U.S. Depleted Uranium to Make Ukraine War Dirtier

CounterPunch, BY JOHN LAFORGE, 30 June 23
The Biden administration is expected to supply Ukraine with highly controversial depleted-uranium munitions which are to be fired from the Abrams battle tanks the U.S. is sending to Kyiv, the Wall St. Journal reported June 13.
Any delivery of U.S. depleted uranium (DU) weapons to Ukraine would be in addition to the State Department’s Dec. 22, 2022 approval of the sale to Poland of as many as 112,000 heavy 120-millimeter DU shells, which was announced by the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
The British Ministry of Defense announced last March 20 that it too would send depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine along with its Challenger battle tanks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded at the time charging that sending DU into Ukraine would mean the U.K. was “ready to violate international humanitarian law as in 1999 in Yugoslavia.” (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65032671) The reference may be to the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights which in 2002 labeled the use of DU “inhumane” and a violation of treaties like the Hague Conventions which expressly forbid any use of “poison or poisoned weapons.”
The Wall St. Journal’s understated sub-headline on June 13 warned: “The armor-piercing ammunition has raised concerns over health and environmental effects.” Indeed, between 1997 and 2004, USA Today, the Associated Press, New York Daily News, Life magazine, CNN, and others reported that studies were finding a significantly increased rate of birth abnormalities among children of U.S. Gulf War veterans and among Iraqi children born after 1991. (“DU in UKRAINE – John Pilger & Phil Miller,” Consortium News, May 11, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqlMrjMuFwI; “Tainted uranium, danger widely distributed,” USA Today, June 25, 2001)
The Journal’s article acknowledged that “The United Nations Environment Program said in a report last year that the [depleted uranium] metal’s ‘chemical toxicity’ presents the greatest potential danger, and ‘it can cause skin irritation, kidney failure, and increase the risks of cancer.’”……………..
If the shells are used in the Ukraine war, the soil, water, crops, and livestock of the territory being contested will likely be contaminated with uranium and the other radioactive materials that are in the armor-piercing munitions. This is because when DU smashes through tank armor, it becomes an aerosol of dust or gas-like particles that can be inhaled and carried long distances on the wind……………………………………………………………………………………………….
The U.S. Department of Energy admitted in January 2000 that the metal in DU shells is often contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium, long-lived, highly radioactive isotopes, much more hazardous than DU, or uranium-238. (“Pentagon admits plutonium exposure: NATO shells used radioactive metals,” London, AP, The Capital Times, Feb. 3, 2001; New York Times, Feb. 14, 2001)
While the U.S. military repeatedly declares that its uranium weapons contain uranium-238, and that its DU shells “are less radioactive than natural uranium,” the United Nations Environment Program and others demonstrated that uranium shells used by the U.S. and the U.K. were contaminated with fission products including plutonium. (“DU at Home,” The Nation, April 9, 2001)
Government evidence of harm
* In 2002, the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found in a preliminary report that DU produces one-million times as much chromosome damage as would be predicted from its radioactivity alone, and that it causes a form of long-term “delayed reproductive death” of cells. The AFRR institute then canceled the funding of this research.
* In 1997, the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute reportedly found that, “In animal studies, embedded DU, unlike most metals, dissolves and spreads throughout the body depositing in organs like the spleen and the brain, and a pregnant female rat will pass DU along to a developing fetus.” The Army’s Office of the Surgeon General’s 1993 manual “Depleted Uranium Safety Training” says the expected effects of DU exposure include a possible increase of cancer (lung and bone) and kidney damage. It recommends that the Army “… convene a working group … to identify countermeasures against DU exposure.”
* In 1995, the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute reported, “The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk estimates can be determined.” Depleted uranium has the potential to generate “significant medical consequences” if it enters the body, the AEPI found.
* In 1990, the Army’s Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command radiological task group said that depleted uranium is a “low level alpha radiation emitter … linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.” The group’s report said that “long term effects of low doses [of DU] have been implicated in cancer … there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero.”
* In 1984, the Federal Aviation Administration warned its investigators, “If particles are inhaled or ingested, they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue.”
* In 1979, the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command warned, “Not only the people in the immediate vicinity (emergency and fire-fighting personnel) but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to airborne uranium dust.”
Any threatened or actual use of poisonous, gene-busting depleted uranium munitions in Ukraine cannot be considered lawful or ethical and must be condemned unreservedly by civil society on all sides of the Ukraine war.
John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/30/u-s-depleted-uranium-to-make-ukraine-war-dirtier/
War can be ended quickly either through peace treaty or nuclear weapons: Top Russian official
Deputy head of Security Council, ex-president says war in Ukraine will be over in days if NATO stops supplying weapons to Kyiv
Elena Teslova |05.07.2023 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/war-can-be-ended-quickly-either-through-peace-treaty-or-nuclear-weapons-top-russian-official/2937713
Any war can be ended quickly either through signing a peace treaty or using nuclear weapons, deputy head of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.
In an interview with Russian state-run TASS news agency, Medvedev said Japan capitulated after the US dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“In general, any war, even a world war, can be ended very quickly. Either if a peace treaty is signed, or if you do what the Americans did in 1945, when they used their nuclear weapons and bombed two Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They (the Japanese army), indeed, then curtailed the military campaign. The price is the life of almost 300,000 civilians,” he said.
As for the Russian “special military operation” in Ukraine, it will be over in days if NATO stops supplying Kyiv with weapons, the official claimed.
If NATO, the US, and their vassals stopped supplying weapons and means of destruction to Ukraine, then the special military operation would be completed in just a few months, and if they stop supplying their weapons now, then their military operation will be over in a few days,” he said.
Medvedev, who served as the Russian president from 2008-2012, also praised the Russian army, calling it “heroic.”
France Cuts Nuclear Output as Heat Triggers Water Restrictions.

Francois de Beaupuy and Todd Gillespie, Bloomberg News,
Electricite de France SA will curtail production at one nuclear reactor
this weekend as a heat wave restricts the amount of water that can be
discharged into the Rhone River. The utility had warned of possible curbs
on output earlier this week as warm weather swept southern France, pushing
up temperatures on the Rhone. EDF uses water to cool its reactors before
releasing it into the river, and overheating the waterway can threaten fish
and other wildlife. One of four 900-megawatt reactors at the Bugey power
station will reduce generation to zero from Saturday morning to Sunday
evening due to “environmental issues”, EDF said in a notice Thursday.
It added that that the duration may change if the weather forecast changes.
Bloomberg 13th July 2023
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/france-cuts-nuclear-output-as-heat-triggers-water-restrictions-1.1945393
Fukushima: Anxiety and anger over Japan’s nuclear waste water plan

By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 6 July 23
A controversial plan by Japan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.
Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan now wants to start discharging it into the Pacific Ocean.
The UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has published a report endorsing Japan’s plan.
But since it was announced two years ago, the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.
Fishing and seafood industry groups in Japan and the wider region have also voiced concerns about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.
And Tokyo’s neighbours are not happy either. China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”. On Tuesday it criticised the IAEA report, saying its conclusions were “one-sided”.
So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?
What does Japan plan to do with the nuclear waste?
Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.
More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says this is not a sustainable long-term solution. It wants to gradually release this water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years, insisting it is safe to be discharged.
Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – but given that this is the by-product of an accident, this is no ordinary nuclear waste.
Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14……………………………………….
What do critics say?
UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.
Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.
UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.
Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.
There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.
“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.
But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.
What have Japan’s neighbours said?
China has demanded that Japan reaches an agreement with regional countries and international institutions before it releases the water.
Beijing has also accused Tokyo of violating “international moral and legal obligations”, and warned that if it proceeded with the plan, “it must bear all consequences”.
The two countries currently have a prickly relationship, with Japan’s recent military build-up and China’s provocative moves around Taiwan raising tensions.
Tokyo has engaged in talks with its neighbours, and hosted a South Korean team of experts on a tour of the Fukushima plant in May. But it is not certain how far it would commit to getting neighbouring countries’ approval before it goes ahead with the plan.
In contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns and on Tuesday it said it “respects” the IAEA’s findings.
But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.
“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean.
“Some of the officials say we should remain quiet if we don’t want to make consumers even more anxious. I think that’s nonsense.”
Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.
In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution last week opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant.
To assuage the public’s fears, prime minister Han Duck-soo said he would be willing to drink the Fukushima water to show it is safe, while one official said last week that only a small fraction of the discharge would end up in Korean waters.
Elsewhere in the region, several island nations have also expressed concerns with the Pacific Islands Forum regional group calling the plan another “major nuclear contamination disaster”.
How has Japan responded?
Japanese authorities and Tepco have sought to convince critics by explaining the science behind the treatment process, and they would continue to do so with “a high level of transparency”, promised prime minister Fumio Kishida on Tuesday.
In materials published on its foreign affairs ministry website, Japan also pointed out that other nuclear plants in the region – particularly those in China – discharge water with much higher levels of tritium. The BBC was able to verify some of these figures with publicly available data from Chinese nuclear plants.
But the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan…………………………
On Tuesday, Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.
With the world’s nuclear watchdog giving its stamp of approval, Japan could start discharging the Fukushima water as early as August, according to some reports – setting the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.
Additional reporting by Yuna Kim and Chika Nakayama. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162
Ukraine, Russia accuse each other of planning to attack Europe’s biggest nuclear plant
9 News, By Associated Press Jul 6, 2023
Ukraine and Russia have accused each other of planning to attack one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants.
Neither side provided evidence to support their claims on Wednesday (early Thursday AEST) of an imminent threat to the facility in south-eastern Ukraine, which is occupied by Russian troops.
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has been a focus of concern since Moscow’s forces took control of it and its staff in the early stages of the war.
Russia and Ukraine have regularly traded blame over shelling near the plant that caused power outages. Over the last year, the UN’s atomic watchdog repeatedly expressed alarm over the possibility of a radiation catastrophe like the one at Chernobyl after a reactor exploded in 1986.
The six reactors at Zaporizhzhia are shut down, but the plant still needs power and qualified staff to run crucial cooling systems and other safety features………………………….
The International Atomic Energy Agency has officials stationed at the Russian-held plant, which is still run by its Ukrainian staff. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said his agency’s most recent inspection of the plant found no activity related to explosives, “but we remain extremely alert.”
“As you know, there is a lot of combat. I have been there a few weeks ago, and there is contact there very close to the plant, so we cannot relax,” Grossi said during a visit to Japan.
In Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov raised the spectre of a potentially “catastrophic” provocation by the Ukrainian army at the nuclear plant, which is Europe’s largest.
“The situation is quite tense. There is a great threat of sabotage by the Kyiv regime, which can be catastrophic in its consequences,” Peskov said in response to a reporter’s question about the plant.
He also claimed that the Kremlin was pursuing “all measures” to counter the alleged Ukrainian threat.
Grossi said he was aware of both Kyiv’s and Moscow’s claims and reiterated that “nuclear power plants should never, under any circumstances, be attacked.”
“A nuclear power plant should not be used as a military base,” he said.
Renat Karchaa, an adviser to Russian state nuclear company Rosenergoatom, said there was “no basis” for Zelenskyy’s claims of a plot to simulate an explosion.
“Why would we need explosives there? This is nonsense” aimed at “maintaining tension around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant”, Karchaa said.
Russian media on Tuesday cited Karchaa as saying that Ukraine’s military planned to strike the plant early on Wednesday with ammunition laced with nuclear waste. As of Wednesday afternoon, there was no indication of such an attack……………
In case of a nuclear disaster at the plant, approximately 300,000 people would be evacuated from the areas closest to the facility, according to the country’s emergency services.
Ukrainian officials have said the shut-down reactors are protected by thick concrete containment domes https://www.9news.com.au/world/russia-ukraine-updates-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-attack-being-planned-ukraine-and-russia-accuse/5e82addc-49dd-455d-bfc8-31d7f3da6fd1—
US govt provides yet another round of money grants to companies, including Westinghouse, to promote nuclear power development

Westinghouse, 6 other companies get DOE vouchers to help accelerate advanced nuclear technologies, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/westinghouse-general-atomics-advanced-nuclear-doe-energy-vouchers/684957/
Voucher recipients “do not receive direct financial awards. Vouchers provide funding to DOE laboratories to help businesses overcome critical technological and commercialization challenges,” DOE said.
The Department of Energy announced last week that it has awarded vouchers to seven companies “to accelerate the innovation and application of advanced nuclear technologies.”
According to DOE, voucher recipients “do not receive direct financial awards. Vouchers provide funding to DOE laboratories to help businesses overcome critical technological and commercialization challenges.” All voucher recipients have to cover at least 20% of any costs, DOE said.
Companies receiving the awards include the following:
Alpha Tech Research Corp. will collaborate with Argonne National Laboratory “to advance the development of a promising yttrium hydride-based moderator for its molten salt microreactor concept. The data will be used to inform the design and size of the reactor.”General Atomics will work with Oak Ridge National Laboratory “to examine the material behavior of irradiated silicon carbide composite samples. The data will help inform material behavior models required to license the use of silicon carbide-based structures in nuclear reactors.”
Ultra Energy will work with Oak Ridge National Laboratory “to organize and design high-temperature reactor testing to support the testing and further development of its new prototype detector that could help enhance the safe operation of commercial reactors once commercialized. Test results will demonstrate suitability of the prototype and allow for further development for commercial deployment.”- Westinghouse Electric Co. will work with PNNL and Idaho National Laboratory “to perform post-irradiation experiments on its chromium-coated accident-tolerant fuel cladding. The project will focus on corrosion and hydrogen behavior in the cladding from two different coating processes.”
- The vouchers were provided under DOE’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear initiative. Last week’s vouchers were the third round awarded in fiscal year 2023.
Missouri S&T will ask St. Louis-area residents their opinions about nuclear waste
St. Louis Public Radio | By Jonathan Ahl, July 5, 2023
Missouri University of Science and Technology wants to know what St. Louis-area residents think about nuclear waste. The school has received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to study the issue.
For decades, the federal government has explored the possibility of storing spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, but the Energy Department now says that option is off the table.
This has led to S&T’s involvement as the leader of one of 13 teams across the nation conducting research for the agency.
The S&T team will assess and document the concerns of residents in the St. Louis area who live in the proximity of legacy waste sites where national defense-related nuclear material from World War II up to the Cold War is stored………………………………………………..
Usman said the project is equal parts science, education and public opinion polling. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, St. Louis University and the University of Missouri will be part of Missouri S&T’s research.
The findings from all over the country that are collected will be sent to the Department of Energy as it decides how to proceed with finding locations for nuclear waste storage.
Missouri has one operating large nuclear reactor, owned by Ameren, in Callaway County. Missouri S&T has a small nuclear reactor on campus that is primarily used for educational purposes.
There are six nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, all in the central or northern part of the state. https://news.stlpublicradio.org/health-science-environment/2023-07-05/missouri-s-t-will-ask-st-louis-area-residents-their-opinions-about-nuclear-waste
Russia and Ukraine step up rhetoric around Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
By Euronews Digital 05/07/2023 https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/05/russia-and-ukraine-step-up-rhetoric-around-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant
President Zelenskyy and other senior Ukrainian officials have intensified warnings that Russian forces plan to sabotage the Zaporizhzhia power plant, the largest nuclear facility in Europe.
Russian and Ukrainian officials have escalated the rhetoric surrounding the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
The plant has been under Russian control since the early days of the full-scale invasion in 2022. All six reactors have since been shut down.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are now warning of a “possible provocation in the near future” saying “items similar to explosive devices were placed on the external roof of the third and fourth power units of ZNPP.”
A few days earlier, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate claimed that Moscow had approved a plan to blow up the station and has mined four out of six power units, as well as the cooling pond.
One of the world’s worst nuclear disasters is likely something you’ve never heard of.
This is, of course, the Goiânia Accident of 1987. This
happened in the city of Goiânia in the Goiâs region of Brazil, which
surrounds the Federal District containing the purpose-built capital
Brasilia. In 1985, a hospital in the city moved locations, leaving behind a
radiotherapy unit which used the substance caesium-137 to treat cancer. Two
years later in 1987, two men broke into the abandoned building looking for
items with scrap value, and stole the machine – including its radioactive
component which they were not aware of.
Unilad 4th July 2023
https://www.unilad.com/news/nuclear-disaster-goiania-brazil-accident-918843-20230704
Germany’s power mix boasts more renewables, lower spot market prices – despite nuclear exit
Germany’s shutdown of nuclear power plants in April did not result in a
ramp-up of lignite-fired power plants, despite concerns. Instead, there has
been a significant increase in the share of renewables in the electricity
mix, and the proportion of coal-generated electricity has fallen by more
than 20%.
Electricity in Germany has become cheaper and cleaner since its
last three nuclear power plants were shut down, according to new data from
the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE. Net electricity
production from lignite and hard coal has decreased by more than 20%, while
natural gas has experienced a minor decline.
In contrast, renewables have
reached a record share of 57.7% of net electricity generation. According to
Fraunhofer ISE, the German energy system successfully managed the nuclear
phase-out. The decommissioned reactors’ reduced output was offset by lower
consumption, decreased exports, and increased imports.
PV Magazine 4th July 2023 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/07/04/germanys-nuclear-exit-leads-to-more-renewables-lower-spot-market-prices/
Fukushima: China calls for suspension of Japanese plan to release radioactive water into sea.

Guardian, 4 July 23
Comments come as IAEA boss visits Japan to deliver results of safety report on planned discharge of nuclear-contaminated water
China has called for the suspension of a Japanese plan to begin releasing radioactive water from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea, ahead of a UN report that is expected to give its approval to the scheme.
Beijing denounced the plan as “extremely irresponsible” when it was announced in 2021 and reiterated its opposition on Tuesday, as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, Rafael Grossi, begins a four-day visit in which he is set to deliver the results of the body’s safety review.
Through its embassy in Japan, China said the IAEA’s report cannot be a “pass” for the water release and called for it to be suspended.
Last week a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry said Beijing urged Japan to “take seriously both international and domestic concerns, stop forcibly proceeding with its ocean discharge plan” and “subject itself to rigorous international oversight”.
……… Local Japanese fishing communities have also objected to the plan, saying it will destroy more than a decade of work rebuilding their industry, with consumers likely to shun their catch and send prices plummeting.
Japan has not specified a date for the water release, which would take place over 30 to 40 years pending the IAEA’s final review and official approval from the national nuclear regulatory body for Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco). The regulatory body’s final word could come as early as this week………………… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/04/fukushima-china-calls-for-suspension-of-japanese-plan-to-release-radioactive-water-into-sea
—
Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine

by EDITOR, July 3, 2023, By Bryce Greene / Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/03/report-shows-how-military-industrial-complex-sets-media-narrative-on-ukraine/
Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, 7/13). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (6/1/23) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the national discourse.
The Quincy Institute—whose own start-up funding came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.
With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a critical factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, 3/4/22.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (8/7/16) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.
Think tank media mentions related to US military support for Ukraine (Quincy Institute, 6/1/23).
In addition to showing think tanks’ enormous influence, the Quincy report highlights how difficult it is to trace just how much war industry funding these think tanks receive, and exactly whose interests they represent. “Think tanks are not required to disclose their funders,” study author Ben Freeman wrote, and “many think tanks list donors without indicating the amount of donations and others just list donors in ranges (e.g., $250,000 to $499,999).”
While the study was not aimed at establishing a causal connection between weapons industry funding and the think tanks’ positions, it acknowledges that funding typically plays a major role in shaping the institutions. “Funders,” Freeman wrote, “are able to influence think tank work through the mechanisms of censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering.” In other words, people with points of view antithetical to the funders likely would not last long in these think tanks.
Causal or not, there is a marked correlation between war industry funding and hawkish positions. “Think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry,” the report noted. For example, one Atlantic Council article (2/6/23) advocated against “any compromise with the Kremlin,” while another, titled “Equity for Ukraine” (1/16/23), argued that Ukraine has a “right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia and plunge Moscow and other cities into darkness.”
Earlier this year, the president of the American Enterprise Institute—fifth on the list, with 101 mentions—was cited numerous times in the Wall Street Journal (e.g., 1/20/23, 1/25/23) arguing that “tanks and armored personnel carriers are essential,” and agreeing to provide them will “let Ukraine know that it can afford to risk and expend more of its current arsenal of tanks in counteroffensive operations because it can count on getting replacements for them.” AEI (6/9/23) has gone so far as to suggest that the US give tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine, something that could easily escalate to all-out nuclear war.
The Quincy Institute did not find a single instance in which a media organization disclosed the fact that its source received funding from the war industry, obscuring how interested parties may be shaping coverage or promoting policy recommendations that directly benefit their funders.
The study found that for the few think tanks that receive little or no Pentagon contractor funding, positions on the war are dramatically different. With less influence from the war industry, the study found, these organizations emphasize “expository rather than prescriptive analysis, support for diplomatic solutions, and a focus on the impact of the war on different parts of society and the region.”
Human Rights Watch, which takes no war industry money, “was agnostic on the issue of providing US military assistance to Ukraine,” and instead “focused on human rights abuses in the conflict.” The Carnegie Endowment, which receives less than 1% of its funding from that industry, was never quoted advocating an increase in military spending or weapons sales during the Ukraine War.
One critical way that corporate news media manufactures consent for US foreign policy is by carefully selecting the sources and voices that they present, and narrowing the spectrum of debate. While this can take the form of uncritically repeating pronouncements from government officials, this research demonstrates that there are more subtle ways in which media outlets can push a corporate/state agenda under the guise of independent journalism.
High nuclear crimes don’t pay
by beyondnuclearinternational, By Linda Pentz Gunter
Politicians and executives snared for their roles in bribery and racketeering schemes
Breaking: On June 29, former Ohio Speaker of the House, Republican, Larry Householder, was handed down the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for his role in the high crimes described below. His co-conspirator, Matt Borges, the former Ohio GOP Chairman, was sentenced on June 30 to fiveyears in federal prison.
This is part one of a two-part story on bribery and corruption in the nuclear power realm and the questionable ethics of legal lobbying. The original article was published in its entirety in Capitol Hill Citizen, a print-only newspaper published by Ralph Nader. These articles are reproduced with kind permission of the editor. Part two will be published in the next few weeks. Capitol Hill Citizen comes out in print only. To subscribe or purchase single copies, click here.
It all began when Ohio nuclear power plant owner, FirstEnergy, began “bleeding cash” in a desperate effort to keep its aging and uneconomical Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants solvent.
The effort bankrupted FirstEnergy subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions, then owner of the two nuclear plants. The shareholders wanted out. FirstEnergy threatened to close the plants. But Ohio House Republican, Larry Householder, had other plans.
Householder concocted a nefarious scheme to extract $61 million from the failing company to ensure his re-election and that of enough political allies to guarantee his return to the House Speakership.
This, in turn, would secure enough votes to ensure passage of a $1.3 billion bailout bill, known as HB6, that would rescue the two nuclear plants along with struggling coal plants.
And it worked. For a while.
Householder, who had previously held the Ohio House Speakership from 2001-2004, was duly re-elected to that position in January 2019. Millions of dollars also poured into the campaign war chests of 21 political candidates in order to stack the House with votes in favor of the bailout bill. It duly passed the House on May 29, 2019 and the Senate on July 17, 2019. But the July 23, 2019 Ohio House concurrence vote passed the bill by only one vote. And then it all unraveled.
On July 21, 2020, Householder and four others were arrested for what investigating US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, David DeVillers, described as “the biggest criminal racketeering conspiracy in Ohio history.”
Householder, who was re-elected to the Ohio House shortly afterwards and refused to resign, was unanimously voted out as Speaker on July 30, 2020. Eleven months later the House voted 75-21 to expel Householder.
After a seven week trial, Householder and fellow conspirator, former GOP Chairman Matt Borges, were found guilty of racketeering conspiracy on March 9, 2023. The jury took just nine hours to reach their verdict. Householder was sentenced on June 29 to 20 years in prison — the maximum penalty. Borges was sentenced on June 30 to five years in federal prison. Both men said they would appeal.
The U.S. District judge in the case, Timothy Black, scolded Householder at sentencing, saying: “Beyond financial greed, I think you just liked power. You weren’t serving the people. You were serving yourself.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Glatfelter described Householder as “the quintessential mob boss, directing the criminal enterprise from the shadows and using his casket carriers to execute the scheme”, in a sentencing memorandum to the judge.
FirstEnergy Corp. was also charged with conspiring to commit honest services wire fraud, but the company signed a deferred prosecution agreement that could see the charges dismissed. FirstEnergy also agreed to pay a $230 million monetary penalty.
But an ongoing civil lawsuit against FirstEnergy alleging insider trading and other offenses has brought documents to light released by Ohio Consumers’ Council that reveal the true depth and scope of involvement of its executives in the scheme to ensure passage of HB6.
Nevertheless, Householder defense attorney, Steve Bradley, argued during the trial that Householder was just “being a good politician” and is simply “good at fundraising”. Never mind that Householder hid the source of the $61 million by funneling it through a murky 501(c)(4) called Generation Now, then redirected around $500,000 of it to pay off his personal credit card debt, settle a lawsuit, and repair a Florida home.
The flow of dark money to Generation Now, which FirstEnergy has now admitted supplying, also paid for a disinformation campaign to suppress a public petition drive to repeal HB6, launched by a coalition called Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts. ……………………………………………………..
It remains to be seen whether the fate of those politicians and corporate executives who fell prey to greed and deception and to whom punishment will now be meted out, will serve as an adequate deterrent against further such conduct.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/07/02/high-nuclear-crimes-dont-pay/
US Nuclear-Capable B-52 Bombers Fly to Korean Peninsula in Latest Provocation
by EDITOR, July 3, 2023, By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com
The bombers participated in a training exercise with US and South Korean fighter jets.
US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers flew to the Korean Peninsula on Friday in the latest US provocation against North Korea.
The South Korean Defense Ministry and the US military said the bombers participated in exercises and were joined by US and South Korean fighter jets………………………….
According to Air & Space Forces Magazine, Friday’s B-52 deployment marked the seventh time in the last six months that B-52s or B-1s have flown above or near the Korean Peninsula.
The US is planning to dock a nuclear-armed submarine in South Korea for the first time since 1981. President Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol announced the plan in April, but it’s not clear when the nuclear-armed submarine will arrive.
Because US nuclear-armed submarines can be patrolling waters anywhere in the world at any time and carry long-range missiles, from a strategic perspective, docking one in South Korea serves no purpose other than as a provocation toward North Korea. https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/03/us-nuclear-capable-b-52-bombers-fly-to-korean-peninsula-in-latest-provocation/
World’s Largest Fusion Project Is in Big Trouble, New Documents Reveal

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is already billions of dollars over budget and decades behind schedule. Not even its leaders can say how much more money and time it will take to complete
Scientific American Charles Seife on June 15, 2023
“……………………………….. ITER is on the verge of a record-setting disaster as accumulated schedule slips and budget overruns threaten to make it the most delayed—and most cost-inflated—science project in history.
………………. Since the 1950s fusion machines have grown bigger and more powerful, but none has ever gotten anywhere near what would be needed to put this panacea energy source on the electric grid. ITER is the biggest, most powerful fusion device ever devised, and its designers have intended it to be the machine that will finally show that fusion power plants can really be built.
The ITER project formally began in 2006, when its international partners agreed to fund an estimated €5 billion (then $6.3 billion), 10-year plan that would have seen ITER come online in 2016. The most recent official cost estimate stands at more than €20 billion ($22 billion), with ITER nominally turning on scarcely two years from now.
Documents recently obtained via a lawsuit, however, imply that these figures are woefully outdated: ITER is not just facing several years’ worth of additional delays but also a growing internal recognition that the project’s remaining technical challenges are poised to send budgets spiraling even further out of control and successful operation ever further into the future.
The documents, drafted a year ago for a private meeting of the ITER Council, ITER’s governing body, show that at the time, the project was bracing for a three-year delay—a doubling of internal estimates prepared just six months earlier. And in the year since those documents were written, the already grim news out of ITER has unfortunately only gotten worse.
Yet no one within the ITER Organization has been able to provide estimates of the additional delays, much less the extra expenses expected to result from them. Nor has anyone at the U.S. Department of Energy, which is in charge of the nation’s contributions to ITER, been able to do so. When contacted for this story, DOE officials did not respond to any questions by the time of publication.
The problems leading to these latest projected delays were several years in the making. The ITER Organization was extremely slow to let on that anything was wrong, however. As late as early July 2022, ITER’s website announced that the machine was expected to turn on as scheduled in December 2025. Afterward that date bore an asterisk clarifying that it would be revised. Now the date has disappeared from the website altogether.
ITER leaders seldom let slip that anything was awry either…………………………………………………………….
In response to this stonewalling, earlier this year I initiated a lawsuit under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act seeking to reveal the extent of ITER’s expected schedule and cost troubles. So far, the lawsuit has been partially successful. It has extracted partially redacted documents revealing that in November 2021 ITER’s internal estimates showed the project already facing about 17 months of delays. By the time of the June 2022 ITER Council meeting, the number had doubled to roughly 35 months of delays—enough to easily add billions of dollars to ITER’s already bloated budget. But this timeline didn’t reflect other events bound to introduce even more delays……………………………………………….
With each passing decade, this record-breaking monument to big international science looks less and less like a cathedral—and more like a mausoleum. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/worlds-largest-fusion-project-is-in-big-trouble-new-documents-reveal/
-
Archives
- October 2026 (219)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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



