Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

June 21, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

No More ‘New START’ Nuclear Weapons Numbers Treaty May Have Been Worse than Useless

By Ray Acheson

Yoshito Matsushige - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia
The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945 by the United States destroyed 140,000 civilians. It had only a fraction of the explosive and incendiary force of “tactical” warheads being built by the United States as a part of the Obama Administration’s trade-off for Senate ratification of the 2010 New START treaty. Photo by newspaper photographer Yoshito Matsushige.

On Feb. 5, 2026, New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the United States, officially expired. In September 2025, the Russian government offered to continue implementing the Treaty for another year if the U.S. government agreed, but the Trump regime did not formally respond to that offer. Instead, his administration has insisted on nuclear arms control talks with China, which has a much smaller arsenal than either Russia or the United States and has so far refused to engage in such negotiations.

The expiration of New START means that Russia and the United States could increase their deployed warheads substantially within a matter of months. New START, agreed to in 2010, obligated Russia and the United States to reduce their operationally deployed, “strategic” nuclear warheads to:

• 700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers assigned to nuclear missions;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on those platforms; and
• 800 launchers (both deployed and non-deployed).

The Treaty also included mechanisms for compliance and verification, twice-yearly exchanges of data, ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces, short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads, and launchers covered by the Treaty, and a bilateral consultative commission and clear procedures to resolve questions or disputes.

The cost of New START, however, was very high

The Obama administration agreed to a massive [$1.7 trillion] nuclear weapon modernization program in exchange for ratification by the U.S. Senate. This modernization program continues today, with the U.S. government spending billions every year to “upgrade” its nuclear arsenal, delivery systems, and related facilities. Thus, as ICAN Australia [Int’l Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons] notes, U.S. ratification of New START “has arguably done more harm by entrenching the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons and thwarting prospects for disarmament.” Fifteen years later, we still have the modernization program, but not the treaty for which it was bargained.

Russia has also been modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the past years, and has threatened to use nuclear weapons in the context of its war in Ukraine. In 2024, Russia spent about $8.1 billion on its nuclear weapon program, while the U.S. spent about $56.8 billion. The Trump regime has suggested it might restart explosive nuclear testing, and has engaged in several unlawful military actions over the past year, including in Iran and Venezuela. Both Russia and the U.S. are in violation of many international laws and have shown disdain for any attempt to restrain their violence. In this context, prospects for nuclear arms control, let alone disarmament, look grim.

However, it’s important to recognize that the failure of Russia and the United States to extend New START or negotiate a new arms control agreement does not mark the beginning of a new nuclear arms race. The arms race has been underway for many years already. While the expiration of New START marks another development along this path, it is a path both countries were already on. Furthermore, New START itself, while limiting certain deployments, did not lead to denuclearization. Instead, it led to further expansion of nuclear arsenals. Whatever comes next must be substantially different — it must advance disarmament, not arms control; it must lead to abolition, not retrenchment of the weapons and systems that have led us further to destruction.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was developed exactly for this purpose. Supported by the majority of countries in the world, the TPNW offers a clear path to the end of nuclear weapons and the dangerous game being played by states that are gambling with all our lives. As ICAN says, “The dire international security environment at present, rather than serving as an excuse for inaction, must spur urgent action on disarmament…. Joining the TPNW is an important step that all countries can take to press for disarmament in these dangerous times.”

Reaching Critical Will urges:

• Russia and the United States to stick to the limits of New START and continue or restart the other measures of New START while they engage in good faith negotiations to end the arms race and achieve nuclear disarmament, as they and other nuclear-armed states are obligated to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Article VI;

• All nuclear-armed states to join the TPNW and end their nuclear weapon programs — and in the meantime, to stop their nuclear weapon modernization programs, refrain from expanding or sharing their arsenals, and not develop and deploy “missile defense” or nuclear space systems; and

• All states to reverse course from violating and dismantling international law, to instead pursue security through disarmament and diplomacy.

— Ray Acheson is Director of WILPF’s disarmament program Reaching Critical Will, provides intersectional feminist analysis and advocacy at international disarmament forums, and is the author of Abolishing State Violence: A World Beyond Bombs, Borders, and Cages and Banning the Bomb, Smashing the Patriarchy.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

June 21, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Cesium Contamination of Some Imported Consumer Goods Brings Criminal Charges

Last summer and fall dozens of reports warned of radioactive cesium-137 contamination of imported shrimp, cloves, tennis shoes, and zinc powder. The shrimp contamination led to the recall of frozen shrimp — shipped from Indonesia — by Walmart, Kroger, and dozens of other grocers across 31 U.S. states. The scandal led to international investigations seeking to find the source of the cesium as well as the ways the contamination was spread, how it doused consumer goods, and how it came to be exported around the world. Kroger stores alone recalled 77.5 tons, or 155,000 pounds, of the shrimp it sold between June 12, 2025 and Sept. 17, 2025. (For background on the story, see both the Fall and Winter 2025 Nukewatch Quarterly.)

Reporters and investigators chased leads in search of the source of the cesium contamination, which has now been traced to airborne particles from a smelting plant at PT Peter Metal Technology, a stainless-steel processing and scrap iron smelting company in the Modern Cikande Industrial Estate (MCIE), 35 miles west of Jakarta. (Indonesia’s capital Jakarta is now the world’s most populous city with 41.9 million people.)After nickel, Indonesia’s copper smelting industry is now attracting ...

PT Peter Metal Technology (PMT) is about two miles from the shrimp processing facility, PT Bahari Makmuri Sejati which exported the tons of recalled shrimp to the U.S. last summer. The U.S. imported some 84 million pounds of shrimp from Indonesia in 2025.

Bara Hasibuan, spokesperson for the Indonesian government’s “Cesium-137 Radionuclide Hazard Task Force” investigating the contamination, said Dec. 4, 2025, “The purchase of scrap materials mixed with used industrial equipment contained cesium-137, which was processed legally or illegally.…” Investigators now believe radioactive cesium dust was released into the environment after PMT inadvertently smelted scrap containing cesium-137.

At a Sep. 30, 2025 press conference Bara said, “Because it’s airborne, the contamination can be carried by wind.” Later, Steven Biegalski, PhD, Chair of the nuclear and radiological engineering and medical physics program at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told Consumer Reports, that the “easiest explanation” is that a medical or industrial device containing cesium-137 was inadvertently reprocessed as scrap metal. The cesium-137 could have become gaseous in the PMT smelter and then been released from the smokestack, he said. “That whole island likely had a cesium-137 plume go over it, leaving a trail of contamination,” he said. (Yes, that, and the smelter itself, the smokestack, and the surroundings. Several families were evacuated from the area after cesium contamination was identified.)

If Biegalski is correct, and the plume passed over Jakarta’s 41 million people and blew east across the “whole island,” then the government’s hazard task force was right to send inspectors to far-flung locations across Java. Two sites were a shrimp processing facility in Surabaya, 500 miles east of the smelter in MCIE; and two farms in Pati, in central Java, 310 miles east of the MCIE.

The contaminated cloves, which were intercepted before being sold in the U.S., came from a plantation in Lampung on Java’s neighboring island of Sumatra, 100 miles west of the MCIE and across the Sunda Strait. This contamination indicates that part of the cesium’s plume was blown west as well as east. “We can confirm that contamination has been found on plantations in Lampung,” Bara said in October according to ABC News.

Nevertheless, Bara claimed last December that the source of the cesium-137 plume, the PT Peter Metal Technology smelter, had been completely cleaned up. “The decontamination in the Cikande industrial area [known as MCIE], which was the source of contamination, has been completed,” he said, according to Tempo English.

Bara’s claim must be considered in light of Indonesia’s Minister of Environment and Forestry Hanif Faisol Nurofiq’s statement to the press Dec. 3, 2025. Hanif said that his Ministry “does not possess specific duties or functions related to radiological activities or managing radioactive waste.” Minister Hanif also heads the investigative cesium task force of which Bara is the spokesperson.

Minister Hanif also publicly “stressed the critical importance of effectively managing the … case to restore international confidence in the safety of Indonesian export products,” Tempo reported. The mission is clear: if the Ministry can’t restore a safe environment, it can try to restore a belief in safety.

One attempt to boost confidence early last December was the filing of criminal charges against Lin Jingzhang, a Chinese citizen and Director of PT Metal Peter Technology. Lin was charged with environmental crimes and faces 3 to 10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $480,000, according to the Indonesian news service Antara. —JL

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

June 21, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Supreme Court Clears Path for “Mobile Chernobyls”

By Kevin Kamps

On January 12 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition [denied a “writ of certiorari”] in Beyond Nuclear vs. NRC, in which a coalition of advocacy groups and private firms urged the court to review erroneous lower court rulings which had unlawfully upheld the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) approval of Holtec International’s license to build and operate a high-level radioactive waste dump in New Mexico. If eventually permitted, the Holtec dump — a so-called “consolidated interim storage facility” or CISF — could store up to 173,600 metric tonnes of highly radioactive waste fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors, and would be the largest such nuclear waste dump on Earth.Nuclear Storage Facilities Us at Michael Stover blog

The Supreme Court’s denial ends the coalition’s decade-long legal challenge, which labored through years of NRC licensing proceedings and federal appeals court proceedings. At the very same time, the coalition legally challenged Interim Storage Partners, LLC’s plan for a CISF in western Texas (with another 40,000 metric tons of radioactive waste fuel rods), 40 miles east of Holtec’s dump site in New Mexico. Although resistance to both dumps is ongoing, the legal challenges are over — for now.

While the appeals did not prevail in reversing the NRC’s unlawful approval of the two CISF licenses, they helped buy time and demonstrated the widespread, nation-wide opposition that was crucial for the hard-won passage of state laws — in both New Mexico and Texas — which have effectively banned both dumps. Great credit is due to the steadfast attorneys that kept this case alive for ten years: Diane Curran, of Harmon Curran in Washington, D.C., and Mindy Goldstein, the Director of the Turner Environmental Law Clinic at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

A major aim of the coalition’s opposition has been putting the brakes on industry and government plans for large-scale, nation-wide shipments of the high-level waste on highways, railroads, and even waterways through most of the lower 48 states — all bound for the dumps in New Mexico (Holtec), and Texas (Interim Storage Partners).

Intended shipments include scary barge and boat shipments of highly radioactive waste intended to sail the waters of the Great Lakes. Such barge shipments on Lake Michigan were originally proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under its Yucca Mountain Project in 2002. Holtec later embraced the Palisades-to-Muskegon barge transport plans in its 2020 “Palisades Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Actvities Report.”
Wisconsin reactor operators — at Point Beach 1 and 2, and at the shutdown Kewaunee unit — very likely also plan to ship their highly radioactive wastes on Lake Michigan into Milwaukee using barges.

The risk of a container of highly radioactive waste sinking to the bottom of the Great Lakes represents an existential threat to 21% of the world’s surface fresh water, drinking water supply for over 40 million people in eight U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, and a very large number of Indigenous Nations.

And yet the DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Lab, at least since December 2015, has been working to expand barge options beyond the Great Lakes. [Nukewatch calls these ideas “the Edmund Fitzgerald meets the Exxon Valdez.”]

— Kevin Kamps is Executive Director of Don’t Waste Michigan.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

June 21, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Canada’s Reactor Safety Commission Slammed for Ignoring Offsite Emissions

The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) has formally criticized the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regarding the inadequacy of its “Regulatory Oversight Report on Nuclear Power Generating Sites” for the year 2024.

CCNR’s President, Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., drafted the group’s critical submission to the Safety Commission, titled “Overlooking Offsite Impacts.”

The CCNR’s “intervention” includes a list of six proposed improvements that speak not just to Canada’s reactor operations, but to regulatory agencies everywhere that oversee permitted or accidental releases of radioactive materials to the air and water. Routine emissions of radioactive pollution from nuclear generating stations are permitted because governments have been convinced by nuclear power promoters that their pollution is not overly dangerous. Nuclear reactors cannot operate without releasing large volumes of contaminated water and gases, the venting of which helps to control the temperature, pressure, and coolant volume in operating systems.

We are sharing the paper’s six major recommendations ⸺ which follow ⸺ because they apply equally well to industry proposals and regulatory agencies anywhere in the world that are considering new nuclear reactor construction.Radioactive Pollution (Causes, Effects and Solutions) - Assignment Point

  Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility recommends:

* The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), as an agency legally bound to disseminate objective scientific information to the public, should publicly set the record straight by saying quite simply that nuclear power is not altogether clean. Alternatively, CNSC should either cease describing itself as a science-based organization, or issue a clear science-based explanation of how one may logically reconcile large routine emissions of radioactive poisons into the environment with the notion of nuclear power as ‘clean energy’;

* The CNSC should require its nuclear generating station licensees to post on the internet real-time data on radioactive emissions from the plant as they occur, and to give advance warning when elevated emissions are likely to result from planned outages or other planned activities such as overnight tritium purges;

* The CNSC should require its nuclear generating station licensees to calculate the collective dose to the population within five miles of the plant, based on annual emissions;

* The CNSC should require its nuclear generating station licensees to work to reduce their annual environmental emissions of tritium, carbon-14, iodine-131, and particulates of alpha-emitting and beta-emitting radionuclides by several orders of magnitude;

*The CNSC should immediately adopt a provisional Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of ‘2’ for tritium exposures, with the expectation that the RBE for tritium may be revised upwards as new evidence becomes available; and

* The CNSC should publish a science-based explanation and justification of the existing Canadian standard for the maximum permissible concentration of tritium in drinking water….

⸺ To read CCNR’s full written intervention, see: www.ccnr.org/CCNR_ROR_Report_2026.pdf

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

June 21, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radiation Rule Changes Would Increase Allowable Exposures

Among hundreds of Trump White House executive orders, EO No. 14300 directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weaken its long-standing radiation rule, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.”

The EO calls for setting a radiation exposure “threshold” or level below which exposure would “not count” or would be considered never to have occurred.30 Years After Chernobyl, Locals Are Still Eating Radioactive Food ...

The EO’s exposure rules could be 5-100 times less protective than current law, and will likely be based on the archaic “Reference Man,” the grossly outdated radiation risk model. Reference Man represents a young adult male. The standard ignores and denies the greater impacts of a given radiation exposure to the fetus, to infants, to children, and to women.

The EO would impact people in thousands of communities surrounding the 94 operating nuclear reactors in the United States by allowing exposure to more radiation from routine offsite emissions: from reactors; from nuclear weapons facilities; from nuclear material transport systems; and from nuclear waste sites.

Vested interests in the nuclear industry want to save money by attacking the basis of NRC regulation, the “Linear No Threshold” or LNT risk model.

Decades of published peer-reviewed research support the LNT model, including the National Academy of Sciences report “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, VII Phase 2” (BEIR VII), and many studies of nuclear industry workers.

One industry-sponsored “Petition for Rulemaking” to the NRC in 2015 triggered a formal review of the LNT model. The NRC soundly rejected the Petition in 2021. And the NRC re-affirmed the scientific basis and global consensus that no radiation exposure is so small that it carries no risk of harmful effects. Well-documented findings show that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer. Reducing the risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure.

NRC Rulemaking is scheduled to issue its new rule June 8, 2026, marking the start of a 30-day Public Comment Period. Make sure to send a comment demanding more, not less, protection against radiation.

More information, including details and material for making comments to the NRC, is here: www.radiationproject.org/online; and here: www.nirs.org/radiation

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 217
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch