nuclear-news

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

US Attacks in Venezuela and Greenland Lay Groundwork for Billionaire Fiefdoms

Trump’s foreign interventions may pave the way for techno-fascist city-states to seize sovereignty.

By Beth Geglia , Truthout, February 21, 2026

On January 3, 2026, Tim Stern, a German investor, was sleeping peacefully at his Venezuela residence when the phone on his small bedside table suddenly went wild. As he explained to Timothy Allen of the “Free Cities Podcast,” calls streamed in immediately after news broke that the United States had bombed Caracas in the early hours of the morning. Within hours, it was clear that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and was being sent to the United States — a change, Stern said in the podcast, that “is going to be the start of an absolute bonanza here in Venezuela.”

Oil interests were at the center of the U.S. invasion of Venezuela; U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear his intentions to reclaim nationalized Venezuelan oil for U.S. companies and to oversee the sale of Venezuelan crude. However, Stern is not involved in the oil industry. Instead, he’s the co-founder of a blockchain-based residential settlement called CryptoCity, a luxury real estate development spanning 35 hectares on Venezuela’s Margarita Island. Margarita, an island with duty-free port status and a population of around 490,000, depends largely on the tourism industry and has suffered hardships due to Venezuela’s economic crisis. However, CryptoCity is promoted to German and other foreign investors as a highly exclusive enclave. It boasts of luxury living for “high net-worth” entrepreneurs fully vetted and selected through a rigorous process. All transactions in the zone must be made in crypto, and residents form part of a “brain pool” aimed at generating joint business ventures through a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO).

CryptoCity is one example of how Trump’s foreign policy is benefitting a venture-capital fueled private city and “network state” movement. The project is featured on the page of the Free Cities Foundation, a leading private city promotor led by German economist Titus Gebel that has also championed the crypto-libertarian movement’s flagship project, a self-governing jurisdiction in Honduras called the Próspera ZEDE (Economic Development and Employment Zone).  According to Stern, property in Margarita sold so rapidly after the U.S.’s attack on January 3 that their company was running out of apartments to sell. Property values shot up, properties for $20,000-$30,000 were nowhere to be found, and CryptoCity experienced an influx of investors interested in visiting the island, he maintained.

While libertarians have long fantasized about sovereign, “free-market” enclaves, a movement for so-called private cities, built in highly autonomous special jurisdictions, gained new momentum after the 2008 economic crisis. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is one of the most prominent backers of the movement. The billionaire first backed the Seasteading Institute — an organization promoting ocean colonization — and then VC firm Pronomos Capital, an early investor in Próspera. In 2022, crypto investor Balaji Srinivasan took the tech-futurist and land-hungry movement to the next level, coining the idea of the “network state.” A network state refers to an online community that pools capital, forms a blockchain “nation,” and then crowdsources land and exploits legal exemptions to build para-national territories.

Military Bases Could Open Doors for Private Sovereignty

At the end of the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland took a sharp turn, easing concerns over potential military conflict or crushing tariffs against European countries. Trump now claims to have reached a framework for a deal with NATO over Greenland and the Arctic, rumored to include sovereign territories for U.S. military bases, similar to the arrangement the U.S. holds in Guantánamo, Cuba…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Taken together, Trump’s open disregard for the sovereignty of other nations does more than disrupt diplomatic norms; it paves the way for private city and network-state projects that revive long-standing logics of colonialism. If the Honduras case is any example, the legal details of an agreement between the United States and Denmark will be instrumental in determining the extent of the damage done to the island of Greenland and the self-determination of its people. https://truthout.org/articles/us-attacks-in-venezuela-and-greenland-lay-groundwork-for-billionaire-fiefdoms/

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

Western Australia submarine’s base the only reason for AUKUS

Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is not in fact the most important part of the AUKUS deal – they are a distraction … AUKUS’s main game is the base that Australia intends to give to the US at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia

Albert Palazzo , adjunct professor at UNSW Canberra., February 28, 2026, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2026/02/28/wa-subs-base-the-only-reason-aukus?utm_campaign=SharedArticle&utm_source=share&utm_medium=link&utm_term=VFZ0rLaV&token=2PZRyQNr

It is tempting to label the AUKUS project an exercise in self-delusion and self-denial. The number of commentators who believe the project’s core promise will actually be honoured – the transfer of Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States to Australia – is astonishingly small and mainly limited to politicians and their hangers-on.

