the first time ever.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Donald Trump, of course, is distinctly intent on making war on planet Earth (including, by recently making war on Iran, pouring yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere). War, after all, may be the world’s most efficient producer of such gases and the U.S. military, even in peacetime (which, unlike during his first term in office, is no longer Trump time), remains the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases on this planet. In the process, he’s doing his damnedest to take both his country and the planet down with him.
All too sadly, if he’s successful, American children of tomorrow, when they turn on their machines (whatever they may be), could witness not Victory, but Defeat at Sea, on Land, and Anywhere Else You Might Imagine. https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/19/the-president-of-peace-makes-war-on-the-planet/
Death will kill with its poisonous wings.
“This place is not a place of honor … no highly esteemed dead is commemorated here … nothing valued is here. What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger
by Martin McKenzie-Murray, https://www.themonthly.com.au/martin-mckenzie-murray/2026-05-08/death-will-kill-its-poisonous-wings
Very soon, likely within a few weeks, one of the world’s most interesting pieces of infrastructure will open after 22 years of construction and almost half a century of contemplation. Called Onkalo – Finnish for “cavity” – the site will be the world’s first permanent repository for nuclear waste.
By law, Finland obliges that nuclear waste produced domestically must be stored domestically. That will now occur on the island of Olkiluoto at a depth of more than 400 metres within bedrock that’s almost two billion years old. Currently, the repository area is about two square kilometres and comprised of 10 kilometres of tunnels – this number will likely quadruple before the site’s decommissioning in around 2100, when this cavern will be backfilled and sealed, creating a self-maintained nuclear sarcophagus for the approximately 100,000 years it will take for the waste’s radioactivity to have decayed to safe levels.
Perhaps by now you’re beginning to intuit a little about a) the complexity of its design, b) the richness of its semiotic implications, and c) the sobering absence of anything approaching a precedent for this. Consider: after its decommissioning, Onkalo must remain perfectly passive, requiring no active management or monitoring for 100,000 years. Second, its profound danger must be communicated so far into the future that current languages, customs – even genetic dispositions – can no longer be assumed to exist. It’s a strange and disquieting fact that the radioactivity of our nuclear waste might outlive our languages for communicating its danger. Third, no man-made structure has ever lasted anything close to the length of time that Onkalo is hoped to be preserved for.
Let’s start with the simpler facts of the site. Olkiluoto Island was chosen for its geological stability – the low-permeability of its bedrock and its low-risk of seismic tremors. In Michael Madsen’s fascinating 2010 documentary about the site’s design, Into Eternity, one project adviser explains how time down there goes slowly, while up here, on the surface, it passes very, very quickly.
In other words, the crystalline rock 450 metres below ground here looks much the same as it did 500,000 years ago. The surface of our planet, however, would look unrecognisable if we travelled back just 200 years. Our natural, political and material world changes often and quickly – the latter to the whims and passions of its human inhabitants, our creative and destructive ingenuities, and the gravity of civilisational entropy. The natural world, meanwhile, forever remains subject to the whims and passions of storms and droughts and a climate that’s being altered by us.
Currently, the world’s approximately half-a-million tonnes of nuclear waste is kept in temporary storage on the surface of our planet, and is thus subject to war, sabotage or natural calamity. Much safer to secure it deep down where time moves slowly.
There is something lusciously strange and dreamlike about the projections and assumptions Onkalo’s designers were asked to make. They did nothing less than imaginatively commune with a form of humanity far into the future.
The weirdness of this can be emphasised by offering some modest timescale. The birth of Jesus Christ was 2000 years ago. The pyramids of Giza were completed about 4500 years ago. The previous Ice Age ended almost 12,000 years ago and found the peak of its severity about 10,000 years before that. That is still nowhere near 100,000 years, the length of time into the future for which Onkalo must remain independently stable and for which the warnings we write today must travel and remain intelligible.
And so, the niche field of nuclear semiotics: how do we communicate today’s intentions to a civilisation so distant that we presume it to be almost alien and to not share our language? Preceding this question though, is another: should we even try? Can we assume that humanity will, in 80,000 years, say, possess the same curiosity we do today? That is, will they perform the same enthusiastic archaeological excavations as we do now? And, if so, will they treat the nuclear tomb as we might an Incan crypt?
Might it be that by signposting the danger, we simply encourage their curiosity? Would warnings, even if we could guarantee their future intelligibility, serve to appropriately quell curiosity or dangerously arouse it?
