This week’s antidotes to the corporate nuclear news
Some bits of good news – A welcoming haven for those fleeing strife and insecurity: Uganda’s unique refugee policy.One of Australia’s rarest birds returns to fire-ravaged habitat after 42 years.
TOP STORIES. Trump’s Golden Dome: Star Wars is Back – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRroMsiJ4M
The Western Media Brought Gaza To This Point.
The nuclear divide: Why are women cautious of nuclear energy?
Japan’s Fukushima nuclear wastewater ‘pose major environmental, human rights risks’ – UN experts.
Atomic bombs destroyed their lives – now they want Russia to pay.
Climate. Is the COP30 climate summit already in crisis, with six months to go? – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/26/1-b1-is-the-cop30-climate-summit-already-in-crisis-with-six-months-to-go/
Sea level rise will cause ‘catastrophic inland migration’, scientists warn.
Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year.
Noel’s notes. A tale of two dodgy domes.
AUSTRALIA. Nuclear power blows up Coalition’s political marriage. David Littleproud cites nuclear energy disagreement as major factor in Coalition split. Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election.
Rudd talking the AUKUS talk in Washington, but is the US walking?
Nothing to See Here: Australia’s Hidden Arms Trade With Israel.
Why US Interference in Australia Must Stop.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ATROCITIES. The Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza: Israel’s Operation Gideon’s Chariots. |
| CIVIL LIBERTIES. UK’s Geological Disposal Facility Community Partnership operates under restrictive government guidance and the management of Nuclear Waste Services- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/21/2-b1-uks-geological-disposal-facility-community-partnership-operates-under-restrictive-government-guidance-and-the-management-of-nuclear-waste-services/ |
ECONOMICS. Nuclear has highest investment risk; solar shows lowest, say US researchers.
| EMPLOYMENT. Top nuke officials admit staffing challenges after DOGE layoffs, hiring freeze. Nuclear weapons woes: Understaffed nuke agency hit by DOGE and safety worries. |
| ENERGY. Solar Power Set to Surpass Nuclear Generation This Summer. Two stories: Denmark’s soaring renewable success and global nuclear construction disaster. We did the math on AI’s energy footprint – Here’s the story you haven’t heard – EXCERPTS AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/23/2-b1-we-did-the-math-on-ais-energy-footprint-heres-the-story-you-havent-heard/ We still don’t know how much energy AI consumes -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/22/1-b1-we-still-dont-know-how-much-energy-ai-consumes/ |
| ENVIRONMENT. Welcome to Britain’s biggest building site-There’s a ‘fishdisco’.ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/22/1-b1-welcome-to-britains-biggest-building-site-theres-a-fishdisco/ |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. The World Cannot Know True Peace Until We Have Reckoned With What We Did To Gaza. |
| EVENTS. 27 May – Book launch, both in person and online – herehttps://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/radiation-whistleblowers-20th-century 29 May – UNLEASHING THE ATOM Zoom 8pm EDT Register Here. 7 June – Sizewell C Outrage Rally |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. First Nations warn of conflict if Ontario proceeds with Bill 5. |
| POLITICS. I wrote a speech for Trump’s Golden Dome defense – Get ready to feel something. Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety. Donald Trump’s nine-word question to aide about executive order raises alarm bells. Trump sets out aim to quadruple US nuclear capacity. US nuclear sector intensifies lobbying in bid to prevent subsidy cuts – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/21/2-b1-us-nuclear-sector-intensifies-lobbying-in-bid-to-prevent-subsidy-cuts/ Civil society says nuclear deserves no place in Prime Minister Carney’s “Energy Superpower” project. Reactor closure marks Taiwan’s nuclear exit. Calls for new UK Reform-run council to confirm end to nuclear waste proposal. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Europe self destructing in efforts to continue Ukraine’s self destruction . Trump’s man in London backs Aukus partnership with UK and Australia. Is Trump negotiating the U.S. into war with Iran? Trump’s Break with Israel: Genuine Shift or Political Theater? US should never have intervened in Ukraine – Trump. US House seeks to create another Ukraine disaster in Georgia. |
| SAFETY. Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises Disaster Risk. White House weighs overhaul of Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rise in nuclear incidents at Faslane naval base, that could leak radioactivity. |
| URANIUM. Trump Admin Fast Tracks Anfield’s Velvet-Wood Uranium Project in Push for US Energy Independence. Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years. |
| WASTES. Govt Eyes Reuse of Fukushima Soil at PM’s Office. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Republican Calls for Gaza to Be “Nuked” Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Staging for a Strike?– US Quietly Moves Bombers as Israel Prepares to Hit Iran. ‘Dad’s Army’ to return FOR REAL as UK military plans defence against Russian invasion. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Trump’s Golden Dome Is a Combover. Canada wants to join Golden Dome missile-defence program. Trump says. NNSA completes assembly of the first B61-13 nuclear gravity bomb ahead of schedule. |
Rise in nuclear incidents at Faslane naval base, that could leak radioactivity
Rob Edwards, The Ferret, May 25, 2025
There have been 12 nuclear incidents that could have leaked radioactivity at the Faslane naval base since 2023, The Ferret can reveal.
According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the incidents at the Clyde nuclear submarine base had “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment”.
But the MoD has refused to say what actually happened in any of the incidents, or exactly when they occurred. There were five in 2023, four in 2024 and three in the first four months of 2025 – the highest for 17 years.
Campaigners warned that a “catastrophic” accident at Faslane could put lives at risk. The Trident submarines based there were a “chronic national security threat to Scotland” because they were “decrepit” and over-worked, they claimed.
New figures also revealed that the total number of nuclear incidents categorised by the MoD at Faslane, and the neighbouring nuclear bomb store at Coulport, more than doubled from 57 in 2019 to 136 in 2024. That includes incidents deemed less serious by the MoD.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) described the rising number of incidents as “deeply concerning”. It branded the secrecy surrounding the incidents as “unacceptable”.
The MoD, however, insisted that it took safety incidents “very seriously”. The incidents could include “equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcomings or near-misses”, it said.
The latest figures on “nuclear site event reports” at Faslane and Coulport were disclosed in a parliamentary answer to the SNP’s defence spokesperson, Dave Doogan MP. They show that a rising trend of more serious events – first reported by The Ferret in April 2024 – is continuing.
There was one incident at Faslane between 1 January and 22 April 2025 given the MoD’s worst risk rating of “category A”. There was another category A incident at Faslane in 2023.
The MoD has defined category A incidents as having an “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” in breach of safety limits.
The last category A incident reported by the MoD was in 2008, when radioactive waste leaked from a barge at Faslane into the Clyde. There were spillages from nuclear submarines at the base in 2007 and 2006.
There were also four “category B” incidents at Faslane in 2023, another four in 2024 and two in the first four months of 2025. The last time that many category B incidents were reported in a year was 2006, when there were five.
According to the MoD, category B meant “actual or high potential for a contained release within building or submarine”, or “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” below safety limits.
The MoD also categorised nuclear site events as “C” and “D”. C meant there was “moderate potential for future release to the environment”, or an “actual radioactive release to the environment” too low to detect. D meant there was “low potential for release but may contribute towards an adverse trend”.
The number of reported C incidents at Faslane and Coulport increased from six in 2019 to 38 in 2024, while the number of D incidents rose from 50 to 94.
At the same time the number of incidents described by the MoD as “below scale” and “of safety interest or concern” dropped from 101 to 39.
The SNP’s Dave Doogan MP, criticised the MoD in the House of Commons for the “veil of secrecy” which covered nuclear incidents. Previous governments had outlined what happened where there were “severe safety breaches”, he told The Ferret.
“The increased number of safety incidents at Coulport and Faslane is deeply concerning, especially so in an era of increased secrecy around nuclear weapons and skyrocketing costs,” Doogan added.
“As a bare minimum the Labour Government should be transparent about the nature of safety incidents at nuclear weapons facilities in Scotland, and the status of their nuclear weapons projects. That the Scottish Government, and the Scottish people, are kept in the dark about these events is unacceptable.”
Doogan highlighted that the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority had judged many of the MoD’s nuclear projects to have “significant issues”, as reported in February by The Ferret. The MoD nuclear programmes would cost an “eye-watering” £117.8bn over the next ten years, he claimed.
He said: “If the UK cannot afford to store nuclear weapons safely, then it cannot afford nuclear weapons.”
Anti-nuclear campaigners argued that the four Trident-armed Vanguard submarines based at Faslane were ageing and increasingly unreliable. They required more maintenance and their patrols were getting longer to ensure that there was always one at sea.
“The Vanguard-class submarines are already years past their shelf-life and undergoing record-length assignments in the Atlantic due to increased problems with the maintenance of replacement vessels,” said Samuel Rafanell-Williams, from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
“There is a crisis-level urgency to decommission the nuclear-capable submarines lurking in the Clyde. They constitute a chronic national security threat to Scotland, especially now given their worsening state of disrepair.”
