nuclear-news

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

Nuclear lapses overshadow reactor restarts in post-Fukushima Japan.

Power provider admits to manipulating data to downplay effect of large
earthquake. This month, one of Japan’s biggest utilities admitted to
manipulating data to downplay the effect of a large earthquake on a nuclear
power plant under review for reopening.

The admission followed a security
failure at Japan’s nuclear energy watchdog, in which an employee lost a
work phone with contact details of staff involved in nuclear security
during a personal trip to China.

The compliance lapses at Chubu Electric
and the Nuclear Regulation Authority threaten confidence in Japan’s safety
regime as the country tries to reopen its nuclear plants 15 years after a
massive quake caused a tsunami that inundated reactors in Fukushima.

FT 22nd Jan 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/0bb511ab-80dc-44c2-ab06-d0e587c8367e

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Nuclear reactor owned by Fukushima plant operator TEPCO to shut down again hours after restart.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 22 January 2026 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-15487139/Nuclear-reactor-owned-Fukushima-plant-operator-TEPCO-suspends-hours-old-restart.html

TOKYO (AP) – A reactor at the world’s largest nuclear power plant that restarted for the first time since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster is now being shut down again Thursday due to a glitch that occurred hours after the unit’s resumption, its operator said.

The No. 6 reactor at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in north-central Japan reactivated Wednesday night for the first time in 14 years, as plant workers started removing neutron-absorbing control rods from the core to start stable nuclear fission.

But the process had to be suspended hours later due to a malfunction related to control rods, which are essential to safely starting up and shutting down reactors, the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings said.

TEPCO, which also manages the wrecked Fukushima plant, said there was no safety issue from the glitch.

Kashiwazak-Kariwa plant chief Takeyuki Inagaki told a news conference that he has decided to shut down the reactor to ensure safety. The operation had to stop when an alarm went off after 52 of the 205 control rods were removed from the core, he said. Inagaki said he hoped to start putting them back in later Thursday to bring the No. 6 reactor to a shutdown.

“The equipment is essential to safe operation, and we will examine it inside out,” he said, adding that the reactor will not be restarted until the cause is found and measures are taken.

“I don’t think this is going to be resolved in a couple of days,” Inagaki said.

The restart at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant was being watched closely since TEPCO also runs the Fukushima Daiichi plant that was ruined in the 2011 quake and tsunami. Resource-poor Japan is accelerating atomic power use to meet soaring electricity needs.

All seven reactors at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa have been dormant since a year after the meltdowns of reactors at the Fukushima plant contaminated the surrounding land with radioactive fallout so severe that some areas are still uninhabitable.

TEPCO is working on the cleanup at the Fukushima site that´s estimated to cost 22 trillion yen ($139 billion). It’s also trying to recover from the damage to its reputation after government and independent investigations blamed the Fukushima disaster on TEPCO´s bad safety culture and criticized it for collusion with safety authorities.

Fourteen other nuclear reactors have restarted across Japan since 2011, but the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, about 220 kilometers (135 miles) northwest of Tokyo, is the first TEPCO-run unit to resume production.

A restart of the No. 6 reactor could generate an additional 1.35 million kilowatts of electricity, enough to power more than 1 million households in the capital region.

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant´s combined output capacity of 8 million kilowatts makes it the world´s largest, though TEPCO plans to resume only two of the seven reactors in coming years.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Anti-climate opinion columns becoming a regular feature in UK newspapers.

Sidhi Mittal,  21st January 2026, https://www.edie.net/anti-climate-opinion-columns-becoming-a-regular-feature-in-uk-newspapers/

Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials were published opposing climate action in 2025, a record figure that shows the scale of the backlash against net-zero policies in the right-leaning press.

Carbon Brief examined editorials published since 2011. These included those written by external columnists and those acting as a publication’s official editorial ‘voice’.

In 2025, it identified 98 editorials rejecting climate action, compared with 46 in support. This was the first year in which opposition overtook support across the 15 years of data.

All 98 editorials opposing climate action appeared in right-leaning titles. The largest contributors were the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, followed by the Times and the Daily Express.

By contrast, almost all of the editorials pushing for more climate action were published in the Guardian and the Financial Times, which have far smaller circulations than several of the conservative papers.

Overall, 81% of climate-related editorials in right-leaning newspapers in 2025 rejected climate action – either overall, or due to specific policy interventions.

Carbon Brief said this marked a sharp change from a few years earlier, when many of the same papers showed increased enthusiasm for climate policy as Conservative governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson introduced the net-zero by 2050 target and backed measures to deliver it.

Right-leaning press drives opposition

The media shift has coincided with political changes on the UK right, according to the research.

Over the past year, the Conservative party has distanced itself from the net-zero target it legislated for in 2019 and from the Climate Change Act.

Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch has stated that she would scrap the Act altogether if elected. This would spell the end of the UK Government’s official climate advisory body and all future carbon budgets.

Reform UK has also been rising in the polls while pledging to “ditch net-zero”. Carbon Brief said the positions taken by right-leaning newspapers tend to reflect and reinforce the politics of the parties they support.

None of the editorials opposing climate action questioned the existence of climate change or the science behind it. Instead, they criticised the policies designed to address it, a position Carbon Brief describes as “response scepticism”.

In many cases, newspapers attacked “net-zero” without mentioning climate change at all.

The report links this to earlier research by Dr James Painter of the University of Oxford, which found that UK newspaper coverage has been “decoupling net-zero from climate change”. This comes despite polling showing majority public support for many of the policies that underpin net-zero and for the 2050 target itself.

Economic arguments dominated the opposition. Carbon Brief found that more than eight in ten of 2025’s editorials rejecting climate action cited cost as a reason, describing net-zero as “ruinous” or “costly” and blaming it for driving up energy bills.