The questions only birth more questions. Given that Onkalo is so deeply buried, and its decommissioning would involve erasing all surface infrastructure, can it not be assumed that it would never be accidentally found? Or might some evidence of its existence survive? Physical evidence, or digital? Is it preposterous to think that any digital evidence of our civilisation today could survive so far into the future – when, between now and the safe decay of the waste, there is assumed to fall several new ice ages?
The designers answered at least one big question: they would, via ceramic tablets, leave warnings to our future selves about the site. Detailed warnings, in several languages unlikely to survive several epochs, have been suggested: “This place is not a place of honor … no highly esteemed dead is commemorated here … nothing valued is here. What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.”
Also proposed are simple pictographs that are assumed to have a universally intelligible quality: a triangle that includes the radioactive symbol, a skull and crossbones, an arrow pointing away from the danger, and a human stick-figure running in the direction it suggests.
Given the spookiness of radioactivity – and the oddity of communicating its dangers across a chasm of time to unknowable descendants – the project invited some strange proposals. One was rendering the surface above the tomb conspicuously forbidding: lightning bolt sculptures amongst forests of barbed wire. (But optimistically assuming their material survival, how can we assume that their symbolic charge would survive, and not simply invite curiosity as cryptic anachronisms?) Another proposal was made for genetically engineering cats who change colour in the proximity of radiation – a kind of bizarre Geiger counter.
In 2020, the American electronic music producer (and roboticist) Skytree, aka Evan Snyder, released a track called “Atomic Priest” written with rapper Jackson Whalan. Its lyrics were about precisely the problem of communicating danger forward through “deep time”:
This is for the humans living ten thousand years from now
With radioactive capsules, thousands of feet underground
Grabbin’ the mic to warn you of these hazardous sites
For those who lack in the sight in the black of the night
The least good that we could do is form an Atomic Priesthood
To keep the future species from going where no one should
We’ve buried the mistakes of past nuclear waste
Hidden underground for future races to face
It’s our task to leave signs for civilization to trace
But who’s to say what language these generations will embrace?
The American-Hungarian linguist Thomas Sebeok minted the term “atomic priesthood” in the early 1980s. Sebeok thought that, given that radioactivity of our waste would outlive current languages (and God knows what else), the trick to communicating our warnings about it lay in folklore. Sebeok had been commissioned by the US Department of Energy to this end. In 1980, the department had established the “Human Interference Task Force”, which was asked to “investigate the problems connected with the post-closure, final marking of a filled nuclear waste repository. The task of the HITF is to devise a method of warning future generations not to mine or drill at that site unless they are aware of the consequences of their actions.”
In 1984, Sebeok submitted his report. It was called “Communication Measures to Bridge Ten Millenia”. Semiotics were everything here, Sebeok wrote, given its relevance to “the problems of human interference and message exchanges involving long periods of time, over which spoken and written languages are sure to decay to the point of incomprehensibility, making it necessary to utilize a perspective that goes well beyond linguistics”.
Here, then, is the luscious strangeness of nuclear semiotics – a field that overlaps with our formal considerations of communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence, but which seems even stranger to me given that the aliens in this case are our future selves.
Sebeok suggested that the best way to ensure the survival of our warnings deep into the future was through mythology – the enactment of annual rituals and the ratification of legends that were upheld by an “atomic priesthood”. The stories would alter over time, but perhaps the core desire of the transmission – to effectively warn off future excavators – would survive. It wouldn’t matter if the sense of hazard had degraded into superstition, long untethered to science or the danger at hand. Only that a sense of fear and repulsion was maintained.
“A ritual annually renewed can be foreseen, with the legend retold year-by-year (with, presumably, slight variations),” Sebeok wrote in his government report. “The actual ‘truth’ would be entrusted exclusively to what we might call for dramatic emphasis an ‘atomic priesthood’, that is, a commission of knowledgeable physicists, experts in radiation sickness, anthropologists, linguists, psychologists, semioticians, and whatever additional expertise may be called for now and in the future. Membership in this ‘priesthood’ would be self-selective over time.
“The best mechanism for embarking upon a novel tradition … is at present unclear. Folklore specialists consulted have advised that they know of no precedent, nor could they think of a parallel situation, except the well-known, but ineffectual, curses associated with the burial sites (viz., pyramids) of some Egyptian Pharaohs … which did not deter greedy grave-robbers from digging for ‘hidden treasure’.”
Here, then, is the weird world of considering future ones. In a few weeks, Onkalo will become operational, accepting the copper-encased tubes of nuclear waste into its deep tombs of crystalline rock, where things remain more stable than the conditions half a kilometre above.
1 This Month
1 June Webinar – The High Cost of Nuclear Power – Register
6 June – WEBINAR- Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (27)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 