He added: “The UK government is placing the people of Scotland at risk by continuing to operate these decrepit nuclear vessels until their replacements are built, which will likely take a decade or more.
“The Vanguards must be scrapped and the Trident replacement programme abandoned in favour of a proper industrial policy that could genuinely revitalise the Scottish economy and underpin our future security and prosperity.”
Nuclear accident could ‘kill our own’
Dr David Lowry, a veteran nuclear consultant and adviser, said: “Ministers tell us the purpose of Britain’s nuclear weapons is to keep us safe.
“But with this series of accidents involving nuclear weapons-carrying submarines, we are in danger of actually killing our own, if one of these accidents proves to be catastrophic.”
According to Janet Fenton from the campaign group, Secure Scotland, successive governments had hidden information about behaviour that “puts us in harm’s way” while preventing spending on health and welfare.
She said: “Doubling the number of incidents while not telling us the nature of them is making us all hostages to warmongers and the arms trade, while we pay for it.”…………………………………
In 2024 The Ferret revealed earlier MoD figures showing that the number of safety incidents that could have leaked radiation at Faslane had risen to the highest in 15 years. We have also reported on the risks of Trident-armed submarines being on patrol at sea for increasingly long periods. https://theferret.scot/nuclear-incidents-radioactivity-faslane/
Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election
even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
Jim Green, May 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-may-have-cost-the-coalition-11-seats-in-the-federal-election/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKfkqFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFhajFIaEp5YUgwblJ2b1dnAR4mAGGM8t3q6FAYGZAUFRhTYWueycBG8grfFPPDMidaGksemNdmgxN8O11QUA_aem_osPG4UnoECyz8P69zj0Wug
On the day after the Coalition’s disastrous performance at the May 5 federal election, Nationals leader David Littleproud said nuclear power was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss.
Ted O’Brien, head salesman for the nuclear policy and now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, refuses to concede that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition votes, saying it would be “premature” to judge.
In fact, a vast amount of evidence clearly shows that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition many votes. It may have cost the Coalition around 11 seats, as discussed below.
If not for the swing away from the Coalition for other reasons, the nuclear policy could have cost the Coalition many more seats. In the seat of Dickson, for example, nuclear power was clearly unpopular but Peter Dutton would likely have lost his seat regardless of the nuclear policy.
Voter rejection of nuclear power was evident to the South Australian Liberal Party, which abandoned its pro-nuclear power policy and abolished the position of ‘Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness’ two days after the federal election. State leader Vincent Tarzia acknowledged that nuclear power has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
There is some understanding within the Coalition that the nuclear policy cost them votes and seats. But there’s no willingness to vent this issue publicly since the Coalition seems likely to agree to retain its pro-nuclear power policy, albeit in a watered-down form which involves promising to repeal legislation banning nuclear power but without the commitment to build seven nuclear power plants at taxpayers’ expense.
While there’s no willingness to publicly discuss the vote-killing nuclear elephant in the room, an unnamed Coalition MP told the ABC that the nuclear policy “definitely cost us votes, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.”
The MP flagged a compromise: the Nationals could be persuaded to stick with a net zero policy and in return the Liberals would accept the (watered-down) nuclear power policy. But that is the same compromise that got the Coalition into this mess in the first place.
There are any number of problems with the proposed compromise. Coalition candidates will go to the next election with a nuclear target on their political backs, just as they did at this election.
There is no chance of nuclear power making the slightest contribution to emissions reductions before 2050 despite the conservative mantra that Australia can’t reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear power.
The ABC reported: “Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.”
But even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
Malcolm Turnbull told the ABC that taxpayer-funded nuclear power was a “truly crazy idea” and lifting the legal ban is acceptable given there is “no prospect of anyone in the private sector ever building a nuclear power plant here.”
The evidence that the nuclear power policy cost the Coalition votes and seats is summarised below and a detailed analysis is posted online.
National attitudes
A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition among Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 per week, those under no financial stress, and those who own their own home.
Support is outweighed by opposition in every other category: non-Coalition voters, those aged under 65, those earning less than $3,000 per week, those under financial stress, and those who don’t own a home.
The Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19 showing that the nuclear policy was “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.”
The RedBridge-Accent poll in 20 marginal seats found that 56 percent of respondents agreed with Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost $600 billion and require spending cuts to pay for it, while only 13 percent disagreed. RedBridge director Tony Barry said the issue was “smashing the Liberal brand” and “atomising the primary vote.”
The Adelaide Advertiser and other News Corp. publications reported on May 1, four days before the election, that 41 per cent of 1011 respondents to a Redbridge-Accent national poll ranked concerns about the Coalition’s nuclear power plan among their top five reasons for deciding to oppose a particular party. Only one issue topped nuclear power as a vote-changing turn-off.
Liberals Against Nuclear polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
Liberals Against Nuclear: polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
“A new uComms poll shows leading Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar could lose his seat at the coming election if the Party persists with its unpopular nuclear plan.
“The poll, commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, shows Labor and the Coalition tied at 50-50 in two-party preferred terms in Deakin. However, the same polling reveals that if the Liberals dumped their nuclear policy, they would surge to a commanding 53-47 lead.
“The polling follows a broader survey across 12 marginal seats that showed the Liberal Party would gain 2.8 percentage points in primary vote if it abandoned the nuclear energy policy.
“An earlier poll in the seat of Brisbane found the nuclear policy was a significant drag on Liberal candidate Trevor Evans’ support.”
Thus the nuclear policy may have decided the result in Deakin and cost Michael Sukkar his seat. Assuming a national swing comparable to that found by Liberals Against Nuclear polling in 12 marginal seats – a 2.8 per cent drop in the Coalition’s primary vote — the Coalition may have lost around 11 contests because of the nuclear power policy:
* Aston (Vic) — ALP retain — the Coalition’s two-party preferred vote was 46.6 per cent as of 21 May 2025
* Banks (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.6 per cent Coalition two-party preferred
* Bendigo — ALP retain — 48.5 per cent
* Bullwinkel (WA) — ALP retain — 49.5 per cent
* Deakin (Vic) — ALP gain — 47.2 per cent
* Forde (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.2 per cent
* Hughes (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.1 per cent
* Menzies (Vic) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Moore (WA) — ALP gain — 47.0 per cent
* Petrie (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Solomon (NT) — ALP retain — 48.7 per cent
A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers in April 2025 found that 31 per cent of respondents cited nuclear power as one of their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, up 5 per cent from the previous poll.
In October 2024, nuclear power regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source, overtaking coal. Two months later, nuclear was still Australia’s least popular energy source.
The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents found that 59 per cent wanted to keep the legal ban on nuclear power in 2024, up from 51 per cent in 2023. Sixty-six per cent of women and 51 per cent of men supported the ban.
Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia found that support for nuclear power dropped from 55 per cent in February 2025 to 42 percent in late April while opposition increased from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Net support fell from +21 per cent to -2 per cent in less than three months. The poll found majority opposition among those aged 18-34 (38:48) despite countless claims in recent years that young Australians support nuclear power.
Attitudes in rural and regional areas
Many polls over the past 20 years demonstrate opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant. For example the 2024 National Climate Action Survey found that 73.5 per cent of participants were moderately to extremely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear plant being built within 50 kilometres of their homes.
Only 11.2 per cent were ‘not at all concerned’. In contrast, about 80 per cent of respondents viewed wind and solar favourably with the majority expressing little or no concern if such projects were established nearby.
A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found 39 per cent support for nuclear power among regional Australians. Asked to rank 12 energy options, regional Australians ranked nuclear power at number eight.
Building large-scale wind farms and solar farms and new transmission lines in regional areas was more popular across all states than building nuclear power plants on coal sites connected to existing transmission lines.
An April 2025 YouGov poll of 1,622 respondents found that regional and rural Australians support renewables over nuclear by a considerable margin: 50 per cent preferred more wind, solar and batteries compared to 30 per cent who preferred nuclear power.
Polling in March 2025 by 89 Degrees East for the Renew Australia for All campaign found little support for nuclear power in some of the regions targeted for nuclear power plants by the Coalition.
Just 27 per cent of respondents supported “developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure” in Gladstone, 24 per cent in the rest of Central Queensland, 24 per cent in Bunbury, 22 per cent in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow, 32 per cent in the Hunter, and 31 per cent in Gippsland. The poll also found that just 13 per cent of respondents thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest compared to 72 per cent for renewables.
Responding to the 89 Degrees East polling, RE-Alliance national director Andrew Bray said:
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66 per cent and 71 per cent. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22 per cent and 32 per cent.”
For more information on public attitudes towards nuclear power in Australia, see the detailed analysis posted online.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 