Earlier this month, several national newspapers also gave prominent coverage to a pamphlet from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) on the “cost of net-zero” that misrepresented the work of the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO).

The IEA claimed net-zero costs could exceed £7.6trn, but the figures were based on the flawed assumption that no investment would be made in energy systems if the UK did not have its 2050 climate target.

Critics also say the IEA  mischaracterised NESO’s analysis. Regardless, the pamphlet appeared on the front page of the Daily Express and was reported by political correspondents at the Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph without scrutiny of the underlying energy data.

Miliband under sustained attack

Alongside criticism of policy, newspapers also targeted the Labour Government’s energy security and net-zero secretary, Ed Miliband.

In 2025, UK newspapers published 112 editorials taking personal aim at him, nearly all in right-leaning titles. The Sun alone published 51.

Six in ten editorials opposing climate action used criticism of climate advocates as part of their justification, and almost all of these mentioned Miliband.

Miliband was described as a “loon”, a “zealot” and the “high priest of net-zero”, and accused of “eco insanity” and “quasi-religious delusions”.

Newspapers frequently framed policies as “Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda”, “Mr Miliband’s swivel-eyed targets” or “Mr Miliband’s green taxes”, presenting climate measures as being imposed on the public by the energy secretary. This is despite the fact that many targets and initiatives were kick-started under the Tories.

Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels

Carbon Brief additionally analysed editorials on specific energy technologies.

There were 42 editorials criticising renewable energy in 2025. For the first time since 2014, anti-renewables editorials outnumbered those supporting them.

Cost was the dominant argument, with 86% of critical editorials using economic justifications.

The Sun referred to “chucking billions at unreliable renewables”, while the Daily Telegraph warned of an “expensive and intermittent renewables grid”.

At the same time, right-leaning newspapers continued to support nuclear power despite its high costs. There were 20 editorials backing nuclear energy in 2025, nearly all in conservative titles, and none opposing it.

The Times was the only right-leaning newspaper to publish any editorials backing renewables.

Support for fracking also reappeared. After falling away in 2023 and 2024, there were 15 editorials in 2025 arguing that fracking would be economically beneficial, even as the Government plans to ban the practice permanently.

North Sea oil and gas remained a major focus. Thirty editorials, all in right-leaning newspapers, mentioned the issue, with most arguing for increased extraction while also opposing climate action or renewable expansion.

Related article: Tories invoke fears of electricity blackouts to criticise renewable energy roll-out

January 24, 2026 Posted by | climate change, media, UK | Leave a comment

Why the Nuclear Regulatory Review is flawed – and how itcould turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe.

January 2026, Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts

“…………………………………………………. Large nuclear projects, using potentially risky technology, have potential for significant environmental impacts on sensitive places and so it is right for there to be robust environmental assessments of these projects. The Government has an ambitious programme of nuclear
deployment. It has published a new National Policy Statement for nuclear power.3
It has removed the restriction on new nuclear power to eight sites around the UK. It has said it will aid
the completion of Hinkley Point C, provide additional funding for Sizewell C, and consider one
large new nuclear power plant alongside the deployment of Small Modular Reactors. Due to
their requirements and the types of site needed, nuclear projects have often impacted on
ecologically sensitive areas. The new National Policy Statement on nuclear reiterates the
importance of the Habitats Regulations and the protection of legally protected sites and wildlife.

As part of its efforts to boost nuclear deployment, the Government commissioned John
Fingleton to lead a taskforce review of nuclear regulation. The final report of the Nuclear
Regulatory Review was published in November 2025.
It diagnosed environmental regulations
as a blocker to nuclear deployment and included recommendations to water down those
regulations. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the Government accepts the
principles of the Review, that within three months a plan will be published by DESNZ to
implement the Review, and that its recommendations will be implemented within two years
using legislation.6 Environmental groups are very concerned the recommendations will be
adopted for the nuclear sector using legislation and potentially applied to other types of major
infrastructure.

The Nuclear Regulatory Review is part of a wider pattern of the Government adopting the
arguments of developers to pinpoint where delays are coming from; however, it is inaccurate
and does not represent reality. Research by The Wildlife Trusts already shows that – despite
the headlines and claims by the Chancellor and others – bats and newts, for example, were a
factor in just 3.3% of planning appeals.7 This briefing will highlight how the claims made by the
Nuclear Regulatory Review are similarly short on evidence and, if adopted, will do little to speed
up planning decisions but, instead, will turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe. Many industries
already say that the uncertainty caused by constantly changing regulations holds back
development; the Nuclear Regulatory Review threatens to do just that.

Flaws and Inaccuracies in the Nuclear Regulatory Review
The Review, commissioned by the Government, identifies three major areas for reform: risk
aversion, process over outcomes, and a lack of incentives. The Review also turns nature into a
scapegoat for a failure to deliver nuclear projects.


Recommendation 11 calls for various changes to the Habitats Regulations, including removing
the requirement for compensation to be like-for-like. Recommendation 12 calls for nuclear
developers to be allowed to comply with the regulations simply by paying a fixed sum (an
amount per acre), which would be used by Natural England for nature somewhere else. When it
comes to local planning, The Wildlife Trusts remain concerned with the related idea of
payments for Environmental Delivery Plans as a way for developers to meet their legal
obligations. A strategic approach might be appropriate when it comes to, for example, pollution
impacts, but would not be suitable for irreplaceable habitats or species that cannot re-establish
elsewhere easily.8

Recommendation 19 would remove the duty on Local Authorities to seek and further National
Parks and Landscapes, returning to the old language of “have regard to”. The combination of
these changes would not only substantially weaken protections for nature but would also
introduce significant uncertainty in the nuclear sector and for other sectors about whether
standards and regulations that are bedding in and increasingly becoming well understood are in
fact about to change.


The Review was produced without enough environmental expertise – and this shows. It
contains a number of errors when it comes to environmental evidence, which has led to a
misdiagnosis of the problem and to damaging recommendations about environmental
regulations.


The Review relies heavily on the case study of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is
quick to use the case study to blame nature without examining the actions and decisions of the
developer. A large amount of confusing and misleading information has been issued to the
media and in the Review itself to further this narrative.

Here are some of the facts:

  • Hinkley Point C is on the edge of one of the most highly ecologically protected sites in
    Europe and will draw through a swimming pool’s worth of water every second for 70
    years of operation. This will have enormous impacts on surrounding ecosystems, fish,
    and other species.9
  • A £700 million figure has been widely circulated in the press relating to fish deterrents
    and is quoted in the Review. This is incorrect. The cost of the fish deterrent system is
    £50 million.10
  • EDF themselves unilaterally decided in 2017 not to proceed with the fish deterrent
    system, despite it being a requirement. They then proceeded to apply for permit
    variations, undertake further environmental assessments and initiate a public inquiry to
    attempt to remove the requirement. These developer decisions have caused selfinflicted delays.11
  • Hinkley Point C’s original budget was £18 billion. It has since risen to an estimated £46
    billion. The fish deterrent (at £50 million) comes to just 0.1% of this increased £46
    billion budget. Nearly £30 billion in cost increases for Hinkley Point C have nothing to
    do with nature.12
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Review says (for example) that just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout,
    and 6 lamprey per year would be saved. This deliberately downplays the impact on
    nature. This statement relies on analysis by the developer EDF, who captured fish and
    put trackers on them and used old data from Hinkley B power station. Since then ,a
    more thorough analysis has been completed for the Environment Agency, who have found that 4.6 million adult fish per year being killed is a more accurate number, or 182 million fish in total over sixty years.13 These fish populations are a foundation stone for the wider ecosystem of the Severn Estuary, supporting internationally important migratory bird populations and other species. Many of the fish are rare or endangered. Damage on the scale suggested by the Environment Agency figures could have calamitous impacts on that ecosystem and the economic and social activities that rely on it………………………………………………………………………………

Environmental Damage of Nuclear Regulatory Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Conclusion

The Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations 11, 12 and 19 will harm nature and
biodiversity. They are based on flawed evidence relating to environmental regulations and how
they have been applied. As discussed, the true reasons for nuclear delay lie elsewhere.
Implementing the Nuclear Regulatory recommendations would devastate nature without
speeding up the nuclear planning and delivery process. The Government must reject the three
Nuclear Regulatory Review’s recommendations on environmental regulations and end its
confected war on nature as a barrier to planning.


20th January 2026
Research commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts and conducted by Matt Williams, https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/WhyTheNuclearRegulatoryReviewIsFlawed_TheWildlifeTrusts.pdf


January 24, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Nature groups question UK’s Fingleton nuclear review

The Engineer, 21 Jan 2026, https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/nature-groups-question-fingleton-nuclear-review

More than a dozen environmental groups and over 60 MPs are questioning the ‘Fingleton recommendations’ set out in the recent Nuclear Regulatory Review.

Led by economist John Fingleton, the Nuclear Regulatory Review made several recommendations designed to ease the path of nuclear development. Among these were proposals to weaken the Habitats Regulations which protect nature sites. But environmental groups, led by The Wildlife Trusts, claim that the review is based on flawed evidence, and that the recommendations could have a catastrophic effect on nature across the UK.

“The dice were loaded from the start – the nuclear review confirms a false narrative that was already being circulated by certain industry lobby groups and think tanks,” said Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts.

“The errors in the review form a clear pattern: repeated exaggeration of the costs of preventing harm to nature – and minimisation of the impact to wildlife of nuclear development without those measures. The fact that no environmental experts served on the panel is a disgrace and the resulting distorted picture obscures the value the natural world delivers for economic stability and net zero.”

A new report from The Wildlife Trusts points to specific examples where it believes the nuclear review falls short. It claims that, rather than £700m, Hinkley C’s much-debated fish deterrent system would actually cost £50m. This is against a total project cost of £46bn, up from an original estimate of £18bn.

The Nuclear Regulatory Review also claims that the fish deterrent system would save just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout and 6 lamprey per year. However, The Wildlife Trusts cites a report from the Environment Agency that suggests up to 4.6 million adult fish per year could be killed per year if no protective measures are put in place.

“There is limited evidence that environmental protections impose undue costs on infrastructure developers,” said Bennet. “In fact, evidence shows that frequently cited examples of expensive mitigation measures originated from developer mistakes and were unconnected to environmental issues. Blaming nature is unacceptable and a way of avoiding accountability.

“The developers of Hinkley C are trying to blame everyone but themselves for their own failure to think about nature from the outset. When developers think about nature too late in the design process, they end up creating bolt-on engineering solutions for ecological problems, which tend to be more expensive and less effective than committing to make infrastructure nature positive from the very start of the designing process. It’s pretty pathetic that the government is now trying to bail out energy infrastructure developers for this failure of commitment and imagination.”

The Wildlife Trusts’ campaign to save the environmental protections that are threatened by the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review is supported by 14 other organisations: Wildlife and Countryside Link, Rivers Trust, Campaign for National Parks, Marine Conservation Society, Plantlife, Buglife, Bat Conservation Trust, Amphibian Reptile Conservation, Badger Trust, Beaver Trust, Bumblebee Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, Open Spaces Society, and Client Earth.   

January 24, 2026 Posted by | environment, opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

A Board of Peace built on the rubble of Gaza

22 January 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/a-board-of-peace-built-on-the-rubble-of-gaza/

There are moments in politics when language becomes so detached from reality that it tips from cynicism into a farce. Appointing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” for Gaza is one such moment.

Netanyahu is not a neutral stakeholder. He is not a reluctant participant dragged into a tragic conflict. He is the leader who has overseen the systematic destruction of Gaza: tens of thousands of civilians killed, entire neighbourhoods erased, hospitals flattened, universities bombed, and a population deliberately deprived of food, water, shelter, and hope. He is also the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

That Israel has rejected those charges or dismissed them as political is beside the point. Courts exist precisely because perpetrators rarely accept responsibility for their own actions. The question is not whether Netanyahu agrees with the accusations – it is whether the facts on the ground support them.

They do.

International law defines genocide not by slogans or historical analogies, but by actions and intent. Killing members of a protected group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s destruction, in whole or in part. Gaza today bears the unmistakable imprint of each of these elements.

Add to this the repeated, dehumanising rhetoric from senior Israeli officials – Palestinians described as “human animals”, Gaza spoken of as something to be “flattened”, “erased”, or emptied – and the claim that this is merely an unfortunate but lawful military campaign collapses under its own weight.

Legal processes move slowly. They always do. Genocide is almost never recognised as such while it is unfolding. Rwanda was denied until the machetes were put down. Srebrenica was minimised until the mass graves were opened. History shows that moral clarity arrives long before judicial finality.

Which is precisely why Netanyahu’s elevation to a “Board of Peace” is so grotesque. Peace is not brokered by those actively prosecuting a war of annihilation. Reconstruction is not overseen by those who created the ruins. And justice is not served by rehabilitating leaders while the bodies are still being pulled from the rubble.

Trump’s board is not a peace initiative. It is a branding exercise – one that launders responsibility, flattens moral distinctions, and asks the world to accept Orwellian doublespeak as diplomacy.

Calling this arrangement a farce is not rhetorical excess. It is an accurate description. When an alleged war criminal is recast as a peacemaker, language itself has been bombed into submission.

And Gaza, once again, is expected to pay the price.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, politics international | Leave a comment

World’s Largest Nuclear Station or Lower Electricity Bills?

Nuclear Power: The Most Expensive and Slowest Option

Nuclear reactors are the highest cost option to meet Ontario’s electricity needs – up to 10 times higher than energy efficiency, and 2 to 8 times higher than new wind and solar energy.

They are also far too slow. According to OPG, these new nuclear reactors would not come online until 2040 – 2048. That means more than 20 years of construction, cost overruns, and continued reliance on polluting gas.

By contrast, new wind and solar projects can be built in 6 months – 2 years, reducing emissions and lowering bills quickly. 

A Risky Dependence on Foreign Fuel

To make matters worse, OPG is considering purchasing American-designed reactors from GE-Hitachi or Westinghouse. These reactors would require Ontario to import enriched uranium from the United States to fuel them. Does that seem like a good idea given the current political craziness unfolding south of the border?  

The Better Alternative

OPG’s proposal fails to examine crucial alternatives.

Could Ontario meet its electricity needs more cheaply, more quickly, and more safely by investing in energy efficiency, wind power, solar energy, and energy storage (such as batteries and compressed air storage)?

This is a question that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) must examine during its mandatory review. That will only happen if the public demands it.

What you can do

📩 Submit Public Comments – Deadline: Midnight, Wed. Feb. 11

The IAAC is accepting public comments on OPG’s application.

Submit your comments through the IAAC portal or email them to: wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca

Ask the IAAC to direct OPG to evaluate whether energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage are lower-cost, faster, safer, and more secure ways to meet Ontario’s electricity needs than building a massive new nuclear station at Port Hope

January 24, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Is the end now in sight for the war in Ukraine?

James WhiteJanuary 22, 2026. 

German companies have already begun negotiations with their connections in Russia to resume trade once the sanctions are lifted. Thus German business leaders plainly ignore Chancellor Merz and his bellicose provocations toward Russia.

Funding and arms for Ukraine from NATO countries have all but dried up. The pipeline of conscripts in Ukraine has likewise run short of victims.

Zelensky continues to flit from one European capital to another seeking more billions in handouts. But his veneer of propaganda has grown thin at best. The warm wet kisses and embraces he received from neocons and Democrats in the U.S. as well as the WEF puppets of Europe, Macron, Starmer, Merz, Von der Leyen no longer present the same appeal.

Kiev Mayor Klitschko has advised everyone to evacuate the capital city, as electrical power has been cut off. This can only increase the flow of Ukrainians into Europe, already weary from hosting millions of Ukrainians for the past 4 years.

Anyone paying attention has seen the wretched excess of corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs in expensive sports cars with Ukrainian license plates in Monaco and various other luxury European holiday locales.

The U.S. has cut off the Ukraine grift while all of Europe is tapped out.
Von der Leyen’s insatiable greed for more billions from Europeans and her plans to steal ‘frozen’ Russian assets have petered out once the European banks understood that doing so would be an existential threat to the Euro and themselves.

Momentum for the end of the war in Ukraine keeps building.
The only question that remains is if Ukraine can negotiate any of their surrender terms with Russia or if the government will finally collapse as the economy collapses and the battle front recedes toward Kharkiv, Odessa and Kiev.

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The secret nuclear influencer in the heart of Moscow.

Dr Eva Stegen 21st Jan 2026

Nuclear energy does not appear in any of the 19 EU sanctions packages, thanks to a key individual. Former nuclear power executive Henri Proglio has maintained several consulting offices in Moscow, the heart of Putin’s power, for the past 10 years. The former head of the state-owned Électricité de France (EdF) still sits on the international advisory board of Putin’s nuclear power conglomerate Rosatom.

Déjà vu: A wave of outrage swept through Germany when the “family business owners” tested the boundaries by extending an invitation to the AfD. The business lobby group eventually backtracked. The German “corporate families” may have been inspired by French far-right extremists who have been casting their nets into corporate boardrooms for some time. The French trial balloon was launched two years ago, a few months before the elections, and provoked a media frenzy. Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate of the National Rally (RN), orchestrated a meeting with an extremely polarizing manager: Henri Proglio. He was one of the country’s most powerful business leaders until he was deemed inferior at the nuclear power company Électricité de France (EdF).

Critics consider the self-proclaimed Putin supporter, who calls himself a “killer ,” to be “not as successful as he would have people believe .” They claim he has “developed a system of clans, gangs, and sinecures” that promoted nuclear technology exports to crisis regions. Under his leadership (2009-2014), he forged ties with Chinese rulers, the Libyan dictator Gaddafi , the Saudi Bin Laden Group, and other dubious business partners. His mentor, Nicolas Sarkozy, was imprisoned over the Libya affair. Another key figure in this corrupt clique, the secret protector of Proglio’s career, “Monsieur Alexandre,” also received a prison sentence. Proglio’s enforcer, a former gang leader from the Parisian suburbs , knows prison from the inside. The middleman rose from the underworld to the highest circles of politics and business: “I hold them all by the balls .”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Proglio and the National Rally (RN) are advocating for a “Frexit,” wanting to withdraw from the EU electricity market and give preferential treatment to French companies. These ideas of European division are welcomed by the Kremlin. ………………………………

the fact that “the fuels that power our nuclear power plants largely 
come  from Russia” amounts to nothing less than import dependency . And this is with a high-risk technology of civil-military relevance. 


“Why is the nuclear industry spared?”
Investigate Europe and Tagesspiegel asked back in 2022. Nuclear power does not appear in a single one of the (now 19) EU sanctions packages. In their joint research, they show:
 “ The close connection between the French and Russian nuclear industries is exemplified not least by Henri Proglio , the former CEO of the French state-owned electricity supplier EDF, who still sits on the international advisory board of Rosatom ,” the Russian nuclear conglomerate used by Vladimir Putin as a geopolitical instrument to expand his influence in Europe.

No nuclear sanctions – thanks to import dependency and a key personnel decision

In addition to his position at Rosatom, Proglio has maintained several consulting offices in Moscow for the past ten years, profiting handsomely from Putin’s war in Ukraine and orchestrating shady deals, including in the nuclear sector. This is particularly sensitive because he is privileged to the most closely guarded secrets of France, a civilian-military nuclear power. While he can keep secrets—he even concealed the lucrative activities of companies like ‘Henri Proglio Consulting’ and ‘HP Energy Advisory’ in Moscow from the parliamentary inquiry committee—it is highly questionable whether this is always in the best interests of France or Europe.

……………………….He believes the existing reactors should be allowed to operate until a medium-power reactor (1000 MW) is developed. He himself is responsible for the sale of the intellectual property rights for precisely this technology to China. That was the death knell for the French reactor manufacturer Areva.

ts engineers were stunned when they discovered a Chinese pirated copy of their plans, developed with Japanese colleagues for a 1000 MW reactor. Proglio was behind it: 
“We will build Franco-Chinese reactors. And we will also build Franco-Russian reactors.” He himself was present at the  clandestine signing of far-reaching contracts , which amounted to a ticket into the heart of France’s highly sensitive nuclear infrastructure. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Rosatom’s geostrategy for global dependence

According to its own statements, “Rosatom is the only company worldwide that possesses all technologies of the nuclear fuel cycle .” The nuclear giant, with its 450 arms, employs around 420,000 people and aims to establish itself as the world market leader in the entire nuclear process chain, from uranium mining through conversion, enrichment, fuel element production, reactor construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning, to waste management…………………………………………………………………………………….https://www-eva–stegen-de.translate.goog/blog/atom-Influencer-im-herzen-moskaus.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

January 24, 2026 Posted by | France, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Mayors for Peace Joint Appeal

January 20, 2026, https://www.mayorsforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/file-2601-MfP_Joint-Appeal_January-2026_E.pdf
The milestone year of 2025—marking 80 years since the end of World War II and the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first use of nuclear weapons in human history—has come
to a close, and a new year, 2026, has begun. Over the past year, Mayors for Peace undertook a wide
range of peace initiatives. In particular, in August, the 11th General Conference of Mayors for Peace
was convened in Nagasaki City, where member cities from around the world engaged in extensive
discussions and renewed their shared determination to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.


Yet today, as power struggles over territory and economic influence initiated by nuclear-armed major
powers intensify, the global situation is growing ever more precarious. Distrust among states is
deepening, regional tensions are worsening in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, and
armed conflicts continue to spread, claiming the lives of countless innocent civilians. Moreover, as
the long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons is being seriously eroded, momentum
toward nuclear disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons has stagnated.

Under these circumstances, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START Treaty)—the
only remaining nuclear disarmament and arms control treaty in force between the United States and
the Russian Federation—is set to expire in February 2026. We strongly urge both governments, which
together possess approximately 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, to continue to honor the
limits of the treaty on an agreed basis and to demonstrate commendable leadership by advancing
nuclear disarmament. At the same time, we are gravely concerned that the collapse of this significant
arms control framework between the world’s nuclear superpowers could trigger an intensified global
arms race, including in nuclear weapons.


January 22 of this year marks five years since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
entered into force in 2021. This treaty, a powerful international norm that prohibits the development,
testing, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons, is a ray of hope amid the present depressing
situation. It was born from the heartfelt appeal of the hibakusha— “No one else should suffer as we
have.” We call upon all states to acknowledge the catastrophic and inhumane consequences of nuclear
weapons and to sign and ratify the treaty without delay.


Comprising local government leaders responsible for protecting the safety and security of their
citizens, Mayors for Peace now includes approximately 8,600 member cities in 166 countries and
regions worldwide and has worked for over 40 years toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. We
urge all policymakers to make every possible diplomatic effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of
conflicts through dialogue and to take concrete steps toward the realization of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons.

MATSUI Kazumi , Mayor of Hiroshima , President of Mayors for Peace

SUZUKI Shiro
Vice President of Mayors for Peace
Mayor of Nagasaki

January 24, 2026 Posted by | Events, Japan | Leave a comment

What Canada’s nuclear waste plan means for New Brunswick

by Mayara Gonçalves e Lima, January 20, 2026, https://nbmediacoop.org/2026/01/20/what-canadas-nuclear-waste-plan-means-for-new-brunswick/

Canada is advancing plans for a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) to store the country’s used nuclear fuel. In early 2026, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) entered the federal regulatory process by submitting its Initial Project Description — a major step in a project with environmental and social implications that will last for generations.

The implications of this project matter deeply to New Brunswickers because the province is already part of Canada’s nuclear legacy through the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed repository in Ontario is intended to become the final destination for used nuclear fuel generated in New Brunswick, currently stored on site at Point Lepreau.

If the project goes ahead, highly radioactive nuclear waste would be transported across New Brunswick. Current NWMO plans envision more than 2,100 transport packages of New Brunswick’s used nuclear fuel travelling approximately 2,900 kilometres, through public roads in the province and across Canada, over a period of 10 to 15 years.

For many residents, the project raises long-standing concerns about safety, accountability, and cost — especially as NB Power continues to invest in nuclear technologies and considers new reactors. Decisions about the DGR will influence how long New Brunswick remains tied to nuclear power, carrying the risks of waste that remains hazardous far beyond any political or economic planning horizon.

This is a critical moment because public input is still possible — but the comment period window is narrow. Environmental organizations and community advocates are calling for extended consultation timelines, full transparency on transport risks, and meaningful consent from affected communities. Several groups have organized a sign-on letter that readers can review and support.

How New Brunswickers respond now will help determine whether these decisions proceed quietly — or with public accountability.

Unproven science and public concerns

Globally, no deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste has yet operated anywhere on the planet. Finland’s Onkalo facility is often cited as the first of its kind, but it remains in testing, relies on unproven assumptions about geological containment, and will not be fully sealed for decades.

The lack of proven DGR experience matters for Canada because the proposed repository would be among the world’s earliest attempts to isolate high-level radioactive waste “forever,” despite the absence of any real-world proof that such facilities can perform as claimed. Canada’s decision therefore sets not only a national course, but a global precedent built on uncertain science and long-term safety assumptions.

The proposed DGR would be built 650 to 800 metres underground in northwestern Ontario, near the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON), in Treaty #3 territory. Its purpose is to bury and abandon nearly six million bundles of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel, attempting to isolate them from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization describes the site selection as “consent-based,” but this framing raises difficult questions. Consent in economically marginalized regions — particularly where long-term funding, jobs, and infrastructure are promised — is not the same as free, prior, and informed consent, especially when the risks extend far beyond any western planning horizon.

In 2024, the Assembly of First Nations held dialogue sessions on the transport and storage of used nuclear fuel. Communities raised serious concerns that the proposed DGR could harm land, water, and air — all central to Indigenous culture and way of life.

Guided by ancestral knowledge and a duty to protect future generations, the Assembly warned that the DGR threatens sacred sites, ecosystems, and groundwater, including the Great Lakes. Climate change and natural disasters heighten these risks, exposing the limits of the current monitoring plan and prompting calls for life-cycle oversight.

A token consultation for a monumental project

As anticipated, the Initial Project Description raises serious concerns about the DGR process itself. One of the most serious flaws is the stark mismatch between the project’s scale and the time allowed for public input. Although the DGR is framed as a 160-year project with risks lasting far longer, communities, Indigenous Nations, and civil society groups have been given just 30 days to review the Initial Project Description, with submissions due by February 4.

Thirty days to read dense technical documents, consult communities, seek independent expertise, formulate questions, and respond meaningfully to a proposal that will affect land, water, and people for generations. This is not a generous consultation — it is the bare legal minimum under federal impact assessment rules.

While regulators emphasize that the overall review will take years, this early stage is crucial in shaping what will be examined and questioned later. Rushing public input at the outset risks reducing participation to a procedural checkbox rather than a genuine democratic process, particularly for a decision whose consequences cannot be undone.

The overlooked threat of waste transport

Another serious shortcoming in the project proposal is a failure to adequately address the nationwide transport of radioactive waste. Transporting highly radioactive material through communities by road or rail is central to the project and carries significant safety and environmental risks that remain largely unexamined.

By excluding radioactive waste transportation from the Initial Project Description, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is effectively removing it from the scope of the comprehensive federal Impact Assessment. If transport is not formally included at this stage, it will not receive the same level of environmental review, public scrutiny, or interdepartmental oversight as the repository itself.

Instead, transportation would be left primarily to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada to assess under the existing regulations — an approach that is fragmented and insufficient given the scale, duration, and risks of moving highly radioactive waste through communities.

The transport of radioactive waste is a critical yet often overlooked issue. As Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility notes, Canada has no regulations specifically governing the transport of radioactive waste — only rules for radioactive materials treated as commercial goods. This gap matters because radioactive waste is more complex, less predictable, and potentially far more dangerous.

Transporting high-level nuclear waste is inherently risky: the material remains hazardous for centuries, and accidents, equipment failures, extreme weather, security breaches, or human error can still occur despite careful planning. Unlike other hazardous materials, radioactive contamination cannot be easily contained or cleaned up, leaving land, water, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Even a single transport incident could have lasting, irreversible consequences for communities along the route.

Radiation risks extend beyond transport workers. People traveling alongside shipments may face prolonged exposure, while those passing in the opposite direction are briefly exposed in much larger numbers. Residents and workers along transport routes can experience repeated exposure, and accidents or unplanned stops could result in localized contamination. Emergency response is further complicated by leaks or hard-to-detect releases, with standard spill or firefighting methods potentially spreading contamination.

These risks are not hypothetical. Last summer, Gentilly-1 used fuel was transported from Bécancour, Quebec, to Chalk River, Ontario, along public roads — without public notice, consultation, Indigenous consent, or clear evidence of regulatory compliance — underscoring the ongoing risks to our communities.

According to the 2024 Assembly of First Nations report, at least 210 First Nations communities could be affected by shipments of radioactive waste traveling from nuclear reactors to the repository via railways and major highways, though the full scope may be even larger when considering watersheds and alternative routes.

Given this reality, it is unacceptable that the DGR Project Description largely ignores waste transport. Any credible assessment must examine how waste will be moved, who will be affected, what rules apply, who is responsible for oversight, and how workers, communities, and the environment will be protected in emergencies. It is the job of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine these plans in depth.

A high-stakes decision that demands public voice

Canada’s proposed Deep Geological Repository is one of the most ambitious and high-stakes projects in nuclear waste management. Framed as a permanent solution, it remains untested — no country has safely operated a deep repository for used nuclear fuel over the long term. Scientific uncertainty and multi-decade timelines make its risks profound and enduring.

Dr. Gordon Edwards warns: “The Age of Nuclear Waste is just beginning. It’s time to stop and think. […] we must ensure three things: justification, notification, and consultation — before moving any of this dangerous, human-made, cancer-causing material over public roads and bridges.”

Now is the moment for public voices to be heard. Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence (LAND), an environmental law non-profit, has prepared a sign-on letter and accompanying press release calling for a more precautionary, transparent, and democratic approach to the Deep Geological Repository. This is your chance to have a say in decisions that could expose you, your neighbours, and your communities to serious environmental and health risks.

The letter urges federal regulators to extend public consultation timelines, require that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a comprehensive Impact Assessment that includes the transportation of radioactive waste, and uphold meaningful consent and accountability.

New Brunswickers and allies across the country are encouraged to read the letter, add their names, and speak up before decisions are finalized. How Canada handles nuclear waste today will shape risks borne by our communities for generations.

The DGR is more than a technical project; it is a test of democratic process, scientific caution, and intergenerational responsibility. Canadians deserve a transparent, thorough, and precautionary approach to ensure that decisions made today do not compromise the safety of future generations.

Mayara Gonçalves e Lima works with the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc., focusing on nuclear energy. Their work combines environmental advocacy with efforts to ensure that the voice of the Passamaquoddy Nation is heard and respected in decisions that impact their land, waters, and future.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Danish MP Warns US Takeover of Greenland Will Start a War

 by Kyle Anzalone , January 21, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/20/danish-mp-warns-us-takeover-of-greenland-will-start-a-war/

Trump has placed tariffs on Europeans nations that oppose the US seizing Greenland

Amid threats from President Donald Trump to take over Greenland, a Danish politician said that if the US seized the colony, a war would break out. 

Danish MP Rasmus Jarlov said that if the US military invades Greenland, “it would be a war, and we would be fighting against each other.” 

“There’s no threat, there’s no hostility. There’s no need, because the Americans already have access to Greenland, both militarily and in all other ways.” He continued, “There are no drug routes. There is no illegitimate government in Greenland. There is absolutely no justification for it– no historical ownership, no broken treaties, nothing can justify it.”

In recent weeks, President Trump said the US will take control of Greenland. The President argues it is a matter of national security, as Russia or China will seize Greenland from Denmark if the US does not gain control first. 
In response to Trump’s threats, Denmark has begun increasing its military presence in Greenland. 

Trump’s plan to take Greenland has met stiff opposition in Europe. The President has slapped 10% tariffs on eight European countries. Trump said the tariffs would increase if those nations did not change policy and support the US seizure of Greenland. 

An executive at Deutsche Bank suggested that European countries could pressure the US to back away from Greenland by refusing to buy US bonds. George Saravelos, head of FX research, explained, “For all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits.”

Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the risk of a currency war with Europe. “The media has latched on to this. I think it is a completely false narrative. It defies any logic,” he said Tuesday. 

“If you look, the US Treasury market was the best-performing market in the world, or the best G7-performing bond market, and we had the best performance since 2020. It is the most liquid market.” Bessent continued,” It is the basis for all financial transactions, and I am sure that the European governments will continue holding it.”

The President said he did not expect Europe to push back too much if he annexed Greenland. “I don’t think they are going to push back too much,” he said, adding, “We have to have it.”

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Denmark, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Chernobyl power plant LOSES external power supply after Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, IAEA warns.

However, last month, Russia was thrown into complete darkness due to a power outage after Ukraine launched a series of drone strikes on Moscow.

Daily Mail By TARYN KAUR PEDLER, FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER, 21 January 2026 

The Chernobyl power plant has lost its external power supply after a series of Russian attacks on Ukraine‘s energy infrastructure, the IAEA has warned.

The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, Rafael Grossi, reported this morning that several Ukrainian power substations had been affected by large-scale military activity.

One of these was the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which lost all external power supply, as well as several other power lines to other nuclear plants.

‘The IAEA is actively monitoring developments to assess the impact on nuclear safety,’ added Director General Grossi.

It comes just a day after military intelligence officers in Ukraine warned that Russian missile strikes against the country’s power grid could lead to a ‘second Chernobyl’.

Ukrainian experts say that Vladimir Putin‘s ongoing bombardment of Ukraine’s power grid, cutting electricity and heating in freezing temperatures, could trigger a major disaster.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian expert in electronic warfare, said that the missiles being launched at energy infrastructure are landing in close proximity to nuclear reactors – some just 300 metres away.

If a Russian strike against sucha substation were to miss, it could trigger a disaster, he warned.

He compared the impact of such an attack to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, when a catastrophic explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant unleashed huge amounts of radiation, forcing hundreds of thousands of evacuations.

Taking to his Telegram channel on Monday, he said: ‘A miss by an Iskander or a Kinzhal could turn into a second Chernobyl’.

He added that the combination of a Russian strike against such substations, in an attempt to cause a nationwide blackout, as well as their track record for missing targets, made for a very dangerous situation……………………………………….

Ukrainian officials have introduced emergency measures, including temporarily easing curfew restrictions, allowing people to go to public heating centres set up by the authorities, Shmyhal said.

However, last month, Russia was thrown into complete darkness due to a power outage after Ukraine launched a series of drone strikes on Moscow.

Footage emerged from the Russian capital, showing entire tower blocks without light and dead street lamps due to the widespread blackout.

According to the Russian power company PAO Rosseti, over 100,000 residents of Ramensky, Zhukovsky, and Lytkarino were left without electricity in the dead of winter.

Russia claimed the power outage occurred due to an automatic shutdown at a high-voltage electricity substation, though it was unclear whether this was the cause or if it resulted from a Ukrainian drone strike.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, said at the time: ‘Total blackout hits Moscow region is reported on social media.

‘Over 600,000 people plunged into darkness for more than four hours — no electricity, no mobile signal, total isolation. Drone threat declared across the oblast right now.’

The strike came in the dead of winter, with images revealing a thick layer of snow covering the frigid Moscow streets.

The reported attacks came just a day after Russia accused Ukraine, without providing evidence, of trying to attack President Vladimir Putin’s residence……. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15480223/Chernobyl-power-plant-LOSES-external-power-supply-Russian-attacks-Ukraines-energy-infrastructure-IAEA-warns.html

January 23, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

This country wants to build a nuclear power plant on the moon.

The project aims to supply energy for its lunar space programme

Guy Faulconbridge, Tuesday 20 January 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/space/russia-china-space-race-moon-nuclear-b2904029.html

Russia is reportedly planning to establish a nuclear power plant on the moon within the next decade.

This ambitious project aims to supply energy for its lunar space programme and a joint research station with China, as global powers intensify their efforts in lunar exploration.

Historically, Russia has held a prominent position in space, notably with Yuri Gagarin’s pioneering journey in 1961.

However, its dominance has waned in recent decades, with the nation now trailing behind the United States and, increasingly, China.

The country’s lunar aspirations faced a significant setback in August 2023 when its uncrewed Luna-25 mission crashed during a landing attempt.

Furthermore, the landscape of space launches, once a Russian speciality, has been revolutionised by figures such as Elon Musk, adding to the competitive pressure.

Russia’s state space corporation, Roscosmos, said in a statement that it planned to build a lunar power plant by 2036 and signed a contract with the Lavochkin Association aerospace company to do it.

Roscosmos said the purpose of the plant was to power Russia’s lunar programme, including rovers, an observatory and the infrastructure of the joint Russian-Chinese International Lunar Research Station.

“The project is an important step towards the creation of a permanently functioning scientific lunar station and the transition from one-time missions to a long-term lunar exploration program,” Roscosmos said.

Roscosmos did not say explicitly that the plant would be nuclear but it said the participants included Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and the Kurchatov Institute, Russia’s leading nuclear research institute.

The head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Bakanov, said in June that one of the corporation’s aims was to put a nuclear power plant on the moon and to explore Venus, known as Earth’s “sister” planet.

The moon, which is 384,400 km (238,855 miles) from our planet, moderates Earth’s wobble on its axis, which ensures a more stable climate. It also causes tides in the world’s oceans.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Russia, space travel | Leave a comment

It wasn’t Trump’s mind or morality that stopped his Iran attack.

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition, 21 Jan 26

A week ago President Trump was posturing about an imminent attack to overthrow the Iranian regime embroiled in massive protests. His declared motive was to save the Iranian protesters seeking internal regime change who were being slaughtered by the regime.

Then Trump pivoted, declaring since the regime was no longer planning to execute protesters, he wouldn’t attack.

But it wasn’t Iranian government benevolence that persuaded Trump to stand down. The two reasons Trump’s explanation was covering up were reality on the ground and a phone call.

The massive but failed protests were not solely a spontaneous internal revolt. They were fomented and supported by both the US and Israel to complete their long sought dream of regime change to destabilize Iran, Israel’s last hegemonic rival in the region. Israel’s Mossad was definitely on the ground and likely the CIA as well. Trump was cheering on the protests from the sidelines.

Trump was poised to attack to complete the regime change operation when protest success appeared imminent. But Iran’s government quickly and decisively snuffed out the protests, ending Trump’s dream of adding more thousands to his massive, murderous death toll bombing 7 countries in his first year of term two.

Trump also got a call from the real boss of US Middle East policy….Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He told Trump that with the regime intact, Israel would be decimated by thousands of Iranian missiles once Trump attacked.

Iran’s government may be secure for now but Israeli, US dream of Iranian regime change will never cease.

Trump lied to the New York Times when he said the only thing that can stop him from foreign intervention is “my own mind, my own morality.” What stopped Trump from attacking Iran again, as he did in June, is what stopped him then… failure on the ground and a call from the guy giving Trump his orders on Middle East foreign policy.

January 23, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »