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

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

30th Anniversary of German Campaign Against U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Anti-nuclear activists placed sunflowers, a symbol of nuclear disarmament, in the fence at Germany’s Büchel air base Thur., July 24, marking the 30th anniversary of protests at the base. Photo by Luthar Lange.

In July, the disarmament group “Nonviolent Action to Abolish Nuclear Weapons,” founded in 1996, celebrated 30 years of protest and resistance at a gathering near NATO’s Büchel Air Base, where U.S. nuclear bombs are stationed. A funny thing happened during the group’s demonstration July 24, after eighteen people decorated the base’s perimeter fence with banners and sunflowers, the global symbol for nuclear disarmament. The moisture in the flowers triggered the fence’s electronic alarm system and eight large police vans from town rushed out to disband the demonstration which had already ended. Among the participants were three U.S. citizens who previously took part in nonviolent “go-in” actions at the base and had subsequently served prison time in Germany for nonpayment of penalties.

Filed Under: Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S. Nuclear Exposure Survivors Receiving Compensation

Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium Protesting. Photo: USA Today.

As of September 18, the Department of Justice Civil Division has paid out almost $800 million to radiation-affected victims of nuclear weapons testing, uranium mining, or Manhattan Project waste facilities. Compensation has gone to 11,000 people that became eligible to receive benefits under the 2025 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). This has been a success story for those who have waited decades for recognition of diseases or death at the hands of the nuclear industry. Other programs, such as the PACT Act for Atomic Veterans, have resulted in a majority of claims being denied, while the recently expanded RECA program has approved over 99% of claims. The deadline to apply is December 31, 2027. Shortcomings of the 2025 RECA bill are addressed in a 2026 reauthorization act that was introduced by Republican Representative James Moylan of Guam Aug. 17. ⸺ U.S. Department of Justice, Sept. 18; Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, Aug. 28, 2026; NBC News, Aug. 23, 2023

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Uranium Mining

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Power is Now Trump Power…What Could Go Wrong?

By Harvey Wasserman and Karl Grossman

Energy Democracy in Trumptopia. Photo:
empoweringamerica.org/cartoons/

Donald Trump is now the ultimate face of the U.S. nuclear power industry. What could go wrong?

If you are advocating atomic energy in any form, you are promoting The Donald’s latest and largest fiscal fleecing of the American people. It mirrors his mega swindles in crypto and so much more — except this time with apocalyptic impact.

It’s a hyper-push for nuclear power. As The New York Times this week headlined the “Climate Forward” column of Claire Brown: “Trump’s plans for nuclear power lurch ahead.”

Her July 7th piece began: “President Trump wants to quadruple nuclear power production in the United States by 2050. To get there, developers would need to build about a hundred times as much nuclear capacity in the next 25 years as they did in the past 25. In recent weeks, a series of government announcements have nudged the country a bit closer to that goal.”

It continued: “Nuclear power has broad bipartisan support in Congress, and many climate experts have embraced it as a low-emissions source of energy. Other experts remain opposed, arguing that it is too expensive or that the safety risks are too high.”

Through its Truth Social front, the Trump Family has bought a major interest in TAE Technologies, a $6 billion California-based plunge into nuclear fusion.

To serve that investment, Trump is scamming his presidency to funnel billions of public dollars into a “Peaceful Atom” from which he expects to personally profit. Right now, he’s pushing through Congress a $17.5 billion interest-free slush fund to promote more U.S. reactor construction.

Similar handouts from George W. Bush and Barack Obama fed two new nuclear power reactors in Georgia. Originally promised at around $15 billion, they fired up last year seven years late and nearly $25 billion over budget. Their most recently reported price tag approaches $40 billion. Their output will never compete with renewables. They’ll bleed Peach State mega-cash as long as they operate.

Two abandoned nuclear reactors in South Carolina blew $9 billion outright. The double debacle bankrupted Westinghouse, once the world’s leading reactor producer.

Meanwhile Trump pushes so-called Small Modular Reactors, hyped to power data centers that produce his beloved crypto. Projected to operate around 2030, SMR cultists hope their juice might (at best) cost a mere three times the proven cost of solar panels, and four or more times that of currently operating onshore wind turbines.

But despite Trump’s frantic efforts to kill it, the real-world transition to green “Solartopian” renewables may be underway. Epic advances in battery technology essentially eliminate any need for the base-line power nuclear produces when they don’t break down or blow up. California’s battery capacity is now seven times as large as the maximum output that can be produced by the state’s last two hyper-expensive Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors.

Those dangerously decrepit reactors are surrounded by at least a dozen earthquake faults. They sit just 45 miles from the San Andreas Fault.

In 2013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission site inspector Dr. Michael Peck warned that Diablo might not withstand a credible quake from the seismic faults surrounding it. Peck’s warning was ignored.Now he is gone from the commission. In the Trump era, no such report could be written in the first place.

In 2018, California adopted a comprehensive plan to shut Diablo Canyon and to phase-in renewables. The transition was hugely accelerated by massive advances that have dropped battery prices while expanding their capabilities. Through at least part of most days now, California gets 100% of its electricity from renewables, much of it coming from solar panels in the Central Valley.

But “green” Governor Gavin Newsom is trashing the transition. In 2022, he handed Diablo’s owner, PG&E, billions in Trump-style grift while promoting his own run for the White House. As a result, California’s electric rates are now the highest in the continental U.S.

Meanwhile, Trump attacks the green competition with billions of public dollars to buy out leases from wind and solar projects, which threaten to produce electricity far cheaper than his beloved nukes. With the epic spread of cheap batteries (which are also fueling a global boom in electric vehicles) more than 80% of the world’s newly installed electric generating capacity now comes from renewables. All of Trump’s mob-style assaults in the U.S. are being challenged in court and by the grassroots. But the global market push remains unrelenting.

Despite the growing danger as they deteriorate from age and maladministration, atomic reactors have been federally shielded from accident insurance requirements since 1957. Amidst escalating safety concerns, Congress has extended the liability exemption to SMRs, meant to power thousands of the crypto-loving data centers now being vehemently opposed by grassroots citizens throughout the U.S.

Last year Trump became the first U.S. president to fire a chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court has now confirmed the royal prerogative of a sitting president to fire any regulatory official. In the wake of Musk’s DOGE purge of at least 100 technical experts at the NRC, Trump is now sole arbiter of health and safety regulations, which are now in terrifying free fall at the 94 licensed U.S. nuclear reactors.

Trump also wants to put new reactors on military reservations, shredding residual NRC restraints through the even looser Department of Energy regulations.

Two operating reactors at North Anna in Virginia, and one in Perry in Ohio have already been significantly damaged by earthquakes (Perry twice). With neither accident insurance nor credible safety regulation, Trump/Nukes Inc. is a sitting duck for terror attacks. Russian drones have already damaged reactors and fuel storage sites at Ukraine’s Zaporizhia complex and at Chernobyl. Others have been under fire.

Trump has infamously launched outright war on Iran’s nuclear weapons production. But as in Ukraine, a single drone could turn any of the world’s 400-plus reactors into a radioactive weapon of mass destruction, plunging us into an economic, ecological, and health abyss from which we might never recover.

Meanwhile, an industry that hypes itself as “climate friendly” burns at 500 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. In France, the U.S., and elsewhere, commercial reactors super-heat lakes and rivers that can no longer cool them, while boiling billions of marine organisms.

Seven decades after the first commercial reactor opened in Pennsylvania, The Donald is the undisputed self-dealing face of the “Peaceful Atom.”

He’s its top investor. He rules the shell of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He’s the presidential purveyor of taxpayer grift, and chief hit man aiming to kill the renewable competition.

⸺ Harvey Wasserman wrote Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and co-convenes the Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition at www.electionprotection2024.org. Karl Grossman is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, and Power Crazy. He hosts the TV program Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman (www.envirovideo.com) They wrote this piece for Counterpunch.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Eleven State Attorneys General Oppose Trump’s Drastic Overhaul of Nuclear Power Regulation

From the office of Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown

A coalition of 11 state attorneys general took action at the end of August to oppose two U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposals, which are part of a dangerous wholesale revision of its long-standing regulations. In comments submitted to the NRC, the attorneys general argue that the monumental changes the NRC has proposed threaten to put public health and safety at risk.

The AG coalition joined thousands of angry citizens who wrote to the NRC condemning the proposed deregulation.

The coalition filed comments opposing two proposed NRC rule changes. The first includes sweeping changes to radiation exposure standards and oversight with serious impacts on state programs and worker and public safety. The proposal would increase levels of radiation ⸺ from power reactors, radioactive waste canisters and dump sites, medical devices and treatments, uranium mining and fuel fabrication facilities, etc. ⸺ to which workers and the public could legally be exposed, and would reduce monitoring and reporting requirements. The NRC’s proposal would also eliminate the science-backed “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” standard for allowable radioactive pollution. The NRC has not provided a scientific basis for abandoning this internationally recognized, long-standing protection, the group said.

In their August 31 comment letter, the attorneys general argue that the NRC failed to support its proposals with evidence, failed to propose or consider alternative approaches to achieve its stated goals, and failed to allow the public or the states adequate time to comprehend and meaningfully review the unprecedented volume of proposed regulatory changes the NRC has introduced this year.

The coalition also submitted comments opposing a second NRC proposal that could allow large parts of nuclear power reactors to be built without environmental review or community engagement in the decision-making process.

The attorneys general argue that several other provisions in the proposed rule create unwarranted risks to public safety and amount to the NRC abdicating its oversight role and safety mandate.

The coalition notes that the proposed changes have the potential to negatively impact communities with preexisting environmental justice concerns. The attorneys general assert that, if finalized, the proposed rule would violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fail to comply with the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Last month, a coalition of attorneys general jointly submitted a comment letter opposing the NRC’s proposal to revise its NEPA regulations. That proposal would unlawfully fast-track nuclear reactor construction by ignoring foreseeable environmental impacts and limiting public participation. The attorneys general argued that, if finalized, the proposed rule would also violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fail to comply with NEPA.

Submitting the August 31 comment letters were the attorneys general of Maryland, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

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

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Questions Emerge over Infant Health near Diablo Canyon Nuclear Site

By Ella Heydenfeldt, The Independent, May 7, 2026

Edited for space by Nukewatch Staff

A recent Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health analysis found higher cancer mortality rates in U.S. counties located closer to nuclear reactors, while a nonprofit-led report questioned whether decades of Diablo Canyon’s operation may be tied to worsening infant health in surrounding San Luis Obispo [S.L.O.] County. Federal regulators and health officials, however, maintain that radiation exposure from the site is too low to pose a measurable risk.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace members argue continued operation of the two pressurized water reactors poses unnecessary risks and costs. They point to roughly $700 million in state support, the growing accumulation of radioactive waste, the negative effects on sea life from the reactors’ once-through cooling system, and their discharge of heated seawater into the ocean.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace has been opposing dangers posed by Diablo Canyon and nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, and rad waste since 1969. Photo: Mothers for Peace.

Declining Infant Health: Correlation or Causation?

On April 29 Radiation and Public Health Project epidemiologist Joseph Mangano presented an analysis of state data showing San Luis Obispo County’s infant health and mortality have been negatively impacted since reactor startup.

Based on publicly available health statistics, the report — “Local Newborn Health Declined As California Nuclear Plant Operates” — states that infant mortality has shifted from a healthy 16-22 percent below the state average in 1968, which is the year reactor construction started and such record-keeping began, to 14 percent below average after Diablo Canyon went into operation in 1985, to about one percent above average today. (Statewide, infant mortality declined from roughly 21 deaths per 1,000 births in 1968 to about 5 per 1,000.) Premature births and birth defects followed similar patterns, with one category of defects reported at 114 percent above the state average.

“One does not find causation through epidemiology,” Mangano said. His report does not establish that emissions from Diablo Canyon caused the changes. But, “the Harvard study changed everything,” Mangano added.

That 2026 study examined nationwide data from 2000-2018 and found that counties closer to nuclear reactors, including S.L.O., had a “robust and consistent” higher rate of cancer mortality, even after adjusting for socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental factors. The association was strongest among older adult men with the most common form of cancer being lung cancer. The researchers emphasized that the study — the first this century to analyze nuclear reactor proximity and cancer deaths across affected counties — do not establish causation, did not measure radiation exposure directly, and pointed to the need for further study.

The Radioactive Tooth Fairy

For reactor operator PG&E, “Diablo Canyon, as with all nuclear [reactors] power plants in the U.S., is regulated and monitored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has found our operations meet all safety and security performance objectives,” stated Carina Corral, head of communications for the power company.

Corral added, “PG&E does not consider this report credible. Mr. Mangano has launched similar false claims in the past, also debunked by medical experts, including those at the S.L.O. County Public Health Department as ‘fundamentally flawed.’”

Looking specifically at individual radiation exposure differs from the Harvard analysis and Mangano’s report, which rely on large-scale population and mortality data. This difference of approach complicates the effort to understand the effect of nuclear power plants on health, if any.

Mangano argues that observable shifts in public health data, combined with evidence of radioactive exposure, are enough to warrant concern and further investigation. Regulators and many scientists maintain that without clear causal evidence, the risks remain unproven.

Jean Yamamura contributed reporting to this story.

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 223
  • 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