Even in the US, the likelihood of the transfer taking place is openly discounted, including by the chief of naval operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle. As if preparing for a let-down, a new report from the Congressional Research Service advances alternatives to the transfer of the promised submarines that will still allow the US to meet its strategic priorities.

In addition, it is hard to square the submarine promise with the reality that is Washington these days. US President Donald Trump’s willingness to pressure America’s allies and turn the US into a rogue superpower is well documented – just ask the Canadians and Danes. We have witnessed in real time his destruction of the global rules-based order as the US withdraws from dozens of international organisations and agreements.

That the US warship-building industry is in poor shape is also no secret. The odds of the nation being able to increase its submarine build rate to the required level for the transfer to go ahead without a loss of US operational capability is virtually nil, according to a December 2025 report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

One must accept that Australia’s politicians are reasonably intelligent, yet with the myriad well-known problems facing the nuclear-powered submarine transfer it is hard to understand how they can still insist that the project is “full steam ahead”. Nor is this insistence without cost to the taxpayer, as evidenced in the recent promise to spend $30 billion on South Australia’s Osborne shipyard to make it AUKUS ready. How can our politicians sustain their faith in AUKUS and not be rightly labelled as delusional?

The answer to this contradiction lies in recognising what AUKUS is really about – what the parties actually expect to gain from the agreement. Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is not in fact the most important part of the AUKUS deal – they are a distraction. There are too many challenges to Australia’s acquisition, operation and maintenance of these boats for any rational person to believe they will arrive as promised. Hence AUKUS’s main game is the base that Australia intends to give to the US at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

This base may be on Australian soil but its primary beneficiary will be the US, just as it is the US that disproportionately gains from the seemingly “joint” military facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape.

The forthcoming nuclear submarine base is part of a wider American preparation for a possible war between the US and China. From the base, American submarines will be able to operate against China’s southern flank and sever its lines of communication across the Indian Ocean. In addition, the base allows the US to complicate China’s security arrangements by allowing American forces to operate on multiple lines of attack – westwards across the Pacific Ocean and northwards from Australia.

For the US, the defence of Australia is a distant secondary goal for this base. Our politicians are not therefore being delusional; they are being actively deceptive to their voters, since they must know what it is that the US really wants.

Australia is making enormous improvements to Fleet Base West (Stirling). The base is being upgraded so it can sustain and maintain a fleet of foreign nuclear-powered submarines, principally the US Navy’s Virginia-class attack boats, Ohio-class nuclear-armed missile submarines and the occasional British submarine.

The Stirling upgrade is similar in intent to what is happening at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, which is being improved to accept US heavy bombers, presumably including nuclear-armed ones.

As a second order effect, the US presence at Stirling will see a significant influx of American sailors, maintenance personnel and administrative staff to the area. So determined is our government to meet its AUKUS responsibilities and make the US submarine base a reality that it plans to build new homes for the 1200 mainly American military personnel and their families who will be calling Australia home.

In the midst of a national housing crisis, and in a region where home prices increased by 15 per cent in a single year, a similar urgent housing build for Australian citizens is apparently not on the cards.

If one examines AUKUS from the perspective of Australia’s longstanding security practice, what appears to be merely senseless starts to reveal a disturbing logic.

Since the end of World War II, Australian governments have gone to great lengths and expense to keep the US interested in our part of the world. Australia needs to get US attention because the south-west Pacific has never been – and still isn’t – an important part of the world in the eyes of our great power leader.

In order to keep our protector onside and interested in our fate, Australia has had to demonstrate repeated and enthusiastic support for American policy. The need to maintain relevance explains why Robert Menzies encouraged the US to fight in Vietnam, why Australia then invited itself to the war, and why this country went to such great lengths to be included in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as other military missions. Of course, getting into such conflicts was easy. Getting out again can be a lot harder. Any early withdrawal risks offending the US, so Australians have fought to the end.

Generating relevance also explains the readiness with which successive governments have accepted the establishment of US military bases on Australian soil. The most important of these are the spy and signals establishment at Pine Gap and the Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt.

Just how vital these facilities are to America should not be minimised – they are critical for the conduct of US military and CIA operations, as well as the interception of communications by individuals ranging from actual terrorists to ordinary people, including Australians. The submarine base at Stirling will join Pine Gap and Naval Station Holt as a third facility of great operational importance.

AUKUS has a grim rationale when it is seen as the latest initiative in Australia’s longstanding tradition of seeking American attention. What is different in this case is that Australia’s leaders have increased the nation’s exposure to risk in any future war to a potentially existential level.

In the past, our participation in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan did not create any threat to Australia itself. Only those who served were placed in harm’s way. That is no longer the case.

China is a great power and, unlike Vietnam 60 years ago, has power projection capabilities that can hold Australian territory and population centres at real risk. The Australian government has placed a bullseye on Australia’s back and it isn’t clear if our leaders understand this.

Since the US bases are of great military importance, China would likely seek to destroy them in order to protect its own interests. Worse, China could safely employ nuclear weapons against Australia because the US would be unlikely to retaliate against such distant damage and risk the incineration of one of its own cities.

Without any commensurate benefit, the Australian government has embraced AUKUS and accepted the tremendous costs and risks it entails. It has done so with an appalling lack of honesty towards the Australian public, using the submarine promise like a set of shiny keys in front of a baby.

Our leaders must know that the US will not have submarines to spare when the time comes for the transfer. Instead, they employ deception to distract from the real game – a US submarine base and the unstated commitment of Australia to the American side in a war between great powers.

Of course, this need not be the outcome. Despite tradition and reluctance by our political leaders to embrace new ideas, policy can change. An independent defence policy that puts Australian sovereignty first is within reach, and the military technologies to enact it already exist.

The impediment is the Australian government’s inability to accept the reality of the present security situation. Instead, it opts for nostalgia. Australia needs a government that is willing to embrace the necessary changes in perspective and culture that will allow it to consider other security options.

Perhaps one day our politicians can rise to conceiving and implementing a different security policy, rather than falling back on the traditional default response of jumping up and down to get the attention of Washington. One can only hope.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

ADVERT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

Altura Advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservationists challenge effectiveness of £700 million fish safety system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Weapons in Australia – Time to End the Secrecy

Australian missile defence system concept, 3D rendering

March 1, 2026, Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) , https://warpowersreform.org.au/nuclear-weapons-in-australia-time-to-end-the-secrecy/

 Under secretly-concluded arrangements with our allies, Australia is now on track to have US nuclear weapons on Australian soil for lengthy periods, starting very soon.

A new report released today details this dangerous development and exposes how the Australian community is being kept in the dark about it.

The report by civil society group Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) examines efforts by the Albanese government to facilitate the increasing presence of nuclear weapons capable aircraft and submarines.

“Many Australians are completely unaware that under current agreements with the US Australian airfields and port facilities will be hosting US aircraft and subs that could be carrying nuclear weapons. And those visits will increase dramatically, possibly in breach of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty,” said AWPR spokesperson Peter Murphy.

“A massive 1.6 billion dollars is currently being spent to upgrade the Tindal RAAF base in the Northern Territory and media reports describe six B-52, long-range, nuclear-capable bombers being “housed” there. But so far there’s been no proper public debate about Australia’s increasing involvement in the US nuclear weapons system.”

The Albanese government currently has a “we don’t ask” policy when it comes to whether US aircraft and ships are carrying nuclear weapons while in Australia. At the same time the US has a “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear weapons. These policies are unwarranted and unacceptable.

“It’s time to end the secrecy on nuclear weapons and let the public have an informed debate. Do we really want these weapons of mass destruction in Australia? Shouldn’t the parliament discuss and vote on these matters?”

Australians have consistently rejected any role for nuclear weapons in our defence policies. A national poll last year revealed that two-thirds of Australians want the government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

“In this new report we are also urging the government to initiate a full independent inquiry into the AUKUS pact, as repeatedly called for by civil society and former prime ministers and foreign ministers. It should include a comprehensive review of Australia’s policies on nuclear weapons,” Peter Murphy said.

The full report “Australia and US Nuclear Weapons: Time to End the Secrecy” is available here

March 4, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)condemns strikes against Iran, calls for return to negotiations

IPPNW. 28 Feb 2026, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/02/28/ippnw-condemns-strikes-against-iran-calls-for-return-to-negotiations/

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) unequivocally condemns the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel and calls on them to cease immediately all further use of force and to return to the negotiating table.

The unprovoked strikes, ostensibly to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, are incredibly dangerous and counterproductive. The conflict threatens the lives of large numbers of civilians in Iran and Israel. Attacking Iranian facilities could cause widespread devastation and significant releases of radioactivity. And the situation could escalate into a regional war and ultimately lead to the use of nuclear weapons — the very thing the world most needs to prevent.

For decades, the US and Israel have rejected multiple opportunities to seek a peaceful resolution to the legitimate concerns that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapons capability to counter Israel’s illegal clandestine possession of nuclear weapons. This has included refusal of multiple attempts by the United Nations and States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to negotiate a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. During his first term, US President Trump summarily abandoned the Iran Nuclear Deal negotiated in 2015 that had successfully contained Iran’s nuclear program.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who had been mediating the current round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran condemned the attacks saying, “Active and serious negotiations have, once again, been undermined. Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause or world peace are served.”

There is no military solution to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation anywhere in the world, particularly in the Middle East. The need for regional and international efforts to negotiate a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East have never been more urgent. The only way to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons – and to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again – is for all nations to join the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) that will eliminate all existing nuclear weapons and prevent all states from acquiring or reacquiring them in the future.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

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

By  STEPHANIE LIECHTENSTEIN, AP News, February 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Highly enriched material should be verified regularly

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

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

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

IAEA joined Geneva talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two pieces of news re Radiation and Health.

Tony Webb , Feb 26, 2026 

1. Today saw release of a report prepared for the US Department of Energy that will, alongside others from US agencies like OSHA,  be feeding into the US NRC review of radiation Protection Standards mandated by the Trump Directive (EO 24300) issued in May last year.   The NRC draft of revised regulations on Radiation Safety is expected 30 April 2026. The attached report to the US DoE – with particular significance for radiation safety for workers in and populations living close to  nuclear power reactors – gives a clear indication of how this process is likely to result in significant weakening of protection standards  

In summary it advocates 

  • abandoning the Linear No Threshold and As low as Reasonably Achievable principles that offer some protection at low levels of exposure  based on the principle that there is no safe level of exposure 
  • resetting the annual occupational exposure limit to 100 mSv – a doubling of the current US standard of 50mSv and a five-fold increase in the 20mSv annual occupational standard that applies in most other countries including Australia
  • raising the public exposure limit from 1 mSv to 5 mSv 

I think we can expect other US agencies to  submit similar reports 

2. As previous posts on this issue have noted these proposals to weaken radiation protection for workers and the public come at a time when the evidence is mounting from studies of workers and communities exposed to radiation releases in and from Nuclear power pants for a revision that would tighten the current standards.  Today saw the release of a new book  by Ian Fairlie  – The Dangers of Ionising Radiation: A Scientific Guide to Radiation Risks for Government Agencies, Legal Professionals and Medical Clinicians  has just been published (Ethics International Press. 2026)  https://ethicspress.com/products/the-dangers-of-ionising-radiation  As anticipated this updates much of the earlier work in Ian Fairlie and Cindy  Folkers book – 

The Scientists Who Alerted Us To The Dangers of Radiation – providing details on the nature of the health risks and the evidence that current standards seriously underestimate these risks   –  The Ethics Press site provides a link   https://eipcontents.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/master/samples/978-1-83711-586-0.pdf     that allows you to read the first 30 pages of the book that provide a summary of what follows – worth a read  that will I hope prompt you to order the book and recommend it to people in your networks 

March 4, 2026 Posted by | radiation | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Hanieh Jodat , Truthout, February 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRT World, 28 Feb 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No to uranium mining in Greenland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

“The Surgery of the World”: Netanyahu Arrives in Washington to Deliver the Final Blow to Diplomacy and Ignite a Major War.

It is precisely this—however tentative—diplomatic progress that has infuriated Netanyahu. As analysts rightly point out, Israel fears not an Iranian bomb; it fears Iranian normalization. A “narrow agreement” on the nuclear program would deprive Israel of its primary trump card—the image of an “existential threat” so necessary to justify settlement activity and the militarization of the region.

The essence of the visit, in fact, boiled down to blackmail. Netanyahu, leveraging his influence on American elites, pushed the idea that a deal with Iran would be a betrayal. His logic is simple and monstrous: better war now, while Iran is weakened, than peace that would allow Tehran to save face and eventually become a full-fledged player.

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, February 23, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/02/23/the-surgery-of-the-world-netanyahu-arrives-in-washington-to-deliver-the-final-blow-to-diplomacy-and-ignite-a-major-war/

The Israeli Prime Minister’s hasty visit to the White House is not a consultation between allies, but an armed intrusion into the negotiation process.

Under the guise of ensuring security, Netanyahu is demanding terms from Trump that Iran will never accept. The goal is singular: to bury any hope for a deal and drag the United States into yet another Middle Eastern bloodbath. Behind the façade of an “unbreakable friendship” between Washington and Tel Aviv lies a cynical spectacle where partners are ready to stab each other in the back for the sake of hegemony.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, hastily rescheduled for February 2026, is not a matter of diplomatic etiquette but an act of desperation and aggression. The Israeli Prime Minister rushed to the White House with one objective: to destroy the budding dialogue between the US and Iran that had just begun to emerge in Oman.

He brought with him a dossier of intelligence, his well-honed skill of disregarding American diplomacy when it suits him, and the firm conviction that the US is on the verge of a deal that would leave Israel vulnerable. The meeting with Trump, originally scheduled for February 11th, was abruptly moved up a week and took place shortly after the start of US-Iran negotiations. This was no routine consultation between allies; it was an intervention in the affairs of another state.

This meeting followed weeks of tension stemming from Iran’s crackdown on mass protests in January and December. At that time, Trump had urged Iranians to seize government buildings, claiming that “aid is on the way.” But it hasn’t arrived yet—apparently, it’s stuck somewhere.

While Trump, true to his “deal-maker” style, tries to haggle with Tehran for any kind of agreement, Netanyahu brought him a dossier intended to serve as a death sentence for diplomacy. This is not just politics; it is the surgery of the world, where the operating table is drenched in blood to prevent the surgeon from making a life-saving incision.

A One-Sided Game: What Does Israel Really Want?

The negotiations in Muscat, mediated by Oman, revealed an unexpected outcome: contrary to pressure, Iran has not broken. Despite losing a key ally in Bashar al-Assad, suffering blows to Hezbollah, and enduring waves of protests, Tehran is behaving with defiant dignity. Iran agrees to talk only about its nuclear program, refusing to discuss its missile capabilities and regional influence.

Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate solely on its nuclear program, rejecting attempts to limit its ballistic missile arsenal and its support for regional proxy forces. Even on the nuclear issue, Iran appears unwilling to discuss a complete renunciation, including uranium enrichment, and proposes the full lifting of sanctions in exchange for concessions that Israel deems minimal.

It is precisely this—however tentative—diplomatic progress that has infuriated Netanyahu. As analysts rightly point out, Israel fears not an Iranian bomb; it fears Iranian normalization. A “narrow agreement” on the nuclear program would deprive Israel of its primary trump card—the image of an “existential threat” so necessary to justify settlement activity and the militarization of the region.

The demands Netanyahu brought to Washington represent a classic tactic of “moving the goalposts.”

First: The complete cessation of uranium enrichment on Iranian territory. A demand that not only violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but also constitutes political suicide for Iran.

Second: Restrictions on the ballistic missile program. For Tehran, this is its only means of deterrence since the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, demonstrating to the world the value of its signature.

Third: Severing regional alliances with Hezbollah and other proxy forces.

This is not a negotiating position. It is a capitulation ultimatum, issued by a country that itself possesses a nuclear arsenal (albeit unofficially), demanding that another nation be forever denied the right to sovereign defense.

Behind Closed Doors: Theater of War Without an Audience

The very format of the meeting is telling. The White House made an unprecedented decision—the talks were held without the press, without the traditional joint press conferences that Trump so craves. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth explicitly states this was done to conceal “disagreements.”

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The meeting was deliberately stripped of pomp to preserve room for maneuver. Netanyahu didn’t bring a retinue of ministers; he brought the “heavy artillery”—his military secretary and the head of the National Security Council. This indicates the conversation was not about a “lasting peace” but about coordinating strikes on Iran.

The essence of the visit, in fact, boiled down to blackmail. Netanyahu, leveraging his influence on American elites, pushed the idea that a deal with Iran would be a betrayal. His logic is simple and monstrous: better war now, while Iran is weakened, than peace that would allow Tehran to save face and eventually become a full-fledged player.

The outcome of this rush felt like a slap in the face. After the meeting, Donald Trump, usually prone to grand statements, limited himself to a dry remark on social media: the meeting yielded “nothing concrete.” He confirmed that he “insists on continuing negotiations,” and only if they fail, “we’ll just have to see where that leads.”

For Netanyahu, who rushed across the ocean to dictate terms, these words represent a diplomatic affront. Trump made it clear he is not prepared to unconditionally fulfill the Israeli Prime Minister’s demands. However, it would be naive to see this as a victory for common sense.

Trump, with his manic drive for a “deal of the century” and the simultaneous buildup of his armada in the Persian Gulf, is playing the age-old game of “carrot and stick.” But in Netanyahu’s case, this “carrot” is poisoned. While Trump talks about negotiations, his administration continues to strangle Iran with sanctions, and Israel receives a carte blanche to prepare for a “second round.”

Who Benefits from War?

Washington and Tel Aviv are playing a double game. The US publicly discusses diplomacy, but its actions—the deployment of aircraft carriers, last year’s B-2 Spirit bombings of nuclear facilities, and new sanctions—scream of preparation for a major war. Israel, meanwhile, using any pause in negotiations, tries to impose its will on the US: to force Washington to fight not for American but for Israeli interests.

As one Iranian politician aptly noted in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, “The United States demands that Iran agree to a subordinate role within a US-managed regional order.” Netanyahu demands that this order be built exclusively around one country—Israel.

This is the central tragedy of the moment. Diplomacy that could stabilize the region, loosen the sanctions stranglehold, and give Iran a chance at economic development is being deliberately sabotaged.

Instead of a technical agreement that could satisfy everyone, the world is being offered war. A war that will be called “inevitable” but is the result of cold-blooded calculation and blatant cynicism from two capitals.

Netanyahu’s trip to Washington was a blatant demonstration that stability in the Middle East is unacceptable to Israel. They need chaos. They need an enemy. They need blood. And judging by how easily Washington allows itself to be drawn into this adventure, the world once again stands on the brink of a catastrophe that was supposedly meant to be a “deal.”

March 3, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

There Are ‘Questions’ About Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’—But Don’t Expect AP to Answer Them

Janine Jackson, 28 Feb 26, https://fair.org/home/there-are-questions-about-trumps-board-of-peace-but-dont-expect-ap-to-answer-them/

It’s not a failsafe test, but it can be a tip off that a journalistic outlet is off its feet when its language falls apart. I give you the Associated Press (2/19/26), describing the actions of a person who rarely strings a coherent sentence together, to hand over billions of US taxpayer dollars to create a global entity. This is the “Board of Peace,” of which Trump has declared himself “Chairman for Life“—because that’s a normal thing—and which Google’s AI describes as “potentially replac[ing] existing international institutions”:

Trump’s vision for the board has morphed since he initiated the group as part of his 20-point peace plan to end the conflict in Gaza. Since the October ceasefire, Trump wants it to have an even more ambitious remit—one that will not only complete the Herculean task of bringing lasting peace between Israel and Hamas but will also help resolve conflicts around the globe.

If you aren’t staggered by the notion of Donald Trump “resolving conflicts around the globe,” every other word still deserves interrogation: Are completing the genocide and mass dislocation of Palestinian people, and violently converting their historic homeland to a playground resort for wealthy internationals, going to now be labeled by the press as “bringing lasting peace,” and “ending the conflict” in Gaza?

But worry not: AP tells us in bold letters, “There are many questions about how the board will work.” That implies that AP will be asking them, or care about the answers. But given no one who had a real problem with the creation of the board itself is cited in the article on its launch, why would we look to AP for critical eyes going forward?

March 3, 2026 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »